tip off

But every time a drug user is thrown in prison, we all win (except for taxpayers, drug users and their families, future victims of real crime etc)

Pure Poison IconAnd the media were having such a slow news day yesterday.

Today you can almost hear them weeping their thanks to Bob Carr:


Yeah, that’s exactly what Carr said.

Here’s a place to capture all the silliest commentary – and most misleading headlines – on the subject.

PS: The drugs have been winning for a while:

58
  • 1
    silkworm
    Posted April 3, 2012 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    One of the primary reasons cannabis was made illegal in the US in the 1930s was to protect Randolph Hearst’s massive forestry interests. Cannabis – or marijuana as Hearst preferred to call it in his influential editorials, to give it the Mexican stigma that would appeal to white America’s racist streak – is a threat to pine as a cheap source of paper. In fact the quality of hemp-sourced paper is far superior to tree-sourced paper, and hemp in fact repairs the damage done to soil by deleterious agricultural and pastoral activities.

  • 2
    twobob
    Posted April 3, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    A recent early morning piece on RN pointed out that the original Australian law against opium was racially motivated.

  • 3
    Posted April 3, 2012 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    But we have to be super tough on drug users! Just look at the US — they’re really hard on drug users and they don’t have any problems with…oh…wait…

  • 4
    Aliar Jones
    Posted April 3, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    Hey OLD PEOPLE! FREAK OUUUUUUUUUUUT!!!!!

  • 5
    Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)
    Posted April 3, 2012 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    Another story where The Age, in their front page story, fail to mention the only party which has long held the view that the war on drugs is lost and we need a new approach.

    The Greens seem to be similarly ignored in the reports on the gaming lobby dropping their campaign against Gillard. The Age only quotes Xenophon.

    Faine on 774 Melbourne did the same. Even though Victoria has two Greens in federal parliament, both also anti-pokies, local Melbourne radio just talks to a South Australian senator.

  • 6
    lindsayb
    Posted April 3, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    The Hun treats its readers like morons, and the readers don’t seem to object or even notice.
    Carr et. al. are saying what has been acknowledged by most experts in this field for decades, be they medical or law inforcement.
    Aparently it’s pretty hard to bang the “law and order” drum and think at the same time.
    What do we want? More taxpayer funding for private “for profit” jails!
    Funny how only the poor and the “bad” seem to get locked up for drugs.
    Power to the sheeple.

  • 7
    Brizben
    Posted April 3, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    So if the nefarious lefties decriminalized pot, how much carbon tax would pot dealers have to pay?

  • 8
    Ronson Dalby
    Posted April 3, 2012 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    Worth reading about the premier who actually introduced sniffer dogs into NSW:

    https://theconversation.edu.au/rap-sheet-does-bob-carrs-record-on-drug-reform-stand-up-6229

  • 9
    Brown Bob
    Posted April 3, 2012 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    Wow it didn’t take chief village idiot Bob Carr long to remind us what a massive prat he is did it? A victimless crime eh? Try telling that to all the families / partners / kids etc of pot users (not to mention other drugs) that have to deal with the many and varied consequences of their “harmless” habit. Not too surprising to see all the usual suspects leap to his defence though. What is it with lefties and drugs?

  • 10
    Matthew of Canberra
    Posted April 3, 2012 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    “how much carbon tax would pot dealers have to pay?”

    Technically, if you grow something then burn it, that’s carbon neutral.

    But you’d have to take into account energy and chemical inputs to growing the stuff. So they probably would have higher leccy bills, and maybe their fertilisers would get a bit more expensive. But hey, we’ve all got problems.

  • 11
    Brizben
    Posted April 3, 2012 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

    When you look at all the CO2 in beer I think carbon neutral pot grown outdoors is the ethical alternative. And I also have to ask just how carbon neutral are the medications old age pensioners take every day? The carbon tax reforms did not go far enough. Not only should pot be decriminalized but I think old people should be forced by the government to smoke pot or have their pensions cut off.

  • 12
    SBH
    Posted April 3, 2012 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

    Well Bob Brown, what it is with ‘lefties’ (as opposed to righties I suppose) is that as a rule they are motivated to look to the community interest over self interest, don’t read Ayn Rand, look to the evidence to show where a solution might lie and don’t tend to put meaningless religio/moral values on things they don’t like.

  • 13
    Matthew of Canberra
    Posted April 3, 2012 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

    A victimless crime eh? Try telling that to all the families / partners / kids etc of excessive drinkers (not to mention other drugs, like smoking) that have to deal with the many and varied consequences of their “harmless” habit. Not too surprising to see all the usual suspects leap to his defence though. What is it with the right and not thinking things through?

    Seriously, though. The most harmful drug we have is alcohol. Probably followed by cigarettes. Then daylight.

    I’m actually not all that keen on free rein legalisation of drugs – I’ve said so before. The problem is (as you’ve pointed out) that there are ALREADY people using these drugs. The simplistic “war on drugs” attitude doesn’t reflect the facts on the ground; it assumes a bunch of things that are simply not true. It also massively exacerbates the secondary problems – by driving up the street prices of substances that are as addictive as life itself, and letting criminals control the quality and quantity of supply.

    The “just say no” and “war on drugs” approach work beautifully, right up to the point where some poor sap actually tries the stuff. Then those expressions are worse than irrelevant – in the sense that they make everything a great deal worse.

    I don’t quite know what the answer is. People who choose, out of nothing more than the desire to get rich, to make and sell some of the things out there …. I would gladly see locked away for infinity, never to see the light of day. After that, it gets complicated.

    At a practical level, I’m really not sure how any government can give its ok to forms of marijuana that are already known to be linked to psychosis. As for amphetamines … sheesh, forget it. Even in fundamental “product safety” terms, a lot of chemicals out there could simply not be legally sold in australia.

    So it’s not simple. And I don’t think “chief village idiot” carr is saying it is.

    But, then, try to remember that one of our previous PMs decried safe injecting facilities because they “sent the wrong sort of message”. The best cartoon bill leak never published was the one where the eyebrows lifted up the sheet over a body on the street and said “that’s sending the right message”

  • 14
    NeoTheFatCat
    Posted April 3, 2012 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

    If you take away the impacts artificially created by society, then I would say that currently illegal drugs are as harmless (or, more accurately, harmful) as the legal ones.

    I married into a family of alcoholics, and recently watched one of them drink himself to an early death. I have friends whose parents have smoked themselves to an early death.

    My bet is that if alcohol and tobacco were made illegal overnight, we would see all of the same “many and varied consequences” of these “harmless habits” too. As a non-smoker and infrequent drinker, I would positively welcome it! Except for those criminal smokers breaking into my house to support their habit.

  • 15
    Aliar Jones
    Posted April 3, 2012 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

    Try telling that to all the families / partners / kids etc of pot users (not to mention other drugs) that have to deal with the many and varied consequences of their “harmless” habit.

    Please show us the research you base this claim on before you open that gargantuan ignorant fly catcher again…

  • 16
    Aliar Jones
    Posted April 3, 2012 at 11:09 pm | Permalink

    What is it with lefties and drugs?

    They approach the issue intelligently as opposed to people like you who act like pot is somehow in another whole category to booze, which it aint.

  • 17
    Coldsnacks
    Posted April 3, 2012 at 11:11 pm | Permalink

    the premier who actually introduced sniffer dogs into NSW

    And who softened penalties for minor drug crimes. Oh, and opened a safe injection room for heroin users in Kings Cross.

    Swings and roundabouts?

    A victimless crime eh? Try telling that to all the families / partners / kids etc of pot users (not to mention other drugs) that have to deal with the many and varied consequences of their “harmless” habit.

    Yep, just like the many and varied consequences suffered by the families/partners/kids etc of smokers and drinkers.

    Though, one does wonder at the number of consequences suffered are because we stupidly consider drug use a criminal problem, not a health and social one and treat it as such?

    So they probably would have higher leccy bills

    Pretty sure the solar industry in some countries grew from the back of the marijuana industry.

    The indoor cultivated ones need constant light for maximum yield. Not to mention things like electric fences for the ones cultivated outside so livestock don’t get stuck in.

    But, suddenly having a much larger drain on the local ‘leccy grid is sure to send up a red flag. Solution? Go off the grid.

  • 18
    Trip
    Posted April 3, 2012 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

    I was startled driving home today listening to ‘Hack’. At first their commentary on the latest round of bickering was fairly tolerable, then came so&so from some drug war NGO. He actually had the gall to cite the fact that more people use legal drugs than illegal as a proof that the drug war was a success.
    For the most part I was just dumbfounded, is this really the attitude of the people? What is holding us back from rational drug policy?
    We watch the 1%er drug users under a magnifying glass & ignore every other instance in society with a steadfastly blind eye.

  • 19
    Brown Bob
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 12:42 am | Permalink

    Ahhh Jonesy – you sound a bit defensive. I feel like I just learnt a bit about how you like to spend your spare time ;-) Anyone that would try to argue the case that those around a drug user don’t suffer is clearly a {EDIT: Civility. We want it on our comment threads.} At least now we know why you are a {EDIT: Civility. We want it on our comment threads.} !

  • 20
    Matthew of Canberra
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    “the premier who actually introduced sniffer dogs into NSW”

    And poker machines, let’s not forget.

    The sniffer dogs were basically left over from the olympics. Customs can take only so many. Without some sort of application, they’d have become people’s pets after a bunch of expensive training.

  • 21
    Matthew of Canberra
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 7:28 am | Permalink

    “When you look at all the CO2 in beer I think carbon neutral pot grown outdoors is the ethical alternative. “

    The CO2 in beer is carbon neutral. Every little C12 in those bubbles came out of the atmosphere to be incorporated into starch molecules in the grain used to brew the beer. Those little starch molecules became sugar during the malting step, and that’s what fed the yeast so that it could burp its CO2 (and vomit ethanol, if you like).

    But the inputs to the agriculture need to be taken into account, same as pot.

    Weirdly the CO2 in carbonated soft-drinks is actually made by burning charcoal (that’s the most common way to produce CO2 for food applications, I think). So that ISN’T carbon neutral.

    So we really ought to stop drinking fanta and switch to beer. Or champagne, as long as it’s “methode traditionelle” (sp?)

  • 22
    Fran Barlow
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 7:37 am | Permalink

    What is it with lefties and drugs?

    As “Aliar” says/implies — reason and consistency rather than moral panic.

  • 23
    RobJ
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    Seriously, though. The most harmful drug we have is alcohol. Probably followed by cigarettes.

    I would contend that cigarettes are number 1 because they kill the most people by far.

    As far as I’m concerned, decriminalisation and regulation of all drugs is a no brainer. One could argue that some drugs are just far too dangerous but as long as cigarettes are legal their argument doesn’t hold much weight. Also people are going to take drugs regardless, let’s treat it as a health issue and let’s enjoy a huge reduction in drug related crime.

  • 24
    Matthew of Canberra
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    Brown Bob … just to save me from having to go back and check … did you apply that “what about the victims” thinking to the poker-machine reforms? Or were you one of the “but people are making lots of money” or “but people should have the right to decide how they run their life” crowd?

    I suspect that poker machines cause WAY more personal, financial, societal and family harm than dope does, right now in australia.

  • 25
    RobJ
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 7:43 am | Permalink

    I’m sure a drug user would rather by from a chemist than a criminal, the chemist wont be trying to convince the user to buy, quite the opposite, the criminal on the other hand. I reckon that after an initial spike in drug use it would eventually drop, we’d have less addicts and those addicts would be more healthy, less likely to commit crime to feed their habit, less of a burden.

  • 26
    Duncan
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    MoC

    “At a practical level, I’m really not sure how any government can give its ok to forms of marijuana that are already known to be linked to psychosis.”

    That’s an old wives tale. Cannabis may trigger a psychotic episode in those with a serious underlying mental health issue, but there is NO evidence of cannabis causing psychosis in and of itself.

    Stress, marriage break up, alcoholism and gambling, the death of a family member…all these things can equally trigger an episode, but you wouldn’t say they CAUSED the mental illness, just exacerbated an existing problem. Also consider that many psychotic episodes and suicides have been triggered by the perfectly legal use of anti depressants, and even anti acne drugs! Shall we ban them too, just in case?

    Suggesting cannabis should remain criminalized on this basis is about as valid as banning alcohol just because some people develop drinking problems, or banning cigarettes because some smokers will get cancer. It also ignores the therapeutic value of cannabis for chronic pain, nausea etc.

    “As for amphetamines … sheesh, forget it. Even in fundamental “product safety” terms, a lot of chemicals out there could simply not be legally sold in australia.”

    While i am inclined to agree with you about speed, it is already legally available in the form of Dexamphetamine and Ritalin medication for ADD.

    MDMA (ecstasy) has been successfully used in therapy for PTSD, and psilocybin has been found to be effective in treating anxiety, depression and cluster migraines.

    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2004887,00.html

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/757387

  • 27
    Aliar Jones
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    Anyone that would try to argue the case that those around a drug user don’t suffer is clearly a {EDIT: Civility. We want it on our comment threads.} At least now we know why you are a {EDIT: Civility. We want it on our comment threads.} !

    Stay classy Bob!

    It’s good to know that anyone who argues with you MUST BE AN EVIL DRUG USER.
    Thanks but a further demonstration of {EDIT: Civility. We want it on our comment threads.} is not necessary.

    You’re our best hope of a brighter future beyond a Coalition government. You are the perfect example of {EDIT: Civility. We want it on our comment threads.} who never questions right wing dogma past their own front door.

    I guess Dave or Jeremy must have CENSORED your comments about Alcohol and tobacco where you demonstrated the tiniest shred of credibility whilst attempting to feign being a ‘good guy’ across-the-board anti drugs campaigner.

    We get it Bob, you’re a {EDIT: Civility. We want it on our comment threads.}. Your life is an empty chasm you fill by reminding anyone with a brain cell at their disposal that adhering to vacuous political dogma is the very definition of brain death.

    Thanks for that, at least, since you seem to serve no other purpose whatsoever.

    Defensive? nah, just bored with you and {EDIT: Civility. We want it on our comment threads.}.

  • 28
    jules
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 9:06 am | Permalink

    “Wow it didn’t take chief village idiot Bob Carr long to remind us what a massive prat he is did it? A victimless crime eh? Try telling that to all the families / partners / kids etc of pot users (not to mention other drugs) that have to deal with the many and varied consequences of their “harmless” habit.”

    I have a family member who has had a heroin habit for nearly 20 years. Its clear to me that legal heroin would have saved my family and including the one with a habit a fortune over the years – money that has gone untaxed to organised crime. Not to mention the stress caused by the person scamming money, going thru withdrawal, etc etc. And the stress of wondering when he is gonna turn up dead from an OD or worse like so many of his mates, of get into too much debt and have hard words put on him about a quick trip to SE Asia to clear the debt.

    The dodgy side of the prostitution industry prefers illegal heroin, as do loan sharks and drug importers throughout the country tho. Maybe you’re advocating for them Brown Bob.

    Considering how cheap it is to grow opium in Tassie and provide methadone (which has its own health issues) via pharmacists where said addicts could have greater access to the provision of services to deal with their addiction. Its pretty clear that people who call for the maintenance of prohibition are either stupid or profiting (financially or thru the political support of puritanical busybodies) from the illegality of drugs.

    That includes people advocating for prohibition on this thread.

  • 29
    Nick the Hippy
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    One of the concepts of drug use is people years lost. When a death is reported as drug related the age is noted and compared to the average life span . So if the average age people live to is 80 and a 20yo crashes his car and dies that 60 people years lost.
    Tobacco kills far more people than alcohol but the deaths occur later in life. When you use people years lost the gap between alcohol and tobacco closes but tobacco is still ahead.

  • 30
    Ravenred
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    I’m generally in favour of decriminalisation as the lesser of two evils, but BrownBob has a point in that drug use (in addition to the criminality surrounding an illegal product) has its own negative effects which you have to take into account with policy settings. However, anything that has the potential to reduce the number of drug addicts and replace them with functional users is, on balance, a positive policy direction.

  • 31
    mondo rock
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 9:48 am | Permalink

    Brown Bob – you are (either deliberately or through a lack of knowledge) inserting factually false claims into this debate:

    1. Carr has not called for legalisation of any drugs – he has called for decriminalisation of some drugs. If you don’t understand the difference between those words you should do some research to avoid any further appearance of ignorance on your part.

    2. Carr has also not described drug use as a victimless crime – you appear to be fabricating quotes. This is called a strawman argument – another term you may wish to look up.

    3. Those who favour decriminalisation of certain drugs fully recognise that these are destructive, harmful and dangerous habits and are committed to the eradication of those problems. The difference lies not in their view of drugs, but in their preferred solution.

    Perhaps you could explain why you believe that sending a drug user to jail and/or giving them a criminal conviction for the rest of their life offers a better solution to the ravages of drug abuse than medical treatment would?

  • 32
    Brizben
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    The beer CO2 issue is correct for bottled beer but not for keg beer. Kegs require and external source of CO2. English beers like Guinness are more carbon friendly because they require a blend of 75% Nitrogen and 25% CO2 gas on the keg.

  • 33
    twobob
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    The biggest winner from prohibition is organised crime.
    The biggest loser from prohibition is the public where money that could be used to mitigate drug use is instead wasted on ensuring huge profits for the people prepared to supply the prohibited drug.
    The biggest idiots in our society are those who support organised crime through the prohibition of drugs.
    If the shoe fits then wear it!

  • 34
    Matthew of Canberra
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    Duncan: All I said was that a government is going to have a hard time, politically and ethically, legalising a drug that is known to be able to trigger psychosis. Yes, it’s also predicated to a predisposition. But that predisposition is a given, while the use of cannabis isn’t. I haven’t personally experienced a psychotic episode, or schizophrenia, but I know someone who has and to me it sounds pretty terrifying, and it’s obviously debilitating. If somebody were to smoke the high-THC stuff we have these days and trigger a debilitating illness like that, I expect it would be small comfort to tell them that hey, it might have happened anyway.

    I understand there are complexities, and I understand that there are other banned drugs with legitimate therapeutic uses. And no, I’m not going all “reefer madness” or “moral panic” about this. But cannabis is not harmless. And that makes it difficult for any government to legalise it.

    And yes, I’ve already agreed that there are legal drugs that cause WAY more harm. That also doesn’t eliminate the facts about cannabis.

    And no, leaving it criminalised is not my own preferred policy proposal. Decriminalisation is fine by me. But I can’t be voted out of office or sued for saying that.

  • 35
    liliwyt
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    @Brown Bob – Bob Carr lost a brother to heroin overdose (which, presumably, explains his interest in this issue). So, no, I don’t think he would be advocating that drug addiction is a “victimless crime”.

  • 36
    liliwyt
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    Just having a giggle at the thought of Chris Berg of the IPA, who is also an advocate for decriminalising drugs, being classed as a “leftie”.

  • 37
    zoot
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    MOC @34: There is very little real evidence of the link between cannabis and psychosis. Sorry I haven’t the time to search out a direct URL but Terry at The Australian Heroin Diaries wrote a number of posts examining the research into this link (which largely debunks the “cannabis will tip you over the edge” myth).

  • 38
    AR
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    If something is illegal, only criminals (well known for their ethics, social responsibility, tax paying & all round decency) will be able to supply, price & regulate quality control.
    I am constantly amazed by the memory hole in this matter of substance prohibition, with the usual references to Holland, Switzerland & Portugal as pioneers of decriminalisation.
    Until 1969, all GPs in the UK were able to prescribe heroin, cocaine, amphetamine and tincture of cannabis. Seeking yet another IMF loan during one their traditional Sterling crises, it was made clear by amerika that it would not approve such a loan unless the UK stopped this heinous practice of treating drug addiction as a medical problem.
    The rest is history, sad, tragic & farcical.
    One factor in the support for criminal sanctions which I have never seen adequately discussed in the vast, commercial profiteering in supplying the toys required, as shown on tabloid TV such as Border Security – eg: those little plastic bags used to test for illegal substances cost about $10 each, the machine which goes ‘beep’ is just under a cool half mill, (and is only semi accurate if rigorously cleansed after EACH use – preferably by someone with opposable thumbs and more than double digit IQ).
    The vast costs of law enforcement, prisons, extra crime, not to mention corruption of the thin blue line by the shiny white line are at least acknowledged though rarely tabulated.
    The loss of civil liberties – the first stop&search infringement of the centuries old sanctity of person in the UK was proclaimed as necessary to counter the drug menace with fulsome & fatuous assurances that it would never, never ever be misused, just like the terrorism laws.
    Interesting the way the Authorities always manage to find a new Other to frighten the electorate into demanding more restrictions … on themselves.

  • 39
    The Pav
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    Tobacco is a legalised drug and quite probably the hardest adiction to beat.

    By taxing the bejesus out of it and running a massive education program use is slowly but surely declining.

    The same can’t be said for illegal drugs.

    The war on drugs has failed and the definition of insantity is to do the same thing and expect a different result. This probably explains Brown Bobs reaction to the opening of this debate.

    From purely practical viewpoint the war on drugs has failed to make supply & sale unprofitable. Decriminalisation and licensed supply should achieve this.

    As things are now it is worthwhile for dealers to discount drugs and suply them to young children. Good marketing that way they have a customer for life ( copyng the tobacco companies). take or minimise this profit motive and you will get a long term gain.

    Logical really no wonder dear BB has a problem with it

  • 40
    Kullen Joshua
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    Bill Hicks said it best:
    A War on Drugs implies there’s a war and the people on drugs are winning it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdS5ZFtpIF8

    Worth watching

  • 41
    Eric Sykes
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

    “the high-THC stuff we have these days”. Another myth, the THC content of the grass you refer to MOC is no higher than hashish and hash oil, smoked for centuries across the world.

  • 42
    Brown Bob
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    LOL well it seems you’ve outdone me in the classy stakes 2 to 1 Jonesy!
    Certainly a strange censorship policy going on here. I get censored for using the word moron but the F word is fine, as well as the constant bile and abuse that dribbles out of that hole in Jonesy’s head at every opportunity !

    Anyway back to the topic – I see everyone came up with the usual red herrings – smokes and alcohol. Strangely I don’t recall refuting the damage they cause to society, but I do wonder at the logic that says because they are legal people should have free reign with every other kind of drug. Let’s just multiply our problems eh? Anyone up for another hit of crack cocaine at the pub before we drive home??

    It’s obvious to even the most casual observer that a lot of people’s blabbering about legalisation of drugs has as much to do with their desire to pick up worry free bag of pot at the chemist on the way home so they can get stoned every night as it does with any high minded goal to fix societies woes.

    Mondo rock – don’t know why you bothered. Maybe you should re-read my post and have a look at this also. A bit of research wouldn’t have gone astray:

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8445751/police-are-wasting-time-on-victimless-crime-carr

    And the fact that drugs are illegal doesn’t preclude medical treatment for those that need it. Thanks for coming anyway……I guess.

  • 43
    Aliar Jones
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

    I get censored for using the word moron but the F word is fine

    Oh good, you’re a F moron Bob

  • 44
    jules
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    Kullen @ 40 Bill Hicks is great. He was a prophet too:

    “Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather.”

    Sure enough…

    “The psychedelic drug in magic mushrooms may have lasting medical and spiritual benefits, according to new research from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.”

    http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/16/magic-mushrooms-can-improve-psychological-health-long-term/#ixzz1r4SjX37T

    More Hicksian genius:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baeT3g7udho

    Brown Bob needs to learn to read btw, as not everyone came up with the usual red herrings.

    However in a free society clearly people should be able to pick up a worry free bag of pot at the chemist, and get stoned every night, if they so choose – being free people in a free society. It appears BB is against this idea and so by extension against the idea of a free society.

    Perhaps he’d prefer living in Communist Russia.

  • 45
    RobJ
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

    Anyone up for another hit of crack cocaine at the pub before we drive home??

    Red herrings indeed!

  • 46
    Brown Bob
    Posted April 4, 2012 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

    Sorry Jonesy – no prizes for second, though I suppose at least it’s a change from you cyberstalking Howard B and obsessing about his bodily fluids………..

  • 47
    Matthew of Canberra
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    BB:

    I see everyone came up with the usual red herrings – smokes and alcohol.

    You left out my questions to you about poker machines. And they’re not red herrings, they’re analogous problems. If smokes and alcohol do so much damage, the question isn’t “why make things worse” but “why do we tolerate the problems we have?”. Give a (hypothetical) choice between our nation having a dope problem vs an alcohol problem (and we do have an alcohol problem) then it’s a no brainer – we should switch to dope. Yes, we know cannabis has problems (and I’m ignoring claims otherwise until somebody starts supplying credible links), but they’re less serious than the problems of alcohol, period. Stoners don’t pick fights and glass c***s, they don’t bash their kids and wives and girlfriends, they don’t drag race cars and kill bystanders, and I’m reasonably convinced that the health issues (while occasionally very serious) are less serious on average than the known problems caused by alcohol.

    Your “why make things worse” response is basically the argument from antiquity – leave things as they are. It’s actually just begging the question, when they whole point being debated is whether we should change the rules. And whether a change to the rules would “make things worse” is precisely the point being debated, when the “things” being made “worse” extend beyond the immediate addiction and health problems to associated temptations to criminality, poverty and exploitation by cretinous suppliers.

    “It’s obvious to even the most casual observer that a lot of people’s blabbering about legalisation of drugs has as much to do with their desire to pick up worry free bag of pot”

    Not me. I’ve already got one little favorite substance, and it’s not dope. Once upon a time I might have been tempted to try some LSD, these days there’s no chance. I’ve learned a bit more about the importance of brain chemistry :-) I haven’t used dope since early 1994 – it messed very badly with my ability to remember things, so I ditched it. Now I’m not interested. So it’s the booze for me.

    I agree with you that there’s a certain tendency among teh youffs to see any criticism of dope as part of The Grand Conspiracy. Been there, done that. Can’t be bothered arguing – at least unless the dope-convert has made the effort to read the illuminatus trilogy, can show me at least 10 new and mysterious appearances of the number 23, knows who wilhelm reich was and can decide whether it was hearst or dupont who got dope banned in the US. At least then I can engage with a full-blown fantasy world :-)

    at the chemist on the way home so they can get stoned every night as it does with any high minded goal to fix societies woes.

  • 48
    Aliar Jones
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    Sorry Jonesy – no prizes for second, though I suppose at least it’s a change from you cyberstalking Howard B and obsessing about his bodily fluids………..

    More ‘genius’ from the mind of Brown Bob. If you argue against the myopic and silly idea that the prohibition of drugs such as pot is not helping you MUST BE A DRUG ADDICT.

    If you comment on a..er…comment thread where someone is patently concern trolling and marveling, like an abject tosser, about their own sexual prowess then you are ‘cyberstalking’.

    Nothing in your world connects to reality Bob

  • 49
    Jay
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    liliwyt

    - “Just having a giggle at the thought of Chris Berg of the IPA, who is also an advocate for decriminalising drugs, being classed as a “leftie”.”

    You’ve just messed with Brown Bob’s world view.

  • 50
    Aliar Jones
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    You’ve just messed with Brown Bob’s world view.

    There’s notgetting through to someone who lives in that kind of bubble..

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...