Hard News: Drugs and Sex
170 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Newer→ Last
-
You do realise that standing takes up less room?
Grant didn't tell me I had to bring a handbag!
-
Grant didn't tell me I had to bring a handbag!
Where else do you stash your hipflask?
-
national bloc-voted against, the Greens and ACT (bar Douglas, who was overseas) supported it, and Labour split down the middle, with the younger intake massively voting to send it to committee.
The latter bodes well for the future.
-
just about every non-OECD country that is a major exporter of oil is either in a state of civil war or under an extremely corrupt and repressive dictatorship. it may be peaceful for you, but not for the Nigerians, Iraqis, et al
Perhaps I did not make myself clear,
Murderous criminality is a feature of a narcotics industry based on prohibitionism. It is not true that the same can be said of the petrochemical industry.
I am well aware of the injustices associated with unbridled greed and power. Of course oil is used to fund brutal regimes.
My point was that 100% of you cocaine dollar funds murderous criminal gangs, whereas the same can not be said of oil.
-
My point was that 100% of you cocaine dollar funds murderous criminal gangs, whereas the same can not be said of oil.
Devils advocate - maybe <1% goes to poor subsistance farmers in Afghanistan; which might be similar to the proportion of oil money going to the friendly service station owner-operator down the street, the rest going to "murderous criminal gangs" with names like Exxon, Shell etc.
-
100% of you cocaine dollar funds murderous criminal gangs
Well, not *quite* 100%. The low-level dealers to whom people pay their money are unlikely to be murderous, surely. It's bad for business at that end of the chain.
-
Kong,
My point was that 100% of you cocaine dollar funds murderous criminal gangs, whereas the same can not be said of oil.
That is true. Mining and distributing oil is not illegal, so you don't need to be a criminal gang to do it. But murderous seems to go with it pretty much automatically and on a scale that dwarfs the drug war.
None of that is an argument to criminalize oil, which is simply a good, like cocaine. That it is used to kill people in ways only dreamed of in the 19th century is simply a byproduct of how useful it is. The more useful and desirable, the more people will kill for it. People were enslaved for centuries making sugar and cotton, but everyone can see that the answer to that was their emancipation, rather than banning sugar and cotton.
-
Murderous criminality is a feature of the petroleum extraction industry driven by control of valuable and strategic resources. Maybe 100% of your petrol bill doesn't fund violence, but a significant chunk does.
geological constraints on petroleum extraction coupled with political factors affecting demand and supply bring us to the situation we have now for oil.
with drugs, it's nearly all dictated by politics.
-
If I grow my own cannabis for my own use the only person or people I will "harm" are dealers and gangs so where is the crime?
Prohibition creates "criminals" surely it would be cheaper to decriminalise cannabis than to stack prisoners in shipping containers (people don't stack as well as frozen romneys either).
As per the CiR i guess there are no so called "average mother"s tied to right wing evangelical groups associated with NORMAL who can instigate such?
-
Also very disappointing the Nats can bloc vote on a "conscience" issue.....
-
Mikaere
Murderous criminality is a feature of a narcotics industry based on prohibitionism
You do know that Underbelly was sexed up for th' tele?
And that up until the OECD had its first "oil crisis" in the early 70's as good as all profits from Th' Oil went off shore.And if you think that, now, oil profits goes to those who rightly deserve it?
The House of Saud is full of psychopaths -
Also very disappointing the Nats can bloc vote on a "conscience" issue.....
Whether an issue is a conscience vote or not is a question for each individual party. Sometimes they all agree, and every MP gets a free vote. Other times, some treat an issue as one of conscience while others (usually those whose gonads Peter Dunne has his fist wrapped tightly around) do not. This was one of the latter.
-
Sex and Drugs and... What! No Rock n Roll...?
We are huddled together in a bottomless hole...!Probably NSFW - but good for Peter Jackson fans - do "Tube-on" and check out theses guys nifty "Crispiin Glover & David Lynch - Blockbuster"...
Oil's well that ends swell...
oh yeah! Shell, Mobil and Chevron are excellent corporate models for humanity and their little enabling buddies Halliburton & KBR - let's lay pipe!And don't forget the other great corporations - back in the day every ball of opium sold in China had Queen Victoria's stamp of approval on it - fresh from the "Company's" own plantations in India - can you say "Empire by enslavement" children? (oh and by "flag planting" too... - thanks Eddie! )
- I knew you could...
let's...er blow pipe...yrs
Commissioner Lin Ze-xu
Piper at the Gates of Dawn -
Thanks for the clarification re: conscience votes, still, none the less disappointing...
-
And if there had been a bit of work on drafting a half useful bill then a lot more of us would have voted for it. I don't know whether it was laziness or a lack of judgement on Metiria's part but frankly the bill presneted to parliament looked like it had been drafted by someone who had been high for weeks.
-
A Brave New World Order...
a litle riff of night musick to soothe the Savidge breast......too right who wants the Government controlling yer chemicals - as Huxley wrote to Orwell in 1949:
"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience."...more Fluoride and Aspartame in your Pavlova anyone? Ad what's on the telly...
Soma Time - and the Loving is Easy...''Hug me till you drug me, honey;
Kiss me till I'm in a coma;
Hug me, honey, snuggly bunny;
Love's as good as soma."
The Elder Huxleynow take it away Barry Ferny...
(hey guys your guitars aren't plugged in... cool!)
Love and Music two of the great meterless drugs...Musick has Charms to sooth a savage Breast,
To soften Rocks, or bend a knotted Oak.
I've read, that things inanimate have mov'd,
And, as with living Souls, have been inform'd,
By Magick Numbers and persuasive Sound.
What then am I? Am I more senseless grown
Than Trees, or Flint? O force of constant Woe!
'Tis not in Harmony to calm my Griefs.
Anselmo sleeps, and is at Peace; last Night
The silent Tomb receiv'd the good Old King;
He and his Sorrows now are safely lodg'd
Within its cold, but hospitable Bosom.
Why am not I at Peace?
William CongreveYrs
Opie 8
A Ron Howard cloneps: spot ya later - I'm off to see Greg Johnson at the Dux
-
Russell, you seem to suggest that select committees are the only place in NZ where evidence can be found; the evidence on marijuana and schizophrenia is already out there, some of us have read it and it looks bad for Metiria.
A lot of the evidence came from the Dunedin study which predates the earliest cannabis use of the participants, the research having started at birth. Twice as likely to develop schizophrenia after using marijuana (as you say, still a small percentage overall but significant) and 140 times more likely to go on to use hard drugs. The idea that there is relief from schizophrenia is unbelievable; when I see the evidence I'll believe it. The results of the Flinders study have been nicely twisted and I doubt the research would even make it to select committee stage.
Metiria Turel has hitched her wagon to the 'let us smoke pot crowd' and her argument for medical marijuana would be a lot more credible if she separated the issues.
I do not doubt that some people gain relief by using marijuana. People everyday also gain relief from opium poppy derivatives; controlled and managed by health professionals, but people don't grow and produce morphine at home. What makes marijuana so special?
-
You can grow it at home.
And if there had been a bit of work on drafting a half useful bill then a lot more of us would have voted for it. I don't know whether it was laziness or a lack of judgement on Metiria's part but frankly the bill presneted to parliament looked like it had been drafted by someone who had been high for weeks.
Dear Mr Mallard, please check your work for spelling mistakes before presenting it to the committee, and dearest Mr Mallard please improve education in the dual island constabulary to invite more reasonable jury verdicts.
-
the logic of the prohibitionist:
if something is likely to be harmful to a small percentage of people, ban it and fuck the consequences. even if the overall consequences of prohibition to society are far worse than the original harm likely to be caused.
they have the solution and yes, it's working a treat.
-
140 times more likely to go on to use hard drugs
Since most users of 'hard drugs' use them recreationally, and tend to give them up without ever becoming addicted, I'm not sure what that statistic proves, really...
'let us smoke pot crowd'
We gather in crowds? I thought we were all too lazy to leave the couch. :)
-
I thought we were all too lazy to leave the couch. :)
except to turn on the knives.
-
Welcome, Trevor. You certainly put in the hard yards around the blogosphere.
-
OK - I agree with the legalisation of Mary Jane for some medical reasons.
The problem is that Metiria's bill in its schedule, lists schizophrenia and other psychotic illnesses as a reason to take it. I have yet to meet a mental health professional who would accept that.In fact, those suffering mental illness should not take it. Marijuana use can lead those already predisposed by other factors into psychosis.
-
Russell, you seem to suggest that select committees are the only place in NZ where evidence can be found; the evidence on marijuana and schizophrenia is already out there, some of us have read it and it looks bad for Metiria.
Yes, I've read it too. It's important research, but it informs policy, it doesn't create it. You still have to consider what is the state's best response in minimising harm. And harm includes the harms generated by prohibition -- from the way the trade benefits criminal gangs to the fact that it's harder for health services to reach at-risk users.
The one thing the present law assuredly does not do is stop people consuming cannabis. Marijuana has become a rite of passage -- about three quarters of all young New Zealanders use it at some point. According the the Auckland School of Medicine surveys, almost all of them stop or curtail their use as they age -- but almost none of them do so because pot is illegal.
The law doesn't achieve its goal in any way. That has also been the view of two Parliamentary select committee inquiries in the past decade. It's also the view of the New Zealand Drug Foundation, which takes an evidence-based approach.
(Using the same approach the foundation also advocates for more regulation of alcohol and its marketing.)
Twice as likely to develop schizophrenia after using marijuana (as you say, still a small percentage overall but significant) and 140 times more likely to go on to use hard drugs.
The Dunedin study told us some really important things -- the psychological risks of cannabis use are in inverse proportion to the age of first use. People under 18 shouldn't use it. And, also, a small but significant group is genetically vulnerable to mental health problems -- but they can actually be screened. Or could, if the focus was on harm reduction.
Whether it actually demonstrates the legendary "gateway" effect is far less clear. What is says is that people who use one recreational drug are more likely to use other recreational drugs. You would doubtless find that hard drug users were vastly more likely than the general population to have used alcohol and tobacco too.
I'm not starry-eyed about legalisation, for the simple reason that not all harms are the consequence of prohibition, as some people like to think. The social harms of a free market in P hitting the suburbs hardly bear thinking about. I think the state has a responsibility to try and prevent that kind of social harm.
But there's a debate we need to be able to have about how best to do that. I'd like to see safe, legal highs available (hopefully we'd learn from the shambles around BZP). It would be possible to design in characteristics -- predictable dose-response curve, resistance to overdose, etc -- that could make them safer than, say, alcohol. (And yes, the soma angle is a little creepy.)
But what we can't do is insist we have all the answers and things are just fine as they are.
-
But what we can't do is insist we have all the answers and things are just fine as they are.
truer words...
It's a bit rich when prohibitionists state that criminalizing cannabis by way of simply confiscating the drug when found in possession with no follow up plan, is some kind of 'harm reduction'. From personal experience it just seems to stimulate the market.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.