Post by James ChristophersPost by TonyPost by Rich80105Post by Rich80105On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:19:11 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by TonyPost by Rich80105On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:51:18 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by TonyPost by Rich80105Post by GordonPost by Rich80105On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 17:59:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
net
Post by TonyPost by Tonyhttps://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 Rich80105Post by Rich80105We 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 Rich80105When mixed with a reluctance to recognise
Post by Rich80105that 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.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105You 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.