Your views on omnipresent issues...

[jerry springer]

Originally posted by CharlieG
Roylion - just a quick question. Who has the right to be called King of Australia, to live at the taxpayer's expense, to do nothing of any real significance, to consider this entire continent to be their royal domain, and to have all of these rights pass onto their children?

Why should anyone - British OR Australian - have these rights? Stuff royalty... it is a crock. One thing I love about Australia is that we have no noble classes here. The idea that some people are born more important than others is offensive.

Hear,Hear!!!!

 

[Lionel Lyon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your views on omnipresent issues...

Originally posted by Roylion
- Australian head of State
- No Governor-General (not needed)
- Monarch resident in Australia.
- Monarch has the current the current reserve powers.
- Hereditary.
- Virtually an unchanged constitution. Continuation of the existing system which has worked well.

[del]

I agree with you, RoyLion. Not that it's really my position to say, given that I left AU 11 years ago, but I have long believed that, in the interests of national continuity and tradition, a good case could be mounted for an Australian-based constitutional monarchy. Of course, constitutional monarchies are not for all nations, but where they work well, why fiddle?

For example in Belgium King Baudouin of the Belgians had extensive experience in government from the early 1950s to his death in the early 1990s. In a country divided between two different communities, some said that Baudouin was the only Belgian in Belgium. King Juan Carlos of Spain also played a central role in stopping a coup d'etat in the early 1980s, because he was regarded with respect as the embodiment of the nation.

If it were not for the Crown in Spain and Belgium, those countries would have fractured along ethnic lines long ago. Something about the soothing salve of monarchy. Sure, it's not for everybody, but in certain situations it works very, very well.

 

[Frodo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Your views on omnipresent issues...

Originally posted by bunsen burner
I smoked pot for 20 years (everyday for 15 of them). Never had a major drug addiction.

Also, using your logic, wouldn't alcohol be a pre-cursor to pot and therefore major drug addiction? Should we ban alcohol.

Sorry frodes, but once again your logic doesn't add up.

I have driven a motor vehicle for over 25 years without an accident, people smoke and live til a hundered. Yea, the majority may be fine but what about the weaker minded who do migrate to harder drugs.

ps I already answered the alcohol question

pps Opinions have been asked for..........not opinions with evidence to back them up. Let's just leave people to voice their opinion. I'd like to hear them. Atacking peoples opinions will only lead to fewer people posting their opinions.

 

[gPhonque]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your views on omnipresent issues...

Originally posted by Frodo
pps Opinions have been asked for..........not opinions with evidence to back them up. Let's just leave people to voice their opinion. I'd like to hear them. Atacking peoples opinions will only lead to fewer people posting their opinions.

"First step to major drug addiction."

That is not an opinion Frodo.

It is a false claim.

You'd do well to learn the difference between the two.



If I say "John Howard is not Prime Minister of Australia", do you consider that to be my opinion?

Or a false claim?


How about if I said "heroin is not addictive"?

False claim, or opinion?



Or what about "your user name on BigFooty is not Frodo" ???

False claim or opinion?



Are you starting to understand the difference?

Yea, the majority may be fine but what about the weaker minded who do migrate to harder drugs.

Why do you blame marijuana?

Why not blame alcohol? Or tobacco? Or the fact that they are living humans who have a weakness when it comes to ANY kind of drug, whether it be a substance such as heroin, or an activity such as mindlessly pumping money into poker machines in order to "get rich quick"?

Most heroin users are poor - they have no jobs - they use heroin as an escape from the real world because their quality of life is sh|t.

Pot smokers however are no different to people who enjoy a drink. You have business-men who enjoy a joint when they get home; musicians and artists who find it helps them with their creativity and gives them a slightly different perspective on their work; proffessional and responsible people of all walks of life smoke marijuana.

And, like alcohol, you have the small minority who abuse it.

Marijuana "abuse" however is not even in the same league as alcohol abuse.


Are you saying that if marijuana didn't exist, people would not take heroin? Because that's what it sounds like Frodo. And if it's not, then you are penalising the vast majority of people for the weaknesses of others.

You obviously move in different circles to me Frodo. Of all my friends who smoke pot (which is pretty much all of them, and we're talking people of all ages here), only ONE has ever tried (and screwed himself up on) heroin.

And surprise surprise, he was the one who was smoking pot when he 13 years old while the rest of us were growing up and learning the ways of the world.

He was the one who didn't finish school, and started mixing with the wrong types of people.

He was the one who was "chroming" in the back of the bus on the way home from school.

He was the one who couldn't get a solid and reliable job, and who was thus constantly stressed because he had landlords threating him with eviction because he was behind in his rent.

So was his eventual heroin use the fault of marijuana?

Of course not!

It was HIS fault. He mixed with the wrong people, never finished school, and stupidly thought heroin would be an "escape" from the bullsh|t (in his eyes) of the world.

ONE person of literally 100s of pot smokers I know "migrates" to heroin, and you blame the marijuana?

As I said, why not blame HIM? He would have ended up on heroin regardless of whether he'd smoked marijuana or not because that was the situation he put himself in.

If you want to fix the problem of hard drugs, then look at the hard drugs (or maybe even donate some of your hard-earned squillions towards helping prevent these people from ruining their lives - hey, you might even get less people breaking into your house to support their habit. Everyone wins!) but don't penalise (and insult) the rest of us who have more brains to ever look twice at a drug like heroin.

And stop making false claims.

 

[EssJayW]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your views on omnipresent issues...

Originally posted by gPhonque
Most heroin users are poor - they have no jobs - they use heroin as an escape from the real world because their quality of life is sh|t.

I would say that heroin users being poor, having no jobs, and having ordinary lives, may be a result of the heroin use.

Originally posted by gPhonque
And, like alcohol, you have the small minority who abuse it.

Is this opinion or factual? I believe alcohol abuse is a major problem in our society. Most people in say way or another have suffered from the results of alcohol abuse. Wives, children, families, relations, driving, etc etc.

Originally posted by gPhonque
Marijuana "abuse" however is not even in the same league as alcohol abuse.

Is this opinion or factual? If it is opinion, great. Not a problem. If it is factual, can you guide me in the right direction to where the evidence is. I am quite interested in reading about it.

 

[bugman5]

My 2 cents...

- Legality of marijuana

As far as I'm concerned this is a no-brainer. Decriminalise, look towards legality and taxation. Honestly I feel prohibition of narcotics benefits no one except major or organised crime. I have been disgusted by the lack of foresight and courage of those political figures who scuttled the proposed heroin trial in the ACT. Government control and regulation of drugs such as heroin would significantly reduce crime and needless death.

The arguments as to marijuana being a gateway drug is ridiculous. Let adults have the facts (and I mean facts, not biased opinions) on these drugs, and allow them to make an adult decision as to their use.

I also accept that my views on this issue are extremely utopion, and I don't expect any Australian government to have the commitment and courage to introduce these reforms, but its good to dream.

- Effects of pokies in the community

They have a significant negative effect on the community, both the financial losses of addicts, as well as the effect pokies have had on live music venues across the country. As for any solutions, I'm not sure, but The Whitlams "Blow up the Pokies" sounds pretty good.

- Same-sex marital rights

Again no brainer. Same sex couples should have exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples.

- The 'Sorry' campaign

Disturbingly I don't think I can add anything else to what Hawkforce presented in his comments. I entirely agree.

- Republic vs Monarchy

The only particularly strong political view I maintain is as a Republican. Yes the constitutional monarchy has served us fairly well, but I cannot abide by a class system, and the thought of Prince Charles as our Head of State is sickening.

- Asylum seekers

Far more compassionate response is required. I tend to favour community based programs, mainly as I am concerned for the mental state of those asylum seekers who do receive asylum after months imprisoned behind razor wire.

I also believe that Australia should have a greater commitment to taking in refugees from camps around the world (one for those who bleat about "queue jumpers").

- Euthanasia

Should be legal, obviously with controls. No one who is suffering in from serious disease etc should be forced to continue their lives if they no longer have the will to live.

Incidently I believe there should be greater funding for palative care.

- Free trade agreement with the US

Pro, provided that it results in true free trade (which of course it will not). I continue to marvel at the US's hypocracy with regard to free trade, criticising other nations through the WTO when it continues to act against the spirit of free trade, most obviously through farm subsidies. What government would act to remove these subsidies, it would be electoral suicide.

As others have stated, free trade would be beneficial for the third world, yet the agendas of the western economic powers will continue to prevent this from occuring. Adam Smith's invisible hand does not always act in the worlds best interest.

- Censorship

Censorship is raising its ugly head again, with the banning last year of the French film I can't spell and Ken Park. What right do governments have in being the baby sitter of consenting adults. Obviously there are limits to this, involving protection of children etc, but on the whole, censorship in terms of banning should not be an action of a liberal democracy.

 

[Milkman]

Originally posted by Bomber Spirit
Asylum seekers - I support mandatory detention. Anyone else wanting to move to Australia has to go through all sorts of beaurocratic red tape, and it would be unfair on them to have other people circumvent all that by being allowed in just by saying "I am a refugee".

It's worth noting that in the former Iraqi dictatorship and Afghanistan, there were no queues for people to jump. Australia has no diplomatic representation in these countries, therefore, there is no standard refugee process where people wait in line to have their applications considered.

Another common misconception is that refugees arriving in Australia will ‘steal’ the entitlements of Australians. The reality is that refugees, like migrants, create demand for goods and services, thus stimulating the economy and generating growth and employment. A recent UCLA study has shown that unauthorised immigration boosts the US economy by $800 billion per year.

 

[Roylion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your views on omnipresent issues...

Originally posted by Weaver
RUBBISH.

When Baudoin refused to sign a law that allowed abortion he was forcebly removed from office. Belgium has a law where the parliament can declare the King incapable and remove him. After the law was passed they reinstated him. So he provides no stability, just a rubber-stamp.

When a law liberalising Belgium's abortion laws was approved by parliament, the King refused to give his signature so that the bill could become law. The government declared him unable to reign on April 4, 1990. The Belgian constitution (Article 93) provides that, if the king is incapable to reign, the government as a whole will fulfil the role of head of state. ALL members of the government (of all parties) signed the bill (as required by the Constitution), and the government declared that Baudouin was capable of reigning again the next day, on April 5, 1990. In other words a majority decision by the government of the day may not necessarily be signed, if all of the government decides not to co-operate. So the government of the day can't just declare the king to be incapable of reigning any old time they feel like passing a law and can't get it through.....especially a controversial law.

The actual Article reads: Article 93 [Inability Guardianship]
Should the King find himself unable to reign, the ministers, having observed this inability, immediately summon the Houses. Regency and guardianship are to be provided by the United Houses.

The King also has a number of other powers under the Belgian constitution.
- The federal legislative power is exerted collectively by the King, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.
- He has has the right to convoke the Houses to an extraordinary meeting and adjourn the Houses of Parliament.
- He has the right to dissolve the House of Representatives and the Senate, if there is a no-confidence vote in the government and no PM is nominated immediately upon which an election must be called.
- The king also appoints and dismisses the Secretary of State.
- The King bestows ranks within the army.
- The King has the right to annul or to reduce sentences pronounced by judges (with a couple of exceptions)
- The King also may mint money.

Originally posted by Weaver

The idea that royalty is above politics is nonsense. While Congo was the personal Kingdom of the Belgian King Leopold it was victim of attempted genocide. The population declined from 20 or 30 million to about 8 million. Conrad's book Heart of Darknesss, the inspiration for Apocolypse Now, was based on this period.

Oh and republics are squeaky clean aren't they? For example, the theoretical basis for democracy, egalitarianism, was responsible for the worst excesses of the French revolution. Had the hereditary principle been upheld in places as diverse as Germany, Libya, Greece, Albania, Cambodia and Russia, had those monarchies not been overthrown and replaced by 'people's' regimes, who promptly slaughtered the very people they purportedly represented.
For example the Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen said in 1998.... "This country suffered greatly as a result of the abolition of the monarchy in 1970. We support it, because it is an institution the country needs, for its unity and its development."

Take Russia for example. Under Nicholas II, while there were still elements of feudalism, the country had opposition political parties, independent trade unions and newspapers, a parliament and a modern legal system. In the USSR there was total tyranny, no political liberties and practically no human rights. The terror against the population reached a scope unprecedented in Russian history and perhaps anywhere.

I'm not aware that the Congo Free State was a Constitutional Monarchy in any case. It was Leopold's personal demesne. By the terms of his will it passed to Belgium. During the time Leopold had it as his personal kingdom cannibalism was suppressed and the power of the Arab slavers was broken. Roger Casement's report on the Congo, written in 1904 estimated that as many as 3 million Congolese had died of disease, torture or shooting since 1888. While that is regretaable certainly, it was the not the product of a constitutional monarchy. The same thing could have never happened in Belgium itself, as it did in neighbouring Germany during the Nazi era.

As Sydney D Bailey said in his book 'Parliamentary Democracy'..."Impartiality and continuity are important aspects of government, and it is doubtful whether any form of democratic government yet discovered provides these to any greater extent than does constitutional monarchy.

Jack Lang the French Minister of Culture stated in October 1993 that...."I notice that the constitutional monarchies are the most democratic countries of Europe. I can't understand how there could be any debate about it."

Originally posted by Weaver
It should be for Australians to decide if someone is representing us appropriatly and is above politics. Being able to remove them and appoint new ones allows us to do this. Heredity is the worst possable way of finding a meritorious figurehead.

How can a position which relies on the people being able to appoint or remove them, not be above politics. In my view it's much better that we have a head of state with only a few reserve powers that cannot be removed.

Even in republics we have the hereditary principle alive and well, although given that in many cases these "democratic Presidents" have much more power than just merely reserve powers. . Now while some of these you wouldn't say were exactly 'meritorious' (being in republics and often having few controls), they do demonstrate that the heriditary principle in our governments survives and in some cases flourishes, even in "democratic" republics.

A few examples:
Syria. When President Hafez al-Assad died earlier this year his nominated successor was his son, Bashar al-Assad.
North Korea - Kim Jong Il succeeded his father.
Iraq. Had Saddam Hussein continued as President of the Republic of Iraq, his nominated successor was his younger son Qusay.
Romania's Nicolae Ceausescu wanted his son to be the first hereditary president in the communist world.
Haiti - Papa Doc Duvalier was a dictator of Haiti whose son, "Baby Doc," took over after he died.
India. The Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. India's first prime minister after independence was Jawaharlal Nehru, who was succeeded not long after his death by his daughter Indira Gandhi. Indira groomed her son Sanjay to take over from her, but he was killed in a car crash. When she was assassinated, her second son Rajiv became prime minister. In turn he, too, was assassinated. His Italian Roman Catholic wife, Sonia has since been the focal point for Gandhi supporters, although attention is now turning to her daughter Priyanka Gandhi. How is it that an Italian Roman Catholic who doesn't speak Indian very well, become the leader of a major Indian party?
Pakistan - The Bhuttos. Benazir Bhutto became prime minister of Pakistan after the downfall of Gen. Mohammad Zia Ul-Haq, who had overthrown and hanged her father.
Phillipines - Corazon Aquino became president of the Philippines following her husband's assassination
Indonesia: Megawati Sukarnoputri is the daughter of former ruler Sukarno.
USA - Where do we start?
- Recently the governor of Missouri appointed Jean Carnahan to fill the U.S. Senate seat won by her late husband Mel Carnahan.
- Hillary Clinton - former President's Bill Clinton's wife
- George W. Bush jnr. -- grandson of a senator, brother of a governor, and son of a president,
- Al Gore - son of a senator
- Mayor Richard M. Daley is halfway to equaling his father Richard J. Daley's six terms as mayor of Chicago.
- And of course the Kennedy family. Involved in American politics in various degrees for the last 50 years. Just how important to the recent election of the Governor of California was the connection to America's most famous family?

Contrast all that with the statement by Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen above or Winston Churchill who said that had the monarchy of Germany been in existance, Hitler could never have maintained his power or even this one by Ann Widdecombe (British PM)

Britain's constitutional monarchy is one of its greatest strengths as well as one of its greatest attractions. The monarch is detached from party politics in a way no president could be. For years, the existence of a monarchy was the guarantee that no would-be dictator could stage a coup by deploying troops, as the monarch controls the armed services. No latter-day Cromwell could win power by force. We have had no civil war since Cromwell's and much of that is due to having had a constitutional monarchy as a focus of loyalty.

Originally posted by Weaver

And if heredity is the way to find somone independant and above politics, should we also have heredity judges and police who would be therefore above the law? Perhaps we should have heredity football coaches who could represent clubs without being concerned about not being above football.

Police are employed by the state. They can't remove the government. Football coaches are employed by their club. They can't remove the board. The monarch is not employed by the Government. They are outside government as dictated by the Constitution of the relevant country.

An Editorial in the 'Spectator' in February 1999 wrote...."Kings have advantages over democratic politicians. Although they must remain popular ..... they do not have to grub for votes. Unlike American senators, they are not obliged to start raising money for their re-election campaign days after the electorate has voted them in. Inheritance has its privileges, for both rulers and the ruled......For politicians in democracies, the business of government is all too often a great game, a chance to strut and posture their little moment on the stage, before retiring to directorships and lecture tours....."

 

[Roylion]

Originally posted by CharlieG
Roylion - just a quick question. Who has the right to be called King of Australia, to live at the taxpayer's expense, to do nothing of any real significance, to consider this entire continent to be their royal domain, and to have all of these rights pass onto their children?

And yet the Governor-General lives at the taxpayer's expense. So would most likely would a President.

The Queen of England does not regard England as her "royal domain". She in fact owns very little land and none in Australia.

Originally posted by CharlieG
Why should anyone - British OR Australian - have these rights? Stuff royalty... it is a crock. One thing I love about Australia is that we have no noble classes here. The idea that some people are born more important than others is offensive.

Well I've already explained why. However I'll try and explain again...

In my view A CONSTITUTIONAL (not absolute) monarchy however helps to safeguard democracy by retaining certain constitutional powers, or at least denying them to others. A constitutional monarch is the safeguard against civil or military dictatorship.

For example: Sir Winston Churchill said that had the Kaiser still been German Head of State after 1918, Hitler could not have come to power, or at least not remained there.

In Italy, when in 1943 he had the opportunity to do so, King Victor Emmanuel removed Mussolini from office. Romania's King Michael dismissed the dictator Antonescu and transferred his country from the Axis to the Allies, for which he was decorated by the great Powers, and in Bulgaria King Boris III (although obliged to enter the war on the side of the Axis, as his government voted for it), refused to persecute Bulgarian Jews and would not commit his forces outside his country's borders.

Within the past few years, in both Spain and Thailand, monarchs have succeeded in defending democracy against the threat of permanent military take-over. Spanish historian Javier Tussel has stated: "Monarchy works in Spain because we are a very divided country. ... King Juan Carlos stresses respect for regional differences, so that now you feel Spanish, but you can also feel like a Basque or Catalan."

There is a similar situation in Belgium. As I've already said and Lionel Lyon has also pointed out, the Belgian king is one of the few commonalities shared by the country's ethnically and linguistically divided inhabitants. When King Albert succeeded his brother, King Baudouin, he took the oath of office in French, German and Dutch." This may not seem like much to us, here, who are not as aware the long ethnic struggles between the Walloons and the Flemish who form modern Belgium, but for the people of the country it makes all the difference.

Originally posted by CharlieG

Let's have a President, who is chosen by the people's representatives to fill the ceremonial roles. To avoid them becoming political, perhaps place the power to remove the Executive arm of government to the High Court. Let the President be a figurehead only, responsible for signing certificates, greeting foreign heads of state and opening parliament.

Then what is the point of a president, or indeed any head of state, if you don't invest in them reserve powers. Under your reasoning, surely a Prime Minister can sign certificates, greet foreign heads of state and open parliament, seeing that's all they 'supposedly' do. Why have a head of state at all?

 

[Frodo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your views on omnipresent issues...

Originally posted by gPhonque
"First step to major drug addiction."

That is not an opinion Frodo.

It is a false claim.

You'd do well to learn the difference between the two.



If I say "John Howard is not Prime Minister of Australia", do you consider that to be my opinion?

Or a false claim?


How about if I said "heroin is not addictive"?

False claim, or opinion?



Or what about "your user name on BigFooty is not Frodo" ???

False claim or opinion?



Are you starting to understand the difference?




And stop making false claims. [/B]

I base my opinion on what I saw when I was helping out at an addiction centre. Vistually all hard drug cases started out on marijuana. I have a right to draw a conclusion from that. If you like, it is a claim based upon my experience. But isn't that what a belief is anyhow? (excepting brainwashing)

 

[gPhonque]

Originally posted by EssJayW
I would say that heroin users being poor, having no jobs, and having ordinary lives, may be a result of the heroin use.

Yes, you're right.

However, it is also the major cause.

And if you disagree, then I'd be interested to hear what you believe the major cause is.

And what do you mean by "ordinary lives"? I hardly consider being a heroin addict to be an "ordinary life." (although perhaps you're using the world "ordinary" in the more negative sense?)

Is this opinion or factual? I believe alcohol abuse is a major problem in our society. Most people in say way or another have suffered from the results of alcohol abuse. Wives, children, families, relations, driving, etc etc.

I absolutely agree.

Which is why I don't understand why so many people (not you) pretty much turn a blind eye to alcohol abuse (only because they drink themselves) and yet the same people call for marijuana to stay illegal, without having any understanding of it or its users at all.

Compare the amount of people who drink alcohol to the amount of alcoholics, and you will find (as I said) that the alcoholics are the small minority.

Alcoholism IS however still a problem, especially when children are involved, as they will generally continue the cycle having grown up with alcoholism as the reality.

Is this opinion or factual? If it is opinion, great. Not a problem. If it is factual, can you guide me in the right direction to where the evidence is. I am quite interested in reading about it.

It's factual.

Surely you don't need somebody to present you "evidence" of the fact that getting blind drunk will change a person far more than getting stoned off your face?



The thing that people such as yourself don't seem to understand is that heroin users are in most cases very different people to everyday marijuana users.

However, just because a heroin user may have tried every drug under the sun before they eventually found "the ultimate hit", it doesn't mean that any of these other drugs are "gateway" drugs to heroin.

If anything, their life situation and the people they associate with is their gateway to heroin.

Confidence in ones self is also a major factor.



An interesting point which is raised quite often when discussing the effects of the relaxed marijuana laws of the Netherlands is the fact that by providing a legal outlet for people to buy marijuana, you seperate it from the harder drugs.

ie. People who would usually go to a "dealer" to buy their marijuana are instantly less exposed to the harder drugs simply because they are not forced to associate with such people. (that said, I do not know any marijuana "dealers" who have ever had anything to do with heroin - I tend not to associate with such people)

This has been proven in Netherlands, and is one of the many reasons why other countries throughout Europe are now relaxing their laws in regards to marijuana possession.

If you wish to read more about this, you have the entire internet at your fingertips. If you're serious about learning more (which if you're intent on throwing around your views on such a topic, then I suggest you do), then a few quick google searches will give you hours and hours of interesting reading - something you always seem so eager for, yet seem to want it presented to you on a platter.

At the end of the day, it's not really going to make all that much difference to my life - I will still smoke pot, as will all my friends.

Although it would be nice to know that we're not breaking the law to do so.

 

[gPhonque]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your views on omnipresent issues...

Originally posted by Frodo
I base my opinion on what I saw when I was helping out at an addiction centre. Vistually all hard drug cases started out on marijuana. I have a right to draw a conclusion from that. If you like, it is a claim based upon my experience. But isn't that what a belief is anyhow? (excepting brainwashing)

"Started out on marijuana."

So you entirely blame the marijuana for their consequent heroin use?

Why not examine all the other factors that had something to do with it?

Anyway - read my post above to EssJayW as part of it is entirely relevant to what you have just posted.

Nice to see that you didn't bother to address any of the other points I made to you. (in fact, you conveniently cut them out)

Should we also ban Arabs from ever entering Australia, simply because a small minority may be "terrorists?"

Then why should we keep marijuana illegal simply because a small minority progress to heroin?

You're making marijuana the scapegoat for all heroin use, and ignoring the extremely large majority of marijuana users than never look twice at heroin.

 

[theGimp]

Originally posted by gPhonque


[/b]
If you wish to read more about this, you have the entire internet at your fingertips. If you're serious about learning more (which if you're intent on throwing around your views on such a topic, then I suggest you do), then a few quick google searches will give you hours and hours of interesting reading - something you always seem so eager for, yet seem to want it presented to you on a platter.
[/B]

EssJayW.. you should change your username to 'BrokenRecord'.
All you ever want from any thread is evidence.
You know where to find it if you really want it so please stop with the annoying sarcastic tone that hovers over everything you post. You are a master at pointing out the bleeding obvious and reciting the politically correct rubbish we all know is true... However, this has a tolerance limit. There is more to life than starting pointless fights with people who would like nothing more than to express their opinion. Nobody has to prove anything to you.

And while Im at it, kill the smilies.. they are for primary school kids and make people think you are childish.


Cheers.

 

[otaku]

Here ya go Frodo:

Look at this link:

Here

To paraphrase the article:

Seems that running or cycling produced a cannabinoid, rather than an endorphine.

So, does this mean that all people who excercise moderately for an hour or so with become addicted to heroin?

How does this fit with your experiences?

 

[EssJayW]

Originally posted by theGimp
EssJayW.. you should change your username to 'BrokenRecord'.
All you ever want from any thread is evidence.
You know where to find it if you really want it so please stop with the annoying sarcastic tone that hovers over everything you post. You are a master at pointing out the bleeding obvious and reciting the politically correct rubbish we all know is true... However, this has a tolerance limit. There is more to life than starting pointless fights with people who would like nothing more than to express their opinion. Nobody has to prove anything to you.

And while Im at it, kill the smilies.. they are for primary school kids and make people think you are childish.


Cheers.

Lighten up Gimp. As I have suggested before if you dont like what I post then put me on your ignore list. Quite simple. My last post gave opinions and asked a question. I am sure QP was not put out by my question. You obviously have read a lot of my posts to take such a strong stance against me. That is childish. I will keep your suggestion of the new user name in mind. Thanks for the advice. While I am at it what PC rubbish do I recite? It is quite flattering that you say this as you are the first person that has ever called me PC. Most who know me, call me a racist redneck sexist pig. So thank you.

Some advice for you Gimp. You may be taking this all to serious. If you are concerened about your image on the net well that is fine. You should let me worry about mine. BTW. How do you know that I am not at primary school. Think about that when you waste your time having a go at me. The smilies are old hat as I was asked by someone to remove them and I complied, but if they really annoy you that much I will bring them back. So much trivial rubbish when there a real problems in the world to worry about.

 

[EssJayW]

QP

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my post. If I put you out in any way I apologise. Often opinions are based on life experience. I have had 2 close friends ruin there lives, not solely due to pot, but it was a factor. You like your pot and this is fine. I believe legalising it would be a far greater hindrance to your pot smoking than you currently have. There would defineately be a far greater emphasis on DUI of drugs, as 1 example. Further to this. You know I was a cop. Now in my time in the PF, I dont recall any member I worked with or any member at any station I worked at, or any mate that I spoke to, ever charging anyone, with DUI of pot. Now this would change drastically if it was legalised, as testng for the substance would improve and they would be forced to test every one just like PBTs. The tolerance level accepted would be very low, and I would imagine that driving to work early in the morning after a heavy night on the pot, that you may still register.

And yes I am lazy and do like things on a platter.

 

[Portia]

- Legality of marijuana
Don't care. Nominally against it.

- Effects of pokies in the community
Don't care. Keeps the SANFL afloat so its OK, and you need the brain of an ox to be entertained by them.

- Same-sex marital rights
Don't care. Nominally for it.

- The 'Sorry' campaign
Annoying and unnecessary. The legal implications of saying sorry make it impossible, and I think pushing the issue is a great way to make aboriginals as a whole look like dicks.

- Republic vs Monarchy
Too little or too much. Either leave it how it is or give the whole system a compelte overhaul - don't just **** off to renaming the Governor-General `President'.

- Asylum seekers
I don't know enough about the issue to have a view. I don't really mind if we give them citizenship, or if we **** them back off to where they came from. I do think that if we could get people to build Broome up as a city it would be a boon to the nation as a whole though.

- Euthanasia
For it.

- Free trade agreement with the US
Against it. What they want to do is sell our companies their culture and take none back. **** that. Why aren't we talking to the bloody EU instead? They have no unified culture that they want to force upon us.

- Censorship
Against it.

 

[Mr Q]

Legality of marijuana
I personally don't think you can separate the issue of the legality of marijuana from other currently illegal drugs (pointing out that alcohol/tobacco are legal is in my opinion a furphy). I personally believe that most drugs could have a limited legality (ie available legally to registered addicts), but should not be available freely.

That said, try and apply that to beer and I'll kill you .

Effects of pokies in the community
May they never find their way outside the casino here in WA. They're a blight where available too freely IMO.

Same-sex marital rights
Something seems wrong here, but its probably just my Catholic upbringing. Ultimately I don't care.

The 'Sorry' campaign
Rather than arguing that it opens the country up to litigation I believe the government would be better off finding a way to apologise that doesn't cause this.

Republic vs Monarchy
Republic, but NOT a directly elected president. A directly elected president has a mandate to excercise the powers that are granted, ultimately meaning they would have a huge personal influence on the legislative arm in Australia. However an appointed President does not have that mandate and is thus safer.

I would much rather Roylion's Australian monarchy to a directly elected President any day. However since you can't predict personalities from birth I do not like the idea of someone in a critical if minor position in society solely due to an accident of birth.

Asylum seekers
I don't actually have a problem with the detention center aspect of the asylum seeker problem (they'd have to be better than the refugee camps eh?). However I believe that something has to be done about the amount of time people spend in them.

Community release does not always work, as historically many of the asylum seekers who's applications fail disappear illegally into the community (IIRC this is a big issue in the UK).

Euthanasia
Not right now thanks.

I personally am cautiously in favour of euthanasia, but I think it would need a lot of community discussion and thought before anything can be actioned in this area.

Free trade agreement with the US
Its all bollocks. The US has a history of talking the free trade talk without walking the free trade walk. I think we need to be very very wary of where we go with respect to free-trade agreements.

Censorship
There's a line somewhere between Fred Nile and completely free speech. Pinpointing that line is difficult, certainly IMO more difficult than saying "no kiddie pr0n or snuff flicks". Censorship has to be evaluated on different levels and I'm certainly not against censorship entirely.

 

[lenny&carl]

originally posted by Mr. frodo

I base my opinion on what I saw when I was helping out at an addiction centre. Vistually all hard drug cases started out on marijuana. I have a right to draw a conclusion from that.

Are you saying that these people started getting high before they started getting drunk? It's possible, but I would be suprised. Maybe your definitions of "started" is squew wiff if you're ignoring the more dangerous legal drug as a starting point.

 

[gPhonque]

Originally posted by EssJayW
QP

No - close.

Not "q" - try the letter that comes between "f" and "h".

Although, I guess it's no surprise that an ex-cop doesn't even know his alphabet.

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my post. If I put you out in any way I apologise. Often opinions are based on life experience. I have had 2 close friends ruin there lives, not solely due to pot, but it was a factor. You like your pot and this is fine. I believe legalising it would be a far greater hindrance to your pot smoking than you currently have. There would defineately be a far greater emphasis on DUI of drugs, as 1 example. Further to this. You know I was a cop. Now in my time in the PF, I dont recall any member I worked with or any member at any station I worked at, or any mate that I spoke to, ever charging anyone, with DUI of pot. Now this would change drastically if it was legalised, as testng for the substance would improve and they would be forced to test every one just like PBTs. The tolerance level accepted would be very low, and I would imagine that driving to work early in the morning after a heavy night on the pot, that you may still register.

Drug-driving tests need to be realistic though. I fear that such tests (aren't they supposed to be introduced sometime this year?) will have nothing to do with safe-driving, and all to do with discrimination against marijuana users, and thus, an invasion of privacy.

If you're telling me that a night on the pot may result in a "drug-driving" offence the next day, then these tests have NOTHING to do with safe driving at all.

I never smoke and then drive immediately. I have done so a couple of times in the past (just as I'm sure most people have probably pushed the alcohol limit to the edge once or twice in their lives and gotten away with it) but I have never felt safe doing so (I know my driving ability is not 100% directly after I have had a smoke, obviously....), and I have not done so very long time, and will never do so again.

However, I very often have a joint, and then an hour later drive my car. I know I am perfectly capable of driving my car safely. I am NOT affected by the marijuana at all. My driving ability is 100%. Therefore, I have no issues about driving my car.

I do agree with you - the driving issue concerns me more than anything. Which is why I hope that the tests are realistic, and not just a way to find out who's smoking weed. (and thus, an invasion of privacy that has nothing to do with safe driving)

But mind you, I've also heard that drug tests will only be administered if the police have reason to believe a driver is affected by drugs judging by their behaviour on the road.

In which case, I have nothing to worry about.

Do you know any more about this?

Also:

"I have had 2 close friends ruin there lives, not solely due to pot, but it was a factor."

I'm interested to know what the other factors were.

Also, I'll guess and say that pot was not the only thing they've ever abused in their lives. (?)

It usually isn't.

As for the "gateway" drug argument, how do you people explain the vast majority of marijuana users who never progress to harder drugs?

Sure - I've tried ecstacy, and cocaine etc.

But I would have tried them whether I'd smoked marijuana or not as I was curious about them.

However, I've not ever looked twice at heroin. Most marijuana users are the same. (and there are statistics everwhere that back this up as you know)

So how anybody can possibly argue that marijuana is a "gateway" drug to heroin is completely beyond me. The only connection is that most heroin users have tried marijuana in the past. In fact: (taken from the website below - keep in mind it is based on US figures)

Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug so it is very likely that people who use less commonly-used drugs will have also tried marijuana. That does not mean marijuana led to hard drug use. The research indicates most marijuana users do not go onto use hard drugs; marijuana is more properly viewed as a strainer that catches most illicit drug users and they go no further. The numbers bear out these findings: According to the federal government 76.3 million people have tried marijuana, while only 2.78 million have ever tried heroin in their lifetimes and only 5.3 million have ever tried cocaine in their lives. The figures for monthly use are similar: 10.7 million Americans admit to being regular marijuana users, yet only 1.2 million admit to using cocaine each month - 1 for every 9 marijuana users - and 130,000 people use heroin monthly, or 1 for every 80 regular marijuana users.


Frodo?

And yes I am lazy and do like things on a platter.

See if this is tasty enough for you - it's the first link I found. I've read just about every article I could find about this topic in the past - this link is very basic, but you may learn a few things anyway:

www.drugwardistortions.org


The best article I've ever read about the decriminalization/legalization of marijuana was an article a few years ago in (from memory) The Bulletin about the positive effects of the "coffee shops" in the Netherlands. I wish I could find it again - a friend of mine may still have it....if he does, I'll even type it out (or scan it) and post it.

 

[gPhonque]

Re: Re: Your views on omnipresent issues...

Originally posted by Mr Q
I personally believe that most drugs could have a limited legality (ie available legally to registered addicts), but should not be available freely.

I used to agree with the idea of heroin-injecting rooms.

However, since my friend cleaned himself up, I realised (and he entirely agrees) that giving heroin addicts more heroin is the WORST thing possible for them.

They are addicts. They are abusing drugs. They need to get OFF drugs.

Giving them more drugs doesn't solve anything.

You may save their life in the short term, but what happens the next day when they need another hit?

They simply go and get it and the cycle continues.

Addicts need to get OFF drugs - they don't need MORE drugs. There's no point giving them drugs until they decide to give up as the longer they are on drugs, the less likely it is that they'll make a decision to get off them. Giving them more simply prolongs their addiction and makes it harder for them to kick the habit.

Ask any ex-junkie (if you know any) and they'll tell you the same thing.

 

[bunsen burner]

Re: Re: Re: Your views on omnipresent issues...

Originally posted by gPhonque


I used to agree with the idea of heroin-injecting rooms.

However, since my friend cleaned himself up, I realised (and he entirely agrees) that giving heroin addicts more heroin is the WORST thing possible for them.

Giving them more drugs doesn't solve anything.

Addicts need to get OFF drugs - they don't need MORE drugs. There's no point giving them drugs until they decide to give up as the longer they are on drugs, the less likely it is that they'll make a decision to get off them. Giving them more simply prolongs their addiction and makes it harder for them to kick the habit.[/b]

No one's giving them drugs - just a safe environment to inject.

Ask any ex-junkie (if you know any) and they'll tell you the same thing.

The availability of an injecting room as a reason for junkies either not being able to come clean or making it harder to come clean is a cop out.

The reason H is so hard to quit is because it's very addictive. If H is available, it makes no difference if there is an injecting room down the road. Ask any junkie or ex-junke and they'll tell you that.

 

[Mr Q]

Re: Re: Re: Your views on omnipresent issues...

Originally posted by gPhonque
However, since my friend cleaned himself up, I realised (and he entirely agrees) that giving heroin addicts more heroin is the WORST thing possible for them.

Unfortunately I tend to agree, however the murky idea I have (which may or may not work of course) is that by supplying drugs to those registered in controlled circumstances at controlled prices could undercut the market for drugs on the street, thus pushing the dealers out of business. Plus it would control the quality of the drugs available, hopefully decreasing the chances of overdosing or other effects from badly prepared drugs.

Its not an idea I've fleshed out the details of all that closely, and realistically I doubt that it would work, but since nothing else much works, I sometimes wonder if it would be worth giving it a go.

 

[EssJayW]

gPhongue

As I am well away from that side of things now I am unaware of what type of test they will be introducing this year or next year. I would imagine it would be a detection device similar to a PBT. This may be used to assist in proving a DUI of drugs. i.e. need evidence of bad driving etc. But this is speculation.

I can only imagine that if pot was legalised the Govt would be in some way or another forced to find a foolproof and legal way to test for it. This is obvious as we know. If a detection device is invented where pot can be detected on the breath or saliva, then obviously a reading of some description would have to be made, whether it is on the lines of the current alcohol levels or of something similar.

I can further imagine that legislation would have to be made along the lines of. Positive Reading then driver is required to accompany for a blood test, and failure to do so would be an offence.

I have no idea about the detection of drugs in the blood and what levels mean what, but I feel if pot was legalised the tolerance level of the legislation would be very low, i.e. detection of any amount requires blood test. And you may find that evidence of bad driving is not required, just as in the case of alcohol.

In considering this as speculation, legislation is written for the extreme. You admit to smoking regularly and the use may have less effect on you than say me, who hasn’t smoked for 18 years. Now if I had a smoke right now and jumped in the car 2 hours later I have no doubt that I would be a danger on the road, whereas you might not be. So in this case legislation has to be written for people like me and not you.

With such heavy enforcement of road safety and emphasis on drink driving, road toll, speeding ra ra ra ra, I just cant imagine the Govt leaving it as DUI, if pot was legalised.

The morning after factor is always a danger. The bloke that gets hammered the night before, and blows 0.1 on the way to work. Now he may do this everyday and his driving is not impaired but in everything there has to be a limit, and the limit is usually set for the extreme.

We have all seen blokes who are 2 pot screamers (pardon the pun) and we have seen blokes that can go all night. I imagine the same would be the case with smoking. I was the 2 pot screamer smoker and the moron that could drink all night. The laws are written for the 2 pot screamers. So in regards to being realistic as you have said, I wouldn’t imagine that you would be happy with them. Once again this is pure speculation and my opinion.

As for the 2 friends that is for another time but I will respond later. I am not a firm believer in the 'Gateway to Hell' theory, but I do believe that some people are more susceptible to addiction than others. So in that sense its like the alcoholic, 1 drink is too many 100 is not enough. You don’t see many pure alcos that restrict themselves to beer drinking. When I say this, I don’t just mean the so called bums on the street, I mean the CEO's right down. We have had a PM who was and is an alco. I look at drugs in a similar light. If someone is an addictive person their drug addiction can often start, just like your friend, at a young age with pot being the easiest to get and possibly the cheapest. Thus journey has then begun. The problem is how do you know that the 1st joint or beer may be the start of your decline.

I feel that depression mixed with substances can be very lethal, and (without supporting evidence) I feel that the substance can bring out the depression or the substance can produce the depression. As you may know depression can lead to addiction or substance abuse.

So to summarise my feelings towards pot, I regard it as no worse or better than alcohol. I just feel that we don’t need more legal drugs, we need less. And I firmly believe that legalisation of pot will make it harder for pot smokers like yourself.

Thanks for the reading matter and I will address the other questions at a later date.

Cheers

 

[anonymous Joe]

Originally posted by EssJayW
gPhongue

As I am well away from that side of things now I am unaware of what type of test they will be introducing this year or next year. I would imagine it would be a detection device similar to a PBT. This may be used to assist in proving a DUI of drugs. i.e. need evidence of bad driving etc. But this is speculation.

I can only imagine that if pot was legalised the Govt would be in some way or another forced to find a foolproof and legal way to test for it. This is obvious as we know. If a detection device is invented where pot can be detected on the breath or saliva, then obviously a reading of some description would have to be made, whether it is on the lines of the current alcohol levels or of something similar.

I can further imagine that legislation would have to be made along the lines of. Positive Reading then driver is required to accompany for a blood test, and failure to do so would be an offence.

I have no idea about the detection of drugs in the blood and what levels mean what, but I feel if pot was legalised the tolerance level of the legislation would be very low, i.e. detection of any amount requires blood test. And you may find that evidence of bad driving is not required, just as in the case of alcohol.

In considering this as speculation, legislation is written for the extreme. You admit to smoking regularly and the use may have less effect on you than say me, who hasn’t smoked for 18 years. Now if I had a smoke right now and jumped in the car 2 hours later I have no doubt that I would be a danger on the road, whereas you might not be. So in this case legislation has to be written for people like me and not you.

With such heavy enforcement of road safety and emphasis on drink driving, road toll, speeding ra ra ra ra, I just cant imagine the Govt leaving it as DUI, if pot was legalised.

The morning after factor is always a danger. The bloke that gets hammered the night before, and blows 0.1 on the way to work. Now he may do this everyday and his driving is not impaired but in everything there has to be a limit, and the limit is usually set for the extreme.

We have all seen blokes who are 2 pot screamers (pardon the pun) and we have seen blokes that can go all night. I imagine the same would be the case with smoking. I was the 2 pot screamer smoker and the moron that could drink all night. The laws are written for the 2 pot screamers. So in regards to being realistic as you have said, I wouldn’t imagine that you would be happy with them. Once again this is pure speculation and my opinion.

As for the 2 friends that is for another time but I will respond later. I am not a firm believer in the 'Gateway to Hell' theory, but I do believe that some people are more susceptible to addiction than others. So in that sense its like the alcoholic, 1 drink is too many 100 is not enough. You don’t see many pure alcos that restrict themselves to beer drinking. When I say this, I don’t just mean the so called bums on the street, I mean the CEO's right down. We have had a PM who was and is an alco. I look at drugs in a similar light. If someone is an addictive person their drug addiction can often start, just like your friend, at a young age with pot being the easiest to get and possibly the cheapest. Thus journey has then begun. The problem is how do you know that the 1st joint or beer may be the start of your decline.

I feel that depression mixed with substances can be very lethal, and (without supporting evidence) I feel that the substance can bring out the depression or the substance can produce the depression. As you may know depression can lead to addiction or substance abuse.

So to summarise my feelings towards pot, I regard it as no worse or better than alcohol. I just feel that we don’t need more legal drugs, we need less. And I firmly believe that legalisation of pot will make it harder for pot smokers like yourself.

Thanks for the reading matter and I will address the other questions at a later date.

Cheers

Victorian police are trialing swap test that pick up marijuana, only problem is they pick it up in the last 2 days so someone can have a few cones have 8 hours sleep be perfectly fine yet still lose thei license for three months.