Friendly warning and disclaimer: These forums are provided for the thousands victims of prohibition who form the pot community of Aotearoa for discussion of marijuana-related issues. NORML reserve the right to delete off-topic posts. The views expressed in any forum are solely those of the contributor and not necessarily approved or endorsed by NORML New Zealand Inc.
Interesting who did and didn't - I'd like to know the proportion of each group who has personally known a medpot user. Dare I say there seems to be a new conservatism...
One thing that I noticed about the voting lists is that the Ayes are almost 50-50 male and female whereas the Nays seem to be predominantly male (although I'm not sure how many female National MPs there are).
So maybe it's just old-fashioned paternalism. [My dictionary defines paternal as (of govenment etc) limiting freedom and responsibility by well-meant regulations.]
zinger also wrote:
....fueled by visions of a tobacco and alcohol free world. The hard out campaigns against these 2 demons & the P-anic appear to have resulted in negativity to all drugs.
Not sure about the "alcohol free world" bit as the MPs voted against a ban on TV and radio alcohol advertising.
Visage wrote:
I don't mind so much that bill (the alcohol one i mean) being voted down, discouraging companies from spending money during a recession is hardly a brilliant economic move.
Recession or not, is it really a good idea to advertise an R18 drug on TV and radio, especially when the ads seem to encourage binge drinking? There's much gnashing of teeth about the societal damage that alcohol causes and yet it is usually advertised like just another fizzy drink that adds life to the party.
IMO it's time to start treating alcohol like the drug it is and ban advertising/sponsorship plus restrict sales to specialised R18 liquor outlets.
Recession or not, is it really a good idea to advertise an R18 drug on TV and radio, especially when the ads seem to encourage binge drinking? There's much gnashing of teeth about the societal damage that alcohol causes and yet it is usually advertised like just another fizzy drink that adds life to the party.
I don't disagree but I also feel that booze ads already face enough restrictions (not on during kids times eg) are enough. Especially given the graphic nature of anti drinking/driving ads, binge drinking ads (that one implying the girl would be raped) that do much to balance out any harm caused by advertising a product that everyone knows is available anyway.
Quote:
IMO it's time to start treating alcohol like the drug it is and ban advertising/sponsorship plus restrict sales to specialised R18 liquor outlets.
It's great to be pious and reject alcohol sponsorships but who then picks up the millions of dollars that were being spent? Pay the players less? They'll go overseas and our domestic competitions will be worthless leading to no international teams. Charge fans more? They won't show up. _________________ Haikus are easy
But sometimes do not make sense
Refrigerator
I don't disagree but I also feel that booze ads already face enough restrictions (not on during kids times eg) are enough. Especially given the graphic nature of anti drinking/driving ads, binge drinking ads (that one implying the girl would be raped) that do much to balance out any harm caused by advertising a product that everyone knows is available anyway.
I'm not sure how old you are, Visage, but when National was elected in 1990, the first thing they changed regarding our alcohol laws was to allow it to be advertised on TV and the radio. Prior to that alcohol ads were restricted to cinemas and the print media. Lowering the drinking age was one of the last things that National did, in its 3rd term.
Why was changing the alcohol advertising laws given precedence over the drinking age? Probably because the TV alcohol ads are aimed not at those already of drinking age but those who are not drinking yet. Those who are already drinking are probably more interested in, or affected by, the newspaper ads which have prices and specials. Whereas children were not exposed to alcohol ads pre-1990, these days most children have already seen many hundreds of alcohol ads before they actually start drinking thus conditioning their impressionable minds.
That's also why I think alcohol shouldn't be sold in supermarkets. Although it's easier (and cheaper) for adults to buy their alcohol with their groceries, selling alcohol in supermarkets exposes children to the concept of buying alcohol from a very young age. When I bought beer for the first time, it meant plucking up the courage to enter a shop that I'd never been in before whereas these days when teens buy their first alcohol they do so from a shop that they've already been in hundreds of times before.
Also, while TV product advertising is undoubtedly effective, those graphic anti-binge drinking ads are probably not as effective simply because of the that-won't-happen-to-me factor, which is especially true when someone is drunk and uninhibited.
Visage also wrote:
It's great to be pious and reject alcohol sponsorships but who then picks up the millions of dollars that were being spent? Pay the players less? They'll go overseas and our domestic competitions will be worthless leading to no international teams. Charge fans more? They won't show up.
Pious? I'm more interested in minimising the harm that binge drinking is doing. Unless you haven't noticed, one of the reasons that is given for maintaining cannabis prohibition is that we already have so many problems with alcohol so why legalise another drug? I would argue, in that case, why not do something about the alcohol problem instead of just making it more accessible?
Anyway, to answer your questions regarding alcohol sponsorship, the exact same objections were raised when banning cigarette sponsorship and advertising was first touted. However, when cigarette sponsorship/ads were banned, the sky didn't fall down and the business of professional sport carried on by finding other sponsors. Funny thing is sports people are paid a lot more now than back then.
27, so yes 90's politics is something of a fuzz to me. Although which party has set what policy in the past really has very little bearing on my own beliefs.
potshots wrote:
Those who are already drinking are probably more interested in, or affected by, the newspaper ads which have prices and specials.
Honest question, do you think people who are likely to abuse alcohol by binge drinking are likely to be affected by prices advertised in the paper? While it might serve to direct them to buy one product over another, i would suggest that they would be buying an abusive amount of alcohol regardless of whether they saw an ad in the paper, that they would just look at specials instore.
Quote:
children have already seen many hundreds of alcohol ads before they actually start drinking thus conditioning their impressionable minds.
That's also why I think alcohol shouldn't be sold in supermarkets. ..snip..
teens buy their first alcohol they do so from a shop that they've already been in hundreds of times before.
Advertising hardly creates the taboo around alcohol that makes it so enticing to children, it's culture. Compare our country with those that raise children drinking wine with meals for example, how do our booze problems compare? People make the same argument about pot, that kids just smoke it because it's forbidden and cool. Oh and those teens will get carded especially if they try in a supermarket, the penalties are such that shops have cracked down big time.
Quote:
Also, while TV product advertising is undoubtedly effective, those graphic anti-binge drinking ads are probably not as effective simply because of the that-won't-happen-to-me factor, which is especially true when someone is drunk and uninhibited.
And you base that on what, assumption? Take the family violence ads, reports seem to indicate they've been very successful in engaging people on a difficult issue, why should anti drinking ones be different? Not to mention if you believe an ad encourages abuse of alcohol you can complain to the advertising standards authority.
Quote:
Unless you haven't noticed, one of the reasons that is given for maintaining cannabis prohibition is that we already have so many problems with alcohol so why legalise another drug?
To which you promptly point out all the problems associated with prohibition which noone admits too (gangs etc) and that good ole MJ doesn't cause the same harm as booze. Education being a great (if slow) way of fighting ignorance.
Quote:
I would argue, in that case, why not do something about the alcohol problem instead of just making it more accessible?
However, when cigarette sponsorship/ads were banned, the sky didn't fall down and the business of professional sport carried on by finding other sponsors. Funny thing is sports people are paid a lot more now than back then.
I'm not saying do nothing about the alcohol problem, just that I don't think advertising is the cause of the problem and thus that restricting it would help. More that it's a move where we can feel good about having done something regardless of what effect it has on the problem. And I wouldn't make the same argument for smokes at all. I tend to believe all drugs should be legalised, unfortunately to avoid being a hypocrite i have to include tobacco. And sports people are paid more due to the advent of professionalism. _________________ Haikus are easy
But sometimes do not make sense
Refrigerator
and always hitting the news for alcohol related incidents...
Seems like quite a large number of celebrities do, sponsored or not. Perhaps a problem with the stress of fame? They could probably use a joint instead _________________ Haikus are easy
But sometimes do not make sense
Refrigerator
The Alcohol abuse problem is really an easy fix , it is only going to take a bit of an earth shift so they actually start treating it as the dangerous drug it is for many But address this ,not make the life of all the sensible drinkers hell.
Treat supply in any form to kids as a class B supply charge.Stick the drug dealers in jail ,
First offense for any alcohol related anti social event results in 6 months of daily Anitbus .
Drunk driving but no accident , 6 months of antibus instead of loss of license means they can still contribute to society , work , take kids to school/football etc.
A wife getting the biff will more likely seek help and enforce charges if the old man is only going to be put on 6 months of no booze..Not taken from the family, fined money they don't have ,and expose the family to ridicule in the community .
Kids who binge drink often do it as a cry for help, given the excuse of not being able to drink because they are on antibus is often secretly welcomed by them .
Second offenses get a year on the stuff, thrid attracts life.
Within ten years we would clear over half our prisons,freed up 60 % of the police to do important stuff like changing ladies flat tires, directing lost tourists.helping little old ladies cross the road. Remove 90% of the recidivist drink driving ..lower the road toll accordingly.Free up over 40% of our hospital beds .That's not even going down the other paths of potential savings such as work attendance , House fires , broken glass, etc etc.
How is this possible.. easy , contrary to the belief the media would like us to have ,alcohol is not a demon every Kiwi carries , its only a small but very visible sector of the community who chronically abuse the stuff , possibly only 7 or so percent of the adult population .( for kids in the informative mistake ridden years its not always chronic abuse ,more acute)
Why make the other 93 percent suffer , target the 7 percent .
The do gooders say Antibus is a dangerous drug .. sure enough drink while you take it , expect to get bloody sick ..It seems up to three people a year might even die from antibus/ alcohol mix , but thousands more will live ( yep thousands)
Why sack a top sports player, give him the option , antibus or the road..Better example to the kids and guy does not suffer for life from a night of alcohol fueled folly.( not the rapists or brutal assaults )
Hells teeth if Richard Worth had the option put to him after the 15th of June 2004 , and a number of later times , take antibus before you really fuck up rather than just chastise him and tell him to watch it..We may well not have lost a fine brain and very skilled and usually very honorable man from our parliament .
Phil Goff might .no opps no that one was buried .
Anyway you get my drift.
Oh yeh as an added potential of antibus is some research indicates a large percentage of those struggling with methamphetamine rehabilitation , relapse under the direct influence of alcohol , it triggers some complementary receptors to P and excite the craving..so many of those in P rehab may well also benefit from enforced antibus.
Why for many years now has this simple solution not been even considered ??
Simple , those 7 percent . More of less subject to degree . in fact account for some 20% of alcohol sales that would cause both the profitability of the producers and distributors but would also effect the Tax take considerably..
Also ... a fair portion of those who would be instrumental in bringing forth such changes are themselves vulnerable to getting an enforced dose of antibus , so much so they will tend to want to avoid this as a consequence .
I will not even mention my thoughts on how cannabis could also play a supportive role ..
Oh I should also mention the Antibus recovery program is frowned upon by established , expensive experts.. its near free , close to hands off and requires in most situations no expert involvement .I just can't understand why they find it wanting.. especially when they have a low success rate , repeat clients .A cynic , not me of course might think self interest influences them.
There actually was a guy running an alcohol recovery program based on this until he became a medpot activist .Unfortunately when he may have added a further recovery medication to the sublingual B12 he recommended he was intimidated by certain parties , shut up shop or get reported . Not being brave I shut up shop.
So, I know it works.. Actually so do some who made the rules ..
Joined: Dec 01, 2003 Posts: 5745 Location: Christchurch, NZ
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:10 am
Quote:
Oh I should also mention the Antibus recovery program is frowned upon by established , expensive experts.. its near free , close to hands off and requires in most situations no expert involvement .I just can't understand why they find it wanting.. especially when they have a low success rate , repeat clients .A cynic , not me of course might think self interest influences them.
Self interest? Our esteemed "experts" ?? Gotta have those repeat clients...*
see what MNG posted elsewhere this morning: *(NZ) Doctors prescribe drugs that don't work
04/07/2009 LINK
Last edited by paula on Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total
This medication is used along with counseling and support to treat alcoholism. Disulfiram works by blocking the processing of alcohol in the body. This causes you to have a bad reaction when you drink alcohol.
...
Avoid all alcoholic beverages or alcohol-containing products/foods (e.g., cough and cold syrups, mouthwash, aftershave, sauces, vinegars) while taking this medication and for 2 weeks after stopping the medication. Check all product labels carefully to make sure that there is no alcohol in the product. Using alcohol, even a small amount, while taking this medication can lead to a reaction that may include flushing, throbbing headache, breathing problems (e.g., shortness of breath, fast breathing), nausea, vomiting, dizziness, extreme tiredness, fainting, fast/irregular heartbeat, or blurred vision. These symptoms can last from 30 minutes to several hours.
Kinda diverged from the topic of advertising but oh well :p _________________ Haikus are easy
But sometimes do not make sense
Refrigerator
Joined: Sep 24, 2005 Posts: 640 Location: new zealand
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:04 pm
Speaking as someone who's probably had over 500 Lsd trips I thank my good luck that I used that drug as opposed to the brain rotting muck we call alcohol.
The drug alcohol should NOT be advertised. Its consumption is directly linked to increased violence and disease. In fact alcohol is one of the few recreational drugs whose use is directly related to increased violence amongst its users. It is toxic to just about every organ in the body and health services around the world are under stress as the boozed baby boomer population enter the age of George Best with his booze rooted body.
Remember Alcohol is THE drug..................
Its the drug of violence
The drug of the emergency hospital admissions
The drug that fills the police cells
The drug that makes us ugly.
And the powers that be will not even call it a drug.
They always talk about Alcohol and drugs.
Greg oCONnner calls the illegal ones .... "drugs of abuse "
And he fights to retain the subsidized police bars/drug dens
Joined: Nov 16, 2005 Posts: 835 Location: New Zealand
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:23 pm
daddyO wrote:
...
They always talk about Alcohol and drugs.
Greg oCONnner calls the illegal ones .... "drugs of abuse "
And he fights to retain the subsidized police bars/drug dens
Its a fucked up world alright ................
Yeah, Greg the Conner. He must have passed his use by date by now - but he still gets used! Did he ever join Undercovers Seriously Effected by Drugs? Seems his ability to be honest has been lacking since at least the time he was groomed in the undercover programme.
what do we have to do? Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 2:45 pm
This type of badly written story followed by the editorial from Hawkes Bay Today is typical of the 'reefer madness' that still invades our society.
HAWKES BAY TODAY
LEAD STORY: Burglaries drug driven, say police
Laptop computers worth up to $2000 are being traded for $20 cannabis "tinnies" in a near-record wave of Hawke's Bay burglaries police believe is being mainly driven by drug dealing.
Experienced Napier policeman Detective Sergeant Dan Foley said the "bargains" were part of an underworld which was evident when three juveniles ditched about $11,000 worth of jewellery stolen in the burglary of a Greenmeadows woman's home last month.
The jewellery has been returned but not two laptop computers, a digital camera and an iPod. Mr Foley believed those types of items were often stolen to trade with drug dealers, sometimes for a $20 cannabis "tinnie" (oil-wrapped cannabis). Despite the boys being caught, the goods have not been recovered.
Mr Foley, who has spent 19 years of his 30-year police career in Hawke's Bay, with significant experience in drug and "break" squads, said: "The most valuable property is often of little value to them, unless they can turn it into drugs straight away.
"A lot of drug dealers will trade stolen property as a form of currency. Our young offenders are simply flicking off stolen property, and the book value doesn't really have any bearing on what they get," he said.
"They might trade your $2000 laptop for $20, but then, a lot of drug dealers are forever operating on credit and a tick list. They might owe $60 and it might be a big flat-screen TV."
Police said in the two-month May-June period, 404 burglaries were reported in Napier, Hastings and Central Hawke's Bay, compared with 343 in the corresponding period last year.
Most dramatically, statistics provided yesterday for Hawke's Bay Today showed there were 92 residential burglaries in the Hastings and Central Hawke's Bay area last month, an average of just over three a day. There had been 87 the previous month.
In Napier, the apprehension of several young people over recent weeks is credited with cutting back the number of burglaries, from 89 raids on homes, businesses, schools and other properties in May, to 55 last month.
"Laptops are the big item at the moment," said Mr Foley, adding not even the likelihood of access-blocking passwords appeared to be a deterrent.
After one burglary, a mobile phone stolen along with a laptop was used to call a victim demanding a password on the basis other stolen property would be returned.
Convinced of the role cannabis was playing in crime, Mr Foley lamented: "I don't think we'll ever stamp it out. It is a weed, it grows like a weed, and all that can be done is to police it more."
He said no parents or guardians were any longer immune to the threat of their young people using cannabis, but they could minimise the risks by strongly supporting such things as sporting ambition.
"Cannabis is extremely dangerous, particularly in the hands of young people," he said.
"It has been referred to as the 'great thief of motivation', so, if a kid has talent in sport, they might not want to do cannabis when they realise it will harm their performance."
THE haste with which Parliament booted out the Green Party's Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill this week was a sign of the apathy, and hypocrisy, in the debate over the insidious weed.
Or, more to the point, the lack of debate.
Given that the Greens had been puffing away at this for three years, this was a grand opportunity to finally debate this issue in full, and blow cannabis off the scene altogether.
Simply, cannabis - or more specifically the misuse of it - is a chronically dangerous blight on our society, and it is high time we moved to knock it on the head.
The whole cannabis issue has been seriously clouded by the argument over whether it should be legalised, ignoring the argument that by an overwhelming weight of evidence it should be made even more illegal than it is.
Or should that be more illegal than what the legislation says, for what has happened is that the acceptance-of or lack of strident opposition to cannabis has, by some form of default, legitimised it.
At least, it seems more legal than both alcohol and smoking tobacco. As one example, it's not uncommon for people to be fined $400 for breaching liquor bans, by having on their person as little as a part-bottle or can, but the going-rate for a joint in your pocket is somewhere less than $200.
You lose your driving licence almost automatically and get fined hundreds of dollars for driving with too much alcohol in your system. Yet, if you smell of dope when you're stopped at a checkpoint, but don't have any of the offensive material on you or in the vehicle, and haven't been drinking, apart from being searched, you're pretty-much free, man.
And we all know about tobacco smokers. Those horrible people who we've kicked out into the rain because of their selfish disrespect for the health of anyone else by puffing all that passive smoke around the place. Yet dope-smoking seems to be treated as simply something that some people do. Perhaps it's more acceptable just because they make the choice to go out in the rain.
Odd decisions like "choosing" to smoke in the rain are, however, a minor consequence of cannabis use, for it is painfully obvious to those who work at the back-end of life's problems that cannabis is extremely dangerous, particularly in the wrong hands.
For example, a senior police officer is reported this weekend in Hawke's Bay Today confirming what a lot of people already know.
Vast numbers of burglaries are being committed in Hawke's Bay by young people solely to pay for dope - ahead, even, of their daily bread. They will pinch your $2000 laptop, and trade it for a $20 tinnie, and maybe chuck-in your digital camera so the dealer will wipe the $60 off the tick-list.
Young people, many themselves victimised by common cannabis use by parents and others at home, are becoming a lost generation in a cloud of cannabis smoke, which is either a symptom of or a cause of their problems, depending on your take - a word I use in both the English and Maori sense.
Two months ago Napier was pitched into absolute horror, when a man shot the police officers who came to search his home, because it was being used for dealing cannabis. The shooting would not have happened if people weren't dealing dope, if people weren't buying it, if people weren't using it.
It is all very well to blame, but the debate on what to do about it has to consider the history of cannabis use in this country. Who introduced it here? It was, after all, once upon a time, almost exclusive to the academia and surfies. Universities of the 1960s were awash with it, apparently, and the odd VW Combi had more smoke coming out the window than the exhaust.
Its heaviest use in 2009 is at the other end of the spectrum, often habitually toked from dawn to dusk to fill in the day for the unemployed and relatively helpless.
But an interesting thing happened the other day, and a few boys were given the boot from a well-performing school, for smoking cannabis. Happens in every school, someone said. But shouldn't society be getting its heads out of the clouds, and doing something about it?
What do we have to do to get through to these people? Oh well. Think I will go break the law some more. Puff Puff Pass....... _________________ legal by 2010
I sent this to Doug Laing who wrote that load of crap. A bit of light reading to gain a better understanding of the failures of Prohibition!
10 Reasons to legalise all drugs
comment from Transform: the campaign for effective drug policy
1 Address the real issues
For too long policy makers have used prohibition as a smoke screen to avoid addressing the social and economic factors that lead people to use drugs. Most illegal and legal drug use is recreational. Poverty and despair are at the root of most problematic drug use and it is only by addressing these underlying causes that we can hope to significantly decrease the number of problematic users.
2 Eliminate the criminal market place
The market for drugs is demand-led and millions of people demand illegal drugs. Making the production, supply and use of some drugs illegal creates a vacuum into which organised crime moves. The profits are worth billions of pounds. Legalisation forces organised crime from the drugs trade, starves them of income and enables us to regulate and control the market (i.e. prescription, licensing, laws on sales to minors, advertising regulations etc.)
3 Massively reduce crime
The price of illegal drugs is determined by a demand-led, unregulated market. Using illegal drugs is very expensive. This means that some dependent users resort to stealing to raise funds (accounting for 50% of UK property crime - estimated at £2 billion a year). Most of the violence associated with illegal drug dealing is caused by its illegality
Legalisation would enable us to regulate the market, determine a much lower price and remove users need to raise funds through crime. Our legal system would be freed up and our prison population dramatically reduced, saving billions. Because of the low price, cigarette smokers do not have to steal to support their habits. There is also no violence associated with the legal tobacco market.
4 Drug users are a majority
Recent research shows that nearly half of all 15-16 year olds have used an illegal drug. Up to one and a half million people use ecstasy every weekend. Amongst young people, illegal drug use is seen as normal. Intensifying the 'war on drugs' is not reducing demand. In Holland, where cannabis laws are far less harsh, drug usage is amongst the lowest in Europe.
Legalisation accepts that drug use is normal and that it is a social issue, not a criminal justice one. How we deal with it is up to all of us to decide.
In 1970 there were 9000 convictions or cautions for drug offences and 15% of young people had used an illegal drug. In 1995 the figures were 94 000 and 45%. Prohibition doesn't work.
5 Provide access to truthful information and education
A wealth of disinformation about drugs and drug use is given to us by ignorant and prejudiced policy-makers and media who peddle myths upon lies for their own ends. This creates many of the risks and dangers associated with drug use.
Legalisation would help us to disseminate open, honest and truthful information to users and non-users to help them to make decisions about whether and how to use. We could begin research again on presently illicit drugs to discover all their uses and effects - both positive and negative.
6 Make all drug use safer
Prohibition has led to the stigmatisation and marginalisation of drug users. Countries that operate ultra-prohibitionist policies have very high rates of HIV infection amongst injecting users. Hepatitis C rates amongst users in the UK are increasing substantially.
In the UK in the '80's clean needles for injecting users and safer sex education for young people were made available in response to fears of HIV. Harm reduction policies are in direct opposition to prohibitionist laws.
7 Restore our rights and responsibilities
Prohibition unnecessarily criminalises millions of otherwise law-abiding people. It removes the responsibility for distribution of drugs from policy makers and hands it over to unregulated, sometimes violent dealers.
Legalisation restores our right to use drugs responsibly to change the way we think and feel. It enables controls and regulations to be put in place to protect the vulnerable.
8 Race and Drugs
Black people are over ten times more likely to be imprisoned for drug offences than whites. Arrests for drug offences are notoriously discretionary allowing enforcement to easily target a particular ethnic group. Prohibition has fostered this stereotyping of black people.
Legalisation removes a whole set of laws that are used to disproportionately bring black people into contact with the criminal justice system. It would help to redress the over representation of black drug offenders in prison.
9 Global Implications
The illegal drugs market makes up 8% of all world trade (around £300 billion a year). Whole countries are run under the corrupting influence of drug cartels. Prohibition also enables developed countries to wield vast political power over producer nations under the auspices of drug control programmes.
Legalisation returns lost revenue to the legitimate taxed economy and removes some of the high-level corruption. It also removes a tool of political interference by foreign countries against producer nations.
10 Prohibition doesn't work
There is no evidence to show that prohibition is succeeding. The question we must ask ourselves is, "What are the benefits of criminalising any drug?" If, after examining all the available evidence, we find that the costs outweigh the benefits, then we must seek an alternative policy.
Legalisation is not a cure-all but it does allow us to address many of the problems associated with drug use, and those created by prohibition. The time has come for an effective and pragmatic drug policy.
"If the (drug) problem continues advancing as it is at the moment, we're going to be faced with some very frightening options. Either you have a massive reduction in civil rights or you have to look at some radical solutions. The issue has to be, can a criminal justice system solve this particular problem?"
Commander John Grieve, Criminal Intelligence Unit, Scotland Yard, Channel 4 1997
Joined: Nov 08, 2008 Posts: 87 Location: Wellington
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:39 pm
Quote:
they could minimise the risks by strongly supporting such things as sporting ambition.
Great! Sporting ambition! Get you kids playing rugby... Lets go visit the rugby club rooms? What is everyone doing? GETTING PISSED! What a great way to further expose our youth to alcohol. Not to mention the fact that pretty much every Rugby head I have met seems to abuse alcohol like its going out of fasion.
Quote:
if a kid has talent in sport, they might not want to do cannabis when they realise it will harm their performance."
Michael Phelps and Ussain Bolt smoked pot...
and they are olympic gold medalists. Hardly harming performance _________________ I'm the one that has to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life, the way I want to. - Jimi Hendrix
Joined: Dec 01, 2003 Posts: 5745 Location: Christchurch, NZ
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:49 pm
Quote:
Experienced Napier policeman Detective Sergeant Dan Foley...
lamented: "I don't think we'll ever stamp it out. It is a weed, it grows like a weed, and all that can be done is to police it more."... "Cannabis is extremely dangerous, particularly in the hands of young people," he said. "It has been referred to as the 'great thief of motivation', so, if a kid has talent in sport, they might not want to do cannabis when they realise it will harm their performance."
Yup I see he thinks nothing of all kids who are not interested in sport. So clearly a saddo... but the journalist is even worse, he hasn't got an excuse to be that thick.
He asks the question and hasn't a clue.... A French nursing nun - whom the Catholic Church here has put up as NZ's first prospective saint - was the person who brought cannabis to NZ, her name was Suzanne Aubert. I believe she may have nursed in the Crimea with Florence Nightengale. She used to grow it in the Whanganui area at first, but then licensed her remedy to Kempthorne Prosser who promptly diluted it and ripped her off. There is a statue of her right beside the church in Pakipaki, near Hastings.
Joined: Nov 08, 2008 Posts: 87 Location: Wellington
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:10 pm
Sweet next time I'm in Hastings I shall have a session with the woman who bought cannabis to NZ.
in Paraparaumu we just have a 62ft Statue of the Virgin Mary on the hill... Nice session spot too! Nice view out over Paraparaumu and Kapiti Island. _________________ I'm the one that has to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life, the way I want to. - Jimi Hendrix
He asks the question and hasn't a clue.... A French nursing nun - whom the Catholic Church here has put up as NZ's first prospective saint - was the person who brought cannabis to NZ, her name was Suzanne Aubert. I believe she may have nursed in the Crimea with Florence Nightengale. She used to grow it in the Whanganui area at first, but then licensed her remedy to Kempthorne Prosser who promptly diluted it and ripped her off. There is a statue of her right beside the church in Pakipaki, near Hastings.
Her concoction for women's problems made from the cannabis seeds she did bring back from Crimea I believe was world renown..There was a rumor even the Queen of the time was a client and the Duchess of Gloucester took back a load on her visit .Some of the old people still round in James K's time used to talk about the demand for her period pain concoction . I was told near all the records of her work with cannabis have been buried by the Church , so not to upset the sainthood quest .To me its the prime reason she is up there..One day she will be hailed for it..
tony
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
