Posts by Will de Cleene
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
A three lizard minimum, I reckon. That's 2.5 percent.
Five! Five hours to go. Bwah hah hah.
-
If the US has problems transcribing an English speaker, Dagg help their Arabic and Chinese translators.
-
I'm glad I had Felicity Tuohy and Michael Murphy's Down Under the Plum Trees to guide me in my teenage years. This NZ written and researched "resource on sex and social development" featured dozens of candid interviews with teenagers and others on every taboo subject known to the SPCS circa 1976, when this manual was published.
-
How about Dr. Donald Tashkin? He's Pulmonary specialist and Federal Government researcher from UCLA Geffen School of Medicine:
-
There's this report from earlier in the year, but there was a meta-study a few years ago I'll try to dig out. Grinspoon's not the only one.
I do not consider cannabis to be harmless. If there was no risk, there would be no reward. Nor does it have no medical properties, as the government maintains. Is the current approach the best, most reasonable method to manage those risks, harms and rewards? Not at all.
BFM also had a good yak about that longitudinal study with Dr. Simon Adamson.
-
Hard News: Leaf and Tips, in reply to George Darroch,
I’ll readily accept this contention if you provide evidence for it (this is the internet, after all).
You could start with Wikipedia or Google, but here's an online reprint from his book Marihuana Reconsidered.
It might be worth adding that both the US Shafer Commission prior to Nixon's War on Drugs, and the Blake Palmer Commission here in NZ before the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, both noted the relatively innocuous nature of cannabis.
-
Hard News: Leaf and Tips, in reply to George Darroch,
More seriously, inhalation of burnt organic compounds at high temperatures has significant public health implications; implications which are waved away by advocates of an entirely unregulated sphere*. Whatever our policy decisions, these need to be grappled with.
*You ever see those Facebook posts attributing 0 deaths annually to marijuana? I do, frequently.
Ideally, some medpot patients would prefer to eat their medicine. However, the law considers this as processing a drug and therefore baking cookies for an Auntie with leukemia is a Class B offence, with a maximum term similar to rape.
Secondly, Professor Lester Grinspoon was given Federal funding to prove the hypothesis that smoking cannabis is bad for you. His conclusion changed his worldview. Cannabis only smokers had less incidence of lung cancer than even non-smokers.
Thirdly, many prescription meds have far worse addiction potential and side effects than cannabis.
As Victoria Davis asked, why must she go to a lawyer for her husband's medicine?
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I would welcome your arguments on why you consider these matters to be issues of conscience.
These matters do fit the historical mould of conscience votes. i.e. morality laws. The HLR, CU and most previous alcohol reform bills have all been conscience votes.
-
You won't find a Marilyn Waring in this bunch of Nats. They've been whipped and groupthinked into bloc voting on all conscience issues; booze, gay marriage, medical cannabis. Considering they all owe their jobs to John Key's anti-political lead, you'll be hard pressed to find an honest conscience around the cabinet table.
-
Hard News: Good Intentions, in reply to Kumara Republic,
He’s also on record saying Workbridge – the usual go-to employment agency for the disabled – isn’t much cop.
That's been my experience too. Although Deaf Employment consultants don't seem to fare much better. It's more be a case of over-supply of talent and no demand from employers for it.
At least some attempt is made by these organisations, which is more than you can say for the mainstream employment and temping agencies. From their perspective, one disability is a problem. Two makes you for all intents unemployable.