Posts by bmk
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: People Take Drugs, in reply to BenWilson,
It's not a matter of vaporising speed but lung capacity. Even a point makes a lot of smoke and requires numerous melts. I have watched people smoke a point as fast as they can - vaporise - breathe in - breathe out - repeat and this process takes a lot longer than to inject the same amount.
-
I would like to see two added tiers to our current regime. Say 39% on over 80k and 45% on over 150k. I can't see this hurting too many nurses, teachers or police. And if people are earning over 150k they can't complain about not having enough money when that would probably be something like 4-5 times the median individual income.
-
Hard News: People Take Drugs, in reply to BenWilson,
Smoking is definitely safer cause alluding to my previous point you can in one needle have a lethal dose where you cannot smoke a lethal dose as your lungs will cough etc and prevent anymore being injested.
-
Hard News: People Take Drugs, in reply to BenWilson,
No there is a limit how much you can put in a pipe, lungful. Whereas you can dissolve a lot into a needle. The heavy users I know who smoked would smoke furiously for an hour to get high whereas the injectors would have one quick injection to instantly consume an equivalent amount of meth.
-
Hard News: People Take Drugs, in reply to Russell Brown,
It's basically like the difference between crack and cocaine. It's really the same drug but the method of administration makes a huge difference to the rush received.
I have known several people who used p very heavily and only two of them ended up 'fucked' from it (one ended up in a psych ward after his neighbours saw him covering his lightbulbs with tin foil - would have been funny if it weren't so sad) and they both injected it. If smoking is worse than snorting then injecting is far worse than smoking.
-
Hard News: People Take Drugs, in reply to Russell Brown,
Yeah I think that's totally the point. It wasn't the drug selling that annoyed us but the calibre of the people frequenting the neighbourhood. Had they had a better class of customers I would have had no problem.
But considering there always will be 'annoying' customers ideally there would be places for them to purchase drugs in non-residential areas.
-
Hard News: People Take Drugs, in reply to Russell Brown,
Yeah, sounds similar to our experience. And you are right 'annoying' is probably better than unpleasant. But having cars parked up outside your house, with loud music blaring then tyres screeching as they leave while you trying to get a baby to sleep isn't very pleasant.
Yes, people who run a tinny house should have as a golden rule to all buyers 'respect the neighbourhood'. Go to house quietly, buy your drugs, leave the neighbourhood quietly. Also don't throw your fastfood rubbish all over the footpath.
-
Maybe we need to dedicate a 'hamsterdam' area in each city. That way people can freely partake and obtain what they will anyway but people who don't want to see it or have it in their street don't have to.
For example while I in theory have no problem with tinny houses, I can tell you it was very unpleasant for us when one set up next door to us.
-
Hard News: Some Lines for Labour, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Yeah I was aware that this was done by design that was why I deemed it inexcusable. For a party who are supposed to represent the poor they implemented a policy that made the very poor worse off relatively speaking.
As Kyle mentioned if they had to do an In Work Tax credit then they should have done an equal increase in benefit rates for families. They way they did it in effect penalised children who were already at the bottom of the pile and increased inequality.
And this is coming from someone who at the time was married with young children and did benefit from the In Work Credit but who felt it unjust that those children who didn’t have working parents didn’t also receive this help. For a party that is supposedly committed to social justice I can’t help but feel this was a betrayal of a core principle.
-
Hard News: Some Lines for Labour, in reply to Russell Brown,
Agreed. Overall I support WFF though I admit there are flaws with it. However, what I do think was inexcusable was excluding beneficiaries from it. The very people who probably need it the most never get it. This also adds to downward pressure on wages as even people on minimum wage are substantially better off than beneficiaries as they receive the In Work Credit and beneficiaries don't.
To me this was a mean flaw in the system. But I have a feeling that they saw it as a feature rather than a bug.