Hard News: High Times
136 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
The Wikipedia article on cannabis is a mess, but it does include this world map of marijuana policy.
The reality is a bit more complex, but check out the big, liberal island to the west of us.
-
Strange map (although heartening in light of a forthcoming trip to Queensland).
I don't understand why Ontario is given a different categorization from the rest of Canada. While enforcement is, ahem, patchy across Canada, I'm not aware of any such difference between Ontario and the other Provinces. If anything it is BC that has the reputation for the most lenient enforcement.
Criminal law itself is a federal responsibility and can't be altered by the Provinces.
Also, I thought it was decriminalized in the UK?
There are also some places (e.g. Mexico) where enforcement against tourists is a lucrative business.
-
I hate to think what the right-wingnuts are thinking if they're reading this. Surely it just confirms their stereotype of liberals as perverted drug fiends?
Still, it did lead to some interest discussions last quiz last night, after overindulging in the local drug of choice (Emerson's Bookbinder). Something about the dangers of mixing shelving and gerbilling. Shudder.
-
Tom Beard:
a) not all liberals are left wing
b) you'd probably find as much people on either side of the spectrum who would support drug law reform, especially with cannabis (thought this would change with other substances as ignorance sets in "I heard that you get high on E by cracking" etc)For instance, myself, ACT voter who supports legalising and regulating all substances, as I dont' think people should be treated as criminals for what they put into their own bodies.
-
I was referring more to conservative wingnuts than libertarian wingnuts.
-
And you'll find conservatives on the right and left.
You only have to look at labour, maori party, united future, jim anderton and the nats stance on criminalising users of BZP to see this.
-
This is assuming conservatives can tear themselves away from their gin and tonics (if rich), sherries (if old), or rheinecks (if poor).
-
For instance, myself, ACT voter who supports legalising and regulating all substances, as I dont' think people should be treated as criminals for what they put into their own bodies.
It's a bugger that Act MPs haven't been a bit more like you, Mike.
-
To be honest, I don't believe that NOS would have had any impact on his driving ability, as he wouldn't have been likely to have had nos while driving - and as mentioned, it is such a short term high that it wouldn't hav elasted long enough.
I call bullshit on that one.
Most likely he inhaled it from a soda bottle, which you can do one handed while driving. An once the hit comes on, you just have lose track of what you are doing long enough to hit something (like a bridge abutment).
I'm certain I heard it on National Radio, but I can't find it on the interweb anywhere...
-
It's a bugger that Act MPs haven't been a bit more like you, Mike.
Have a look at their voting records (at least post 2005 election, there were some scary fucking conservatives on before then, i.e. Newman etc) on social issues such as prostitution law reform, BZP, terrorism suppression act, death with dignity etc..
I think you'll see that they are, just that it isn't reported.
-
Most likely he inhaled it from a soda bottle, which you can do one handed while driving. An once the hit comes on, you just have lose track of what you are doing long enough to hit something (like a bridge abutment).
I'm certain I heard it on National Radio, but I can't find it on the interweb anywhere...
Still - incredibly unlikely. I'd say more likely he had NOS earlier that day, and probably either booze or just shitty driving. He crashes the car, and its blamed on the nos, even though there is only correlation, not cause.
Just like the guy in Greymouth who was put into a coma "due to bzp" even though he had consumed a cocktail of drugs that night.
-
scary fucking conservatives on before then
Has the party actually changed or is it just that they were too far down the list to get elected? I know Rodney has changed quite a lot over the last couple of year, but are you really telling me that all the social conservatives have left ACT?
(It's hard to tell which ACT members actually believe in social conservative policies and which espouse them as a tactic to get elected).
-
I think there was a strong conservative redneck base prior to '05 and just after. Once the nats got out the dog whistl they all ran over that way. Theres probably a few around the margins, but by and large I think that its more liberal.
If you remember in 06 there was an article on one of the board leaving due to "libertarian" elements ahving too much influence!
As I said, look at the voting record on social issues.
Votes against strengthening the terrorism suppression act
Votes against banning BZP and criminalising its users
Votes for legalising prostitution
etcI don't think rodney has changed at all on social issues. He's been very liberal as long as I've known him. The main change has been how hes conducted himself in parilament, trying to work with other parties on an issue by issue basis rather than against them and with the nats.
And considering the nats would like to see me in jail for consuming BZP we know where they stand. Filthy bloody tories!
-
Oh .. and may I direct you to page 105 of Rodney's book "my year of living dangerously" for an interesting quote :-)
Also:
http://www.act.org.nz/prohibition_doesnt_work_why_baning_party_pills_is_a_bad_idea
-
And considering the nats would like to see me in jail for consuming BZP we know where they stand. Filthy bloody tories!
It would be nice to think that having shed Newman et al, Act could be the classical liberal party it always should have been. I think there's a real role in a Parliamentary system for that party.
And I'm not just saying that now - I'm in print to that effect ;-)
-
Indeed, Newman and her ilk scare the shit out of me.
-
It would be nice to think that having shed Newman et al, Act could be the classical liberal party it always should have been.
I don't think that's possible whilst they persist in bundling social liberalism with free market economics. It's a demographic thing. If they dropped the addiction to that, and became the 'centrist liberal' as opposed to the 'rightist liberals', they could cast a much wider net, right into Green Party support.
But I doubt they ever will. Their economic policy is much dearer to them than their social policy. Because of the existing support base, to whom tax cuts is a mantra, and social liberalism merely bait for more supporters.
-
I think we all now recognise that evil forces are at work and the global drug trade is directly funding global terrorism. Which makes the Liquor and Tobacco Companies look positively benign - they pay huge taxes, which alleviates the burden on the rest of us.
Think about that next time you catch little Johnny smoking behind the bike sheds at school. Would you rather he was smoking Tuhoe Thunder, and funding the Seperatists? Or would you rather he was smoking B&H, which means more Hip Replacement Surgery for those that need it without draining the public purse.
I think maybe some of us owe 'Big Bad' Tobacco an apology ...?I/O - Good grief, you're right ! Thats an extremely sound argument for continued prohibition, leaving the drug trade in the hands of organised crime. Just joking. I've never hung around bikesheds, but do you think little Johnny - who may have to fund your hip replacement and support you in your dotage - will thank you ? Have you seen these ?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-krassner/the-war-on-medical-mariju_b_52754.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner07022005.html -
Let them eat cake
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4257211a11.html
"The cake had been supplied by someone who was not associated with St Andrew's." - The Cake Pusher
-
Oh NO..
The UK Cake Epidemic has hit NZ.
-
The NZ Drug Foundation has published some essays about pot - the first in a series that will run from now through 2008.
Check out our Let's talk about pot pages.
-
There is found to be a link between heavy cannabis use and sexual abuse.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10474241
As with almost every statistical link ever found in history, the proof of which causes which is not established. Does pot smoking increase your chances of being abuse? Or are girls who are abused more likely to smoke a lot of pot?
This always happens. Doesn't mean it's not an interesting statistic though.
-
Here's another similar assumption of correlation=causation:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/6/story.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10474303
Are boys more likely to become aggressive from watching violent TV? Or does violent TV appeal more to aggressive boys?
I found it especially interesting that the same correlation was not found in girls who watched violent TV. The researchers were quick to dismiss that with 'genetic predisposition' but didn't think that genetic predisposition might explain the violent TV watching in young boys destined to a life of aggressive violence.
It's bloody hard to prove causation from correlation. Correlation is definitely interesting wherever it is found, but even scientists seem to have extremely hazy thinking when they draw conclusions from it.
-
Presumably the scientists have considered that issue, though the news story doesn't address it. Good control groups will ensure that it's a problem of causation, though proper random control groups are more difficult to get when you are examining behaviour that has already occurred.
-
Yes, I don't really know how you'd conduct a scientific experiment like that in less than the 20-odd years that it would take to control the variables.
And we are presuming it was even 'scientists' coming up with this research. It's a pretty wide term.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.