Discussion:
Cannabis Referendum
Add Reply
Tony
2020-10-13 22:59:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
Rich80105
2020-10-13 23:50:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Tony
2020-10-14 00:14:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
How do you know what I believe about alcohol.
Assumptions make a fool out of you.
Tony
2020-10-14 00:23:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Other than your silly assumption about my beliefs concerning alcohol.
Whether alcohol is a good thing or a bad one has nothing whatsoever to do with
cannabis.
If you want to discuss alcohol then feel free to start your own thread on that
subject.
Meanwhile this one is not about alcohol and never was.
Read the article, it is all there, you can make your own mind up, I already did
a while ago and the article merely reinforced it.
George
2020-10-14 19:05:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 19:23:07 -0500
Post by Tony
Other than your silly assumption about my beliefs concerning alcohol.
Whether alcohol is a good thing or a bad one has nothing whatsoever
to do with cannabis.
If you want to discuss alcohol then feel free to start your own
thread on that subject.
Meanwhile this one is not about alcohol and never was.
Read the article, it is all there, you can make your own mind up, I
already did a while ago and the article merely reinforced it.
Up until the 1930s all manner of drugs were available some in childrens
medications to keep the little dears quiet... :)
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Tony
2020-10-14 19:25:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 19:23:07 -0500
Post by Tony
Other than your silly assumption about my beliefs concerning alcohol.
Whether alcohol is a good thing or a bad one has nothing whatsoever
to do with cannabis.
If you want to discuss alcohol then feel free to start your own
thread on that subject.
Meanwhile this one is not about alcohol and never was.
Read the article, it is all there, you can make your own mind up, I
already did a while ago and the article merely reinforced it.
Up until the 1930s all manner of drugs were available some in childrens
medications to keep the little dears quiet... :)
You could buy opium in the eraly 1900s from the corner den.
Post by George
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
BR
2020-10-14 04:14:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol?
I can tell you that I was a heavy user of cannabis from the age of 16
to 29.

I will not be voting in favour of it's legalisation.

Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Gordon
2020-10-14 06:42:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol?
I can tell you that I was a heavy user of cannabis from the age of 16
to 29.
I will not be voting in favour of it's legalisation.
Now we have to ask why?
Gordon
2020-10-14 06:39:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.

(Principals are people)
Rich80105
2020-10-14 21:58:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.

Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Tony
2020-10-15 00:51:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
James Christophers
2020-10-15 01:36:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
In which case may I suggest that to show how it should be done you now, and for the first time in this thread, offer a further post that keeps strictly solely and exclusively to the topic of the cannabis referendum in accordance with the strictures you impose on others, while also usefully adding value by expanding and developing your own topic while not once straying beyond the limits you insist on? Only in this way can your topic have any point or value.

Before you make the attempt, it's prudent to remember that offering a topic to all and sundry for open debate and then dictating to others what they can and cannot say on this single issue which you well know comes under the universal rubric, "substance abuse and addiction'', is in my view manifestly unrealistic.
Tony
2020-10-15 02:51:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
In which case may I suggest that to show how it should be done you now, and
for the first time in this thread, offer a further post that keeps strictly
solely and exclusively to the topic of the cannabis referendum in accordance
with the strictures you impose on others, while also usefully adding value by
expanding and developing your own topic while not once straying beyond the
limits you insist on? Only in this way can your topic have any point or value.
I have already complied with that rule in this thread. The topic is about the
article I pointed at - that is all.
Post by James Christophers
Before you make the attempt, it's prudent to remember that offering a topic to
all and sundry for open debate and then dictating to others what they can and
cannot say on this single issue which you well know comes under the universal
rubric, "substance abuse and addiction'', is in my view manifestly unrealistic.
I am not dictating to anyone, that really would be manifestly unrealistic
because dictators require power which in this newgroup no-one has, not even you.
The only thing that is manifestly unrealistic is to hope that Rich will
actually stick to the subject, any subject, any time.
Rich80105
2020-10-15 04:05:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful substances is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other than your
own.
Tony
2020-10-15 04:19:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful substances is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other than your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about anything but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Rich80105
2020-10-15 08:03:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful substances is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other than your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about anything but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.

On topic, Tony.
John Bowes
2020-10-15 09:31:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful substances is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other than your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about anything but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
On topic, Tony.
The topic was cannabis Rich! not whatever pet bullshit hobbyhorse you're on now!

Again your total lack of comprehension has made highlight your stupidity!
Tony
2020-10-15 19:47:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful substances is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other than your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about anything but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
On topic, Tony.
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However what you finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
Rich80105
2020-10-15 20:50:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 14:47:29 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful substances is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other than your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about anything but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
On topic, Tony.
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However what you finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
Now that you have agreed that those words were on topic, the following
is merely an extension into methods of reducing the harm:

Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Tony
2020-10-15 21:05:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 14:47:29 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful substances is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other than your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about anything but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
On topic, Tony.
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However what you finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
Now that you have agreed that those words were on topic, the following
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Of course it is complex and that is obvious to anybody who is not dim-witted.
But all you have stated is just that, the obvious.
All I have stated is that there are experts who believe the referendum is not a
good one to agree to and that I have been convinced by them.
It will be moot tomorrow anyway and for me it is already so, I voted no and am
very content with that having done some serious research beforehand.
There now, much easier now that you are finally on topic isn't it?
James Christophers
2020-10-15 21:09:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful substances is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other than your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about anything but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be.
Well put. It's not just about cannabis per se but about substance abuse and addiction in general, and the connection between both and their potential to destroy lives, plus their harmful effect on society at large. Yes, the Referendum is about cannabis as a single issue, but the various elements of the harmful substances debate cannot be considered in strict isolation, **particularly** in the case of cannabis which is treated by those who have to deal with these issues as the (often naive and unaware) initiate's 'gateway' to harder addictive substances.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult.
Well put. This is the conundrum central to both the cannabis-as-addictive-substance debate and the Referendum. The conundrum is, essentially, intractable so conclusive watertight policy decisions that completely satisfy the 'balance' you earlier refer to will remain elusive.
Post by Rich80105
When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Wonky syntax, but the point is usefully made.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On topic, Tony.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However what you finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.



The same can be truthfully said of that closing remark.
Tony
2020-10-15 22:46:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful substances is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other than your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about anything but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be.
Well put. It's not just about cannabis per se but about substance abuse and
addiction in general, and the connection between both and their potential to
destroy lives, plus their harmful effect on society at large. Yes, the
Referendum is about cannabis as a single issue, but the various elements of the
harmful substances debate cannot be considered in strict isolation,
**particularly** in the case of cannabis which is treated by those who have to
deal with these issues as the (often naive and unaware) initiate's 'gateway' to
harder addictive substances.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult.
Well put. This is the conundrum central to both the
cannabis-as-addictive-substance debate and the Referendum. The conundrum is,
essentially, intractable so conclusive watertight policy decisions that
completely satisfy the 'balance' you earlier refer to will remain elusive.
Post by Rich80105
When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Wonky syntax, but the point is usefully made.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On topic, Tony.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However what you finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
The same can be truthfully said of that closing remark.
Everything I have posted in this thread has either been on topic or was a
direct response to someone else in this thread.
Rich80105
2020-10-15 23:08:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:46:40 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful substances is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other than your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about anything but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be.
Well put. It's not just about cannabis per se but about substance abuse and
addiction in general, and the connection between both and their potential to
destroy lives, plus their harmful effect on society at large. Yes, the
Referendum is about cannabis as a single issue, but the various elements of the
harmful substances debate cannot be considered in strict isolation,
**particularly** in the case of cannabis which is treated by those who have to
deal with these issues as the (often naive and unaware) initiate's 'gateway' to
harder addictive substances.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult.
Well put. This is the conundrum central to both the
cannabis-as-addictive-substance debate and the Referendum. The conundrum is,
essentially, intractable so conclusive watertight policy decisions that
completely satisfy the 'balance' you earlier refer to will remain elusive.
Post by Rich80105
When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Wonky syntax, but the point is usefully made.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On topic, Tony.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However what you finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
The same can be truthfully said of that closing remark.
Everything I have posted in this thread has either been on topic or was a
direct response to someone else in this thread.
I am glad you should think so.

What is also clear is that the two most recent posts by me to this
thread were direct copies of paragraphs from my earlier post that yu
objected to as not being on topic.

That you have now changed your mind is commendable, but I can only see
that longer posts leave you perhaps a little confused; by breaking
into smaller pieces you are better able to actually read what someone
else has written. I cannot promise to always be able to make posts of
less than say 100 words to keep within your comprehension limits Tony,
but I will try.
Tony
2020-10-16 00:16:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:46:40 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol?
(And
I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful substances is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other than your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about
anything
but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be.
Well put. It's not just about cannabis per se but about substance abuse and
addiction in general, and the connection between both and their potential to
destroy lives, plus their harmful effect on society at large. Yes, the
Referendum is about cannabis as a single issue, but the various elements of the
harmful substances debate cannot be considered in strict isolation,
**particularly** in the case of cannabis which is treated by those who have to
deal with these issues as the (often naive and unaware) initiate's 'gateway' to
harder addictive substances.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult.
Well put. This is the conundrum central to both the
cannabis-as-addictive-substance debate and the Referendum. The conundrum is,
essentially, intractable so conclusive watertight policy decisions that
completely satisfy the 'balance' you earlier refer to will remain elusive.
Post by Rich80105
When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Wonky syntax, but the point is usefully made.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On topic, Tony.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However what you finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
The same can be truthfully said of that closing remark.
Everything I have posted in this thread has either been on topic or was a
direct response to someone else in this thread.
Anticipated abuse removed. Rich is incapable of truth, ever.
James Christophers
2020-10-16 00:26:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful substances is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other than your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about anything but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be.
Well put. It's not just about cannabis per se but about substance abuse and
addiction in general, and the connection between both and their potential to
destroy lives, plus their harmful effect on society at large. Yes, the
Referendum is about cannabis as a single issue, but the various elements of the
harmful substances debate cannot be considered in strict isolation,
**particularly** in the case of cannabis which is treated by those who have to
deal with these issues as the (often naive and unaware) initiate's 'gateway' to
harder addictive substances.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult.
Well put. This is the conundrum central to both the
cannabis-as-addictive-substance debate and the Referendum. The conundrum is,
essentially, intractable so conclusive watertight policy decisions that
completely satisfy the 'balance' you earlier refer to will remain elusive.
Post by Rich80105
When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Wonky syntax, but the point is usefully made.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On topic, Tony.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However what you finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
The same can be truthfully said of that closing remark.
Everything I have posted in this thread has either been on topic or was a
direct response to someone else in this thread.
Then I shall enlarge:

BR (a salutary post if ever there were, and needing no further explaining), Gordon, Crash, Rich and I have each offered **you** their efforts at constructive input in the hope of better informing and progressing **your** topic by developing and expanding on it. OK, in such a loose and casual medium as Usenet there may be errors, diversions, even distractions amongst what is offered, but nevertheless it is your topic that has, in essence, been addressed.

On the other hand, you demonstrate no such honorable equivalence in this thread, i.e., that same honorable equivalence that genuine, purposeful debate demands.

You originated the topic, ergo, you own it; so it would go some considerable way to giving some validity both to your presence and topic-as-offered by showing you understand and appreciate the meaning and purpose of genuine debate that you yourself may doubtless intend but hardly ever - if at all - progress to a satisfactory conclusion on your own account. It is for you - as topic originator and owner - to put your own house in order - certainly not anyone else in this thread.

To close: the article you refer to is in my view very well-considered. I therefore support it for what it seems, just as I have also already supported the 'no' vote in the Cannabis Referendum; while in the general election supporting those candidates and party(ies) I consider least likely to do the least overall harm to the nation at large over the next parliamentary term.

Colours nailed to the mast an' all that...
Tony
2020-10-16 02:04:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with
medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol?
(And
I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful substances is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other than your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about
anything
but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be.
Well put. It's not just about cannabis per se but about substance abuse and
addiction in general, and the connection between both and their potential to
destroy lives, plus their harmful effect on society at large. Yes, the
Referendum is about cannabis as a single issue, but the various elements of the
harmful substances debate cannot be considered in strict isolation,
**particularly** in the case of cannabis which is treated by those who have to
deal with these issues as the (often naive and unaware) initiate's 'gateway' to
harder addictive substances.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult.
Well put. This is the conundrum central to both the
cannabis-as-addictive-substance debate and the Referendum. The conundrum is,
essentially, intractable so conclusive watertight policy decisions that
completely satisfy the 'balance' you earlier refer to will remain elusive.
Post by Rich80105
When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Wonky syntax, but the point is usefully made.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On topic, Tony.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However what you finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
The same can be truthfully said of that closing remark.
Everything I have posted in this thread has either been on topic or was a
direct response to someone else in this thread.
BR (a salutary post if ever there were, and needing no further explaining),
Gordon, Crash, Rich and I have each offered **you** their efforts at
constructive input in the hope of better informing and progressing **your**
topic by developing and expanding on it. OK, in such a loose and casual
medium as Usenet there may be errors, diversions, even distractions amongst
what is offered, but nevertheless it is your topic that has, in essence, been
addressed.
On the other hand, you demonstrate no such honorable equivalence in this
thread, i.e., that same honorable equivalence that genuine, purposeful debate
demands.
You originated the topic, ergo, you own it; so it would go some considerable
way to giving some validity both to your presence and topic-as-offered by
showing you understand and appreciate the meaning and purpose of genuine debate
that you yourself may doubtless intend but hardly ever - if at all - progress
to a satisfactory conclusion on your own account. It is for you - as topic
originator and owner - to put your own house in order - certainly not anyone
else in this thread.
To close: the article you refer to is in my view very well-considered. I
therefore support it for what it seems, just as I have also already supported
the 'no' vote in the Cannabis Referendum; while in the general election
supporting those candidates and party(ies) I consider least likely to do the
least overall harm to the nation at large over the next parliamentary term.
Colours nailed to the mast an' all that...
Thank you but my house is well in order.
I posted a link to an article, one that you acknowledge has merit, I made the
statement that I was opposed to the reform offered in the referendum. This is
based on research, not just that one article.
Rich immediately guessed that I was in favour of alcohol but not cannabis. He
has no idea what my views on alcohol are. But in so doing he completely changed
the course of the discuss, which I am confident was his intention.
That is what happened, Crash politely gace a different view which I respected.
Rich provided his usual politically motivated silliness and gave no explanation
for his assumption etc.
Par for the course, as usual. He disagreed with me out of rote, ie that is what
he does when I and selected others post (those that disagree with himlargely).
He deliberately changed the course of the discussion and he does that almost
invariably.
That is all it is about. The post was never about anything but cannabis. A
separate post on all of the other dangerous, and habit forming stuff may be of
value, but that should be another post in my opinion.
Rich80105
2020-10-16 02:33:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 21:04:34 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with
medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe
and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol?
(And
I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking
about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being
lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful substances is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other than your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about
anything
but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be.
Well put. It's not just about cannabis per se but about substance abuse and
addiction in general, and the connection between both and their potential to
destroy lives, plus their harmful effect on society at large. Yes, the
Referendum is about cannabis as a single issue, but the various elements of the
harmful substances debate cannot be considered in strict isolation,
**particularly** in the case of cannabis which is treated by those who have to
deal with these issues as the (often naive and unaware) initiate's 'gateway' to
harder addictive substances.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult.
Well put. This is the conundrum central to both the
cannabis-as-addictive-substance debate and the Referendum. The conundrum is,
essentially, intractable so conclusive watertight policy decisions that
completely satisfy the 'balance' you earlier refer to will remain elusive.
Post by Rich80105
When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Wonky syntax, but the point is usefully made.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On topic, Tony.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However what you finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
The same can be truthfully said of that closing remark.
Everything I have posted in this thread has either been on topic or was a
direct response to someone else in this thread.
BR (a salutary post if ever there were, and needing no further explaining),
Gordon, Crash, Rich and I have each offered **you** their efforts at
constructive input in the hope of better informing and progressing **your**
topic by developing and expanding on it. OK, in such a loose and casual
medium as Usenet there may be errors, diversions, even distractions amongst
what is offered, but nevertheless it is your topic that has, in essence, been
addressed.
On the other hand, you demonstrate no such honorable equivalence in this
thread, i.e., that same honorable equivalence that genuine, purposeful debate
demands.
You originated the topic, ergo, you own it; so it would go some considerable
way to giving some validity both to your presence and topic-as-offered by
showing you understand and appreciate the meaning and purpose of genuine debate
that you yourself may doubtless intend but hardly ever - if at all - progress
to a satisfactory conclusion on your own account. It is for you - as topic
originator and owner - to put your own house in order - certainly not anyone
else in this thread.
To close: the article you refer to is in my view very well-considered. I
therefore support it for what it seems, just as I have also already supported
the 'no' vote in the Cannabis Referendum; while in the general election
supporting those candidates and party(ies) I consider least likely to do the
least overall harm to the nation at large over the next parliamentary term.
Colours nailed to the mast an' all that...
Thank you but my house is well in order.
I posted a link to an article, one that you acknowledge has merit, I made the
statement that I was opposed to the reform offered in the referendum. This is
based on research, not just that one article.
Rich immediately guessed that I was in favour of alcohol but not cannabis.
It is reasonable to presume that since you had not advocated that
alcohol be only be available with medical approval that you did not
advocate for that position. Certainly you did not complain of that
reasonable presumption before, but to clear the situation, do you
believe that alcohol should only be avaialble with medical approval?
Post by Tony
He
has no idea what my views on alcohol are.
But you could have clarified your position, as I have now asked you to
do.
Post by Tony
But in so doing he completely changed
the course of the discuss, which I am confident was his intention.
That is what happened, Crash politely gace a different view which I respected.
Rich provided his usual politically motivated silliness and gave no explanation
for his assumption etc.
Par for the course, as usual. He disagreed with me out of rote, ie that is what
he does when I and selected others post (those that disagree with himlargely).
He deliberately changed the course of the discussion and he does that almost
invariably.
That is all it is about. The post was never about anything but cannabis. A
separate post on all of the other dangerous, and habit forming stuff may be of
value, but that should be another post in my opinion.
Yet when I posted exactly the same words again you somehow then found
that they were on topic after all . . .
Tony
2020-10-16 02:49:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 21:04:34 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with
medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe
and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol?
(And
I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking
about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being
lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from
just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful substances is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other than your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about
anything
but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be.
Well put. It's not just about cannabis per se but about substance abuse and
addiction in general, and the connection between both and their potential to
destroy lives, plus their harmful effect on society at large. Yes, the
Referendum is about cannabis as a single issue, but the various elements
of
the
harmful substances debate cannot be considered in strict isolation,
**particularly** in the case of cannabis which is treated by those who
have
to
deal with these issues as the (often naive and unaware) initiate's 'gateway' to
harder addictive substances.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult.
Well put. This is the conundrum central to both the
cannabis-as-addictive-substance debate and the Referendum. The conundrum is,
essentially, intractable so conclusive watertight policy decisions that
completely satisfy the 'balance' you earlier refer to will remain elusive.
Post by Rich80105
When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Wonky syntax, but the point is usefully made.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On topic, Tony.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However what you finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
The same can be truthfully said of that closing remark.
Everything I have posted in this thread has either been on topic or was a
direct response to someone else in this thread.
BR (a salutary post if ever there were, and needing no further explaining),
Gordon, Crash, Rich and I have each offered **you** their efforts at
constructive input in the hope of better informing and progressing **your**
topic by developing and expanding on it. OK, in such a loose and casual
medium as Usenet there may be errors, diversions, even distractions amongst
what is offered, but nevertheless it is your topic that has, in essence, been
addressed.
On the other hand, you demonstrate no such honorable equivalence in this
thread, i.e., that same honorable equivalence that genuine, purposeful debate
demands.
You originated the topic, ergo, you own it; so it would go some considerable
way to giving some validity both to your presence and topic-as-offered by
showing you understand and appreciate the meaning and purpose of genuine debate
that you yourself may doubtless intend but hardly ever - if at all - progress
to a satisfactory conclusion on your own account. It is for you - as topic
originator and owner - to put your own house in order - certainly not anyone
else in this thread.
To close: the article you refer to is in my view very well-considered. I
therefore support it for what it seems, just as I have also already supported
the 'no' vote in the Cannabis Referendum; while in the general election
supporting those candidates and party(ies) I consider least likely to do the
least overall harm to the nation at large over the next parliamentary term.
Colours nailed to the mast an' all that...
Thank you but my house is well in order.
I posted a link to an article, one that you acknowledge has merit, I made the
statement that I was opposed to the reform offered in the referendum. This is
based on research, not just that one article.
Rich immediately guessed that I was in favour of alcohol but not cannabis.
It is reasonable to presume that since you had not advocated that
alcohol be only be available with medical approval that you did not
advocate for that position.
No it is not reasonable.
This thread was only intended to be about cannabis. How many times do you need
that clarified?
Post by Rich80105
Certainly you did not complain of that
reasonable presumption before
Yes I did.
Post by Rich80105
, but to clear the situation,
do you
believe that alcohol should only be avaialble with medical approval?
That is the subject of a different discussion, feel free to start one
(previously said).
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
He
has no idea what my views on alcohol are.
But you could have clarified your position, as I have now asked you to
do.
Already done, all you have to do is read the thread. I have been clear all the
way through, you have distracted and assumed and now try to distract again.
Keep on topic or go and start your own.
I will not take part in a discussion here on alcohol, "P", Covid19, bugs bunny
or any other distraction, feel free to debate with yourself on those very real
issues.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
But in so doing he completely changed
the course of the discuss, which I am confident was his intention.
That is what happened, Crash politely gace a different view which I respected.
Rich provided his usual politically motivated silliness and gave no explanation
for his assumption etc.
Par for the course, as usual. He disagreed with me out of rote, ie that is what
he does when I and selected others post (those that disagree with himlargely).
He deliberately changed the course of the discussion and he does that almost
invariably.
That is all it is about. The post was never about anything but cannabis. A
separate post on all of the other dangerous, and habit forming stuff may be of
value, but that should be another post in my opinion.
Yet when I posted exactly the same words again you somehow then found
that they were on topic after all . . .
No not true.
Rich80105
2020-10-16 02:40:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:26:13 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with
medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And
I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful substances is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other than your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about anything but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be.
Well put. It's not just about cannabis per se but about substance abuse and
addiction in general, and the connection between both and their potential to
destroy lives, plus their harmful effect on society at large. Yes, the
Referendum is about cannabis as a single issue, but the various elements of the
harmful substances debate cannot be considered in strict isolation,
**particularly** in the case of cannabis which is treated by those who have to
deal with these issues as the (often naive and unaware) initiate's 'gateway' to
harder addictive substances.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult.
Well put. This is the conundrum central to both the
cannabis-as-addictive-substance debate and the Referendum. The conundrum is,
essentially, intractable so conclusive watertight policy decisions that
completely satisfy the 'balance' you earlier refer to will remain elusive.
Post by Rich80105
When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Wonky syntax, but the point is usefully made.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On topic, Tony.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However what you finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
The same can be truthfully said of that closing remark.
Everything I have posted in this thread has either been on topic or was a
direct response to someone else in this thread.
BR (a salutary post if ever there were, and needing no further explaining), Gordon, Crash, Rich and I have each offered **you** their efforts at constructive input in the hope of better informing and progressing **your** topic by developing and expanding on it. OK, in such a loose and casual medium as Usenet there may be errors, diversions, even distractions amongst what is offered, but nevertheless it is your topic that has, in essence, been addressed.
On the other hand, you demonstrate no such honorable equivalence in this thread, i.e., that same honorable equivalence that genuine, purposeful debate demands.
You originated the topic, ergo, you own it; so it would go some considerable way to giving some validity both to your presence and topic-as-offered by showing you understand and appreciate the meaning and purpose of genuine debate that you yourself may doubtless intend but hardly ever - if at all - progress to a satisfactory conclusion on your own account. It is for you - as topic originator and owner - to put your own house in order - certainly not anyone else in this thread.
I see posts to usenet as being more by way of discussion; the first
poster has in my view no implicit "ownership" of the topic. In this
case discussion on actions to regulate a substance that can cause harm
could quite easily be extended to compare and contrast actions taken
with repsect to other substances. Relativity is important in many
situations. Whatever the result of the referendum, cannabis is not
going away, but as has been pointed out it does have an effect on use
of other substances, and it is therefore reasonable to consider all
aspects of the problem.
Post by James Christophers
To close: the article you refer to is in my view very well-considered. I therefore support it for what it seems, just as I have also already supported the 'no' vote in the Cannabis Referendum; while in the general election supporting those candidates and party(ies) I consider least likely to do the least overall harm to the nation at large over the next parliamentary term.
Colours nailed to the mast an' all that...
Tony
2020-10-16 02:50:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:26:13 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with
medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe
and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol?
(And
I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking
about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being
lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful substances is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other than your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about
anything
but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be.
Well put. It's not just about cannabis per se but about substance abuse and
addiction in general, and the connection between both and their potential to
destroy lives, plus their harmful effect on society at large. Yes, the
Referendum is about cannabis as a single issue, but the various elements of the
harmful substances debate cannot be considered in strict isolation,
**particularly** in the case of cannabis which is treated by those who have to
deal with these issues as the (often naive and unaware) initiate's 'gateway' to
harder addictive substances.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult.
Well put. This is the conundrum central to both the
cannabis-as-addictive-substance debate and the Referendum. The conundrum is,
essentially, intractable so conclusive watertight policy decisions that
completely satisfy the 'balance' you earlier refer to will remain elusive.
Post by Rich80105
When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Wonky syntax, but the point is usefully made.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On topic, Tony.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However what you finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
The same can be truthfully said of that closing remark.
Everything I have posted in this thread has either been on topic or was a
direct response to someone else in this thread.
BR (a salutary post if ever there were, and needing no further explaining),
Gordon, Crash, Rich and I have each offered **you** their efforts at
constructive input in the hope of better informing and progressing **your**
topic by developing and expanding on it. OK, in such a loose and casual
medium as Usenet there may be errors, diversions, even distractions amongst
what is offered, but nevertheless it is your topic that has, in essence, been
addressed.
On the other hand, you demonstrate no such honorable equivalence in this
thread, i.e., that same honorable equivalence that genuine, purposeful debate
demands.
You originated the topic, ergo, you own it; so it would go some considerable
way to giving some validity both to your presence and topic-as-offered by
showing you understand and appreciate the meaning and purpose of genuine debate
that you yourself may doubtless intend but hardly ever - if at all - progress
to a satisfactory conclusion on your own account. It is for you - as topic
originator and owner - to put your own house in order - certainly not anyone
else in this thread.
I see posts to usenet as being more by way of discussion; the first
poster has in my view no implicit "ownership" of the topic. In this
case discussion on actions to regulate a substance that can cause harm
could quite easily be extended to compare and contrast actions taken
with repsect to other substances. Relativity is important in many
situations. Whatever the result of the referendum, cannabis is not
going away, but as has been pointed out it does have an effect on use
of other substances, and it is therefore reasonable to consider all
aspects of the problem.
But that is not what you did. You made a groundless assumption.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
To close: the article you refer to is in my view very well-considered. I
therefore support it for what it seems, just as I have also already supported
the 'no' vote in the Cannabis Referendum; while in the general election
supporting those candidates and party(ies) I consider least likely to do the
least overall harm to the nation at large over the next parliamentary term.
Colours nailed to the mast an' all that...
James Christophers
2020-10-16 04:23:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:26:13 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with
medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe
and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol?
(And
I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking
about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people being
lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from
just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical examples
of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to
hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is
our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief
to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to
be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that
we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful substances is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other than your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about
anything
but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be.
Well put. It's not just about cannabis per se but about substance abuse and
addiction in general, and the connection between both and their potential to
destroy lives, plus their harmful effect on society at large. Yes, the
Referendum is about cannabis as a single issue, but the various elements of the
harmful substances debate cannot be considered in strict isolation,
**particularly** in the case of cannabis which is treated by those who have to
deal with these issues as the (often naive and unaware) initiate's 'gateway' to
harder addictive substances.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult.
Well put. This is the conundrum central to both the
cannabis-as-addictive-substance debate and the Referendum. The conundrum is,
essentially, intractable so conclusive watertight policy decisions that
completely satisfy the 'balance' you earlier refer to will remain elusive.
Post by Rich80105
When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Wonky syntax, but the point is usefully made.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On topic, Tony.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However what you finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
The same can be truthfully said of that closing remark.
Everything I have posted in this thread has either been on topic or was a
direct response to someone else in this thread.
BR (a salutary post if ever there were, and needing no further explaining),
Gordon, Crash, Rich and I have each offered **you** their efforts at
constructive input in the hope of better informing and progressing **your**
topic by developing and expanding on it. OK, in such a loose and casual
medium as Usenet there may be errors, diversions, even distractions amongst
what is offered, but nevertheless it is your topic that has, in essence, been
addressed.
On the other hand, you demonstrate no such honorable equivalence in this
thread, i.e., that same honorable equivalence that genuine, purposeful debate
demands.
You originated the topic, ergo, you own it; so it would go some considerable
way to giving some validity both to your presence and topic-as-offered by
showing you understand and appreciate the meaning and purpose of genuine debate
that you yourself may doubtless intend but hardly ever - if at all - progress
to a satisfactory conclusion on your own account. It is for you - as topic
originator and owner - to put your own house in order - certainly not anyone
else in this thread.
I see posts to usenet as being more by way of discussion; the first
poster has in my view no implicit "ownership" of the topic.
For me, ownership implies having taken responsibility - as far as possible - for the conduct of the thread the poster has originated. There is no group moderator as such, so each poster is, in effect, charged with being their own moderator, but armed with little but the natural courtesies and standards of conduct to be expected in any civilised discourse, however robust or controversial. In which case, for the originator to maintain some semblance of control of his own topic, the parameters of the discussion should be able to be interpreted - even intuited - from the content and tenor of the originator's opening gambit. However, if there is nothing but a topic header with a peremptory opinion chucked in as make-weight, then the originator shouldn't be the least bit surprised and miffed if his topic takes an erratic course.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
case discussion on actions to regulate a substance that can cause harm
could quite easily be extended to compare and contrast actions taken
with repsect to other substances. Relativity is important in many
situations. Whatever the result of the referendum, cannabis is not
going away, but as has been pointed out it does have an effect on use
of other substances, and it is therefore reasonable to consider all
aspects of the problem.
But that is not what you did. You made a groundless assumption.
Rich did, logically basing it on probability rather than possibility. But why did he feel free to do this?

As I intimate above, absence of authoritative command and control of the topic on the part of its originator gives licence to willfulness and two-fingered mayhem from any quarter you care to name. Responding to third-party goading and waylaying in the manner you seem compelled to adopt - while giving even further oxygen to such self-defeating foolishness - only gives licence to further diversion and distraction at which point you yourself become guilty of the very kind of misbehaviour you quite justifiably accuse others of indulging in. What price command and control of your topic, now?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
To close: the article you refer to is in my view very well-considered. I
therefore support it for what it seems, just as I have also already supported
the 'no' vote in the Cannabis Referendum; while in the general election
supporting those candidates and party(ies) I consider least likely to do the
least overall harm to the nation at large over the next parliamentary term.
Colours nailed to the mast an' all that...
Tony
2020-10-16 22:54:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:26:13 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with
medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already
imbibe
and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not
alcohol?
(And
I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is
the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking
about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people
being
lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught
with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the
point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from
just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical
examples
of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to
hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to
recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and
that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is
our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another
post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective
limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax relief
to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely to
be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain that
we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful substances is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other than your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about
anything
but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from just
as physical addiction can be.
Well put. It's not just about cannabis per se but about substance abuse and
addiction in general, and the connection between both and their
potential
to
destroy lives, plus their harmful effect on society at large. Yes, the
Referendum is about cannabis as a single issue, but the various
elements
of the
harmful substances debate cannot be considered in strict isolation,
**particularly** in the case of cannabis which is treated by those who have to
deal with these issues as the (often naive and unaware) initiate's 'gateway' to
harder addictive substances.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult.
Well put. This is the conundrum central to both the
cannabis-as-addictive-substance debate and the Referendum. The
conundrum
is,
essentially, intractable so conclusive watertight policy decisions that
completely satisfy the 'balance' you earlier refer to will remain elusive.
Post by Rich80105
When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Wonky syntax, but the point is usefully made.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On topic, Tony.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However what you finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
The same can be truthfully said of that closing remark.
Everything I have posted in this thread has either been on topic or was a
direct response to someone else in this thread.
BR (a salutary post if ever there were, and needing no further explaining),
Gordon, Crash, Rich and I have each offered **you** their efforts at
constructive input in the hope of better informing and progressing **your**
topic by developing and expanding on it. OK, in such a loose and casual
medium as Usenet there may be errors, diversions, even distractions amongst
what is offered, but nevertheless it is your topic that has, in essence, been
addressed.
On the other hand, you demonstrate no such honorable equivalence in this
thread, i.e., that same honorable equivalence that genuine, purposeful debate
demands.
You originated the topic, ergo, you own it; so it would go some considerable
way to giving some validity both to your presence and topic-as-offered by
showing you understand and appreciate the meaning and purpose of genuine debate
that you yourself may doubtless intend but hardly ever - if at all - progress
to a satisfactory conclusion on your own account. It is for you - as topic
originator and owner - to put your own house in order - certainly not anyone
else in this thread.
I see posts to usenet as being more by way of discussion; the first
poster has in my view no implicit "ownership" of the topic.
For me, ownership implies having taken responsibility - as far as possible -
for the conduct of the thread the poster has originated. There is no group
moderator as such, so each poster is, in effect, charged with being their own
moderator, but armed with little but the natural courtesies and standards of
conduct to be expected in any civilised discourse, however robust or
controversial. In which case, for the originator to maintain some semblance of
control of his own topic, the parameters of the discussion should be able to be
interpreted - even intuited - from the content and tenor of the originator's
opening gambit. However, if there is nothing but a topic header with a
peremptory opinion chucked in as make-weight, then the originator shouldn't be
the least bit surprised and miffed if his topic takes an erratic course.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
case discussion on actions to regulate a substance that can cause harm
could quite easily be extended to compare and contrast actions taken
with repsect to other substances. Relativity is important in many
situations. Whatever the result of the referendum, cannabis is not
going away, but as has been pointed out it does have an effect on use
of other substances, and it is therefore reasonable to consider all
aspects of the problem.
But that is not what you did. You made a groundless assumption.
Rich did, logically basing it on probability rather than possibility.
Absolutely not probability, at best a guess but more likely deliberate mischief.
Post by James Christophers
But why did he feel free to do this?
Because it is what he usually does, ignoring reasonable behaviour.
Post by James Christophers
As I intimate above, absence of authoritative command and control of the topic
on the part of its originator gives licence to willfulness and two-fingered
mayhem from any quarter you care to name. Responding to third-party goading
and waylaying in the manner you seem compelled to adopt - while giving even
further oxygen to such self-defeating foolishness - only gives licence to
further diversion and distraction at which point you yourself become guilty of
the very kind of misbehaviour you quite justifiably accuse others of indulging
in. What price command and control of your topic, now?
Silly nonsense.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
To close: the article you refer to is in my view very well-considered. I
therefore support it for what it seems, just as I have also already supported
the 'no' vote in the Cannabis Referendum; while in the general election
supporting those candidates and party(ies) I consider least likely to do the
least overall harm to the nation at large over the next parliamentary term.
Colours nailed to the mast an' all that...
James Christophers
2020-10-17 00:14:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:26:13 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with
medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already
imbibe
and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not
alcohol?
(And
I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is
the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking
about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people
being
lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught
with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the
point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free
from
just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical
examples
of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to
hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to
recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and
that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental
or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as is
our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in another
post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective
limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax
relief
to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and unlikely
to
be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain
that
we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful substances
is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other than
your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about
anything
but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from
just
as physical addiction can be.
Well put. It's not just about cannabis per se but about substance abuse and
addiction in general, and the connection between both and their
potential
to
destroy lives, plus their harmful effect on society at large. Yes, the
Referendum is about cannabis as a single issue, but the various
elements
of the
harmful substances debate cannot be considered in strict isolation,
**particularly** in the case of cannabis which is treated by those who
have to
deal with these issues as the (often naive and unaware) initiate's
'gateway' to
harder addictive substances.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to hurt
themselves is difficult.
Well put. This is the conundrum central to both the
cannabis-as-addictive-substance debate and the Referendum. The
conundrum
is,
essentially, intractable so conclusive watertight policy decisions that
completely satisfy the 'balance' you earlier refer to will remain elusive.
Post by Rich80105
When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Wonky syntax, but the point is usefully made.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On topic, Tony.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However what you
finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
The same can be truthfully said of that closing remark.
Everything I have posted in this thread has either been on topic or was a
direct response to someone else in this thread.
BR (a salutary post if ever there were, and needing no further explaining),
Gordon, Crash, Rich and I have each offered **you** their efforts at
constructive input in the hope of better informing and progressing **your**
topic by developing and expanding on it. OK, in such a loose and casual
medium as Usenet there may be errors, diversions, even distractions amongst
what is offered, but nevertheless it is your topic that has, in essence, been
addressed.
On the other hand, you demonstrate no such honorable equivalence in this
thread, i.e., that same honorable equivalence that genuine, purposeful debate
demands.
You originated the topic, ergo, you own it; so it would go some considerable
way to giving some validity both to your presence and topic-as-offered by
showing you understand and appreciate the meaning and purpose of genuine debate
that you yourself may doubtless intend but hardly ever - if at all - progress
to a satisfactory conclusion on your own account. It is for you - as topic
originator and owner - to put your own house in order - certainly not anyone
else in this thread.
I see posts to usenet as being more by way of discussion; the first
poster has in my view no implicit "ownership" of the topic.
For me, ownership implies having taken responsibility - as far as possible -
for the conduct of the thread the poster has originated. There is no group
moderator as such, so each poster is, in effect, charged with being their own
moderator, but armed with little but the natural courtesies and standards of
conduct to be expected in any civilised discourse, however robust or
controversial. In which case, for the originator to maintain some semblance of
control of his own topic, the parameters of the discussion should be able to be
interpreted - even intuited - from the content and tenor of the originator's
opening gambit. However, if there is nothing but a topic header with a
peremptory opinion chucked in as make-weight, then the originator shouldn't be
the least bit surprised and miffed if his topic takes an erratic course.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
case discussion on actions to regulate a substance that can cause harm
could quite easily be extended to compare and contrast actions taken
with repsect to other substances. Relativity is important in many
situations. Whatever the result of the referendum, cannabis is not
going away, but as has been pointed out it does have an effect on use
of other substances, and it is therefore reasonable to consider all
aspects of the problem.
But that is not what you did. You made a groundless assumption.
Rich did, logically basing it on probability rather than possibility.
Absolutely not probability, at best a guess
Why wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't such guess be based on probability?
Post by Tony
but more likely deliberate mischief.
"...more likely" - a term expressing assumption/probability. In which case your behaviour is essentially no different from Rich's.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
But why did he feel free to do this?
Because it is what he usually does, ignoring reasonable behaviour.
So why do your efforts to discourage such behaviour more often than not come to nought other than for those reasons I have previously made known in my post date-stamped 16 Oct 2020, 17:23:46?
Tony
2020-10-17 00:32:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:26:13 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at
orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available
with
medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already
imbibe
and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not
alcohol?
(And
I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it
is
the
principal on which you base your statement that I am
asking
about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people
being
lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for
humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught
with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin
to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the
point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free
from
just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical
examples
of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and
harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom
to
hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to
recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance
conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and
that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either
mental
or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as
is
our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs
are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in
another
post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective
limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax
relief
to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and
unlikely
to
be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain
that
we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful
substances
is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic
just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other
than
your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about
anything
but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from
just
as physical addiction can be.
Well put. It's not just about cannabis per se but about substance
abuse
and
addiction in general, and the connection between both and their
potential
to
destroy lives, plus their harmful effect on society at large. Yes, the
Referendum is about cannabis as a single issue, but the various
elements
of the
harmful substances debate cannot be considered in strict isolation,
**particularly** in the case of cannabis which is treated by those who
have to
deal with these issues as the (often naive and unaware) initiate's
'gateway' to
harder addictive substances.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to
hurt
themselves is difficult.
Well put. This is the conundrum central to both the
cannabis-as-addictive-substance debate and the Referendum. The
conundrum
is,
essentially, intractable so conclusive watertight policy decisions that
completely satisfy the 'balance' you earlier refer to will remain
elusive.
Post by Rich80105
When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Wonky syntax, but the point is usefully made.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On topic, Tony.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However what you
finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
The same can be truthfully said of that closing remark.
Everything I have posted in this thread has either been on topic or
was
a
direct response to someone else in this thread.
BR (a salutary post if ever there were, and needing no further explaining),
Gordon, Crash, Rich and I have each offered **you** their efforts at
constructive input in the hope of better informing and progressing **your**
topic by developing and expanding on it. OK, in such a loose and casual
medium as Usenet there may be errors, diversions, even distractions amongst
what is offered, but nevertheless it is your topic that has, in
essence,
been
addressed.
On the other hand, you demonstrate no such honorable equivalence in this
thread, i.e., that same honorable equivalence that genuine, purposeful debate
demands.
You originated the topic, ergo, you own it; so it would go some considerable
way to giving some validity both to your presence and topic-as-offered by
showing you understand and appreciate the meaning and purpose of
genuine
debate
that you yourself may doubtless intend but hardly ever - if at all - progress
to a satisfactory conclusion on your own account. It is for you - as topic
originator and owner - to put your own house in order - certainly not anyone
else in this thread.
I see posts to usenet as being more by way of discussion; the first
poster has in my view no implicit "ownership" of the topic.
For me, ownership implies having taken responsibility - as far as possible -
for the conduct of the thread the poster has originated. There is no group
moderator as such, so each poster is, in effect, charged with being their own
moderator, but armed with little but the natural courtesies and standards of
conduct to be expected in any civilised discourse, however robust or
controversial. In which case, for the originator to maintain some semblance of
control of his own topic, the parameters of the discussion should be able to be
interpreted - even intuited - from the content and tenor of the originator's
opening gambit. However, if there is nothing but a topic header with a
peremptory opinion chucked in as make-weight, then the originator shouldn't be
the least bit surprised and miffed if his topic takes an erratic course.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
case discussion on actions to regulate a substance that can cause harm
could quite easily be extended to compare and contrast actions taken
with repsect to other substances. Relativity is important in many
situations. Whatever the result of the referendum, cannabis is not
going away, but as has been pointed out it does have an effect on use
of other substances, and it is therefore reasonable to consider all
aspects of the problem.
But that is not what you did. You made a groundless assumption.
Rich did, logically basing it on probability rather than possibility.
Absolutely not probability, at best a guess
Why wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't such guess be based on probability?
Post by Tony
but more likely deliberate mischief.
"...more likely" - a term expressing assumption/probability. In which case
your behaviour is essentially no different from Rich's.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
But why did he feel free to do this?
Because it is what he usually does, ignoring reasonable behaviour.
So why do your efforts to discourage such behaviour more often than not come
to nought other than for those reasons I have previously made known in my post
date-stamped 16 Oct 2020, 17:23:46?
They work to the extent that is possible with a couple of idiots in this
newsgroup running their own vicious agendas.
All has been said, nothing else is of any value. Another Keith Warren (aka at
least 3 others) beat up unworthy of bandwidth.
James Christophers
2020-10-17 01:08:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:26:13 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at
orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available
with
medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already
imbibe
and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not
alcohol?
(And
I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it
is
the
principal on which you base your statement that I am
asking
about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of people
being
lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for
humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught
with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin
to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the
point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free
from
just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical
examples
of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and
harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom
to
hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to
recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance
conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and
that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either
mental
or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods, as
is
our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic drugs
are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in
another
post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its effective
limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax
relief
to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and
unlikely
to
be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to explain
that
we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful
substances
is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic
just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other
than
your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one about
anything
but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught
with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the
point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free from
just
as physical addiction can be.
Well put. It's not just about cannabis per se but about substance
abuse
and
addiction in general, and the connection between both and their
potential
to
destroy lives, plus their harmful effect on society at large. Yes,
the
Referendum is about cannabis as a single issue, but the various
elements
of the
harmful substances debate cannot be considered in strict isolation,
**particularly** in the case of cannabis which is treated by those
who
have to
deal with these issues as the (often naive and unaware) initiate's
'gateway' to
harder addictive substances.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom to
hurt
themselves is difficult.
Well put. This is the conundrum central to both the
cannabis-as-addictive-substance debate and the Referendum. The
conundrum
is,
essentially, intractable so conclusive watertight policy decisions
that
completely satisfy the 'balance' you earlier refer to will remain
elusive.
Post by Rich80105
When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105
that sometimes government programmes need to balance conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and
that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental or
physical.
Wonky syntax, but the point is usefully made.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On topic, Tony.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However what
you
finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
The same can be truthfully said of that closing remark.
Everything I have posted in this thread has either been on topic or
was
a
direct response to someone else in this thread.
BR (a salutary post if ever there were, and needing no further explaining),
Gordon, Crash, Rich and I have each offered **you** their efforts at
constructive input in the hope of better informing and progressing **your**
topic by developing and expanding on it. OK, in such a loose and casual
medium as Usenet there may be errors, diversions, even distractions amongst
what is offered, but nevertheless it is your topic that has, in
essence,
been
addressed.
On the other hand, you demonstrate no such honorable equivalence in this
thread, i.e., that same honorable equivalence that genuine, purposeful
debate
demands.
You originated the topic, ergo, you own it; so it would go some
considerable
way to giving some validity both to your presence and topic-as-offered by
showing you understand and appreciate the meaning and purpose of
genuine
debate
that you yourself may doubtless intend but hardly ever - if at all -
progress
to a satisfactory conclusion on your own account. It is for you - as topic
originator and owner - to put your own house in order - certainly not
anyone
else in this thread.
I see posts to usenet as being more by way of discussion; the first
poster has in my view no implicit "ownership" of the topic.
For me, ownership implies having taken responsibility - as far as possible -
for the conduct of the thread the poster has originated. There is no group
moderator as such, so each poster is, in effect, charged with being their own
moderator, but armed with little but the natural courtesies and standards of
conduct to be expected in any civilised discourse, however robust or
controversial. In which case, for the originator to maintain some semblance of
control of his own topic, the parameters of the discussion should be able to be
interpreted - even intuited - from the content and tenor of the originator's
opening gambit. However, if there is nothing but a topic header with a
peremptory opinion chucked in as make-weight, then the originator shouldn't be
the least bit surprised and miffed if his topic takes an erratic course.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
case discussion on actions to regulate a substance that can cause harm
could quite easily be extended to compare and contrast actions taken
with repsect to other substances. Relativity is important in many
situations. Whatever the result of the referendum, cannabis is not
going away, but as has been pointed out it does have an effect on use
of other substances, and it is therefore reasonable to consider all
aspects of the problem.
But that is not what you did. You made a groundless assumption.
Rich did, logically basing it on probability rather than possibility.
Absolutely not probability, at best a guess
Why wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't such guess be based on probability?
Post by Tony
but more likely deliberate mischief.
"...more likely" - a term expressing assumption/probability. In which case
your behaviour is essentially no different from Rich's.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
But why did he feel free to do this?
Because it is what he usually does, ignoring reasonable behaviour.
So why do your efforts to discourage such behaviour more often than not come
to nought other than for those reasons I have previously made known in my post
date-stamped 16 Oct 2020, 17:23:46?
They work to the extent that is possible with a couple of idiots in this
newsgroup running their own vicious agendas.
So you say. But to whatever extent you may fondly imagine they "work", it is self-evidently ineffective, my having already previously courteously advised you of the reasons.
Post by Tony
All has been said, nothing else is of any value.
Scornfully dismissing your absurd try at censorhip, what of any possible value have you yourself contributed to this thread subsequent to your post that initiated it? Kindly show.
Post by Tony
Another Keith Warren (aka at least 3 others) beat up unworthy of bandwidth.
..."(aka at least 3 others)": on precisely what factual evidence do you base your lily-livered paranoid assertion? Verbatim, please.
Tony
2020-10-17 01:17:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:26:13 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at
orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at
orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally
available
with
medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who
already
imbibe
and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not
alcohol?
(And
I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis;
it
is
the
principal on which you base your statement that I am
asking
about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of
people
being
lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for
humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word
principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is
fraught
with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is
akin
to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss
the
point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break
free
from
just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical
examples
of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and
harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual
freedom
to
hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to
recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance
conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed,
and
that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where
medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either
mental
or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods,
as
is
our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic
drugs
are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in
another
post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its
effective
limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax
relief
to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and
unlikely
to
be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to
explain
that
we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful
substances
is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic
just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other
than
your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one
about
anything
but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught
with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin
to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the
point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free
from
just
as physical addiction can be.
Well put. It's not just about cannabis per se but about substance
abuse
and
addiction in general, and the connection between both and their
potential
to
destroy lives, plus their harmful effect on society at large. Yes,
the
Referendum is about cannabis as a single issue, but the various
elements
of the
harmful substances debate cannot be considered in strict isolation,
**particularly** in the case of cannabis which is treated by those
who
have to
deal with these issues as the (often naive and unaware) initiate's
'gateway' to
harder addictive substances.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom
to
hurt
themselves is difficult.
Well put. This is the conundrum central to both the
cannabis-as-addictive-substance debate and the Referendum. The
conundrum
is,
essentially, intractable so conclusive watertight policy decisions
that
completely satisfy the 'balance' you earlier refer to will remain
elusive.
Post by Rich80105
When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105
that sometimes government programmes need to balance
conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and
that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental
or
physical.
Wonky syntax, but the point is usefully made.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On topic, Tony.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However what
you
finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
The same can be truthfully said of that closing remark.
Everything I have posted in this thread has either been on topic or
was
a
direct response to someone else in this thread.
BR (a salutary post if ever there were, and needing no further
explaining),
Gordon, Crash, Rich and I have each offered **you** their efforts at
constructive input in the hope of better informing and progressing
**your**
topic by developing and expanding on it. OK, in such a loose and casual
medium as Usenet there may be errors, diversions, even distractions
amongst
what is offered, but nevertheless it is your topic that has, in
essence,
been
addressed.
On the other hand, you demonstrate no such honorable equivalence in this
thread, i.e., that same honorable equivalence that genuine, purposeful
debate
demands.
You originated the topic, ergo, you own it; so it would go some
considerable
way to giving some validity both to your presence and
topic-as-offered
by
showing you understand and appreciate the meaning and purpose of
genuine
debate
that you yourself may doubtless intend but hardly ever - if at all -
progress
to a satisfactory conclusion on your own account. It is for you - as
topic
originator and owner - to put your own house in order - certainly not
anyone
else in this thread.
I see posts to usenet as being more by way of discussion; the first
poster has in my view no implicit "ownership" of the topic.
For me, ownership implies having taken responsibility - as far as
possible
-
for the conduct of the thread the poster has originated. There is no group
moderator as such, so each poster is, in effect, charged with being
their
own
moderator, but armed with little but the natural courtesies and
standards
of
conduct to be expected in any civilised discourse, however robust or
controversial. In which case, for the originator to maintain some
semblance
of
control of his own topic, the parameters of the discussion should be
able
to be
interpreted - even intuited - from the content and tenor of the originator's
opening gambit. However, if there is nothing but a topic header with a
peremptory opinion chucked in as make-weight, then the originator
shouldn't
be
the least bit surprised and miffed if his topic takes an erratic course.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
case discussion on actions to regulate a substance that can cause harm
could quite easily be extended to compare and contrast actions taken
with repsect to other substances. Relativity is important in many
situations. Whatever the result of the referendum, cannabis is not
going away, but as has been pointed out it does have an effect on use
of other substances, and it is therefore reasonable to consider all
aspects of the problem.
But that is not what you did. You made a groundless assumption.
Rich did, logically basing it on probability rather than possibility.
Absolutely not probability, at best a guess
Why wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't such guess be based on probability?
Post by Tony
but more likely deliberate mischief.
"...more likely" - a term expressing assumption/probability. In which case
your behaviour is essentially no different from Rich's.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
But why did he feel free to do this?
Because it is what he usually does, ignoring reasonable behaviour.
So why do your efforts to discourage such behaviour more often than not come
to nought other than for those reasons I have previously made known in my post
date-stamped 16 Oct 2020, 17:23:46?
They work to the extent that is possible with a couple of idiots in this
newsgroup running their own vicious agendas.
So you say. But to whatever extent you may fondly imagine they "work", it is
self-evidently ineffective, my having already previously courteously advised
you of the reasons.
Post by Tony
All has been said, nothing else is of any value.
Scornfully dismissing your absurd try at censorhip, what of any possible value
have you yourself contributed to this thread subsequent to your post that
initiated it? Kindly show.
Post by Tony
Another Keith Warren (aka at least 3 others) beat up unworthy of bandwidth.
..."(aka at least 3 others)": on precisely what factual evidence do you base
your lily-livered paranoid assertion? Verbatim, please.
As I wrote, unworthy of bandwidth.
James Christophers
2020-10-17 03:17:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:26:13 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at
orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at
orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally
available
with
medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who
already
imbibe
and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not
alcohol?
(And
I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis;
it
is
the
principal on which you base your statement that I am
asking
about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of
people
being
lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for
humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word
principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is
fraught
with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is
akin
to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss
the
point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break
free
from
just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous historical
examples
of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and
harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual
freedom
to
hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance to
recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance
conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed,
and
that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where
medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either
mental
or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of methods,
as
is
our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic
drugs
are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in
another
post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its
effective
limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some tax
relief
to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and
unlikely
to
be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to
explain
that
we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful
substances
is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off topic
just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject other
than
your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one
about
anything
but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is fraught
with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is akin
to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss the
point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break free
from
just
as physical addiction can be.
Well put. It's not just about cannabis per se but about substance
abuse
and
addiction in general, and the connection between both and their
potential
to
destroy lives, plus their harmful effect on society at large.
Yes,
the
Referendum is about cannabis as a single issue, but the various
elements
of the
harmful substances debate cannot be considered in strict
isolation,
**particularly** in the case of cannabis which is treated by
those
who
have to
deal with these issues as the (often naive and unaware)
initiate's
'gateway' to
harder addictive substances.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual freedom
to
hurt
themselves is difficult.
Well put. This is the conundrum central to both the
cannabis-as-addictive-substance debate and the Referendum. The
conundrum
is,
essentially, intractable so conclusive watertight policy
decisions
that
completely satisfy the 'balance' you earlier refer to will remain
elusive.
Post by Rich80105
When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105
that sometimes government programmes need to balance
conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed, and
that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either mental
or
physical.
Wonky syntax, but the point is usefully made.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On topic, Tony.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However
what
you
finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
The same can be truthfully said of that closing remark.
Everything I have posted in this thread has either been on topic
or
was
a
direct response to someone else in this thread.
BR (a salutary post if ever there were, and needing no further
explaining),
Gordon, Crash, Rich and I have each offered **you** their efforts at
constructive input in the hope of better informing and progressing
**your**
topic by developing and expanding on it. OK, in such a loose and
casual
medium as Usenet there may be errors, diversions, even distractions
amongst
what is offered, but nevertheless it is your topic that has, in
essence,
been
addressed.
On the other hand, you demonstrate no such honorable equivalence in
this
thread, i.e., that same honorable equivalence that genuine,
purposeful
debate
demands.
You originated the topic, ergo, you own it; so it would go some
considerable
way to giving some validity both to your presence and
topic-as-offered
by
showing you understand and appreciate the meaning and purpose of
genuine
debate
that you yourself may doubtless intend but hardly ever - if at all -
progress
to a satisfactory conclusion on your own account. It is for you - as
topic
originator and owner - to put your own house in order - certainly not
anyone
else in this thread.
I see posts to usenet as being more by way of discussion; the first
poster has in my view no implicit "ownership" of the topic.
For me, ownership implies having taken responsibility - as far as
possible
-
for the conduct of the thread the poster has originated. There is no group
moderator as such, so each poster is, in effect, charged with being
their
own
moderator, but armed with little but the natural courtesies and
standards
of
conduct to be expected in any civilised discourse, however robust or
controversial. In which case, for the originator to maintain some
semblance
of
control of his own topic, the parameters of the discussion should be
able
to be
interpreted - even intuited - from the content and tenor of the originator's
opening gambit. However, if there is nothing but a topic header with a
peremptory opinion chucked in as make-weight, then the originator
shouldn't
be
the least bit surprised and miffed if his topic takes an erratic course.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
case discussion on actions to regulate a substance that can cause harm
could quite easily be extended to compare and contrast actions taken
with repsect to other substances. Relativity is important in many
situations. Whatever the result of the referendum, cannabis is not
going away, but as has been pointed out it does have an effect on use
of other substances, and it is therefore reasonable to consider all
aspects of the problem.
But that is not what you did. You made a groundless assumption.
Rich did, logically basing it on probability rather than possibility.
Absolutely not probability, at best a guess
Why wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't such guess be based on probability?
Post by Tony
but more likely deliberate mischief.
"...more likely" - a term expressing assumption/probability. In which case
your behaviour is essentially no different from Rich's.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
But why did he feel free to do this?
Because it is what he usually does, ignoring reasonable behaviour.
So why do your efforts to discourage such behaviour more often than not come
to nought other than for those reasons I have previously made known in my post
date-stamped 16 Oct 2020, 17:23:46?
They work to the extent that is possible with a couple of idiots in this
newsgroup running their own vicious agendas.
So you say. But to whatever extent you may fondly imagine they "work", it is
self-evidently ineffective, my having already previously courteously advised
you of the reasons.
Post by Tony
All has been said, nothing else is of any value.
Scornfully dismissing your absurd try at censorhip, what of any possible value
have you yourself contributed to this thread subsequent to your post that
initiated it? Kindly show.
Post by Tony
Another Keith Warren (aka at least 3 others) beat up unworthy of bandwidth.
..."(aka at least 3 others)": on precisely what factual evidence do you base
your lily-livered paranoid assertion? Verbatim, please.
As I wrote, unworthy of bandwidth.
Of your barren thought processes, unquestionably.

Thus does yet another of your hopelessly directionless threads bite the dust for want of even a hint of intellectual force or substance from you, its originator.

Makes you so proud to be you, doesn't it?
Tony
2020-10-17 03:55:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:26:13 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at
orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at
orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
On 14 Oct 2020 06:39:08 GMT, Gordon
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony
at
orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally
available
with
medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who
already
imbibe
and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but
not
alcohol?
(And
I
do understand that alcohol is different from
cannabis;
it
is
the
principal on which you base your statement that I am
asking
about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of
people
being
lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for
humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word
principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is
fraught
with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is
akin
to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they
miss
the
point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break
free
from
just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous
historical
examples
of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure
and
harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual
freedom
to
hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance
to
recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance
conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is
needed,
and
that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where
medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either
mental
or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of
methods,
as
is
our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic
drugs
are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in
another
post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its
effective
limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some
tax
relief
to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and
unlikely
to
be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to
explain
that
we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful
substances
is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off
topic
just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject
other
than
your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one
about
anything
but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is
fraught
with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is
akin
to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss
the
point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break
free
from
just
as physical addiction can be.
Well put. It's not just about cannabis per se but about
substance
abuse
and
addiction in general, and the connection between both and
their
potential
to
destroy lives, plus their harmful effect on society at large.
Yes,
the
Referendum is about cannabis as a single issue, but the
various
elements
of the
harmful substances debate cannot be considered in strict
isolation,
**particularly** in the case of cannabis which is treated by
those
who
have to
deal with these issues as the (often naive and unaware)
initiate's
'gateway' to
harder addictive substances.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and
harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual
freedom
to
hurt
themselves is difficult.
Well put. This is the conundrum central to both the
cannabis-as-addictive-substance debate and the Referendum. The
conundrum
is,
essentially, intractable so conclusive watertight policy
decisions
that
completely satisfy the 'balance' you earlier refer to will
remain
elusive.
Post by Rich80105
When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105
that sometimes government programmes need to balance
conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed,
and
that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where
medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either
mental
or
physical.
Wonky syntax, but the point is usefully made.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On topic, Tony.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However
what
you
finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
The same can be truthfully said of that closing remark.
Everything I have posted in this thread has either been on topic
or
was
a
direct response to someone else in this thread.
BR (a salutary post if ever there were, and needing no further
explaining),
Gordon, Crash, Rich and I have each offered **you** their efforts
at
constructive input in the hope of better informing and progressing
**your**
topic by developing and expanding on it. OK, in such a loose and
casual
medium as Usenet there may be errors, diversions, even distractions
amongst
what is offered, but nevertheless it is your topic that has, in
essence,
been
addressed.
On the other hand, you demonstrate no such honorable equivalence in
this
thread, i.e., that same honorable equivalence that genuine,
purposeful
debate
demands.
You originated the topic, ergo, you own it; so it would go some
considerable
way to giving some validity both to your presence and
topic-as-offered
by
showing you understand and appreciate the meaning and purpose of
genuine
debate
that you yourself may doubtless intend but hardly ever - if at
all -
progress
to a satisfactory conclusion on your own account. It is for you -
as
topic
originator and owner - to put your own house in order - certainly
not
anyone
else in this thread.
I see posts to usenet as being more by way of discussion; the first
poster has in my view no implicit "ownership" of the topic.
For me, ownership implies having taken responsibility - as far as
possible
-
for the conduct of the thread the poster has originated. There is no group
moderator as such, so each poster is, in effect, charged with being
their
own
moderator, but armed with little but the natural courtesies and
standards
of
conduct to be expected in any civilised discourse, however robust or
controversial. In which case, for the originator to maintain some
semblance
of
control of his own topic, the parameters of the discussion should be
able
to be
interpreted - even intuited - from the content and tenor of the
originator's
opening gambit. However, if there is nothing but a topic header with a
peremptory opinion chucked in as make-weight, then the originator
shouldn't
be
the least bit surprised and miffed if his topic takes an erratic course.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
case discussion on actions to regulate a substance that can cause
harm
could quite easily be extended to compare and contrast actions taken
with repsect to other substances. Relativity is important in many
situations. Whatever the result of the referendum, cannabis is not
going away, but as has been pointed out it does have an effect on use
of other substances, and it is therefore reasonable to consider all
aspects of the problem.
But that is not what you did. You made a groundless assumption.
Rich did, logically basing it on probability rather than possibility.
Absolutely not probability, at best a guess
Why wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't such guess be based on probability?
Post by Tony
but more likely deliberate mischief.
"...more likely" - a term expressing assumption/probability. In which case
your behaviour is essentially no different from Rich's.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
But why did he feel free to do this?
Because it is what he usually does, ignoring reasonable behaviour.
So why do your efforts to discourage such behaviour more often than not come
to nought other than for those reasons I have previously made known in
my
post
date-stamped 16 Oct 2020, 17:23:46?
They work to the extent that is possible with a couple of idiots in this
newsgroup running their own vicious agendas.
So you say. But to whatever extent you may fondly imagine they "work", it is
self-evidently ineffective, my having already previously courteously advised
you of the reasons.
Post by Tony
All has been said, nothing else is of any value.
Scornfully dismissing your absurd try at censorhip, what of any possible value
have you yourself contributed to this thread subsequent to your post that
initiated it? Kindly show.
Post by Tony
Another Keith Warren (aka at least 3 others) beat up unworthy of bandwidth.
..."(aka at least 3 others)": on precisely what factual evidence do you base
your lily-livered paranoid assertion? Verbatim, please.
As I wrote, unworthy of bandwidth.
Of your barren thought processes, unquestionably.
Thus does yet another of your hopelessly directionless threads bite the dust
for want of even a hint of intellectual force or substance from you, its
originator.
Makes you so proud to be you, doesn't it?
My achievements in life eclipse yours in any real measurement.
Go away and tug some cables.
James Christophers
2020-10-17 04:57:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:26:13 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at
orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at
orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
On 14 Oct 2020 06:39:08 GMT, Gordon
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony
at
orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally
available
with
medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who
already
imbibe
and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but
not
alcohol?
(And
I
do understand that alcohol is different from
cannabis;
it
is
the
principal on which you base your statement that I am
asking
about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of
people
being
lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given for
humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word
principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is
fraught
with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is
akin
to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they
miss
the
point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break
free
from
just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous
historical
examples
of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure
and
harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual
freedom
to
hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a reluctance
to
recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance
conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is
needed,
and
that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where
medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either
mental
or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of
methods,
as
is
our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and synthetic
drugs
are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said in
another
post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its
effective
limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering some
tax
relief
to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy, and
unlikely
to
be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to
explain
that
we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful
substances
is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off
topic
just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject
other
than
your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into one
about
anything
but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is
fraught
with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is
akin
to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they miss
the
point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break
free
from
just
as physical addiction can be.
Well put. It's not just about cannabis per se but about
substance
abuse
and
addiction in general, and the connection between both and
their
potential
to
destroy lives, plus their harmful effect on society at large.
Yes,
the
Referendum is about cannabis as a single issue, but the
various
elements
of the
harmful substances debate cannot be considered in strict
isolation,
**particularly** in the case of cannabis which is treated by
those
who
have to
deal with these issues as the (often naive and unaware)
initiate's
'gateway' to
harder addictive substances.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and
harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual
freedom
to
hurt
themselves is difficult.
Well put. This is the conundrum central to both the
cannabis-as-addictive-substance debate and the Referendum. The
conundrum
is,
essentially, intractable so conclusive watertight policy
decisions
that
completely satisfy the 'balance' you earlier refer to will
remain
elusive.
Post by Rich80105
When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105
that sometimes government programmes need to balance
conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is needed,
and
that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where
medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either
mental
or
physical.
Wonky syntax, but the point is usefully made.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On topic, Tony.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
You are now but for the first time in this thtread. However
what
you
finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
The same can be truthfully said of that closing remark.
Everything I have posted in this thread has either been on
topic
or
was
a
direct response to someone else in this thread.
BR (a salutary post if ever there were, and needing no further
explaining),
Gordon, Crash, Rich and I have each offered **you** their efforts
at
constructive input in the hope of better informing and
progressing
**your**
topic by developing and expanding on it. OK, in such a loose and
casual
medium as Usenet there may be errors, diversions, even
distractions
amongst
what is offered, but nevertheless it is your topic that has, in
essence,
been
addressed.
On the other hand, you demonstrate no such honorable equivalence
in
this
thread, i.e., that same honorable equivalence that genuine,
purposeful
debate
demands.
You originated the topic, ergo, you own it; so it would go some
considerable
way to giving some validity both to your presence and
topic-as-offered
by
showing you understand and appreciate the meaning and purpose of
genuine
debate
that you yourself may doubtless intend but hardly ever - if at
all -
progress
to a satisfactory conclusion on your own account. It is for you -
as
topic
originator and owner - to put your own house in order - certainly
not
anyone
else in this thread.
I see posts to usenet as being more by way of discussion; the
first
poster has in my view no implicit "ownership" of the topic.
For me, ownership implies having taken responsibility - as far as
possible
-
for the conduct of the thread the poster has originated. There is no
group
moderator as such, so each poster is, in effect, charged with being
their
own
moderator, but armed with little but the natural courtesies and
standards
of
conduct to be expected in any civilised discourse, however robust or
controversial. In which case, for the originator to maintain some
semblance
of
control of his own topic, the parameters of the discussion should be
able
to be
interpreted - even intuited - from the content and tenor of the
originator's
opening gambit. However, if there is nothing but a topic header with a
peremptory opinion chucked in as make-weight, then the originator
shouldn't
be
the least bit surprised and miffed if his topic takes an erratic
course.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
case discussion on actions to regulate a substance that can cause
harm
could quite easily be extended to compare and contrast actions
taken
with repsect to other substances. Relativity is important in many
situations. Whatever the result of the referendum, cannabis is not
going away, but as has been pointed out it does have an effect on
use
of other substances, and it is therefore reasonable to consider
all
aspects of the problem.
But that is not what you did. You made a groundless assumption.
Rich did, logically basing it on probability rather than possibility.
Absolutely not probability, at best a guess
Why wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't such guess be based on probability?
Post by Tony
but more likely deliberate mischief.
"...more likely" - a term expressing assumption/probability. In which case
your behaviour is essentially no different from Rich's.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
But why did he feel free to do this?
Because it is what he usually does, ignoring reasonable behaviour.
So why do your efforts to discourage such behaviour more often than not come
to nought other than for those reasons I have previously made known in
my
post
date-stamped 16 Oct 2020, 17:23:46?
They work to the extent that is possible with a couple of idiots in this
newsgroup running their own vicious agendas.
So you say. But to whatever extent you may fondly imagine they "work", it is
self-evidently ineffective, my having already previously courteously advised
you of the reasons.
Post by Tony
All has been said, nothing else is of any value.
Scornfully dismissing your absurd try at censorhip, what of any possible value
have you yourself contributed to this thread subsequent to your post that
initiated it? Kindly show.
Post by Tony
Another Keith Warren (aka at least 3 others) beat up unworthy of bandwidth.
..."(aka at least 3 others)": on precisely what factual evidence do you base
your lily-livered paranoid assertion? Verbatim, please.
As I wrote, unworthy of bandwidth.
Of your barren thought processes, unquestionably.
Thus does yet another of your hopelessly directionless threads bite the dust
for want of even a hint of intellectual force or substance from you, its
originator.
Makes you so proud to be you, doesn't it?
My achievements in life eclipse yours in any real measurement.
Which absurdly infantile conceit only further confirms just how far off-topic you and you alone have caused**your own** thread to be diverted, you catastrophically hypocritical little nincompoop.

Now do you understand how easily you are distracted, even from a task you have set yourself? This is exactly why the BBC rid itself of you even before you had completed your first Ops course. "Not fit for purpose", was how they put it, wasn't it?
Tony
2020-10-17 06:03:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:26:13 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
On Friday, 16 October 2020 at 11:46:46 UTC+13, undefined
On Friday, 16 October 2020 at 08:47:36 UTC+13, undefined
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at
orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony
at
orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
On 14 Oct 2020 06:39:08 GMT, Gordon
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony
<lizandtony
at
orcon
dot
net
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally
available
with
medical
approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who
already
imbibe
and
just
want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but
not
alcohol?
(And
I
do understand that alcohol is different from
cannabis;
it
is
the
principal on which you base your statement that I
am
asking
about).
Rich, the principle Tony is talking about is one of
people
being
lazy,
wanting things to be easy and convenient. A given
for
humans.
(Principals are people)
Thanks Gordon, and yes I should have used the word
principle.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval
is
fraught
with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy
is
akin
to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they
miss
the
point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to
break
free
from
just
as physical addiction can be. We have numerous
historical
examples
of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure
and
harm;
balancing the needs of a community against
individual
freedom
to
hurt
themselves is difficult. When mixed with a
reluctance
to
recognise
that sometimes government programmes need to balance
conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is
needed,
and
that
government funding cannot always be "user pays"
where
medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm -
either
mental
or
physical.
Our regulation of alcohol is a mix of a number of
methods,
as
is
our
response to drugs like heroin. Cannabis and
synthetic
drugs
are
relatively new; we are finding our way. I have said
in
another
post
that I think the taxing of tobacco is reaching its
effective
limit,
and proposed extending prohibition while offering
some
tax
relief
to
those who accept health monitoring. It is clumsy,
and
unlikely
to
be
accepted as I expressed it, but it was an attempt to
explain
that
we
are dealing with complex issues.
Entirely off topic but we should not be surprised.
What rubbish - of course what we do with other harmful
substances
is
on topic. Your use of the claim that something is off
topic
just
reflects your inability to se any view on any subject
other
than
your
own.
Wrong as is often the case.
I posted an article about cannabis. You turned it into
one
about
anything
but.
You are a disgrace. Stick to the subject or clear off.
Trying to regulate a drug through medical approval is
fraught
with
difficulties; categorising a drug dependency as lazy is
akin
to
Collins' fat shaming; or Trump's Bible waving - they
miss
the
point
that psychological dependency can be difficult to break
free
from
just
as physical addiction can be.
Well put. It's not just about cannabis per se but about
substance
abuse
and
addiction in general, and the connection between both and
their
potential
to
destroy lives, plus their harmful effect on society at
large.
Yes,
the
Referendum is about cannabis as a single issue, but the
various
elements
of the
harmful substances debate cannot be considered in strict
isolation,
**particularly** in the case of cannabis which is treated
by
those
who
have to
deal with these issues as the (often naive and unaware)
initiate's
'gateway' to
harder addictive substances.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
We have numerous historical examples of
the treatment of substances that cause both pleasure and
harm;
balancing the needs of a community against individual
freedom
to
hurt
themselves is difficult.
Well put. This is the conundrum central to both the
cannabis-as-addictive-substance debate and the Referendum.
The
conundrum
is,
essentially, intractable so conclusive watertight policy
decisions
that
completely satisfy the 'balance' you earlier refer to will
remain
elusive.
Post by Rich80105
When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105
that sometimes government programmes need to balance
conflicting
priorities, that sometimes a mix of approaches is
needed,
and
that
government funding cannot always be "user pays" where
medical
assistance is needed to mitigate or limit harm - either
mental
or
physical.
Wonky syntax, but the point is usefully made.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On topic, Tony.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
You are now but for the first time in this thtread.
However
what
you
finally
posted on topic is nonsense and merely your opinion.
The same can be truthfully said of that closing remark.
Everything I have posted in this thread has either been on
topic
or
was
a
direct response to someone else in this thread.
BR (a salutary post if ever there were, and needing no further
explaining),
Gordon, Crash, Rich and I have each offered **you** their
efforts
at
constructive input in the hope of better informing and
progressing
**your**
topic by developing and expanding on it. OK, in such a loose
and
casual
medium as Usenet there may be errors, diversions, even
distractions
amongst
what is offered, but nevertheless it is your topic that has,
in
essence,
been
addressed.
On the other hand, you demonstrate no such honorable
equivalence
in
this
thread, i.e., that same honorable equivalence that genuine,
purposeful
debate
demands.
You originated the topic, ergo, you own it; so it would go
some
considerable
way to giving some validity both to your presence and
topic-as-offered
by
showing you understand and appreciate the meaning and purpose
of
genuine
debate
that you yourself may doubtless intend but hardly ever - if at
all -
progress
to a satisfactory conclusion on your own account. It is for
you -
as
topic
originator and owner - to put your own house in order -
certainly
not
anyone
else in this thread.
I see posts to usenet as being more by way of discussion; the
first
poster has in my view no implicit "ownership" of the topic.
For me, ownership implies having taken responsibility - as far as
possible
-
for the conduct of the thread the poster has originated. There is no
group
moderator as such, so each poster is, in effect, charged with being
their
own
moderator, but armed with little but the natural courtesies and
standards
of
conduct to be expected in any civilised discourse, however robust or
controversial. In which case, for the originator to maintain some
semblance
of
control of his own topic, the parameters of the discussion should be
able
to be
interpreted - even intuited - from the content and tenor of the
originator's
opening gambit. However, if there is nothing but a topic header
with
a
peremptory opinion chucked in as make-weight, then the originator
shouldn't
be
the least bit surprised and miffed if his topic takes an erratic
course.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
case discussion on actions to regulate a substance that can
cause
harm
could quite easily be extended to compare and contrast actions
taken
with repsect to other substances. Relativity is important in
many
situations. Whatever the result of the referendum, cannabis is
not
going away, but as has been pointed out it does have an effect
on
use
of other substances, and it is therefore reasonable to consider
all
aspects of the problem.
But that is not what you did. You made a groundless assumption.
Rich did, logically basing it on probability rather than possibility.
Absolutely not probability, at best a guess
Why wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't such guess be based on probability?
Post by Tony
but more likely deliberate mischief.
"...more likely" - a term expressing assumption/probability. In which case
your behaviour is essentially no different from Rich's.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
But why did he feel free to do this?
Because it is what he usually does, ignoring reasonable behaviour.
So why do your efforts to discourage such behaviour more often than
not
come
to nought other than for those reasons I have previously made known in
my
post
date-stamped 16 Oct 2020, 17:23:46?
They work to the extent that is possible with a couple of idiots in this
newsgroup running their own vicious agendas.
So you say. But to whatever extent you may fondly imagine they "work",
it
is
self-evidently ineffective, my having already previously courteously advised
you of the reasons.
Post by Tony
All has been said, nothing else is of any value.
Scornfully dismissing your absurd try at censorhip, what of any possible value
have you yourself contributed to this thread subsequent to your post that
initiated it? Kindly show.
Post by Tony
Another Keith Warren (aka at least 3 others) beat up unworthy of bandwidth.
..."(aka at least 3 others)": on precisely what factual evidence do you base
your lily-livered paranoid assertion? Verbatim, please.
As I w
Tony
2020-10-17 06:32:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
James Christophers <***@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 17 October 2020 at 16:55:43 UTC+13, undefined wrote:
Entirely off topic Keith Warren nonsense and other irrelevant (thanks to Keith)
posts removed.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
My achievements in life eclipse yours in any real measurement.
Which absurdly infantile conceit only further confirms just how far off-topic
you and you alone have caused**your own** thread to be diverted, you
catastrophically hypocritical little nincompoop.
Now do you understand how easily you are distracted, even from a task you have
set yourself? This is exactly why the BBC rid itself of you even before you
had completed your first Ops course. "Not fit for purpose", was how they put
it, wasn't it?
Since you have hijacked this thread for your own childish enjoyment how about
you read a thing or two (forlorn hope or not).
The BBC was kind enough to employ me while I earned ny degree, they did not ask
me to help you tug cables around a studio or dangle a microphone over anybody's
head. Even more importantly they did not teach me how to be abusive to others
as somebody did you (or was that hereditary?).
Meanwhile since you cannot avoid the obvious result of being educated in a very
poor secondary modern shitheap maybe you should resort to philosophy (of a
sort).
Viz "A man's reach should exceed his grasp" is something that many have
achieved but clearly not you, not by a country mile.
Do go and find yourself a gentle little rest home with nice nurses that will
see to your every whim even those that you can barely recall.
Take care, please find some help.

James Christophers
2020-10-14 21:34:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
Why do you believe that about cannabis, Tony, but not alcohol? (And I
do understand that alcohol is different from cannabis; it is the
principal on which you base your statement that I am asking about).
Consider the essential difference between the two: cannabis is categorised as a "gateway drug" whereas alcohol isn't. Impairment from alcohol obtained through retail channels is directly related to volume consumed. It can be indicatively measured swiftly and non-invasively in the field, but testing is not guaranteed 100% error-proof.[1] Impairment from drugs is related not so much to volume consumed but to drug type and is currently difficult to measure swiftly and non-invasively. However, non-invasive methods may soon be at the law's disposal if the following is anything to go by.

https://saynopetodope.org.nz/2020/04/02/step-closer-to-roadside-cannabis-testing/

[1] Having used an alcohol-dosed mouthwash a few minutes before a roadside alcohol test can give a positive result sufficient to be asked to pull aside and await further questioning. This happened to me minutes from home a few years ago. I gave the officer a courtly whiff aimed directly at him; he said OK and waved me on my way. This happened about 4pm on Christmas eve. 'Nuff said.
Crash
2020-10-14 02:21:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
The fact of the matter is that a large percentage of the population
support the use of Cannabis for personal use by selling and buying it
illegally now. Legalising it will take supply out of the hands of
criminals (by allowing buyers to purchase at legal outlets) and will
stop the pointless efforts to police prohibition.


--
Crash McBash
Tony
2020-10-14 02:27:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
The fact of the matter is that a large percentage of the population
support the use of Cannabis for personal use by selling and buying it
illegally now. Legalising it will take supply out of the hands of
criminals (by allowing buyers to purchase at legal outlets) and will
stop the pointless efforts to police prohibition.
--
Crash McBash
Crash,
That is of course correct but the balance between that and what additional
damage that will be done remains an issue for some of us. Certainly for me.
I posted a different view, one that resonates for me.
Rich80105
2020-10-14 03:25:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 21:27:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
The fact of the matter is that a large percentage of the population
support the use of Cannabis for personal use by selling and buying it
illegally now. Legalising it will take supply out of the hands of
criminals (by allowing buyers to purchase at legal outlets) and will
stop the pointless efforts to police prohibition.
--
Crash McBash
Crash,
That is of course correct but the balance between that and what additional
damage that will be done remains an issue for some of us. Certainly for me.
I posted a different view, one that resonates for me.
And exactly those concerns have been said for a very long time in
relation to alcohol. Your "balance" would leave the current illegal
supply largely unchanged, and have minimal impact on the damagethat
currently occurs.
Tony
2020-10-14 04:55:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 21:27:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
The fact of the matter is that a large percentage of the population
support the use of Cannabis for personal use by selling and buying it
illegally now. Legalising it will take supply out of the hands of
criminals (by allowing buyers to purchase at legal outlets) and will
stop the pointless efforts to police prohibition.
--
Crash McBash
Crash,
That is of course correct but the balance between that and what additional
damage that will be done remains an issue for some of us. Certainly for me.
I posted a different view, one that resonates for me.
And exactly those concerns have been said for a very long time in
relation to alcohol. Your "balance" would leave the current illegal
supply largely unchanged, and have minimal impact on the damagethat
currently occurs.
That is irrelevant in regard to this referendum. Which is about cannabis not
alcohol.
If you want a referendum on alcohol then get involved with the democratic
process and persuade people to arrange one.
All that I and other fair thinking people are doing is addressing this
referendum. Maybe you should do the same.
Rich80105
2020-10-14 21:02:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 23:55:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 21:27:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
The fact of the matter is that a large percentage of the population
support the use of Cannabis for personal use by selling and buying it
illegally now. Legalising it will take supply out of the hands of
criminals (by allowing buyers to purchase at legal outlets) and will
stop the pointless efforts to police prohibition.
--
Crash McBash
Crash,
That is of course correct but the balance between that and what additional
damage that will be done remains an issue for some of us. Certainly for me.
I posted a different view, one that resonates for me.
And exactly those concerns have been said for a very long time in
relation to alcohol. Your "balance" would leave the current illegal
supply largely unchanged, and have minimal impact on the damagethat
currently occurs.
That is irrelevant in regard to this referendum. Which is about cannabis not
alcohol.
If you want a referendum on alcohol then get involved with the democratic
process and persuade people to arrange one.
All that I and other fair thinking people are doing is addressing this
referendum. Maybe you should do the same.
Your "balance" would leave the current illegal supply largely
unchanged, and have minimal impact on the damage that
currently occurs. That relates to Cannabis, Tony. Why would you want
to leave an illegal alone that also harms New Zealanders by linking to
the also illegal trade in 'P' and other illegal drugs?

We have gone down a different route with tobacco of taxing hell out of
it; I suspect we have about reached the limit of that, as it has
started prompting both robberies and contributes to poverty - tobacco
taxes are a typical National Party tax - not really a worry to their
supporters, but impoverish the poor where smokers do not have the
self-discipline to either keep themselves from being obese or quitting
smoking - and the extra tax helps keep income tax down and makes some
poor people dislike taxes . . . . What should in my view be
happening is that those that register as tobacco addicts should have
their health and tobacco intake and health monitored, the tax
partially waived for holders of a community services card, and the age
at which tobacco can be purchased increased progressively so that we
reduce the number of young people taking it up. Cannabis could then
also be treaed in a similar way.
Tony
2020-10-15 00:50:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 23:55:10 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 21:27:22 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
The fact of the matter is that a large percentage of the population
support the use of Cannabis for personal use by selling and buying it
illegally now. Legalising it will take supply out of the hands of
criminals (by allowing buyers to purchase at legal outlets) and will
stop the pointless efforts to police prohibition.
--
Crash McBash
Crash,
That is of course correct but the balance between that and what additional
damage that will be done remains an issue for some of us. Certainly for me.
I posted a different view, one that resonates for me.
And exactly those concerns have been said for a very long time in
relation to alcohol. Your "balance" would leave the current illegal
supply largely unchanged, and have minimal impact on the damagethat
currently occurs.
That is irrelevant in regard to this referendum. Which is about cannabis not
alcohol.
If you want a referendum on alcohol then get involved with the democratic
process and persuade people to arrange one.
All that I and other fair thinking people are doing is addressing this
referendum. Maybe you should do the same.
Your "balance" would leave the current illegal supply largely
unchanged, and have minimal impact on the damage that
currently occurs. That relates to Cannabis, Tony. Why would you want
to leave an illegal alone that also harms New Zealanders by linking to
the also illegal trade in 'P' and other illegal drugs?
Where do you get the idea that I am talking about "balance". That is your word
not mine.
Other things that are illegal or not have nothing at all to do with this
subject.
Please try for once to stick to the topic.
It is about cannabis nothing else.
Post by Rich80105
We have gone down a different route with tobacco of taxing hell out of
it; I suspect we have about reached the limit of that, as it has
started prompting both robberies and contributes to poverty - tobacco
taxes are a typical National Party tax - not really a worry to their
supporters, but impoverish the poor where smokers do not have the
self-discipline to either keep themselves from being obese or quitting
smoking - and the extra tax helps keep income tax down and makes some
poor people dislike taxes . . . . What should in my view be
happening is that those that register as tobacco addicts should have
their health and tobacco intake and health monitored, the tax
partially waived for holders of a community services card, and the age
at which tobacco can be purchased increased progressively so that we
reduce the number of young people taking it up. Cannabis could then
also be treaed in a similar way.
Irrelevant and deliberately off topic nonsense.
Gordon
2020-10-14 06:30:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
The fact of the matter is that a large percentage of the population
support the use of Cannabis for personal use by selling and buying it
illegally now. Legalising it will take supply out of the hands of
criminals (by allowing buyers to purchase at legal outlets) and will
stop the pointless efforts to police prohibition.
--
Crash McBash
Crash,
That is of course correct but the balance between that and what additional
damage that will be done remains an issue for some of us. Certainly for me.
I posted a different view, one that resonates for me.
The issue of having something illegal is that it can not be dealt with out
in the open. So it has to be dealt with underground. Some people are not
aware of the underground, so it is out of sight and thus they think all is
well.

Making it legal would mean that all the pluses and minises are on display
and society can have an ongoing debate, addicts can get help and things can
change.

Unwanted teenage pregnancy, homsexual law reform and abortion have all faced
similar arguements, come into law and now are accepted or been worked on.

Society is not perfect, never has been and probably never will be, so it
needs to remain flexible to be able to deal with the seeder side of life.
Tony
2020-10-14 19:23:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
The fact of the matter is that a large percentage of the population
support the use of Cannabis for personal use by selling and buying it
illegally now. Legalising it will take supply out of the hands of
criminals (by allowing buyers to purchase at legal outlets) and will
stop the pointless efforts to police prohibition.
--
Crash McBash
Crash,
That is of course correct but the balance between that and what additional
damage that will be done remains an issue for some of us. Certainly for me.
I posted a different view, one that resonates for me.
The issue of having something illegal is that it can not be dealt with out
in the open. So it has to be dealt with underground. Some people are not
aware of the underground, so it is out of sight and thus they think all is
well.
Only the naive, reading a little history will teach them better than that.
Post by Gordon
Making it legal would mean that all the pluses and minises are on display
and society can have an ongoing debate, addicts can get help and things can
change.
Unwanted teenage pregnancy, homsexual law reform and abortion have all faced
similar arguements, come into law and now are accepted or been worked on.
Society is not perfect, never has been and probably never will be, so it
needs to remain flexible to be able to deal with the seeder side of life.
Crash
2020-10-15 04:13:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/election-2020/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
If you have not voted yet this is worth reading.
I believe that Cannabis should only be legally available with medical approval,
those that disagree are in many cases people who already imbibe and just want
it to be easier.
The fact of the matter is that a large percentage of the population
support the use of Cannabis for personal use by selling and buying it
illegally now. Legalising it will take supply out of the hands of
criminals (by allowing buyers to purchase at legal outlets) and will
stop the pointless efforts to police prohibition.
--
Crash McBash
Crash,
That is of course correct but the balance between that and what additional
damage that will be done remains an issue for some of us. Certainly for me.
I posted a different view, one that resonates for me.
The issue of having something illegal is that it can not be dealt with out
in the open. So it has to be dealt with underground. Some people are not
aware of the underground, so it is out of sight and thus they think all is
well.
Making it legal would mean that all the pluses and minises are on display
and society can have an ongoing debate, addicts can get help and things can
change.
Unwanted teenage pregnancy, homsexual law reform and abortion have all faced
similar arguements, come into law and now are accepted or been worked on.
Society is not perfect, never has been and probably never will be, so it
needs to remain flexible to be able to deal with the seeder side of life.
Well put Gordon. Prohibition works only when most of us support it
and forgo the prohibited substance.


--
Crash McBash
Loading...