I don’t generally change my mind because someone else thinks something different. If they have some new evidence I reconsider the evidence, but I have seen nothing new yet.

I know you have a low opinion of us, but this post is beneath you. You KNOW we don’t give a rats behind about what people think of us… why ask ?

respectfully
BJ

Read up on Supreme Court Judge James P. Gray. Interesting guy.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/cops_against_the_drug_war/judge_james_p_gray

http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=341461

It is against the law to be under the influence of controlled substances in every state.

“If that is true, why do we continue to prosecute addicted people for taking these drugs, when it would be unconstitutional to prosecute them for their addiction?”

The courts don’t, they prosecute for possession, purchase, and sale.”

Hilarious

Greens have no intention of legalizing “evil” drugs. We just disagree strongly with any characterization of MJ as evil. People who think it is evil need to get their facts straight or their logic circuits checked. There is a wrong answer being obtained. Some of us know from long first hand experience, others have scientific evidence and some of us have both. What do you have?

We know too that pressure was put on NZ to join in the “war on drugs” and make MJ illegal here from Washington. I reckon that for that sort of loyalty we should have a Senator of our own there… at least. The propaganda mill has been churning for ages on this, and it’s easy to get taken in… but when you have the advantage of seeing how the different substances affect people… a lot of that propaganda is so clearly fraudulent as to be laughable… or it would be if people weren’t being thrown in jail behind it.

Here’s a substance for which there is no known lethal dose. You can kill yourself with Aspirin or Alcohol but not with MJ. It is not physically addictive. It does not appear to do anything significantly bad to you.

This is “evil” ???

Is there room left for good???

BJ

The problem the Greens face is that all and sundry are trying to squeeze into the middle ground, even John (Neville Chamberlain) Key is trying to position the Nat’s as a center party.
I note that he is going down the ridiculous PC track of looking for more ethnically diverse candidates, what ever happened to the idea of selecting the best person for the job?

The way I see it the Greens need to try and develop a point of difference if they wish to survive, suggesting that we legalise evil drugs is not going to be a vote winner, come to think of it you should also steer well clear of any more social engineering policy such as S59.

I still believe that animal welfare is the way to go, I did say a few months ago that the Greens should have forced an early election as they risked being squeezed out as the main parties “discovered” Green issues but that advice was not accepted.

I reckon you have a point. I am pretty nervous about the next election given our showing in the last and the liability of S59, and that is what’s advising me at present, but I would’ve expected the support to be even higher than 33%… thought New Zealanders were smarter than that. Which does indeed argue that we can go at it as hard as we like.

Phil… I don’t know that this is the correct place to expect Green MPs to answer questions. I know that I received a polite (if not completely satisfactory) answer from Sue when I wrote to her office and I expect that if I were to post a question to Met it would get answered as well. They are able to “drop in” and so might give the impression (false) that they are available here all the time.

That said, I have accepted Stu’s proposition that it really is a Green issue and one that we may pursue without (it is likely) damaging our position.

I would focus a bit of the argument on the fact that this prohibition was imposed at Washington’s suggestion, as part of their war on drugs, and is working about as well as all the other wars they’ve started. The medical MJ bill, if that’s what we’re pushing to the front, would make a good start. If the folks who go flat out one-issue on MJ were to recognize us as carrying the flag we’d have less trouble with 5%.

respectfully
BJ

Do you have a link to support your 33% comment?, I would love to know how that question was asked.
I refuse to believe that 33% of NZer’s would reply yes to “Do you support our kids being exposed to drugs?”

(about the progress of metirias bill..

why is that such an ‘awkward’ question..?

i have also asked direct questions in response to comments posted here by nandor..got no response..asked again..no response….

(great two-way communication/basic respect..eh..?..)

and am i the only bloody one here who cares about this medical cannabis issue..?

the silence here is feckin’ deafening..

and as for your critique of my writing style/presentation of ideas….?..stuey..?

hey..!..right back at you..!

yes..you do dot your i’s..and cross your t’s..and use capital letters..don’t you stuey..?

aside from that..?..

mm..!!

and..quite happy to stumble to defeat ..are you stuey..?

4%..and rising..?

or will strong green policies from labour and national doom this middle of the road model of a green party to irrelevancy..

and um..!..what would we lose..?..exactly..

imho..the greens still haven’t got over their ‘we’re with them!’ campaign of the last election..

and have spent so many years suppressing the green voices within the party..

in their efforts not to scare the horses..

that we have ended up with a washed-out/insipid model of a green party..

meaning nothing much to anyone..except those grouped around the party leadership..

(who all just seem to have a plan of just holding their breath ’till the next election..

and that one..or more..of them..will become a cabineyt minister..

that is sure as hell how it looks from out here..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

BJ, agreeing with that line of reasoning from BB just means that we will become another grey party, with no points of difference from the others. Which controversial policy of ours will you ditch next?

Phil, playing devils advocate, maybe you are not worthy of being responded to, so long as you continue to aggressively attack fellow participants?

Also I expect it would be easier for people to answer your questions if they were asked in concise posts and not hidden in screeds and screeds of one liner ellipsis-filled rants™.

I reckon that if you don’t receive an answer to your question the first time, that you should assume it has been missed by the intended recipient and politely ask it again. Only after a few attempts to get an answer would I start to be offended or start to form conspiracy theories. You have to accept that the Green MPs have a lot of other things to do apart from reading your every utterance looking for the questions that you have asked in order to answer them. You have to accept that you are not the centre of the universe. Anyways, please don’t shoot the messenger.

that the likes of frog/metiria/nandor..et. al…

refuse to deign to answer reasonable questions…?

posited to them in this forum..?

does it seem to you..as to me..to have more than a tinge of arrogance/contempt/disdain about it..?

as if we are not ‘worthy’ of being involved in this dialogue/of responding to…

(not that ‘good a look’..really..eh..?..)

and is this swooping in from metiria and nandor..and then refusing to respond to any questions raised by their utterances from on high..

is that the extent of the (frog) promised higher degrees of involvment by the green mp’s here on frogblog..?

doyathink..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)