About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

October 27, 2011 8:00am by David Farrar

General Debate 27 October 2011

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment124

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (124)

Login to comment or vote

peterwn

Judging by ads that appear in Kiwiblog, market research seems to indicate that Kiwiblog readers are possible purchasers of Beemers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 8:19am
Rick Rowling

BLACKADDER Well, we in the Adder Party are going to fight this campaign on issues, not personalities.

HANNA Why is that?

BLACKADDER Because our candidate doesn’t have a personality.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 8:34am
wreck1080

Optimistic Government !!! The government still seems to think the books will be balanced by 2014.

I don’t know if it is realistic or not, only time will tell. But, it seems strange to me, the economy is not going that well from my perspective. But, I’m only one of four million.

I look at the external factors in the US and Europe, and the domino effect from them to China to Australia and then NZ! When Germany are mentioning the word WAR (http://euobserver.com/19/114075) you know things are not good.

Lucky we produce milk, or, at least we used to until the gas pipeline ruptured.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 8:43am
Elaycee

We have a “I want” mentality permeating New Zealand that we need to kick to touch.

In the aftermath of the terrible Christchurch earthquake, we had several businesses come out asking the Government for business interruption compensation because they were unable to carry out business in the manner they could before the quake(s). Isn’t that what business interruption insurance is for? Why did they not carry appropriate cover in the first place? Why should the taxpayer be expected to compensate anyone who has opted out of mainstream business practice?

Then we had the Rena grounding and again the breathless media fronts businesses and asks how are they going to cope (because the beaches were dotted with oil and dolphin watch / a ‘learn to surf’ hippie / some fishing charter operators were going to be affected). What about their own business interruption insurance? Why should the Government (the long suffering taxpayer) be expected to support morons who haven’t demonstrated appropriate business management skills of their own?

And now we hear of the gas leak and inevitably (in this climate of ‘I want, I want’) we have businesses who expect Government (as in taxpayer) compensation to support them whilst they have no gas for a few days. Again, what about their own business interruption insurance? Did they not have cover?

It is clear that some business owners have made the conscious decision to drop or defer business interruption insurance as part of their own cost cutting measures. But where does that place the owners (and competent managers) who have maintained prudent cover? Indeed, isn’t ‘disaster recovery’ a Key Issue for every business? If not, why not?

Running a business is all about making the right decisions based on the available information. But business owners and managers who have done the prudent thing / taken appropriate insurance cover (including that for business interruption), are actually being disadvantaged because the ‘same cover’ is available courtesy of the taxpayer. No premiums need to be paid (apart from the normal taxes) – and the tab is picked up by the same taxpayer. Why?

Its long overdue that the Government stopped dipping its hands into our pockets to compensate businesses when they should have cover of their own. It is similar to the question being asked why there is any expectation that the Government should compensate any home owner in Christchurch who didn’t hold appropriate cover of their own.

Actions have consequences. If I choose to waive insurance on my car but have an accident, I have no insurance. I have to dip into my own pocket for the cost of replacement / repair etc. So if I choose to waive appropriate business insurance cover, why should I expect someone else (the taxpayer) to pick up the tab?

Its daft.

Apologies for the length of this comment. Rant over.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 8:53am
philu

actually elaycee…just go back to yr malignant insults..eh..?

..they are ever so slightly less boring..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

[DPF: 20 demerits. Elaycee made a comment with no personal attacks in it not directed at anyone, and you just launched an attack on him. I’ve given you fairly free rein when responding to people having a go at you, but that is not a licence to start flame wars]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 9:04am
Longknives

Anybody else disturbed by this??

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10761687

I know the ‘West Memphis Three’ are the current ’cause de celebre’ in Hollywood and no doubt Peter Jackson will produce a gushingly one-eyed movie (No doubt making Echols out to be a Saint..)- but do we really want convicted child murderers here?? Do some research on some of the things this guy has done apart from the murders! I certainly wouldn’t want him living on my street…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 9:12am
laworder

Longknives wrote

Anybody else disturbed by this??

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10761687

I know the ‘West Memphis Three’ are the current ’cause de celebre’ in Hollywood and no doubt Peter Jackson will produce a gushingly one-eyed movie (No doubt making Echols out to be a Saint..)- but do we really want convicted child murderers here?? Do some research on some of the things this guy has done apart from the murders! I certainly wouldn’t want him living on my street…

I am disturbed by this. I would have thought (and hoped) that Jackson could have found better things to do with his time and money. Echols conviction appears to have been unsafe and the prosecutions case left a great deal to be desired but he is still dodgy to say the least.

Supporting and promoting causes like this when there many far more deserving cases out there – including some local ones – shows to me that his priorities are out of order

Regards
Peter J
Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 9:29am
philu

“….[DPF: 20 demerits. Elaycee made a comment with no personal attacks in it not directed at anyone, and you just launched an attack on him. I’ve given you fairly free rein when responding to people having a go at you, but that is not a licence to start flame wars]..”

have you read what these scumbags have been saying to me ..?

and you say niothing to them..

..that elaycee..that is all she does..da vinci..john boy..

..i am there discussing politics..and all i get is a stream of abuse..over something i did 35 fucken years ago..

as one-eyed as ever i see…

(and that comment to her was a followup to a question i posed yesterday..asking if she ever does anything else except throw muck at people..

..hence my follo0w-up comment..

..you are accusing me of starting flame wars..?

was that the only one you could find where one of yr scumbags hasn’t been pouring abuse on me first..?

…but nary a word to any of them..eh..?

..readers can see how skewed any ideas of ‘fairess/equal-treatment’ are so bastardised on this site..eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 9:42am
Longknives

Thanks Laworder- I was wondering for a moment if I was the only bloody person in New Zealand who is not comfortable with this! This guy Echolls is a serious Psycho- I don’t even know if David would allow me to post some of the things I’ve read about his history and behaviour (Lets just say the milder stuff involves killing animals and drinking their blood- Classic Jeffrey Dahmer-type behaviour)…

Anyway- It makes me cringe to think that Peter Jackson is going to make a movie about his alleged ‘innocence’ and no doubt a star-struck NZ public will positively swoon over this convicted child murderer/rapist. I fully expect Dave Dobbyn to write a horrible, wailing gushing song over him as well….God help us all.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 9:59am
philu

and what did i actually say..?

..(in a general-debate thread..)

“..ever so slightly less boring..”

wow..!..toxic-flame-attack..!

..eh..?

just as well none of these rightwing douchebags have said anything as bad as that..eh..?

..you’d have to fucken demerit them..eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 10:07am
Scott Chris

Woohoo! Barbie Gets Tattoos:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/5860189/Tattooed-Barbie-causes-controversy

Might buy one. Make a great conversation piece. As would:

1) Anatomically correct Barbie
2) Sex worker Barbie
3) Mad scientist Barbie
4) Junkie Barbie
5) Morbidly obese Barbie
6) Lesbian Barbie
7) Vampire Barbie
8] Mattel lawyer Barbie
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 10:12am
Mary Rose

peterwn (1,450) Says:
Judging by ads that appear in Kiwiblog, market research seems to indicate that Kiwiblog readers are possible purchasers of Beemers.

I’ve always assumed the ads are tailored to the reader’s Google search history, or similar?

I get an entertainment website, and handmade crafts. And an ISP. And the World’s Best Renderer (comes from Wellington, apparently).
Although I’m not sure why.
Computer graphics not being an area of personal expertise.

No cars, anyway.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 10:17am
philu

so..just to clarify the ‘rules’ here..

..anyone can say whatever they like to/at me..about my son..his mother..(this in the last cuple of days.).with no fear of any demerits..

..but i am only allowed to respond if attacked…

..and if i make an attempt at a wry/off-hand comment like the above…in a general debate thread..(at one of the worst shit-throwers here..)

..i get demerits..

(seems fair…eh..?..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 10:20am
Scott Chris

Philu says:- “have you read what these scumbags have been saying to me ..?”

Phil, I think you’ve been hard done by, especially in light the character of the person you were responding to.

My advice would be for you to bide your time and wait for an unprovoked personal attack on you, and instead of returning the abuse, simply report it to King David.

A precedent has been set.

Let’s call it “Philu vs Elaycee 27.10.2011 0904”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 10:29am
philu

chrs..

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 10:32am
Lucia Maria

Phil called me “toxic” the other day – it was completely unprovoked, I hadn’t even talked to him or about him at all since he came back from his last banning.

In my experience on this blog, many personal attacks are not dealt with, but then knowing that David is quite fair, this is most likely because he’s unaware of them. As he’s said before, he doesn’t read all the comments – there are too many. So, it requires either him to notice or someone to complain about a comment in order for demerits to be issued.

And Phil, if you are having problems with abusive comments directed towards yourself, email them to David. Complaining about them here won’t get you very far, but a direct email probably will.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 10:33am
leftyliberal

Elaycee: Nice comment. I suspect many have been feeling similar about the “what about me?” attitudes that have been in the media re the Rena.

I presume the argument is to help a small business in Christchurch that would otherwise go under to keep going until they’re back on their feet, assuming that the alternative is for that business to go under and any employees (and possibly the owner) to end up on the dole. I’m not sure it can be done all that equitably or that it’s better in the long term.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 10:48am
philu

ah..!..lucia…!

..are you cheered at the pope coming out for the occupiers..?

http://whoar.co.nz/2011/whoar-the-pope-has-come-out-as-an-occupier/

..(hope that dosen’t get me demerits..it is also an attempt at wry/offhand..but i am ‘attacking’ the extreme rightwing christianity of lucia..

..such ‘christianity’ possibly so well illustrated by her admonition that babies should be forcibly taken from ‘sinner’ sole-parents..

..and given to good ‘christian ‘couples..(hetero..of course..!..)

..and colour me flamewar-starter..but ..(referring to her complaint against me..)..

..i do find such inhumane religious/political-views to be ‘toxic’ in the extreme..

..but anyway..!

how about that pope..?

..eh..?

..that pronouncement must be causing some disquiet in far-right christian quarters..

…eh..?

..you’d think..?

..your thoughts..?..there..lucia..?

..on yr occupier-pope..?

..it came as a surprise to me..

..i am sure that effect was compounded for you..

(oh..!..and re asking farrar by email to try and do something about that..

..i tried that some time ago..

..result/outcome..?

..no reply..

phi(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 11:08am
Elaycee

@leftyliberal: Point taken – the ‘case’ for CHC businesses compared to the two other examples, should have been on a different plane. But my point was meant to convey the idea that, if all businesses took out business interruption insurance (which is a legitimate expense), then there would be no need to have their hand out for taxpayer money. Most insurance of this nature covers funding to relocate the business and set up in (relatively) short order, so the impact on staff would be minimised.

But business affected by the Rena? Nah. And business affected by the gas pipe? Nah.

But getting back to CHC, I also recall reports that some home owners had their hand out for the Government / EQC assistance and yet they did not have any home cover (and therefore they did not pay the EQC levy). Begs the question why they should feel entitled to the same levels of ‘assistance’ as the rest of home owners who had paid for insurance (and also paid their EQC levy). Its daft.

I have no issues with the principle that taxpayer dollars can be used to give those in genuine need a temporary ‘leg-up’ whilst they get back on their feet. This assistance should not be a career choice, but a short term package. But this lingering (and festering) sense of entitlement that is slowly permeating New Zealand, is another matter altogether.

My 10c.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 11:14am
Scott Chris

Disclosure: I just joined the narc brigade:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/10/cactus_visits_occupy_auckland.html#comment-894111
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 11:22am
Scott Chris

Narced on Elaycee too:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/10/cactus_visits_occupy_auckland.html#comment-894113
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 11:26am
Nookin

I see Phillip Field lost his appeal.
http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/decisions/judgments
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 11:39am
Weihana

philu – what’s up with the formatting of your posts? You know something’s wrong when you’re arguing with a religious person and YOU are the one who appears to be crazy. You could have said:

“Isn’t it interesting Lucia that the pope came out in support of the occupy protestors? This must be troubling for Christians on the political right. What are your thoughts?”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 11:46am
Lucia Maria

Phil,

Try to persevere with David if you are not getting results when personal abuse comes your way. Maybe keep it short and to the point and put in a URL link to the comment/s involved. And then just try not to worry about it – this sort of environment brings out the abusive types.

As for the Pope – he hasn’t come out as an occupier. That’s the Law and Justice people; part of the Vatican bureaucracy. The Pope doesn’t personally endorse or sign off on everything that comes out of the Vatican, just like John Key doesn’t personally support and check everything that comes out of our many government departments.

I don’t believe that babies should be forcibly taken from single parents – where on earth did you get that idea from?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 11:55am
leftyliberal

Elaycee: I think the difficulty is in defining who is truly in need and who is being opportunistic. This is one of the reasons I like the idea of the universal allowance or negative income tax concept. Basically provide for everyone regardless a base income that covers necessities and then eliminate the dole, DPB, WFF, progressive taxes etc. It gives a safety net that’s the same for everyone and gets rid of some of the need for decisions about who is truly in need. Obviously there’d still be some special cases over and above this (eg for those with disabilities etc.) but it would get rid of some of it I reckon.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 11:55am
Elaycee

@Nookin – Haha – thanks for the link re Taito Phillip Field. No doubt the decision will be largely ignored by the lamestream media.

Did you also spot the judgement directly below the Field one – SC 49/2011 [Siemer v Stiassny]? This is the case heavily advanced by Water Woman over several months (and the object of many, many comments). There were accusations of corruption, malpractice etc… – all since rubbished.

Background: “In a judgment delivered on 23 December 2008, Cooper J found for the respondents that Mr Siemer had defamed them. He awarded the first respondent, Mr Stiassny, damages totalling $825,000 and the second respondent, Korda Mentha (formerly Ferrier Hodgson) damages of $75,000. There was a further award to Korda Mentha of $20,000 for breach an agreement settling a dispute between the parties”.

Given this latest [lost] appeal, it looks like there’ll have to be a whip around of monumental proportions at http://www.waterwoman.org.

http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/siemer-v-stiassny-1
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 11:56am
Lucia Maria

Whoops, in my previous comment of 11:55am, I should have said that the Vatican group is called “Justice and Peace” – not “Law and Justice”. My bad.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 12:04pm
Nookin

Elaycee
The Siemer decision that you can see is one of a series of decisions (almost one per month) throughout the year. He does not have a high success rate. Correct that – he does not have a success rate. The one that appealed to me was the one where he expected Sir Willy Young J to recuse himself on the ground of perceived bias against Siemer. Siemer was concerned about the Judge’s impartiality after Siemer posted a pen portrait of the judge on his web-site, accusing him of being corrupt.
http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/index.asp?PageID=2145845381
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 12:14pm
philu

ooh..!..weihana..!..just looking at how you have got all those poor sentences all squashed up together..gets me claustrophobic..

..makes me want to break their formatting-chains..and to free them..let them breath..

..this construct that you obviously labour under..you do realise came about because of the cost of paper..?

..this is why early books are just block-print..a dense/incomprehensible thicket of words..

..then came the parargraph..

..well.. i feel that every sentence/idea deserves the dignity of its’ own line..

..the paper shortage is past…

..this new interwebby-thingy means we can rethink the world of formatting…

..as as for capital letters..?..they are just a combination of an affectation and a construct once again driven by that cost of paper..

..to define the beginning of a new..or part of..an idea..

(..and why the false honorific affected by most..i mean..why Mr..?..when mr..will do…and our names..?..why..?..)

..with my way..the beginning of the line does that..and this also frees you to let the words sing..

..and they can take/revel in their rythyms..

..(the insult to me here..that most amused me..came in the middle of a splenetic-rant from i forget who..

..and they also seemed over-agitated by my use of the language etc..

..and they said:..’you..you write like a bloody poet..!’..)

another major influence on my writing style is that while i was at ak uni i worked at bfm for a few years..

(not as a dj..writing/presenting news/commentary etc..)

so i speak my writing…and am looking for those rythyms you need for effective radio-writing..

(as an aside:..major regret in the life:..it was a friday morning on mikey havocs’ breakfast show..and brett hansen ..the kiwi who runs mtv in europe..was the guest…and he was there for the whole breakfast show…

..and he watched me come in every half hour..and do a new/fresh batch of stories…that i was compiling/finding between bulletins..

..(i was doing this on my own..and used to pride myself on searching wide and deep for stories..as i do on whoar..)

..at the end of the morning he said to me:..’if you get to london and you need some work..come and see me..’..

…someone else from the station at the time said to me..’why aren’t you already out at the airport..offering to carry his case on board’..

..and it was a fair question..but unfortunately a new baby and family-circumstances meant i couldn’t go..

..and yep..!..i do often wonder ‘what if.?’..)

..and that brings us to my disdain/contempt of that most effete of punctuation tools..the ‘comma’..

..that cowering excuse for an exclamation..snivelling away at the bottom of the letter…i much prefer the double-dot..or the dash –

..and last but not least..i think that no capitals is much more visually appealing that the jarring-notes of capital-letters…

..i hope that answers all yr questions..

..any more..just fire away..

..eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 12:22pm
RightNow

Why marijuana is dangerous…

As support grows for the decriminalisation of the so-called soft drug marijuana, Dr Thomas Stuttaford explains why advocates of change need to consider the long-term consequences – mental and physical – of such a move. This column first appeared in The Times. One of the social paradoxes of the 21st century is that the more environmentally friendly and green a person’s lifestyle, the more likely he or she is to discuss the evils of pollution, carcinogens, the dangers of DNA research and questions of genetic make-up while enveloped in the blue haze of cannabis smoke. The youthful protesters against global industry and the pharmaceutical industry (which has revolutionised medicine and agriculture, helping to prevent mass starvation in the developing world), are also those who advocate the taking of a drug, cannabis, that would fail its safety tests at the animal stage of testing, let alone unrestricted use in human beings. This is why I do not support its legislation. Few doctors have not seen the sudden mental changes that can follow intoxication with cannabis. In the short time that I was involved with large numbers of drug-dependents mainly, but not exclusively, young people it was a comparatively common occurrence. The argument always deployed to belittle the importance of this well-known phenomenon is that the personality of many of those who are apt to become cannabis-dependent is essentially a flawed one, and that the easygoing, hearty rugby or hockey player with an outlook as phlegmatic as that of his or her parents would not be affected in the same way. Even if this were true, it ignores the obvious truth that there is a large and important minority of people, often clever and aesthetic, but with a vulnerable personality, who might have had happier and more productive lives if they hadn?t smoked pot and developed one of the psychological conditions associated with it. The ability of cannabis to change the slightly bizarre behaviour of a young person carrying a genetic disposition to schizophrenia, from that described as being characteristic of a schizotypal personality disorder, to the disordered thought and behavioural pattern of someone with a frank psychosis is now accepted. The ability of cannabis to cause other psychotic and neurotic conditions, as well as precipitating schizophrenia, is well documented. Likewise, its deleterious effect on short-term memory, with all its attendant disadvantages, is well known. The physical disadvantages of cannabis are less well described. Young people rarely think about mortality: death is for older age groups. They may worry, or claim to worry, about the long-term effects of pesticides, food additives, exhaust pollution and eating the right sort of fat (in the more extreme cases, no fat at all), but they prefer to ignore that even in the short term, cannabis can be a killer. Twenty years ago M.B. Holmberg presented statistics based on a study of 1,000 16-year-olds that showed that those who had been regular cannabis smokers at that time were five to eight times more likely to have died over the following ten years. Not only were they more likely to have ended up at the undertakers but there was a greater probability that they had spent time in hospital or under the care of doctors or social workers. They had a greater incidence of disease and social problems. In Holmberg?s study 10 per cent of the regular cannabis smokers at the age of 16 were recognised as suffering from a psychosis during the ten-year follow-up period. Much of the excess mortality in young cannabis-takers occurred among the psychotic patients who obviously were prone to suicide and accidental death. A study has shown that even in the early 1980s, when cannabis wasn?t as strong as it is now, someone who smoked cannabis once every ten days ran nearly two-and-a-half times the risk of being involved in a road accident. A later survey has put the risk of road accidents greater than this. D.H. Gieringer, writing on marijuana, driving and accident safety in The Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, suggests that the true figure of accident-proneness in driving is three to five times that of those who do not use cannabis regularly. This was demonstrated to me many years ago when I was working with drug-dependent patients. I was to speak in a debate opposing the legalisation of cannabis. My opponent, a university lecturer of great charm, offered to give me a lift to the debating hall because he wanted to demonstrate how cannabis smoking did not affect driving. After a terror-inducing drive, which could compete in the nonchalance stakes with a French taxi driver?s, he abandoned the car ? parking would not be the right word ? feet from the pavement. He was happy with his performance. ?There you are, Tom,? he said, ?I told you it would be nothing like driving with someone who has been drinking.? Not all the excess deaths of regular cannabis-takers, as opposed to non-smokers, can be attributed to suicide and accidents. Cannabis has been commonly smoked in Western society for only the past 40 years or so, so its long-term effect as a cancer inducer has until recently been conjectural. It is known that there is twice as much tar in cannabis as in tobacco, and there is evidence that this tar is carcinogenic. Tests have shown that most cannabis smokers President Clinton is the obvious exception aim to inhale deeply and to retain the smoke for as long as possible. As a result of these two factors, a person who smokes a joint rather than a cigarette will ingest four times as much tar. It is not therefore surprising that not only does the tissue of cannabis smokers show pre-malignant changes but that there is now evidence of an increased incidence of many cancers. Research workers at New York?s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre, one of the top ten cancer centres in the world, found that on average regular smokers of cannabis were 30 times more likely to develop cancer of the neck, throat, mouth and larynx than those who never inhale marijuana. Other research in the early 1990s demonstrated that these tumours appear between ten and 30 years earlier than in non-cannabis takers. These cancers struck more often and at an earlier age in cannabis smokers than in other people. The Sloan-Kettering researchers analysed their statistics. The response, as would be expected, was dose-related. The risk of head and neck cancer was doubled by smoking any marijuana, and those who smoked more than a joint a day increased the incidence by five times. If they also smoked cigarettes, as most did, the incidence of head and neck cancers increased 36 times. Cigarettes and cannabis are a deadly mixture. The Sloan-Kettering researchers, like those from the Swedish National Institute of Public Health, had no doubts about the ability of cannabis to induce cancer of the lungs, mouth, pharynx (throat) and larynx (voice box). In all probability, it also increases cancer of the oesophagus. Workers on psychoactive drugs have also studied the effects of cannabis on the heart and cardiovascular system. They have shown that when patients are stoned they suffer palpitations, cardiac arrhythmias and a drop in blood pressure that may, for instance, induce dizziness when they stand up. In a fit young person the general view is that these changes are more likely to be inconvenient and disturbing than dangerous. There have been one or two cases of heart attacks recorded in young people after heavy cannabis use, but they were not shown to be necessarily the result of the heavy cannabis use. The news is less encouraging for those who smoked cannabis in the 1960s and 1970s and have never given it up. They should not be too sanguine about its effect on their ageing cardiovascular systems. Older people with heart disease or high blood pressure have been shown to be adversely affected by smoking cannabis. Whenever cannabis and hormones are discussed, the story is usually told of a young Swedish patient who had started smoking cannabis before he was 12. He was a heavy cannabis smoker by the time he was 16. The boy was undersized, had no pubic hair, small testicles and an underdeveloped penis. His testosterone levels were abnormally low for a boy of his age. He stopped smoking and it was as if a miracle had happened. He grew, his testosterone levels returned to normal and once again he could go proudly into the communal showers after PE. This is only a single case and has therefore little scientific value, but it is a good illustration of an extreme example of the changes that can follow heavy smoking of cannabis. Men who smoke too much cannabis may well, for instance, develop heavy breasts. When I was working in Whitechapel a Rastafarian told me that he could notice no difference between alcohol and a spliff. ?You drink whisky, doctor, and become impotent; I take ganga and become impotent. The only difference is that I get red eyes and you don?t.? He was right about the whisky, and the red eyes, but knew nothing about my sex life ? it was in pre-prostatectomy days. To judge from my chats with heavy cannabis takers, it seems that though they claimed the drug enhanced sexual sensations, in many cases it also reduced potency. It is known that heavy doses of cannabis can induce foetal malformations in animals. There has been much argument about whether it also causes an increase in stillbirth and foetal abnormality rate in human beings. At present, the case for this could be described only as unproven, but it reduces sperm counts, and when there is so much worry from the green movement about the reduction in sperm counts over the past century, it would seem a pity to hasten the process. Summary In summary, the active ingredient of cannabis (marijuana) is THC. When inhaled it is absorbed into the bloodstream, causing various pharmacological ill-effects including increased risk of cancer, heart attack, psychosis and infertility, mood and personality changes, disruption of concentration and memory, and impaired mental and physical judgement. There is no ?safe? way to smoke cannabis; its effects are in proportion to the amount of THC inhaled and absorbed. Modern forms of cannabis are as much as ten times stronger than they were thirty years ago, and specially treated forms of cannabis like ?skunk? are particularly potent. Cannabis increases the risk of heart attack In the hour after smoking a standard-sized joint the chances of having a heart attack are increased 4.8-fold. There are two contributing factors. The first is that marijuana increases the heart rate, increasing the heart?s demand for oxygen while diminishing the amount of oxygen the blood delivers. Blood pressure usually increases too. The effects on the heart of smoking a joint are similar to those of strenuous physical exertion and greater than those of sexual intercourse. The second factor contributing to heart attack is marijuana?s effect on plaque – fatty material that collects inside the coronary arteries. Cannabis softens lumps of plaque and the envelope surrounding them and weakens their adherence to the artery wall. The dual effects of cannabis ? increasing the heart rate while softening plaque ? make it more likely that a lump of plaque will rupture and break away. This is a heart attack (coronary thrombosis). Cannabis increases the risk of cancer According to Professor Li Mao, Professor of Medicine at the University of Texas? M D Anderson Cancer Center, cannabis is a more potent carcinogen than tobacco. In terms of carcinogenic effect, one joint of cannabis is equivalent to five cigarettes. Smoking one joint of cannabis a day increases the chances of developing a head and neck cancer between two and threefold. Smoking more than one joint a day increases the risk nearly fivefold. The combined effect of smoking cannabis and smoking tobacco is greater than the sum of the two considered individually. For a heavy smoker who uses cannabis the risk of getting head and neck cancer increases by a factor of x36. The risk of lung cancer is also higher for users of both cannabis and tobacco, although the increase in risk is not as great as that for head and neck cancer. Cannabis affects the pulmonary bronchial tree in the same way as tobacco, but to a greater extent. The time period before cancerous changes appear is shorter. The effect of cannabis on the brain Cannabis produces psychological addiction and some physical addiction. Inhaling cannabis produces a state of euphoria in people whose mood is already positive. Physical and mental judgement and fine movements are impaired, with implications for tasks like driving. In a flight simulator study, pilots showed decreased capability 24 hours after smoking a joint, although they were not aware of any deficit. Anecdotal evidence from teachers suggests concentration, memory and learning are impaired in adolescents who smoke cannabis. Cannabis and mental illness The link between cannabis and psychosis has been known for more than 40 years. Sir William Paton, Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology at Oxford University, taught that cannabis could precipitate psychosis in those made vulnerable by genetic factors, for instance being a carrier of the schizophrenia gene. Personality changes can become apparent in cannabis users regardless of genetic inheritance. They my become inflexible and predictable in their thought patterns, lose their ability to plan their time, may become paranoid and often lose insight. A Swedish study showed that cannabis users who committed suicide were more likely to end their lives in a violent way than to overdose. Cannabis and reproduction One study found that 20 percent of young male cannabis users suffered some degree or erectile dysfunction. Cannabis users also have a reduction in their sperm count, and up to a third of regular, moderately heavy cannabis users are infertile. Effects of cannabis on the unborn baby have not been conclusively established but many in the medical profession believe the babies of female cannabis users are smaller, less bright and less well coordinated than their peers. Conclusion Most of us with children and grandchildren whose own opinions on the legalisation of cannabis weren?t formed by its widespread use in undergraduate days will continue to worry about its psychological and neurological effects. We should never forget that cannabis induces both physical and mental changes in humans.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 12:22pm
kowtow

Laworder,longknives.
I saw that and sadly wasn’t surprised.More proof of the exitence of an elite in this “egalitarian “society of ours.

But then we’re probably part of the 80 % who are always being ignored by the political class (parental discipline referendum)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 12:23pm
meh

heh, labour have just announced they would raise the retirement age….

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5862270/Labour-to-lift-retirement-age

suddenly I realize how they are planning on paying for their very expensive promises…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 12:23pm
Elaycee

@RightNow – V-e-r-y good! 😀
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 12:31pm
philu

lucia said..”..I don’t believe that babies should be forcibly taken from single parents – where on earth did you get that idea from?..”

..from the/your far-right christian memes…that is a favourite…

..are you seriously telling me this is first you have heard of such an idea..

..the ‘forcing’ you favour..is the removal of any state support from said sole-parents..

..thus making it impossible to raise their children..

..and in step the hetero-christian-couple..

..and re the pope thing…

..i really think such a momentous/paradigm-change-advocating statement from rome..

..is not just the issue of a minor official…

…it is far more considered than that..

..and as the world media has been reporting it thus…

..(and it has received wide-coverage..)

..if it were untrue..

..a correcting statement wd have come from the vatican..

..you’d think..?

..and a fascinating-fact that came out in that interview with harawira that farrar posted..

..is that there is only one catholic priest in new zealand…who is maori..

…whoar..!..eh..?

..do you know how/why that would be..?

..if not an issue of institutional/endemic-racism..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 12:32pm
RightNow

Some basic facts about Marijuana

BASIC FACTS ABOUT DRUGS:
MARIJUANA

What is Marijuana?

Call it pot, grass, weed, or any one of nearly 200 other names, marijuana is, by far, the world’s most commonly used illicit drug—and far more dangerous than most users realize. So, there is just cause for alarm when adolescent marijuana use increases, as it did in the mid-1990’s, and the age at which youngsters first experiment with pot starts to drops.

Marijuana has been around for a long while. Its source, the hemp plant (cannabis sativa), was being cultivated for psychoactive properties more than 2,000 years ago. Although cannabis contains at least 400 different chemicals, its main mind-altering ingredient is THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol).The amount of THC in marijuana determines the drug’s strength, and THC levels are affected by a great many factors, including plant type, weather, soil, and time of harvest. Sophisticated cannabis cultivation of today produces high levels of THC and marijuana that is far more potent than pot of the past. THC content of marijuana, which averaged less than 1 percent in 1974, rose to an average 4 percent by 1994.

For the highly popular form of marijuana called Sinsemilla (from the Spanish “without seeds”), made from just the buds and flowering tops of female plants, THC content averages 7.5 percent and ranges as high as 24 percent. As for hashish, a resin made from flowers of the female plant, THC levels may be five to ten times higher than crude marijuana’s.

How is it Used?

Marijuana and other cannabis products are usually smoked, sometimes in a pipe or water pipe, but most often in loosely rolled cigarettes known as “joints.” Some users will slice open and hollow out cigars, replacing the tobacco with marijuana, to make what are called “blunts.” Joints and blunts may be laced with other substances, including crack cocaine and the potent hallucinogen phencyclidine (PCP), substantially altering effects of the drug.

Smoking, however, is not the sole route of administration. Marijuana can be brewed into tea or mixed in baked products (cookies or brownies).

How Does it Affect You?

A mild hallucinogen, marijuana has some of alcohol’s depressant and disinhibiting properties. User reaction, however, is heavily influenced by expectations and past experience, and many first-time users feel nothing at all.

Effects of smoking are generally felt within a few minutes and peak in 10 to 30 minutes. They include dry mouth and throat, increased heart rate, impaired coordination and balance, delayed reaction time, and diminished short-term memory. Moderate doses tend to induce a sense of well-being and a dreamy state of relaxation that encourages fantasies, renders some users highly suggestible, and distorts perception (making it dangerous to operate machinery, drive a car or boat, or ride a bicycle). Stronger doses prompt more intense and often disturbing reactions including paranoia and hallucinations.

Most of marijuana’s short-term effects wear off within two or three hours. The drug itself, however, tends to linger on. THC is a fat-soluble substance and will accumulate in fatty tissues in the liver, lungs, testes, and other organs. Two days after smoking marijuana, one-quarter of the THC content may still be retained. It will show up in urine tests three days after use, and traces may be picked up by sensitive blood tests two to four weeks later.

The Impact on the Mind

Marijuana use reduces learning ability. Research has been piling up of late demonstrating clearly that marijuana limits the capacity to absorb and retain information. A 1995 study of college students discovered that the inability of heavy marijuana users to focus, sustain attention, and organize data persists for as long as 24 hours after their last use of the drug. Earlier research, comparing cognitive abilities of adult marijuana users with non-using adults, found that users fall short on memory as well as math and verbal skills. Although it has yet to be proven conclusively that heavy marijuana use can cause irreversible loss of intellectual capacity, animal studies have shown marijuana-induced structural damage to portions of the brain essential to memory and learning.

The Impact on the Body

Chronic marijuana smokers are prey to chest colds, bronchitis, emphysema, and bronchial asthma. Persistent use will damage lungs and airways and raise the risk of cancer. There is just as much exposure to cancer-causing chemicals from smoking one marijuana joint as smoking five tobacco cigarettes. And there is evidence that marijuana may limit the ability of the immune system to fight infection and disease.

Marijuana also affects hormones. Regular use can delay the onset of puberty in young men and reduce sperm production. For women, regular use may disrupt normal monthly menstrual cycles and inhibit ovulation. When pregnant women use marijuana, they run the risk of having smaller babies with lower birth weights, who are more likely than other babies to develop health problems. Some studies have also found indications of developmental delays in children exposed to marijuana before birth.

Marijuana as Medicine

Although U.S. law classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance (which means it has no acceptable medical use), a number of patients claim that smoking pot has helped them deal with pain or relieved the symptoms of glaucoma, the loss of appetite that accompanies AIDS, or nausea caused by cancer chemotherapy. There is, however, no solid evidence that smoking marijuana creates any greater benefits than approved medications (including oral THC) now used to treat these patients, relieve their suffering, or mitigate the side effects of their treatment. Anecdotal assertions of beneficial effects have yet to be confirmed by controlled scientific research.

Teens and Marijuana
Although dangers exist for marijuana users of all ages, risk is greatest for the young. For them, the impact of marijuana on learning is critical, and pot often proves pivotal in the failure to master vital interpersonal coping skills or make appropriate life-style choices. Thus, marijuana can inhibit maturity.

Another concern is marijuana’s role as a “gateway drug,” which makes subsequent use of more potent and disabling substances more likely. The Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University found adolescents who smoke pot 85 times more likely to use cocaine than their non–pot smoking peers. And 60 percent of youngsters who use marijuana before they turn 15 later go on to use cocaine.

But many teens encounter serious trouble well short of the “gateway.” Marijuana is, by itself, a high-risk substance for adolescents. More than adults, they are likely to be victims of automobile accidents caused by marijuana’s impact on judgment and perception. Casual sex, prompted by compromised judgment or marijuana’s disinhibiting effects, leaves them vulnerable not only to unwanted pregnancy but also to sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

Marijuana Dangers

Impaired perception
Diminished short-term memory
Loss of concentration and coordination
Impaired judgement
Increased risk of accidents
Loss of motivation
Diminished inhibitions
Increased heart rate
Anxiety, panic attacks, and paranoia
Hallucinations
Damage to the respiratory, reproductive, and immune systems
Increased risk of cancer
Psychological dependency
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 12:35pm
RightNow

Elaycee, it’s my mission of the day to educate 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 12:37pm
philu

brilliant syncronicity in yr 12.22 posting there rightnow..

..yr ‘dense/incomprehensible-thicket of words’ arriving at exactly at the time of my riff on formatting/use of language/punctuation..

..heh..!

..couldn’t be a more potent example of what i am fighting against..

.chrs for that..

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 12:38pm
philu

sigh..!..a lie-filled anti-pot polemic..

..do i really have to deconstruct it ..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 12:40pm
big bruv

Phool

How many of the 733 minimum wage jobs advertised in the Auckland area have you applied for today?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 12:40pm
RightNow

Charles V. Giannasio
Physician (Addiction Psychiatry, Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis)
Founding member, Amer. Academy of Addiction Psychiatry
Fellow, College of Physicians, Philadelphia

“…marijuana is a dangerous drug. It must not be seen as benign. It cannot be considered as anything but an abusable and addictive drug.

The adverse health effects marijuana potentially causes are becoming increasingly apparent. People who smoke marijuana are more likely to have wheezing, exercise-related shortness of breath, chest tightness, morning sputum production and some airway obstruction.

The more marijuana used, the more likely the risk of developing head and neck cancer. Its smoke contains 50% to 70% more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Deficits in memory, manual dexterity and sustained attention have been shown to persist for days or weeks after the last use of marijuana. While regularly smoking these problems are likely to be continuous. Marijuana has been shown to impair perception, speed of motion and accuracy in tasks. When THC (the psychoactive ingredient of marijuana) levels increase in the blood, the probable responsibility for motor vehicle accidents increases. An estimated 9% of those who use marijuana will become addicted to it.

These findings speak for themselves: marijuana is not a benign substance. It has real adverse health effects. Marijuana addiction is a reality.

Marijuana has the potential to interfere with an adolescent’s emotional, cognitive and ethical growth. People in recovery often note that they stopped maturing when they first started using drugs. This observation is supported by the facts of their lives and the observations of family, friends and professionals working with them.

Even when not using on a daily basis, planning to obtain, obtaining, using, recovering from the effects and dealing with the consequences can be at best a distraction and at worst disabling. Marijuana and the activity surrounding it can occupy ever-increasing time and energy, taking the teen away from everyday growth-enhancing experiences. When a person has been caught up in substance use throughout their adolescence, he or she finds when trying to rebuild their lives, they have no foundation from which to start. They have to create themselves and their life anew.

What benefit could marijuana provide that would justify the risk of such pain and hardship?

Young or old, the use of marijuana easily drains energy and motivation from a regular, not necessarily daily, user. The person still performs the various roles of life, but they are not fully present. Family and friends observe this and feel a real loss. The marijuana user may complain that he or she is helpless to stop, lack motivation and are prevented from using their abilities and talents to their fullest. Or they might just deny that anything is wrong.

We must not allow ourselves to be lulled into thinking that marijuana is somehow safe because it is “not as bad” as other drugs or alcohol. This drug should be measured on the basis of its own destructive effects and not by a false comparison with other substances.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 12:44pm
Lucia Maria

Phil,

I don’t believe in the removal of state support from sole parents. However, I do think that all the issues around creating such parents need to be looked at, thus reducing the number of sole parents. Because as you know, it’s not optimal for children to be raised by just one parent – they deserve two that stay together and love each other and do what they can to provide the best for their child or children.

As for the world media reporting on the Vatican paper – the world media does not “get” the Vatican. Most reporters are not religiously literate, nor do they follow Vatican trends, nor do they understand Vatican politics. Read something by some one like George Weigel, if you want to understand what the actual story is when the world-wide media goes bonkers with something or other. And have a look at this article : The Pope vs the Vatican to see how the Vatican and the Pope are not always aligned.

I don’t know about how many Maori Catholic priests there are – I do know there are quite a few that speak and promote Maori. There aren’t that many Catholic priests full stop in New Zealand anymore – could have something do with promoting political aims and forgetting about their primary role of being priests. There’s a lot of that going around right now.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 1:45pm
Manolo

Why doesn’t Labour lite reduce taxes instead and let us spend our own money?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5861591/Nats-extend-free-healthcare-for-under-sixes
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 2:19pm
Manolo

Meanwhile the Messiah learns from spineless) NZ politicians: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/26/obama-taps-taxpayers-for-student-stimulus/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 2:22pm
Manolo

Interesting article on flaring tempers at EU meetings: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/26/us-eurozone-crisis-strains-idUSTRE79P68O20111026
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 2:29pm
RightNow

Manolo, tempers also flaring in Italian parliament over pension reforms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2u7Osh0diM
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 2:35pm
Lee01

@ philu

anyone can say whatever they like to/at me

Your whining. And being hypocritical. You blasted me as a “racist” for supporting the same military action that Obama does. You launch personal attacks at every opportunity. Hardly surprising you got demerits for it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 3:13pm
redeye

I see that famous druggie Amy Winehouse was killed by the worst of all drugs. Alcohol. Drank herself to death apparently. Rightnow and Bruv’s alter ego Elaycee will be campaigning for the prohibition of that now I’d guess.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 3:28pm
laworder

peterwn wrote

Judging by ads that appear in Kiwiblog, market research seems to indicate that Kiwiblog readers are possible purchasers of Beemers.

I am a possible purchaser of a BMW 🙂 – a friend offered me his 1987 318 for a few hundy, its in better condition than my Mitsi, and has lower ks and doesnt burn as much oil, but its got no WOF or rego. Think I’ll stick with the thing I’ve got, better the devil I know even if its tired, at least its road legal.

Regards
Peter J
Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 3:34pm
RightNow

redeye, I’m a keen home brewer and happily enjoy the outputs of my labour. Feel free to post research you find about the perils of alcohol, I happen to be a firm believer in freedom of speech. I’m also a believer in freedom of listening, so don’t expect me to take any notice 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 3:42pm
redeye

Maybe I misunderestimated what you were campaigning for there. I thought you were saying Marijuana is not completely safe so therefore the government should prevent it’s use?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 3:48pm
philu

“..However, I do think that all the issues around creating such parents need to be looked at, thus reducing the number of sole parents…”

..and these are..?

“..Because as you know, it’s not optimal for children to be raised by just one parent – ”

well..just looking at the result of a sole-parent upbringing..he is looking pretty ‘optimal’..

..(he has just told me i minute ago he has minimal more to achieve to ‘pass with merit’..

..(whatever that means..i need a translator for school reports..and am always none the wiser on the specifics..

..but i know that it/merit sounds good..and he confirmed it is good..so..?..)

..it is the quality of the parenting..not the number/gender of the parent…eh..?

..and to force those doing that sole-job..into penury…with the impact being in the main on the children is short-sighted on so many levels..

(i have neither the time nor the inclination to go thru them again..)

..our quality of life here in new zealand has been rated as ‘mediocre’ at best..

..and for a lot..thru the policies of successive lab/nat-govts…

..it is much more mediocre than for others…

..but lucia..those poverty-creating policies are policies you support..

..seemingly based on some rightwing take on what christianity is..

.and your dismissal of the pope becoming an occupier-supporter..

..only sorta confirms some deep degree of denial..

..of both what he has said..or had said in his name..

..and of the dictates/guidances of yr catholicism..

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 3:50pm
nasska

RightNow

Your serial homily about the supposed dangers of the demon weed has lost its audience…they’re all over at the “Marriage” forum having decided that they would rather be not sodomised as opposed to being not stoned.

Different strokes for different folks & pass the joint around…I’ll settle for my addled mind & you can keep your cirrhosis of the liver.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 3:53pm
philu

and i’ll give you all a parenting tip for free..

..when he was about 11..i sat him down..and said i wanted to make a deal/arrangement with him..

..the deal was that he could have total control of how he spent his time outside school hours..

..he could choose when to play games/do homework/study etc…whatever..

..his side of the deal was that for that situation to continue..

..that he had to continue to get excellent school reports..

..any slippage and a regime would be imposed..

..the end result is that i have never had to nag him about study/homework etc..

..and he has had control of managing his time/priorities etc since then..

..and in hindsight..i think that managing-priorities lessons learnt is pretty valuable to/for him…

..and if ya can..it’s a good one to swing..

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 3:58pm
RightNow

redeye and nasska, frankly I have no problem with people consuming whatever they want, provided they’re prepared to wear the costs themselves. The intended audience is singular and present, and neither of you are it. Now please forgive me, I have some more to post.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 4:09pm
RightNow

Marijuana is the most commonly abused illicit drug in the United States. It is a dry, shredded green and brown mix of flowers, stems, seeds, and leaves derived from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa. The main active chemical in marijuana is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC for short.
How is Marijuana Abused?

Marijuana is usually smoked as a cigarette (joint) or in a pipe. It is also smoked in blunts, which are cigars that have been emptied of tobacco and refilled with a mixture of marijuana and tobacco. This mode of delivery combines marijuana’s active ingredients with nicotine and other harmful chemicals. Marijuana can also be mixed in food or brewed as a tea. As a more concentrated, resinous form, it is called hashish; and as a sticky black liquid, hash oil.* Marijuana smoke has a pungent and distinctive, usually sweet-and-sour odor.

How Does Marijuana Affect the Brain?

Scientists have learned a great deal about how THC acts in the brain to produce its many effects. When someone smokes marijuana, THC rapidly passes from the lungs into the bloodstream, which carries the chemical to the brain and other organs throughout the body.

THC acts upon specific sites in the brain, called cannabinoid receptors, kicking off a series of cellular reactions that ultimately lead to the “high” that users experience when they smoke marijuana. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors; others have few or none. The highest density of cannabinoid receptors are found in parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thinking, concentrating, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement.1

Not surprisingly, marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Research has shown that, in chronic users, marijuana’s adverse impact on learning and memory can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off.2 As a result, someone who smokes marijuana every day may be functioning at a suboptimal intellectual level all of the time.

Research into the effects of long-term cannabis use on the structure of the brain has yielded inconsistent results. It may be that the effects are too subtle for reliable detection by current techniques. A similar challenge arises in studies of the effects of chronic marijuana use on brain function. Brain imaging studies in chronic users tend to show some consistent alterations, but their connection to impaired cognitive functioning is far from clear. This uncertainty may stem from confounding factors such as other drug use, residual drug effects, or withdrawal symptoms in long-term chronic users.

Addictive Potential

Long-term marijuana abuse can lead to addiction; that is, compulsive drug seeking and abuse despite the known harmful effects upon functioning in the context of family, school, work, and recreational activities. Estimates from research suggest that about 9 percent of users become addicted to marijuana; this number increases among those who start young (to about 17 percent) and among daily users (25-50 percent).

Long-term marijuana abusers trying to quit report withdrawal symptoms including: irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which can make it difficult to remain abstinent. These symptoms begin within about 1 day following abstinence, peak at 2-3 days, and subside within 1 or 2 weeks following drug cessation.3

Marijuana and Mental Health

A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia. Some of these studies have shown age at first use to be an important risk factor, where early use is a marker of increased vulnerability to later problems. However, at this time, it is not clear whether marijuana use causes mental problems, exacerbates them, or reflects an attempt to self-medicate symptoms already in existence.

Chronic marijuana use, especially in a very young person, may also be a marker of risk for mental illnesses – including addiction – stemming from genetic or environmental vulnerabilities, such as early exposure to stress or violence. Currently, the strongest evidence links marijuana use and schizophrenia and/or related disorders.4 High doses of marijuana can produce an acute psychotic reaction; in addition, use of the drug may trigger the onset or relapse of schizophrenia in vulnerable individuals.

What Other Adverse Effect Does Marijuana Have on Health?

Effects on the Heart
Marijuana increases heart rate by 20-100 percent shortly after smoking; this effect can last up to 3 hours. In one study, it was estimated that marijuana users have a 4.8-fold increase in the risk of heart attack in the first hour after smoking the drug.5 This may be due to increased heart rate as well as the effects of marijuana on heart rhythms, causing palpitations and arrhythmias. This risk may be greater in aging populations or in those with cardiac vulnerabilities.

Effects on the Lungs
Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer;6 however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers.7 Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.

Nonetheless, marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, and a heightened risk of lung infections. A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers.8 Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

Effects on Daily Life
Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana has the potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person’s existing problems worse. In one study, heavy marijuana abusers reported that the drug impaired several important measures of life achievement, including physical and mental health, cognitive abilities, social life, and career status.9 Several studies associate workers’ marijuana smoking with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers’ compensation claims, and job turnover.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 4:10pm
philu

yawn..!..

..cd someone pass me that joint..?

“..The intended audience is singular and present..”

..and if you mean me..you are pissing into the wind..eh..?

..like i said b4 ..i can’t b bothered..

.eh..?

..and i haven’t even speed-read them..

..lest something is so outragous i can’t help but reply..

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 4:15pm
philu

btw..if you go up to yr 12.22…and scroll it up and down..fast..

..you’ll get high..

..eh..?

i just tried it..

..whoar..!

..it puts the psyc in psychedelic…eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 4:20pm
Elaycee

“Rightnow and Bruv’s alter ego Elaycee will be campaigning for the prohibition of that now I’d guess.”

Wrong guess on several fronts – quelle surprise.

Alcohol is legal and when consumed appropriately and in moderation, is fine. The last stats I saw confirmed that approx 95-96% of the population don’t have a problem with alcohol when consumed in moderation. The remaining 4-5% are free to get professional help funded courtesy of the considerable ALAC levies paid by all importers and manufacturers (and passed on to all consumers).

Why should the anti social behaviour of ~4% of the population who can’t handle alcohol, stop the rest of us from having a glass of wine with a meal? Or having a beer at the rugby?

After all, alcohol is legal. For grown ups.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 4:23pm
RightNow

I think my position is quite reasonable Elaycee, that I have no objection to adults consuming anything they want, provided they can fund it (and any consequences) themselves. Beneficiaries shouldn’t be drinking alcohol or smoking marijuana – if they can afford to do so they’re overpaid.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 4:29pm
thedavincimode

“all i get is a stream of abuse..over something i did 35 fucken years ago..”

maggie

Thanks for thinking of me 🙂

But lets set the record straight.

To be fair, to be fair, my issue is that you haven’t done anything in the 35 years since.

You appear to believe that it is perfectly acceptable.

I believe that it is not acceptable and that you have no intention of ever doing anything to help yourself.

Children stop being babies. They get to go to school and later they are old enough to be trusted to be at home by themselves without burning the house down. You know that. I know that. The couples who both work know that and the solo parents who work know that too.

You claim to be part of the 99% in your latest political incarnation. In reality, you are part of the 90% – the St Paul’s 90%, who protest and wail but can’t even be relied upon to turn up.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 4:31pm
graham

philu, you might be happy to hear that I agree with you on one count – that a parent should indeed be at home for school-age children. And, fortunately, my wife and I have achieved this very simply – I work, she stays at home with our daughter.

But I cannot agree with your implication that a sole parent is as good as the more traditional two-parent model. You simply cannot achieve the same degree of care, attention, and discipline, and still remain sane. Furthermore, a child needs a mother and father. (Not two fathers. Not two mothers. Don’t even go there.) A mother provides unique nurture and care that a father does not, and vice versa.

The traditional two-parent model is still the best. All others fall short.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 4:43pm
redeye

I’m surprised Elaycee, I could have sworn you were one in the same. Share the same brain cell perhaps?

I’d be like Bruv to argue the reason the law can’t be changed is because it’s the law.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 4:49pm
Weihana

For anyone interested in excellent documentaries I suggest the PBS documentary on Prohibition in the United States

http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/

The parallels between those who in times past campaigned against alcohol and those today campaigning against other drugs like marijuana are striking. Just take Elaycee for instance who thinks executing drug users is just fine. Elaycee echoes the same sentiments of people like Wayne Wheeler of the anti-saloon league who had no problem with alcohol drinkers being poisoned to death through alcohol tainted by the government to discourage alcohol use.

The truth is one cannot deny the harm of drugs like marijuana just as one cannot deny the harm of alcohol. It is no coincidence that the anti-alcohol movement was, in large part, spurred by women as it was women who were often on the receiving end of harm induced by alcoholism. Similarly common experience tells us that a person who smokes marijuana all day every day will go nowhere in life. We all know this.

But the harm associated with these drugs due to people who abuse them does not change the failure of prohibition and the PBS documentary quite clearly demonstrates this with reference to alcohol. Prohibition fulls society with scofflaws and hypocrites and we see that with people like Peter Dunne who condemn others to criminal prosecution while thanking their lucky stars they never got caught and had their future ruined by a drug conviction.

The major difference between alcohol prohibition and the modern war on drugs is scale. Alcohol is the drug of choice for far more people than marijuana or any other drug. So the harmful effects of alcohol prohibition, effects which threatened the very survival of democracy in America, became apparent more easily as compared with the war on drugs. However the war on drugs creates the same effects but these effects are partially concealed by having the worst effects largely isolated to poorer communities where the gangs that thrive on the black market operate.

Everytime people like RightNow come and start talking about the harmful effects of marijuana or any other drug they prove, time and again, that they just don’t get it. They demonstrate their striking ignorance of history and their ignorance of why some well intentioned policies simply do not and cannot work.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 4:59pm
RightNow

Weihana, I suggest you have another read through my comments, or to make it easier for you, this in particular:

“I have no objection to adults consuming anything they want, provided they can fund it (and any consequences) themselves.”

You’ve misinterpreted my motive.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 5:09pm
Weihana

philu “..well.. i feel that every sentence/idea deserves the dignity of its’ own line..”

A sentence is not a thing that desires or requires dignity. Its purpose is to convey information in a format understandable by another reader.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 5:09pm
Scott Chris

Well, cyberbullying comes in all shapes and forms.

Seen quite a display of it today.

First we have Elaycee.

You must really have such an abundance of self respect darlin’. Certainly shines through in your kind, thoughtful and generous personality.

Then we have Big Bruv. What a paragon of tolerance, virtue and radiant inner beauty.

And following up the rear, we have thedavincimode, with his gentle witticisms and thoughtful remonstrations.

You must be *so* proud of yourselves.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 5:21pm
Weihana

RightNow (3,290) Says:
October 27th, 2011 at 5:09 pm

You’ve misinterpreted my motive.

Fair enough if that’s your view but I think the effect of your posts is the same and, while I didn’t read them all, I noted that some of the quotes were from people who offered such reasons as justification for prohibition.

“I have no objection to adults consuming anything they want, provided they can fund it (and any consequences) themselves.”

You’re saying these drugs can be legal only if abusers fund the consequences themselves. This suggests that under prohibition society is free from costs imposed by drug abusers. This is not the case. Enforcement is a huge cost. Moreover, in any liberal society useless people are always going to receive assistance when they stuff up regardless of whether or not it’s their own fault.

To say your policy is going to depend on whether people pay for their drug abuse themselves is a head in the sand approach. It simply ignores the fact that people who abuse drugs, be it alcohol or marijuana, will never pay the full cost themselves. The relevant question is how do we minimize harm. The overwhelming evidence is that prohibition creates more harm than it prevents.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 5:29pm
Elaycee

Weihana – I take it that the liquor industry will not be featuring in your thesis!

“The truth is one cannot deny the harm of drugs like marijuana just as one cannot deny the harm of alcohol.” The truth? Hardly. Its an opinion – a big difference. Alcohol in moderation is fine. And its legal.

But the comment “…drinkers being poisoned to death through alcohol tainted by the government to discourage alcohol use” is laughable.

Tainted by the government? Can you please provide the evidence.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 5:29pm
Scott Chris

Amy Winehouse dies of……….Alcohol poisoning. Not pot… no one has ever died of pot poisoning.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/music/5859712/Winehouse-five-times-over-limit

But that’s okay, cause it’s legal eh. Quite respectable really, and the pickling process is already underway. Saves the embalmer a bit of work.

Ahh, the lass came right in the end.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 5:35pm
redeye

Alcohol in moderation is fine

As is pot.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 5:40pm
graham

And now for something completely different …

I have heard a lot recently about a proposed “financial transactions tax”, where financial transactions have a levy or a tax imposed on them. Also known as the “Robin Hood” tax. Even the Mana Party have proposed it, which has scared the life out of me, because I automatically assume anything they like must be bat-sh*t crazy.

But the figures being mentioned sound like they could work. 0.05% tax on financial transactions, and supposedly the sums involved in financial transactions are so huge that this relatively tiny tax would generate significant revenue.

I must be missing something. Does anybody who is even slightly more financially literate than me have any insights into this proposal?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 5:44pm
Weihana

Elaycee,

Alcohol in moderation is fine. And its legal.

Marijuana consumption in moderation is also fine and it should be legal as well. Even for drugs that can’t practicably be used in moderation, such as meth, the harm is not minimized by prohibition.

But the comment “…drinkers being poisoned to death through alcohol tainted by the government to discourage alcohol use” is laughable.

Tainted by the government? Can you please provide the evidence.

Yes your ignorance of history is laughable. Well it would be if you didn’t vote.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/02/the_chemists_war.single.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 5:45pm
Elaycee

@RightNow says: “Beneficiaries shouldn’t be drinking alcohol or smoking marijuana – if they can afford to do so they’re overpaid.”

Yup. Bring on a voucher system for anyone receiving a taxpayer funded payment.

Food – tick. Vegies – tick. Fruit – tick. Kids shoes – tick. Birth control – tick. Lion Brown – Nah. Lotto – Nah. Casino – Nah.

3, 2, 1….
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 5:47pm
RightNow

Weihana, “You’re saying these drugs can be legal only if abusers fund the consequences themselves.”

Not at all what I’m saying. If they were to be legal (and why stop at marijuana – let’s include cocaine, P, ecstacy, speed, heroin etc.) then they could be sold like alcohol – to adults through licensed outlets, and incur big ass taxes to fund the extra health services. I don’t care if people want to consume them, as long as I’m not subsidising them. Marijuana costs fuck all to grow, especially if you don’t have to worry about hiding the operation from the authorities, so the tax revenue potential is huge.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 5:55pm
nasska

Thing is that there’s a small section of any population who are not seeking relaxation or sociality from drugs be they legal or illegal. For them the goal is oblivion & they’ll get it from whatever is available. Hence if dope is hard to come by they’ll drink alcohol, if that is out of reach there is always aftershave or the neighbour’s cactus garden to boil up for soup.

These are the people that Elaycee & plenty of others see cluttering up the public parks or committing crime under the influence prompting calls for prohibition & bans that never seem to do what they are intended to do. Prohibition doesn’t work…it didn’t for alcohol in the USA in the 20’s & it’s not working now despite the “war on drugs” & the billions tossed down the shitter trying to eradicate recreational drugs from our midst.

Better to do as ‘RightNow’ suggests in his 5.55pm….legalise & tax to pay for any health or social costs in the same manner that alcohol is currently taxed & levied. Then a person’s consumption of drugs is their own business as it ought to be & not that of the Nanny State.

Elaycee

A restricted benefit card or vouchers to direct benefits to food, accommodation, clothing & the upkeep of kids is overdue. I agree entirely.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 6:06pm
Elaycee

Weihana: Whaaat? Talk about selective quotes!

You forgot to mention this ‘key’ part: “They [The US Government] ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits.”

It referred to *industrial* alcohol. Stolen and illegally used / sold as bootleg during the US Prohibition. So the US Government added a nasty to all industrial alcohol. In 1926. Hardly “drinkers being poisoned to death through alcohol tainted by the government to discourage alcohol use.” It was to stop morons drinking industrial alcohol that had been stolen and passed off as a potable product.

FYI – not sure if its still the case, but a few years ago, methylated spirits in NZ contained a purple dye. The reason it had a dye added is because morons in the past used to drink it. Anyone wanting clear methylated spirits had to go to a chemist and purchase ‘surgical meths’.

No different either, to the practice of stopping prisoners in NZ using liquid hand sanitisers for the same reason – the morons actually drink it! Now they only get a gel.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 6:09pm
thedavincimode

Hypocrite: CHECK
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 6:15pm
Joseph Carpenter

Agree RightNow & Naaska. Two other changes are required if drugs are legalized:
1) Employers have an absolute right to demand random drug (incl. alcohol) testing and failing a test is a valid ground for instant dismissal and voiding the employment contract with no challenge possible on process grounds, factual/substantive only. Testing to be mandatory for all State employees direct or under delegation (i.e. incl. MP’s, councils, quangos, teachers, etc).

2) Anyone in receipt of Government dole (including Superannuation or pensions) also to be randomly tested, test failure results in automatic stand-down for 12 months (no appeal) or attendance at applicable drug treatment course with intensive drug testing for twelve months, missing a single session (without good reason)/fail test = 12 month auto stand-down.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 6:21pm
Scott Chris

We’re all hypocrites davin. One thing I don’t do though is choose easy targets.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 6:27pm
nasska

Joseph Carpenter

Alcohol testing is common in most workplaces & generally the unions are not in a hurry to stand up for those who fail tests. Their rationale is that a drugged worker is a hazard to other union members.

Re benefits. As someone who accepts the dole is supposed to be work ready drug testing would be fair enough. I can’t see the advantage in testing someone on National Super….they are not working & not a risk to others which should be the only concern of the state.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 6:35pm
Scott Chris

Joseph Carpenter says:- “Anyone in receipt of Government dole (including Superannuation or pensions)”

I agree and I disagree. Those who are unemployed and who seek financial assistance from society have to accept the terms dictated to them. You can take it or leave it, regardless of how unreasonable the demands may seem to be.

However, those receiving a pension are entitled to do as they wish. What right do you have to dictate to them what they are allowed to do recreationally? They are receiving their tax paid entitlement, not charity.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 6:42pm
Joseph Carpenter

But, but, I thought the whole argument for drug legalization was “harm minimization”, if the state has an opportunity to reduce harm are you saying it shouldn’t do so? That it should pay for people to use drugs and harm themselves? How is this rational? Don’t forget this is completely voluntary, people are under no obligation to accept state money.

Naaska WTF, work drug testing is not commonplace. For starters it’s can only be used where there are direct OSH implications only and actually using it for dismissal is very fraught, even an explicit condition in an employment contract prohibiting drug use will not be grounds for dismissal if process isn’t followed to the absolute T and forget instant dismissal. Don’t believe me read DOL guides, Employer assoc guides, Employment Tribunal rulings, etc. Apparently according to you and the existing law the very real harm of loss of productivity, destroying customer relations, ruining a market image, etc don’t count and are to be borne by the employer.

And Scott Chris – National Superannuation is NOT TAX PAID, example = Philu. The original Old Age Pension of Micky Savage was tax paid, @ 1d6p in the pound (7.5%) and was also strictly vetted on moral grounds for non-payers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 7:11pm
RightNow

I thought the whole argument for drug legalization was “harm minimization”

Sort of. I think of it as the freedom to live peacefully without interference – with the caveat that I’m not harming others.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 7:36pm
nasska

Joseph Carpenter

I admit to not having broad experience with drug & alcohol testing either as an employer or employee. As I’m self employed & the crap I’d have to work through to take on an employee is not worth the hassle most of the regulations don’t affect me. Most of the people I mix with are in the inshore fishing, farming or forestry sector & enforcement of drug testing in the latter is draconian, at least in this district. Point is that most of the forestry gangs don’t want drug addled workmates….the game is risky enough as it is so there is little resistance to testing. If someone fails a test they usually walk themselves.

If you are an employer I can sympathise. Sometimes dotting the i’s & crossing the t’s becomes more important than the reasons behind the process.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 7:44pm
nasska

If you are going to use the “harm minimalisation” argument to advocate for drug testing of pensioners then better add in alcohol testing. The effects are no less damaging so if you are going to save the oldies from one demon might as well include the lot

It would be cheaper too….without drugs or booze the poor old buggers will be topping themselves in record numbers. It’ll save the state untold if they are tucked up in their graves earlier rather than later.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 7:51pm
Steve

Engineers don’t want drug addled workmates either. I wonder if Joseph Carpenter is quite happy in his workplace where the most serious injury would be paper cut.
Ouch! Joe
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 8:10pm
nasska

Ma and Pa were two hillbillies living in West Virginia out on
a farm up in the hills.

Pa has found out that the hole under the outhouse is full.
He goes into the house and tells Ma that he doesn’t know
what to do to empty the hole.

Ma says, “Why don’t you go ask the young’n down the road?
He must be smart ’cause he’s a college gradjyate.”

So Pa drives down to the neighbor’s house and asks him,
“Mr. College gradjyate, my outhouse hole is full, and I don’t
know what to do to empty it.”

The young one tells him, “Get yourself two sticks of dynamite,
one with a short fuse and one with a long fuse. Put them both
under the outhouse and light them both at the same time.

The first one will go off and shoot the outhouse in the air.
While it’s in the air the second one will then go off and spread
the poop all across your farm, fertilizing your ground. The
outhouse should then come back down to the same spot atop
the now-empty hole.”

Pa thanks the neighbor, then drives to the hardware store and
picks up two sticks of dynamite, one with a short fuse and one
with a long fuse.

He goes home and puts them under the outhouse. He then
lights them and runs behind a tree.

All of a sudden, Ma comes running out of the house and into
the outhouse!

Off goes the first stick of dynamite ….. shooting the outhouse
into the air.

BOOM! Off goes the second stick of dynamite ….. spreading
shit all over the farm.

WHAM! The outhouse comes crashing back down atop the hole.

Pa races to the outhouse, throws open the door and asks,
“Ma, are you all right??!!”

As she pulls up her pants, she says…
“Yeah, but I’m sure glad I didn’t fart in the kitchen.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 8:14pm
Scott Chris

Joseph Carpenter says:- “But, but, I thought the whole argument for drug legalization was “harm minimization”, if the state has an opportunity to reduce harm are you saying it shouldn’t do so?

It depends how you view the role of government, as a Nanny, or as an Expeditor. The Nanny tells you what you should do for your own and other’s good. The Expeditor facilitates the smooth running of society with minimal interference.

The only time the Expeditor will attempt to coerce you into behaving in a certain way is if that action directly or indirectly harms the rest of society in *a significant way*.

The Expeditor assumes that you own your own existence, and that you have the right to enjoy it in the manner you see fit, provided it causes no harm to others.

>>”That it should pay for people to use drugs and harm themselves?”

Firstly, most pensioners have paid tax all their working lives. Let’s focus on them. (You could single out the disabled and recalcitrant and the criminally inclined if you so wish, but I’m talking about the majority.)

They were forced to pay tax in order to provide for the cost of government, which *includes* their non-productive retirement. Part of their taxes are effectively being meted out *back to them*. Any other saving on top of super is their well earned bonus.

Secondly, how far do you wish to go with harm reduction? No smoking? No drinking? No alcohol? No over-eating? Compulsory exercise? How do you plan to police these ideas? With storm troopers?

Thirdly, government interference by way of prohibition has proven to be a spectacular failure. It costs a bomb to enforce, and it is ineffective. All it does do is preserve gang revenue, and provide jobs for the likes of Pauleastbay and clog up the courts and drains more of our financial resources.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 8:28pm
Joseph Carpenter

Naaska I work in Construction where drug testing is relatively common (for large employers and certain segments) but the fact is this not typical across NZ business. Current laws only allows OSH grounds for drug usage and I would estimate this would only cover <10% of NZ employees at most and actually enforcing it is difficult, in fact you really end up having to go for non-attendance, non-performance, damaged work, etc which takes time and real losses as well as the farce of totally ignoring the fact they blatantly voided their own contract with criminal actions.

I guess my real point is that if drugs are legalized (which I support), then other things must also be legalized. If people choose to use drugs they must also accept the responsibility/costs and not expect they are "entitled" for others to bear them.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 8:30pm
Steve

Where is the shitbag full of full stops?
I know he pisses people off big time, but the more complaints, the more likely he will get demerits or just fuck off like he did before. The only reason he is here is FROGBLOG got the shits with him, so now he needs a nanny, someone who will feel his pain.
You will notice that after a direct personal attack, he will change the subject and link back to www.(hore.co.somewhere)

The full stops thing is just a drug induced form of thinking in between part sentences …. dot dot dot hello?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 8:33pm
philu

yes..currently i am at frogblog..

..arguing all the reasons why they have absolutely no mandate to even talk about supporting/joining up with you/nact..

..i am expressing the horror felt by many greens at the very idea..

http://blog.greens.org.nz/2011/10/25/general-debate-october-25-2011/

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 8:39pm
nasska

A man walks towards the bathroom and starts yelling, “Son!
How many times have I told you not to do that? Don’t play
with yourself anymore. Stop it! If you keep doing that,
you’ll go blind!”
The son replied, “I’m over here, Dad, in the hallway.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 8:51pm
RightNow

Bill English endorsing the Greens was brilliant… eh?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 8:54pm
Steve

fail Phool
We all want to see your shit on the Green Blog.
Now I have been waiting for insults. You like to insult in a round about way, insult me, and then insult my grandchildren.

All I can say is I hope you never have Grandchildren because the TAXPAYERS will have to provide.
You useless shitbag
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 8:57pm
Joseph Carpenter

Scott Chris:
Firstly – how nice of you to ignore a sizable minority on my behalf. In fact most Superannuaints are not NETT TAXPAYERS and are not entitled, if only they were we wouldn’t have DPF posting about Labour reducing the cost of super or recently doing a post on the nett benefit payment received by Super payments with age. I made all state payments as requiring testing as consistent and non-discriminatory, if you want Super exempt for arbitrary reasons then why not the Widows benefit, UB etc as indeed the majority have also paid tax for those. Your call, provide a schedule of all those “entitled” and why (or conversely those who not worthy).

Secondly – I wish only to reduce the harm of drug use in return for the legalization of drug use – and by the way it’s others who said “harm minimization” as the rationale for drug legalization – I’m simply calling them on it. I would enforce it as exactly as I stated by random drug testing and stopping the payment of taxpayer money for one year if you don’t get treatment. By the way what enforcement will I receive if I don’t agree to giving the State my money for them to give to druggies to spend on drugs – a visit from stormtroopers?

Thirdly – I totally agree, thats why I never called for prohibition and indeed would like drug decriminalization/legalization. I simply saying that’s not all that is required.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 9:05pm
RightNow

“.i am expressing the horror felt by many greens”

I’m not surprised. marijuana use also causes dissociative identity disorder
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 9:10pm
Weihana

# Elaycee (1,526) Says:
October 27th, 2011 at 6:09 pm

Weihana: Whaaat? Talk about selective quotes!

You forgot to mention this ‘key’ part: “They [The US Government] ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits.”

It referred to *industrial* alcohol. Stolen and illegally used / sold as bootleg during the US Prohibition. So the US Government added a nasty to all industrial alcohol. In 1926. Hardly “drinkers being poisoned to death through alcohol tainted by the government to discourage alcohol use.” It was to stop morons drinking industrial alcohol that had been stolen and passed off as a potable product.

You have not shown any fault with what I said. Drinkers were poisoned? Yes. To death? Yes. From alcohol? Yes. Tainted by the government? Yes. To discourage its use? Yes. They started putting in deadly toxins because millions of gallons were being stolen to supply the nation’s drinkers. While it was undrinkable, chemists were being employed by the bootleggers to make it (somewhat) drinkable.

You can try and pass it off as a noble effort but the fact is that it resulted in thousands of people dying and many prohibitionists of the time, kinda like your attitude today, simply thought that it serves them right. Such is the moral standards of people who think the ends justify any means.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 9:19pm
philu

gramps-steve..

go and have yr cocoa..eh..?

..it’s getting late..

you should be tucked up in bed..

..you dotty/choleric old man..

..phil(whar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 9:21pm
Weihana

RightNow,

…why stop at marijuana – let’s include cocaine, P, ecstacy, speed, heroin etc.) then they could be sold like alcohol – to adults through licensed outlets, and incur big ass taxes to fund the extra health services.

I disagree. While I support the legalization of all drugs for possession, they should all be regulated to differing extents depending on the nature of the drug and whatever regulatory scheme is most effective at reducing harm. Very addictive and harmful drugs, especially P and heroin, should not be sold like alcohol. They should probably be supplied by the government only. Retailers should not be able to sell drugs that generally cannot be used safely or in moderation. Such liberty does not provide any value to society or the individuals that would patron such an establishment. Thus the supply should be controlled by the government where the focus is on harm reduction and medical treatment rather than profit making.

An over the top libertarian approach to drug law reform in my view is not helpful at ending the scourge that is the war on drugs. It plays into the hands of prohibitionists who would justifiably view such an idea as crazy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 9:36pm
Weihana

# Joseph Carpenter (55) Says:
October 27th, 2011 at 6:21 pm

Agree RightNow & Naaska. Two other changes are required if drugs are legalized:
1) Employers have an absolute right to demand random drug (incl. alcohol) testing and failing a test is a valid ground for instant dismissal and voiding the employment contract with no challenge possible on process grounds, factual/substantive only. Testing to be mandatory for all State employees direct or under delegation (i.e. incl. MP’s, councils, quangos, teachers, etc).

I disagree. There should be a basis for any random testing such as safety or performance and it should be specified in the employment contract. Employers should not have the right to invade the privacy of their workers without any basis for concern that their private life influences their work life. If a person is working the checkout at Pak N Save I fail to see what relevance there is whether or not that worker smoked a joint the previous night or whether he took acid and went to a rave on the weekend.

2) Anyone in receipt of Government dole (including Superannuation or pensions) also to be randomly tested, test failure results in automatic stand-down for 12 months (no appeal) or attendance at applicable drug treatment course with intensive drug testing for twelve months, missing a single session (without good reason)/fail test = 12 month auto stand-down.

Great so we fill the streets with drug addicts. Good plan.

I think a better solution would be for the benefit to be given on a government debit card which cannot be used for the purchase of alcohol or any other drugs, or anything that is deemed inappropriate.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 27, 2011 9:44pm

More comments:

1
2
›

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« OU Vote Chat

Cactus visits Occupy Auckland »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
Sharp departure in child poverty approach
Point of Order
Continuous Process Improvement
No Minister
New Zealand government urged to back ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders without equivocation
The Daily Blog
Popuphobia’s Javier Milei Problem
Utopia
Woman of the day
Hompaddock
Open mike 22/11/2024
The Standard
Drawn
No Right Turn
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d