# Another NZ article about drugs



## Steve (Aug 9, 2013)

Looks like the Kiwis are at it again..
This time they want to legalize drugs .......



http://www.vancouversun.com/news/wa.../8744310/story.html?google_editors_picks=true


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 9, 2013)

They want to legalize _Spice_, the pseudo-marijuana substance that uses JWH-18, a synthetic fertilizer.

What are these people ON?!? There are numerous documented cases of kids getting sick and even dying from using the synthetics - why in the world would they want to legalize them? 

I smell a rat ...


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 9, 2013)

I'll leave that one to Fern.  Demarcation.  

I seem to remember hearing something about banning the synthetic stuff here so it must be already legal ???  But the real thing isn't. I seem to be missing the logic, if there is any.
Not into it myself and I've long lost contact with those I knew who were so I'm out.


----------



## That Guy (Aug 9, 2013)

SifuPhil said:


> I smell a rat ...


----------



## MercyL (Aug 9, 2013)

SifuPhil said:


> They want to legalize _Spice_, the pseudo-marijuana substance that uses JWH-18, a synthetic fertilizer.
> 
> What are these people ON?!? There are numerous documented cases of kids getting sick and even dying from using the synthetics - why in the world would they want to legalize them?
> 
> I smell a rat ...



Subjecting all non-pharmaceutically produced drugs under the same ban makes no sense. Legalizing pot makes more sense than legalizing the harder drugs, at first blush. The move to bring harder drugs into the open could save lives, though. 

Drug cartels are no different than "legal" corporations. If they can provide the same "buzz" at the same high prices as the original substance, without risking arrest, they don't worry about consumer safety! Legalization attempts to lower the risk and increase safety. I see nothing crazy about that.

Remember, when any group start yelling about children's safety, you can bet their position has few merits. Kids get sick form eating too much candy, but there are no alarms raised over that. Parents simply restrict candy's availability. People die while sky diving. There's no outcry for a ban on that obviously risky behavior, either.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 9, 2013)

I just saw a show on TV about these synthetic poisons, guess a lot of people in the military use this stuff because it doesn't show up in urine/blood tests as drugs.  I say legalize the natural plant that has naturally grown on the earth for centuries, put the drug cartels out of business, and stop overreacting to the use of drugs.  The whole war on drug thing is bogus anyway.  I can't understand why people would use this synthetic chemical crap anyway...from the TV show, the manufacturer person can put any junk in the stuff, many times chemicals bought online from countries like China.


----------



## Fern (Aug 9, 2013)

The government have changed tack. A big percentage don't agree with the legislation, but since when did MP's listen to the people. 


> Sick of trying to keep up with drugmakers, the government is trying a  new tack. Last month a law was passed which offers drug designers the  chance of getting official approval for their products. If they can  persuade a new “Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority” that their  pills and powders are low risk, they will be licensed to market them,  whether or not they get people high. Drugs will have to undergo clinical  trials, which the government expects to take around 18 months—much less  than for medicines, because the drugs will be tested only for toxicity,  not for efficacy. Drugs that are already banned internationally, such  as cocaine and cannabis, are ineligible. Only licensed shops will sell  the drugs, without advertising and not to children.





> Looks like the Kiwis are at it again..


Yep, since MMP (parliamentry system) came into being, successive governments have been hell bent of N.Z becoming the 'first' for anything radical.  I don't know what they are trying to prove.


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 9, 2013)

MercyL said:


> Subjecting all non-pharmaceutically produced drugs under the same ban makes no sense. Legalizing pot makes more sense than legalizing the harder drugs, at first blush. The move to bring harder drugs into the open could save lives, though.
> 
> Drug cartels are no different than "legal" corporations. If they can provide the same "buzz" at the same high prices as the original substance, without risking arrest, they don't worry about consumer safety! Legalization attempts to lower the risk and increase safety. I see nothing crazy about that.
> 
> Remember, when any group start yelling about children's safety, you can bet their position has few merits. Kids get sick form eating too much candy, but there are no alarms raised over that. Parents simply restrict candy's availability. People die while sky diving. There's no outcry for a ban on that obviously risky behavior, either.



Legalization also creates its own set of problems, something that medical marijuana advocates are only now realizing. But at least marijuana is a legitimate medical tool - smoking fertilizer has never been shown to be advantageous for ANY medical condition. They aren't concerned about medical applications here, of course - they only want to make unsafe "drugs" safe. Like you said it's a noble quest, but one that I think is going to be a massive waste of time, effort and resources. 

Just as with food and drugs right now in the U.S. the only thing that will result from this legalization and "certification" will be a false sense of security. The sheeple will flock to the substance's use because Uncle Sam said it's safe; meanwhile you'll have additives that are far worse than the original unadulterated ingredients creating sickness and death.

To my way of thinking, allowing things to remain as they are is Darwin's way of ensuring superior survivors. With the advent of the Internet and 24/7 cable TV there are more than enough information sources telling the kids that this stuff is deadly - if they still want to partake of it well then have fun, kids - that's one less stupid person in the world to worry about. But no - Momma Government has to step in and save everyone from themselves, in the process removing freedoms and liberties from the rest of us. 

Allow them to pull this off and I guarantee that I'll set up a little production lab in my basement - I'll use potpourri as the substrate (just like _Spice_ and all the other analogues), apply a couple drops of my proprietary mixture named SP-1313 (benzene, ethanol and methylparaben), put it in a little foil baggie with "SIFU" on the cover and sell it for $10/gm. My overhead? Certification will be a few hundred bucks, and after that it'll be 90% profit. 

Golden!


----------



## Anne (Aug 9, 2013)

[QUOTE
To my way of thinking, allowing things to remain as they are is Darwin's way of ensuring superior survivors. With the advent of the Internet and 24/7 cable TV there are more than enough information sources telling the kids that this stuff is deadly - if they still want to partake of it well then have fun, kids - that's one less stupid person in the world to worry about. But no - Momma Government has to step in and save everyone from themselves, in the process removing freedoms and liberties from the rest of us.  [/QUOTE]

       :clap:    :iagree:


----------



## Fern (Aug 10, 2013)

Anne said:


> [QUOTE
> To my way of thinking, allowing things to remain as they are is Darwin's way of ensuring superior survivors. With the advent of the Internet and 24/7 cable TV there are more than enough information sources telling the kids that this stuff is deadly - if they still want to partake of it well then have fun, kids - that's one less stupid person in the world to worry about. But no - Momma Government has to step in and save everyone from themselves, in the process removing freedoms and liberties from the rest of us.



       :clap:    :iagree:[/QUOTE]

That is so simplifying it. You say one less to worry about, how so when they are more than likely to need healthcare along the way, healthcare that we as tax payers pay for, to say nothing about living off the state because they become unemployable.


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 10, 2013)

Fern said:


> That is so simplifying it. You say one less to worry about, how so when they are more than likely to need healthcare along the way, healthcare that we as tax payers pay for, to say nothing about living off the state because they become unemployable.



First, I never voted for the politicians that are behind this - in fact, I don't vote, period, simply BECAUSE I don't want to have to deal with idiocies like this. 

Second, if your politicians (like ours) actually did something that made sense they would fully remove any healthcare benefits for anyone stupid enough to do this to themselves.

This is why the world is going down the drain: because we have this misguided idea that everyone has to be equal and everyone has the right to free food, free healthcare, free education, free love ... the world doesn't work that way, NATURE doesn't work that way. The strongest survive, and there's always a price for that survival.


----------



## Fern (Aug 11, 2013)

I choose to vote, by not voting you can't complain. However, unless MP's campaign on a certain plank, voters have no idea what policies/laws may come into vogue during the parliamentary term. Imagine the outcry from that famous organisation the United Nations if people had their 'rights' taken away.


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 11, 2013)

Fern said:


> I choose to vote, by not voting you can't complain.




If I had a nickle for every time I've heard this phrase ... I'd have a lot of nickles. 

Unfortunately it is a totally erroneous correlation - there is no law, natural or man-made, that dictates that simply by not voting I give up my right to complain. In fact, I probably have even MORE right than the voters, since I don't "have a horse in the race" - I'm not arguing for or against any particular political party. Rather, I'm debating from a neutral position, unaffected by any partisan mania and not prone to reciting the party line.



> However, unless MP's campaign on a certain plank, voters have no idea what policies/laws may come into vogue during the parliamentary term. Imagine the outcry from that famous organisation the United Nations if people had their 'rights' taken away



Oh, I agree. As for the venerable UN, there are many stories concerning that organization's underhanded tactics as well as their general ineffectiveness ...


----------



## Fern (Aug 12, 2013)

SifuPhil said:


> If I had a nickle for every time I've heard this phrase ... I'd have a lot of nickles.
> 
> Unfortunately it is a totally erroneous correlation - there is no law, natural or man-made, that dictates that simply by not voting I give up my right to complain. In fact, I probably have even MORE right than the voters, since I don't "have a horse in the race" - I'm not arguing for or against any particular political party. Rather, I'm debating from a neutral position, unaffected by any partisan mania and not prone to reciting the party line.
> 
> ...


 Who wants to listen to a moaner that doesn't assert his/her right ( to vote).
I don't believe in tying myself to any political party, Coming from a 'neutral position', that makes 2 of us.


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 12, 2013)

> This is why the world is going down the drain: because we have this  misguided idea that everyone has to be equal and everyone has the right  to free food, free healthcare, free education, free love ... *the world  doesn't work that way, NATURE doesn't work that way.* The strongest  survive, and there's always a price for that survival.


Thank you Mr Phil Osopher, that's exactly my take on how things work too, interfering nannying just complicates the procedure.

Must admit to being surprised at the overall level headed views of members on this forum, I'm usually a lone voice trying to reason 
with the emotionally deluded. 



It's a breath of fresh air.  


Is OZ the only place in the World where we are forced to vote??  It's compulsory to get your name ticked off at the polling place even though you can just scribble a smiley face or short 4 letter message on the ballot paper if you want to.  $50 fine for not turning up!  
Personally I'm still weighing up the pros and cons of it but meanwhile I don't let 'em make 50 bucks off me just to make a point.

I guess that's why we get so much more interested in politics than some, we're more or less forced into making a decision between Dumb and Dumber.


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 12, 2013)

Fern said:


> Who wants to listen to a moaner that doesn't assert his/her right ( to vote).




You'd be surprised ...



> I don't believe in tying myself to any political party, Coming from a 'neutral position', that makes 2 of us.



Ah, an Independent ... 



			
				Diwundrin said:
			
		

> Must admit to being surprised at the overall level headed views of  members on this forum, I'm usually a lone voice trying to reason
> with the emotionally deluded.



I wonder if it's an age thing ... when you've seen so much of life you can see through the lies ...


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Aug 12, 2013)

Fern said:


> I choose to vote, by not voting you can't complain. However, unless MP's campaign on a certain plank, voters have no idea what policies/laws may come into vogue during the parliamentary term. Imagine the outcry from that famous organisation the United Nations if people had their 'rights' taken away.



What you seem to be saying here is that non-voters can't complain about the way things are going in the world, or in our country , to be more specific; because, since we didn't vote, for or against the laws or politicians that created the laws, we can't complain about the laws. 
If only voters can complain, then by inference, only voters are responsible for the state that our country is now in, because voters are the ones that voted the politicians into office. 
It seems logical to me, that if voters created this mess, and non-voters didn't ( because not a one of us voted for these politicians) , we should be the ones that DO have a right to complain...


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 12, 2013)

Happyflowerlady said:


> What you seem to be saying here is that non-voters can't complain about the way things are going in the world, or in our country , to be more specific; because, since we didn't vote, for or against the laws or politicians that created the laws, we can't complain about the laws.
> If only voters can complain, then by inference, only voters are responsible for the state that our country is now in, because voters are the ones that voted the politicians into office.
> It seems logical to me, that if voters created this mess, and non-voters didn't ( because not a one of us voted for these politicians) , we should be the ones that DO have a right to complain...



See?  This is why I can't figure out if compulsory voting is a good or bad thing.


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 12, 2013)

Diwundrin said:


> See?  This is why I can't figure out if compulsory voting is a good or bad thing.



Compulsory _anything_ is not good, and is at the heart of many conflicts in the world.



I have to have a license to drive, even though I'm an expert driver without one
I have to have a college degree to get a certain job, even when that job requires all the ability of a dyslexic goldfish
I have to have photo ID to cash a check or travel, even when the banker or airline clerk have known me all their lives
I have to pay taxes, even when I disagree with what they are spent on

And it isn't even just the big things that confine us, that control us, that dictate our actions and hold us prisoners to the system - it's the little things as well: the club card you need to get the grocery discount, the inspections and licenses and permits and all other sorts of official waste-paper that accrue when you (Buddha forbid) have the initiative to start a business, build a house or enter yourself into eternal bondage with another person, and that only serve to keep the system functioning.

But voting? _Voting_?!? You're being _forced_ to choose?!?

All hail the Federal Constitutional Monarchy under the Parliamentary Democracy!


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 12, 2013)

Well, basically we're forced to turn up and get our names ticked off or else get a 'note' to exempt ourselves due to health or circumstances.  Whether we actually lodge an eligible vote or just write rude words on the ballot paper  is up to us, but we are forced to make that decision in the polling booth, not at home with our feet up.

Compulsory voting's not new, I can't remember it ever being any other way so it's been law since at least the 50s probably earlier.

I really don't see it as a totally bad thing.  We are a fairly laid back lot and I honestly doubt that a voluntary turnout would draw more than around 10% of the population poliitcally dedicated enough to bother at all.  Most of us treat politics as a National sport, fun to watch and whinge about,  but not worth the effort of participating in.

  At least what we get is the Government we truly deserve, not just the  one who could afford more on hiring buses to ship in supporters.  Being compulsory It  precludes the rort of rounding up renta-voters as we hear happens in the US. 

It's a bit different in OZ as unless I'm mistaken you have to be registered, or members or somesuch of a Party to vote (???)  That's not the case here, everyone has the equal right to whinge and vote.  Parties here could just round people up from the park at random to vote for them for the price of a sanger and a can of Coke.  The current system at least makes Politians work a bit harder to sell their product 'intellectually' as well as by pork barreling,  although the present situation of a hung Parliarment proves that neither side are very good at it.

Different system, different considerations.


----------



## Ozarkgal (Aug 12, 2013)

Happyflowerlady said:


> What you seem to be saying here is that non-voters can't complain about the way things are going in the world, or in our country , to be more specific; because, since we didn't vote, for or against the laws or politicians that created the laws, we can't complain about the laws.
> If only voters can complain, then by inference, only voters are responsible for the state that our country is now in, because voters are the ones that voted the politicians into office.
> It seems logical to me, that if voters created this mess, and non-voters didn't ( because not a one of us voted for these politicians) , we should be the ones that DO have a right to complain...



Happyflowerlady..splendid logic!


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 13, 2013)

I'm going to display my ignorance of the political process here, but when they say "hung Parliament" do they mean ...



???


----------



## That Guy (Aug 13, 2013)

SifuPhil said:


> Compulsory _anything_ is not good



Roger that!  (I was forced to say that...)


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 13, 2013)




----------



## Fern (Aug 13, 2013)

Happyflowerlady said:


> What you seem to be saying here is that non-voters can't complain about the way things are going in the world, or in our country , to be more specific; because, since we didn't vote, for or against the laws or politicians that created the laws, we can't complain about the laws.
> If only voters can complain, then by inference, only voters are responsible for the state that our country is now in, because voters are the ones that voted the politicians into office.
> It seems logical to me, that if voters created this mess, and non-voters didn't ( because not a one of us voted for these politicians) , we should be the ones that DO have a right to complain...


I don't agree. If voters created, and it's a big if, (as I posted before, if MP's don't canvass on a certain plank then the voters cannot be blamed for any law that might be passed especially when any referendum held on any matter,is not binding.) When someone refuses to vote, why complain, how do you straighten out any 'mess'?. Do you prefer MP's have carte blanche?
Voting is not compulsory here, but being registered is.


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 13, 2013)

SifuPhil said:


> I'm going to display my ignorance of the political process here, but when they say "hung Parliament" do they mean ...
> 
> View attachment 2074
> 
> ???


That's a good representation of most of 'em.

 



This is the 'one who would be next PM' in the red budgie smuggler.  Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 13, 2013)

Diwundrin said:


> That's a good representation of most of 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Budgie, lol! layful:


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 13, 2013)

SeaBreeze said:


> Budgie, lol! layful:



I know, right? Another coffee-spitting episode! I have to stop drinking coffee when I'm on this forum ... 

Thanks to Di I have a new word in my arsenal. :love-struck:


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 13, 2013)

Budgie smuggler is an old term for Speedos here, a brilliantly clever one too, that's exactly what most of them look like tucked away in the lycra. A dead budgie in a bag.


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 14, 2013)

I'm just spinning all the possible derivatives in my head now ...



Finch Pincher
Parrot Pouch
Hawk Holder
Dragon Bag


:sentimental:


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 14, 2013)

I think 'dragon bag' might be over-reaching a little. 

  But who are we to judge?



(No!  Definitely no proof required, thanks anyway.)


----------



## That Guy (Aug 14, 2013)

Speedos are great for swimming laps.  Walkin' around in 'em . . . NOT.


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 14, 2013)

Diwundrin said:


> I think 'dragon bag' might be over-reaching a little.
> 
> But who are we to judge?
> 
> ...



How about a "Dingo Sling"?


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 14, 2013)

Mmmmm, maybe. There was a rather crass saying the oldies would sometimes use when fronting the bar, "gimme a beer, I'm drier than dead Dingo's donger"  so if you feel it appropriate then by all means.....


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 14, 2013)

Di, I think you are corrupting Phil.
Shame on you.
:badgirl:


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 14, 2013)

Yes, sorry about that Poll, no point leading him astray, I think he's already been there.


----------



## SifuPhil (Aug 15, 2013)

Diwundrin said:


> Yes, sorry about that Poll, no point leading him astray, I think he's already been there.



Been there several times, got not only the T-shirt but the whole bloody garment factory.

... but thanks for the encouragement. 



Packy-Sack
Polish Pud Purse
Ouch Pouch
Truffle Duffle
Pickle Packer

(we do this sort of thing all through the movie ...)


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 15, 2013)

You're getting good at that, I'd add 'Tackle Sack' but I'd get into trouble from Miss Warri so better not say it.   




I'll just go and try to figure how this evolved from a story on 'plastic' weed in NZ.


----------

