“..Sorry for not understanding your “straw manâ€? references. I have no idea what they mean..”

really..!

..and from one who scatters strawmen at will..

..go figure..!

..um..!..have you ever heard of a dctionary..?

..and you didn’t read that information i passed to you..did you..?

..this time i really mean it..!

..i have finished wasting my time with you..

..my only consolation being that readers of this thread will see you making a fool of yourself..

..and your reactionary/illogical/prohibitionist/human-rights-denying ‘views’..

..phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

weedeater says: it is important to have equity based laws, not arbitrary ones. You want to look up the meaning of ‘arbitrary’ in the dictionary, Green geek….not a positive spin for your case, and not a good basis for law.

The value of arbitrary law is that it allows citizens of different cultures to live together.

If you only had “equity” based laws, every disparate culture would choose a different set.

I do agree with you on one point: if the APPLICATION of a law is arbitrary then it is of little value.

eg: the anti-smacking bill says it is illegal to smack your child, but the police are expected not to prosecute if they feel it was an ok smack. Bizzarre.

Maybe we are entering a time where people have lost the inherent moral ability to uphold an arbitrary law??

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

frog…thanks for unmoderating my links.

weedeater…I think it is to frogs credit that he allows a range of views to be expressed. You wrongly assume that I support the green party, but in fact I support environmentalism and struggle with many of the other green party policies.

My opinions certainly should not be considered to represent the green party at all.

weedeater Says: like it or not green geek, a sizable sample out there do not respect the law you stake all your credibility on. even if its only one in ten, thats a hell of a lot of people with no faith in the system, AND FOR GOOD REASON.

You are right that this is an issue about respect for law (as is the whole gang patch argument)

I think you missed my original point about law versus Darwinism.

Clearly you want a society built upon Darwinism (let people make their own individual decisions about what they do, and may the strongest survive) … whereas I want a society built upon the individual strength that comes from having the ability to support an arbitrary law. (Individuality is sacrificed to some degree in an effort to protect the weaker members of society)

If you think about it, almost every law has an arbitrary component. Do you need a law against theft? I don’t. So why do we have one?

My feelings about cannabis law are based upon my desire to see the vulnerable protected. The same reason I support some types of labour/employment law.

Sorry for not understanding your “straw man” references. I have no idea what they mean.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

yep thats right I hear this alot, as i canvass the issue alot: “the only reason govvy wont let you grow it is because they cant tax it”.

i usaully respond something like “you mean the only reason they wont let u grow it, is their frends is making too much out of weed being illegal” …

- and usually the (stereotypical kiwi cynic) go one further – “yep them politicians and cops and judges just dont give a monkey’s about a fair go mate, as long as their snouts are in the trough….”

like it or not green geek, a sizable sample out there do not respect the law you stake all your credibility on. even if its only one in ten, thats a hell of a lot of people with no faith in the system, AND FOR GOOD REASON.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Frog: you should tune in and moderate more often. some comments above have been quite belligerent, and also one person keeps pretending he’s dumb and sending up ridiculous straw man arguments (even worse than big bro) that the other three of us have been ripping to shreds!

rather than admit hes wrong he keeps coming back with more and more invective about stupid dope users, when no such thing has been demonstrated, quite the contrary.

sounds like its a discussion the green party hasnt resolved properly? Is that healthy to have some really sanctimonious prohibitionist and discriminatory views amongst he party membership, contrary to the partys policy position, without any attempt at conflict resolution?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Lol! You go girl! ….

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

hang on..i’ll just ask my alter-ego..

..she was ‘on’ this morning..

..phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Phil U and greengeek

greengeek had a comment in moderation all day that was meant for you Phil. Something about cannabis and schizophrenia. I have already forgotten which post it was for, but if you two can remeber back to your debate about 10 am this morning…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

and i guess you would rather your daughter went and got pissed in a bar..with all those inherent dangers..?

(cos’ that’s what you..in your own words..’love to do’..)

..rather than she hang out with friends and smoke some herb..?

..listen to music..?..laugh..?

..you really have got the wrong end of the stick there..

..eh..greengeek..?

..and you choosing to drink..and not to smoke..is your choice..

just as it is my choice to not drink..but to smoke cannabis..

(could you please go and read some ofthe information i have laid before you..?..

…esp. the medical marijuana material..

..everything is linked/footnoted ..

..so i am not asking you to take my word for it..

..try opening your mind to some new information..greengeek..

..none of us know everything..

..eh..?

..phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

gee greengeek..

..do you have a totally closed mind..?

attitudes fixed in concrete..

..and you can’t be ‘wrong’..eh..?

..would you be interested in exploring the health benefits of medical marijuana..?

http://whoar.co.nz/?s=medical+marijuana

no..?..mind totally closed..?

..at what age did that closing happen..”

..and would you please stop making a fool of yourself by using teenagers drinking alcohol as a reason why i should be criminalised for imbibing chronic..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

lol, greengeek, I think the ‘dopers’ would of been refering to the home-grown plants.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I’m thinking your mind is made up (and mine certainly is) so there is not much point continuing.

The links I posted must have been moderated so I can’t advance the issue any further.

All I can do is make a prediction: liberalise cannabis law and the usage will increase, problems will increase, and the gangs will be no weaker at all.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

people do not perceive weed as bad, instead they perceive the law as stupid and self-serving. [I wish i had a $ for every time ive heard somen say ‘the only reason they wont change the law is becasue they cant tax it’]

That is a good quote because it shows the impaired thinking of dopers. If the law was liberalised it would be easy for the government to tax it. (just like prostitution).

They tax tobacco and alcohol, so this argument gives no justification at all for the law not being changed.

They would collect a mint.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

No, not a school teacher. But perhaps my opinions have been shaped by years of parenthood, and the need to teach my offspring. (there I go again, mentioning parenthood). Raising kids (especially teenagers) does require you to become a teacher to a large degree. (also a jailer/judge etc)

I think you overestimate the numbers who consider cannabis safe.

Lots of people have learned from the alcohol R18 fisaco that “theories” of liberalisation and “harm minimisation” are just that: theories.

People my age have spent many years watching what differentiates successful people from non-achievers and learnt lessons from it.

Apart from the creative industries (which are built on the currency of imagination rather than specific effort), if one wants to make a success of life and be truly free, the answer is to put the excesses of teenagehood behind and live with a clear, focussed mind.

Cannabis may be the currency of musicians and naughty teens, but its not for anyone who has achievable dreams for their future.

Why be less than you can be?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“..Really Phul, how much evidence do you need to be convinced that pot fries your brain?

…..huh?…..

…..eh!………”

i know..!..i know..!

for me..it brings on uncontrollable attacks of ellipsesism..

..eh..?..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

You sound like a school teacher type, gg. would I be right?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

no Green geek, criminalisation is appropriate in those cases because rape murder and assault aren’t plants.

one side effect of decriminalising, is cancellng a side-effect of the law which is deviancy amplication (worsening behavours) so we wont have such a nasty criminal fraternity in first place (decrim will ‘pull the pin’ on criminality), major external cost of cannabis criminalisation gone overnight…

People who break cannabis law and are prone to loose respect for it along with their peers, are driven on to bolder and more general and more antisocial /risk behaviour – this is the bailey kurariki scenario, gangs, underclass ‘alienated’, hypocritical-family-values etc DO YOU SEE IT?)

people do not perceive weed as bad, instead they perceive the law as stupid and self-serving. [I wish i had a $ for every time ive heard somen say 'the only reason they wont change the law is becasue they cant tax it']

Cannabis is a plant, so that ‘thou shalt not’ rule is always going to be treated with no small amount of extra contempt. Such abuse of the system -that gives gangs a ‘reason to be’, a default position if they are denied the rat-race which is the rest of Kiwiana.

How many ways do i have to try and describe to you greenies that the ‘matrix of dysfunction’ is stemming from one majorly perverse ‘criminalisation’ rule. It aint rocket science. Get on the case please Frog, spare us the prohibitionist ‘straw men’….

I dont know why you want to keep acting as if prohibitoin is holding the fort green geek…(80% of youth are already trying it….).

As a green you ought to be concerned about the social justice anomalies of criminalisation of 373000 plant enthusiasts.

think it about NZ society/environment as a ‘system’: – we restore a bit of equity in terms of the policy (harm minimisation instead of glaring double standards and corruption), and bingo, outcomes improve! Bye bye insidious crime situation in NZ. Think of it as ‘social ecology’. sweeet as!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

LOL, Greengeek, those are crimes with victims that go strongly against social mores they are quite distinct from vitimless crimes which only lightly brush against those mores. It is not bad to do something because it is illegal, it is illegal because it is against social mores and it is against social mores because society considers it to be bad. if an action is no longer against social mores it has no reason to be illegal.
And anyway, although it is weaker due to social mores, the effect is still there for those crimes; if rape is illegal then it becomes more of a defient action against society and can be considered an initiation, additionally with rape being illegal it increases the potential consequences for one whom commits it which although it can decrease the incidence it will also increase the incidences of murder or duress to keep the individual quiet. The difference being that for rape the benifits of having it illegal outweight the potential costs at present. the same goes for assault and theft. the damage of underage sex in a non-exploitive relationship however is questionable and that one may belong alongside cannibis.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

greengeek..now you are just being ‘silly’..

..go here for answers to all your questions..and more..!

http://whoar.co.nz/?s=cannabis+marijuana

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

weedeater Says: the point is that prohibition does nothing to limit harms, it only creates fosters, and amplifies them.

Do you apply the same logic to other types of crime?

eg: rape? underage sex? theft? assault?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)