Support medical use of cannabis

Back the petition to have the NSW Government legalize the medical use of marihuana, following the recommendations of the upper house committee.

ANDERSON PROPOSES HISTORIC PRIVATE MEMBERS BILL

Member for Tamworth Kevin Anderson met with the NSW Premier the Hon Mike Baird today over the issue of the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes.
Mr Anderson told the Premier of his intention to introduce a Private Members Bill seeking the approval for the use of cannabis by terminally ill patients.
Mr Anderson said “the Premier listened intently while I explained the issue to him and the circumstances surrounding my decision to try and change the laws.
“I told him about the Haslam family from Tamworth and the heartbreaking circumstances facing 24 year old Dan Haslam who has terminal cancer and his use of cannabis for medicinal purposes.
“The Premier was sympathetic and agreed the time has come to address this issue and he supported my bid to work up a private members bill.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

494 Responses to Support medical use of cannabis

  1. Tintarella di Luna

    What are these starter packs?

    do they include recipes for those very delectable brownies that smell and taste funny.

  2. Andrew

    And second-hand smoke? It’s bullshit.

    Johanna, every time you say that, please slap yourself. Eventually you will stop making such an ignorant and dangerously false claim.

  3. Baldrick

    Aristogeiton – I get what you’re saying with the statistics but the reality on the streets is much different. I don’t believe the statistics that say there is no gun problem on Sydney streets also.
    Less than 3% of shipping containers entering Austraila are subject to any form of search and any action to do so is only taken on the back of significant intelligence. Ingredients for synthetic drug manufacture are relatively easy to import into Australia and made cheap in China.

  4. DrBeauGan

    I used to think everyone should be encouraged to think for themselves. I reasoned that even if they weren’t very good at it they’d get better. Then along came Joe Goodacre…

  5. MemoryVault

    Johanna, every time you say that, please slap yourself. Eventually you will stop making such an ignorant and dangerously false claim.

    And don’t use public toilets.
    You will catch AIDS.

  6. Aristogeiton

    Baldrick
    #1336387, posted on June 6, 2014 at 6:40 pm
    Aristogeiton – I get what you’re saying with the statistics but the reality on the streets is much different. I don’t believe the statistics that say there is no gun problem on Sydney streets also.
    Less than 3% of shipping containers entering Austraila are subject to any form of search and any action to do so is only taken on the back of significant intelligence. Ingredients for synthetic drug manufacture are relatively easy to import into Australia and made cheap in China.

    Deep in the streets, huh? You’re changing the subject. We’re talking about marijuana.

  7. Aristogeiton

    DrBeauGan
    #1336403, posted on June 6, 2014 at 6:53 pm
    I used to think everyone should be encouraged to think for themselves. I reasoned that even if they weren’t very good at it they’d get better. Then along came Joe Goodacre…

    Lol. He learns nothing!

  8. Joe Goodacre

    Most people will not honestly admit when they talk about how much of a failure the war on drugs is, that there is effectively no war on drugs.

    If you deal in drugs in Singapore, it’s the death penalty.

    If you possess more than the following quantities, the death penalty may apply:

    Heroin – 15 grams or more
    Cocaine – 30 grams or more
    Morphine – 30 grams or more
    Hashish – 200 grams or more
    Methamphetamine – 250 grams or more
    Cannabis – 500 grams or more
    Opium – 1,200 grams or more

    Compare the drug usage rates between the UK and Singapore – once we have real penalties for possession, then people can fairly say that we’ve had a real as opposed to a fake war on drugs.

    According to the 2008 World Drug Report by the United Nations office on drugs and crime 8.2% of the UK population are cannabis abusers; in Singapore it is 0.005%. For ecstasy, the figures are 1.8% for the UK and 0.003% for Singapore; and for opiates – such as heroin, opium and morphine – 0.9% for the UK and 0.005% for Singapore.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay

  9. Infidel Tiger

    That’s right Joe. We just need to execute more people!

    You really are a Cnut.

  10. That’s right Joe. We just need to execute more people!

    If nothing else would eliminate recidivism.

  11. Aristogeiton

    I get it. The reason that our ‘war on drugs’ has failed is because we aren’t murdering enough of our own citizens for possessing them? And why would we murder them? For their own good of course. This is from the same prick who objects to the common law as an illegitimate interference by the sovereign in the liberty of the citizen. But the state murdering people for possessing substances they voluntarily consume, or sell to others who voluntarily consume them, is a completely legitimate interference with liberty? That is to say the fountain all liberties: life?

    FUCK ME DEAD. ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED?

  12. MemoryVault

    I don’t believe the statistics that say there is no gun problem on Sydney streets also.

    Guns.
    Something else we prohibited with outstanding results.
    I mean, everyone knows that prior to 1996, shootouts and drive by’s were a common occurrence in Sydney. Then we banned handguns, semi-autos and pump-action shotguns, and now the streets of Sydney are as safe as downtown Damascus

  13. Demosthenes

    there is effectively no war on drugs.

    Jesus, not this again. You tried this last time, and failed horribly then too.

    Compare the drug usage rates between the UK and Singapore

    Why should consumption be the metric of success? Surely we should be looking at measures of harm?

  14. Joe Goodacre

    And how expensive is the Central Narcotics Bureau to achieve these outcomes?

    1.9% of the budget of the Ministry of Home Affairs.

    http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2012/expenditure_overview/mha.html

    This obviously makes sense. If the penalties are high enough people will police themselves.

  15. Aristogeiton

    Steve at the Pub
    #1336428, posted on June 6, 2014 at 7:06 pm
    That’s right Joe. We just need to execute more people!

    If nothing else would eliminate recidivism.

    You people sicken me. Take some fucking responsibility for your own actions you puddle of piss.

  16. Demosthenes

    Michael Teo (in Joe’s link) boasts of killing people to save others from “addiction”. Only totalitarian vermin would agree with that moral calculus.

  17. Aristogeiton

    He’s a slave, probably bollocked.

  18. Baldrick

    Guns.
    Something else we prohibited with outstanding results.
    I mean, everyone knows that prior to 1996, shootouts and drive by’s were a common occurrence in Sydney. Then we banned handguns, semi-autos and pump-action shotguns, and now the streets of Sydney are as safe as downtown Damascus

    You’re not getting an argument from me about guns. I own them myself.

  19. Aristogeiton

    Baldrick
    #1336449, posted on June 6, 2014 at 7:17 pm
    Guns.
    Something else we prohibited with outstanding results.
    I mean, everyone knows that prior to 1996, shootouts and drive by’s were a common occurrence in Sydney. Then we banned handguns, semi-autos and pump-action shotguns, and now the streets of Sydney are as safe as downtown Damascus

    You’re not getting an argument from me about guns. I own them myself.

    So you own guns, and that’s morally unobjectionable. People own drugs, and that’s morally objectionable. People want to take your guns; you want to take their drugs. The unifying principle for you in all this is what? Give me what I want, and take what I don’t want from others?

  20. This obviously makes sense. If the penalties are high enough people will police themselves.

    Singapore pays a high price for a drug free society. The price is the deaths of the people who are executed. If you think that’s an acceptable price to pay, and one we should consider speak up. Personally, I don’t.

  21. Notafan

    I’m happy for marijuana to be legalised as long as it, tobacco and alchohol are all subject to the same tax and regulation regimes. That of course would be better if all were less.
    If I’m paying tax on my wine, well fair’s fair.

  22. You people sicken me. Take some fucking responsibility for your own actions you puddle of piss.

    ?????????

  23. Aristogeiton

    Aussiepundit
    #1336455, posted on June 6, 2014 at 7:23 pm
    This obviously makes sense. If the penalties are high enough people will police themselves.

    Singapore pays a high price for a drug free society. The price is the deaths of the people who are executed. If you think that’s an acceptable price to pay, and one we should consider speak up. Personally, I don’t.

    The staggering thing is according to this loon the ‘state’ has no right to enforce the common law, but it can kill you with gay abandon if you have drugs because… something about the welfare state.

    More proof that this asshole has *no interest* in liberty. He pretends he is interested in the decriminalisation of drugs; but only after the welfare state is dismantled. At present, he advocates for state-sponsored murder to enforce the laws. Is this the stance of a person who is interested in liberty, but has some genuine consequentialist objections to decriminalisation? No! He’s really just interested in imposing his beliefs on others, by murderous force of the state. He’s a fascist.

  24. In regard to drugs, the point is, take some responsibility for your own actions rather than asking the government to save you from yourself. If you don’t want to do drugs, don’t do them. If someone else wants to injest stuff that’s probably bad for them but gives them a buzz, let them. It’s not your concern. (even if it’s bad for them, it’s not your concern).

  25. Aristogeiton

    Steve at the Pub
    #1336457, posted on June 6, 2014 at 7:25 pm
    You people sicken me. Take some fucking responsibility for your own actions you puddle of piss.

    ?????????

    What he said:

    Aussiepundit
    #1336462, posted on June 6, 2014 at 7:29 pm
    In regard to drugs, the point is, take some responsibility for your own actions rather than asking the government to save you from yourself. If you don’t want to do drugs, don’t do them. If someone else wants to injest stuff that’s probably bad for them but gives them a buzz, let them. It’s not your concern. (even if it’s bad for them, it’s not your concern).

  26. Joe Goodacre

    Ari,

    You bluster about a lot but there is another side to this…

    Over two decades, the number of drug abusers arrested each year has declined by two-thirds, from over 6,000 in the early 1990s to about 2,000 last year. Fewer than two in 10 abusers released from prison or drug rehabilitation centres relapse within two years. We do not have traffickers pushing drugs openly in the streets, nor do we need to run needle exchange centres. Because of our strict laws, Singapore does not have to contend with major drug syndicates linked to organised crime, unlike some other countries.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay

    Spare us with all your holier than thou talk of ‘life’.

    You could probably save hundreds of lives in Africa each year by living on only the barest essentials. A human life to you is probably worth less than what you pay for hot showers each morning. When we’re forced to make trade offs, the truth of how much we really value things comes out and the reality is the life of others isn’t really that valuable to you. My own lifestyle is no better – but I don’t pretend it is. Your talk of life is just convenient for the philosophy you want to sell. Fine, except how many people were executed in 2012 in Singapore for drug trafficking? 2.

    That’s one less than people killed in Australia’s policies to stop illegal boat arrivals (which policies I happen to agree with to preempt your strawman).

    Are people forced to live in Singapore? Are people unaware of the laws and punishments? Singapore in fact has people continually trying to move there. Apparently capital punishment for a crime that they don’t want to commit isn’t that big a deterrent. Such a law keeps drug pushers out. Tough imprisonment rates let people know that if they want to use drugs, they’re free to do so in other countries. Since no one is forced to buy property there – why would people choose to live under such arrangements unless they consented to them.

    The reality is that if Australia ever introduced true tough on drugs laws, drug users and suppliers would find somewhere else to conduct their business. Those that continued to stay consent to the system. That’s how incentives work. Either you don’t believe in incentives or you actually don’t think what you say through before speaking to check whether your arguments are consistent with each other.

  27. JC

    Yobbo
    #1336170, posted on June 6, 2014 at 3:44 pm

    And since it’s uncle Milt day, let’s throw to one of his classics.

    Lord I miss him. I loved that guy almost as much as a son with a father.

  28. Infidel Tiger

    there is effectively no war on drugs.

    If only this were true, but people have given the state the right to dictate what they put in their orifices.

    Truly sickening.

  29. Joe Goodacre

    Aussiepundit,

    31 people died from opiates in 1997 in Australia.

    http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/drugtreat-pubs-front5-fa-toc~drugtreat-pubs-front5-fa-secb~drugtreat-pubs-front5-fa-secb-4~drugtreat-pubs-front5-fa-secb-4-5

    If capital crime was introduced and 30 people were executed instead, we would have had fewer deaths.

    Since both groups of people consent to their fates if drug laws are widely known, it becomes an empirical question as to which results in less harm. You’re only including one side of the equation when you say that Singapore pays a high price in deaths.

  30. Baldrick

    If someone else wants to injest stuff that’s probably bad for them but gives them a buzz, let them. It’s not your concern. (even if it’s bad for them, it’s not your concern).

    I couldn’t give a shit if someone wants to ingest the shit, that’s their concern. My concern comes when they want to get onto welfare because they’ve ingested too much shit and need taxpayer support in the form of disability support pensions.

  31. Infidel Tiger

    And second-hand smoke? It’s bullshit.

    Johanna, every time you say that, please slap yourself. Eventually you will stop making such an ignorant and dangerously false claim.

    Oh my god. Don’t tell me you’ve fallen for the second hand smoke fraud?

    This blog needs to be disbanded and the non lunatics can start again.

  32. Baldrick

    This blog needs to be disbanded and the non lunatics can start again.

    Here here.

  33. Aristogeiton

    The rate of violent crimes among Aboriginal people is far higher than the rest of the community. If we imprisoned them all it would lead to less violence and fewer deaths. There is much to recommend this policy. After all, deciding whether something is morally right or not is just a calculus between the factual and the counterfactual. According Slave here.

  34. Aristogeiton

    s/According Slave here/According to Slave here/

  35. Snoopy

    And second-hand smoke? It’s bullshit.

    I’m amused by reports that second-hand smoke is worse than smoking itself, when every smoker also inhales second-hand smoke.

  36. Joe Goodacre

    Ari, you haven’t actually addressed my primary point that we haven’t truly had a war on drugs.

    I give you the policy of an ex-British colony, introducing the use of a punishment widely used at a time in our past where you think we were more free, and your response is ‘how barbaric’, instead of actually addressing the point which was that we don’t actually have a war on drugs.

  37. Aristogeiton

    Furthermore, ‘consent’? Does the executed person ‘consent’? It is as if the imposition of a law without revolution constitutes consent. Fucking poppycock. How many people obey speeeding laws, copyright laws &c. This is not consent; it’s sufferance. Christ; I’ve never heard such fascist bullshit.

  38. Baldrick

    A total of 800,000 Australians receive the Disability Support Pension, but the Government has refused to say how many drug addicts and alcoholics receive payouts.
    Anecdotal evidence, however, suggests the number of people with conditions caused by long-term addiction runs into tens of thousands.

    Link thingy.

  39. Snoopy

    Ari, you haven’t actually addressed my primary point that we haven’t truly had a war on drugs.

    Its obvious we haven’t truly had a war on stupidity.

  40. 31 people died from opiates in 1997 in Australia.

    Right. They died engaging in a risky activity that sometimes occasions death.
    That’s not the same thing at all as catching them in the act and either locking them up or executing them.

    Point 2. You talk about the low cost of enforcement but the guardian article discusses the “education” campaign that starts in schools. This is a propaganda campaign with the express purpose of bolstering government policy. And I take it it’s a pretty intensive campaign. All propaganda is undesirable and has the unwanted side effect of encroaching state power into public discourse. The existence of the propaganda campaign itself is a second cost beyond the direct financial cost.

    Finally, opiates are very dangerous in large part because they are illegal. Dosages vary wildly, batches vary in quality. Stuff that’s cut down to almost nothing is dangerous in a completely different way to the unexpected ‘pure’ stuff.
    By contrast, with alcohol (also a dangerous drug), it’s a lot less dangerous because when you have a drink, you know exactly how much alcohol you’re consuming.

  41. Ari, you haven’t actually addressed my primary point that we haven’t truly had a war on drugs.

    It’s not a point. Drugs are illegal, the anti-drug laws are enforced. The word ‘war’ is not meant to refer to a literal war between two nation states. Maybe that’s why you’re confused.

  42. Snoopy

    Anecdotal evidence, however, suggests the number of people with conditions caused by long-term addiction runs into tens of thousands.

    Addiction is a consequence of welfare funded idleness. Who knew?

  43. Joe Goodacre

    Ari,

    I note that you haven’t addressed to the point that if a majority voted to make drug usage punishable with real prison terms and dealers got the death penalty, no one is forcing them to stay here so they are in effect consenting to run the risk of getting caught in order to have their cake and eat it to.

    You’re missing the ability of people to move, leave a country and start over – like most of our ancestors did at one stage. To you people are just pieces glued on a chess board, unable to make decisions as to whether they want to accept those criminal laws or live elsewhere. How else do you explain your superior than thou attitude to Singaporeans and people who actually want to move to that country because it’s a clean and predominantly drug free place to live.

  44. You’re missing the ability of people to move, leave a country and start over

    If people don’t like the law of the land they can move? That’s seriously all you’ve got left?
    Jeez, that was quick. If that’s all you’ve got you’re completely done.
    Game over.

  45. Joe Goodacre

    Aussiepundit,

    It’s not a point. Drugs are illegal, the anti-drug laws are enforced.

    When we have sanctions similar to Singapore, another ex-British colony perhaps then we can say that we’ve actually made drugs illegal.

    I’ve seen kids get convictions with nothing recorded over possession of drugs so that their future careers aren’t damaged. No one with any understanding of how easily drugs are accessed and how tokenistic the punishments would argue that drugs in any meaningful sense are illegal.

  46. Aristogeiton

    Aussiepundit
    #1336506, posted on June 6, 2014 at 7:51 pm
    You’re missing the ability of people to move, leave a country and start over

    If people don’t like the law of the land they can move? That’s seriously all you’ve got left?
    Jeez, that was quick. If that’s all you’ve got you’re completely done.
    Game over.

    Yes. I choose to move to the United States. I’m leaving, will turn up tomorrow, and will tell them Joe Goodacre sent me and said that I am entitled to a Green Card.

  47. Snoopy

    You’re missing the ability of people to move, leave a country and start over – like most of our ancestors did at one stage.

    That’s an excellent argument for proper Federalism. A state can become low tax and nil welfare. If you don’t like it, piss off.

  48. Baldrick

    Play nicely guys …

  49. Joe Goodacre

    Ari,

    You must live a very unhappy life if you think you have no control over your ability to stay or live in this country. I don’t like speeding laws either – they’re a pet hate, but to call them sufferance is nonsense. I choose to live here, that’s one of the cons to match against the benefits. Sufferance – what a nitwit. I see why you don’t get the point; you don’t think you’re in control of your own life or choices – why would anyone expect to see you thinking other people have that power.

  50. Aristogeiton

    Lawl! The reason that drugs are bad is because of the welfare state and idle, unemployable citizens. But if youths are convicted of a drug offence a conviction should be recorded because then they will be unemployable. YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE!

  51. I at least expected you to run the line that drugs increase violent/and or antisocial behaviour.

    Look, let’s pretend you did. Here’s my response.

    Yes, drugs can cause people to behave in violent and/or irresponsible ways. But the extent to which this happens is much overstated by anti-drug campaigners. many drugs that are illegal don’t affect users in that way (ecstacy, for example, merely causes people to be huggy and happy), and some drugs associated with crime such as heroin cause crime simply because they are illegal. While drugs such as speed can cause antisocial behaviour, this is much less common than anti-drug campaigners would lead you to believe. When it comes to moral corruption from these substances, don’t believe the hype.

    The drug with the most propensity to elicit violence is alcohol, and we have incorporated alcohol’s effects into the laws of the land in a variety of ways. The bottom line is, people are still held legally responsible for their actions, even when intoxicated.

  52. Joe Goodacre

    Long history Baldrick – we’re both ok playing this way.

  53. I’ve seen kids get convictions with nothing recorded over possession of drugs so that their future careers aren’t damaged.

    Good. Why should their careers be damaged for possession of pot?

  54. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    ecstacy, for example, merely causes people to be huggy and happy

    Dunno about that.

    One of my progeny saw an ecstasy pill make a person all screamy, then collapsy, then very deaddy.

  55. Aristogeiton

    Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC
    #1336526, posted on June 6, 2014 at 8:01 pm
    ecstacy, for example, merely causes people to be huggy and happy

    Dunno about that.

    One of my progeny saw an ecstasy pill make a person all screamy, then collapsy, then very deaddy.

    Legalisation would fix this problem, if indeed the thing you contend occurred (was this covered in the media?). No more backyard chemistry. Somebody to sue if there is contamination.

  56. Joe Goodacre

    Correct Ari – becoming unemployable can be a disincentive against behaviour.

    One of the reasons fewer children were had to single mothers is because social disincentives for that behaviour used to be higher.

    Regarding it increasing the welfare burden – to some extent that would be true. I agree with you and you agree with me. Welfare does create some perverse outcomes. In your argument, welfare creates the perverse outcome that we can’t attach a social stigma to punishment because it may increase the welfare burden. In my argument, we can’t legalise drugs because welfare creates other perverse outcomes. Glad you see it my way.

  57. Aristogeiton

    Does anyone know of any good libertarian blogs?

  58. sdfc

    While drugs such as speed can cause antisocial behaviour, this is much less common than anti-drug campaigners would lead you to believe.

    Yeah more speed freaks that’s what we want.

  59. JC

    Yea this one before the Boltheads showed up. The downside of Bolt always referencing this site is that you end up with boltheads.

  60. JC

    SDFC
    There is a downside to legalization and that’s you invaribly end up with more addicts on the margin. But you also end up with dramatically less criminality and that people will also move towards the less dangerous drugs.

    With 10% of the population legally medicated for all sorts of shit using anti-psychotics one would have to be an imbecile to differentiate.

  61. Dunno about that.
    One of my progeny saw an ecstasy pill make a person all screamy, then collapsy, then very deaddy.

    ecstacy is a very safe drug. That’s just the facts.
    Go on, dig out the news report. You know you want to. But remember that a death due to ecstasy was newsworthy because it almost never happens. The scientific fact is that it’s one of the safest drugs there is.

  62. JC

    SDFC

    Don’t piss me off this evening with imbecility. I’ve had a rotten day on the personal side.

  63. Correct Ari – becoming unemployable can be a disincentive against behaviour.

    You still haven’t answered the question why you would want someone to be unemployable, just because they tried pot in their youth.

  64. sdfc

    JC

    I’m not against legalising pot, H, cocaine etc, but speed is shit.

  65. Aristogeiton

    JC
    #1336547, posted on June 6, 2014 at 8:16 pm
    SDFC

    Don’t piss me off this evening with imbecility. I’ve had a rotten day on the personal side.

    Got any Scotch? That will help.

  66. Yeah more speed freaks that’s what we want.

    We already have it, with caffeine.

  67. Joe Goodacre

    I’m beginning to realise that there’s not much difference between the Libertarian and the Progressive in one glaring area…

    The Libertarian thinks that people don’t have the power to change their circumstances and that they are a victim whenever the society they are in changes the rules of that society (even if those new rules have been around most of their life). They think that if their perfect society is not on a platter now, they are a victim. They ignore history and the regular movement of people in the past who have left other countries precisely because they didn’t like the rules of those societies.

    The Progressive thinks that people don’t have the power to change their circumstances and that they are a victim of capitalism, the wealthy and the majority. They think that if their adopted victim doesn’t have the same choices available as other people, it must be due to discrimination or the system being rigged. They ignore history and the upward mobility of people when they are free to pursue their own potential.

    Both fundamentally are groups that think that people shouldn’t be held responsible for their choices because they include ‘Utopia’ on their list of available choices.

    I don’t fit into either of those groups, yet I know my personal philosophy is different from both in the sense that I hold people accountable for the choices that they make. Instead of making out like we’re slaves, I say well this is what we’re stuck with – how do we make society better without being drama queens about it.

  68. Aristogeiton

    Aussiepundit
    #1336550, posted on June 6, 2014 at 8:17 pm
    Correct Ari – becoming unemployable can be a disincentive against behaviour.

    You still haven’t answered the question why you would want someone to be unemployable, just because they tried pot in their youth.

    As I mentioned above, this dumbshit represents that he wants to get rid of prohibition, but only if the welfare state is dismantled. It follows that the problem here is welfare spending. Which he wants to increase by making people unemployable. Or killing them, depending on how he feels.

  69. MemoryVault

    One of my progeny saw an ecstasy pill make a person all screamy, then collapsy, then very deaddy.

    Then it wasn’t ecstasy.

  70. Grigory M

    Then it wasn’t ecstasy.

    Not for that person, MV – and probably not for the observer either.

  71. Aristogeiton

    Grigory M
    #1336563, posted on June 6, 2014 at 8:22 pm
    Then it wasn’t ecstasy.

    Not for that person, MV – and probably not for the observer either.

    This is precisely the kind of problem a market is adapted to fix.

  72. The Libertarian thinks that people don’t have the power to change their circumstances and that they are a victim whenever the society they are in changes the rules of that society (even if those new rules have been around most of their life).

    okay, let’s get something cleared up right now.
    You have repeatedly used the argument that if people don’t like the law they can always leave the country, to defend a law.
    Two things. Firstly, that’s not actually true. Not everyone can emigrate.
    Second, that’s a failure to defend the policy.
    “if you don’t like it, leave” is not an explanation of why it’s a good law.

    So now that I’ve refuted this point you keep making, please either defend it (I think that’s impossible but you’re welcome to try) or stop it.

  73. Not for that person, MV – and probably not for the observer either.

    Quips aside, it wasn’t ecstasy. Mk can come along and explain how yes, it was rooly trooly ecstasy.
    But it wasn’t.

  74. The drug with the most propensity to elicit violence is alcohol

    A common misconception.
    Alcohol can have a propensity to elicit violence. But it is far from the drug most likely to do so. Neither is it the drug to elicit the savagest violence.

  75. Yobbo

    I’m not against legalising pot, H, cocaine etc, but speed is shit.

    It’s funny because out of all the drugs you named, only 1 is legally prescribed in Australia. Speed. And it’s prescribed mostly to young adults for ADHD.

  76. Aristogeiton

    Aussiepundit
    #1336571, posted on Jne 6, 2014 at 8:26 pm
    Not for that person, MV – and probably not for the observer either.

    Quips aside, it wasn’t ecstasy. Mk can come along and explain how yes, it was rooly trooly ecstasy.
    But it wasn’t.

    News story or this didn’t happen. The most common contaminants are caffeine, amphetamines, ketamine and heroin. None as safe as MDXA, but not usually deadly when ingested orally.

  77. Yobbo

    Alcohol can have a propensity to elicit violence. But it is far from the drug most likely to do so. Neither is it the drug to elicit the savagest violence.

    Yes, it is Steve.

    Whatever you watched on scary drug movie of the day is bullshit. Alcohol is by far the most likely to induce violent behaviour. You are a drug peddler Steve. You peddle the most dangerous and harmful drug society has ever known.

    String him up I reckon!

  78. JC

    String him up I reckon!

    No no no, hanging is a cruel and unusual punishment. Stevie should be guillotined.

  79. Infidel Tiger

    ecstacy, for example, merely causes people to be huggy and happy

    Dunno about that.

    One of my progeny saw an ecstasy pill make a person all screamy, then collapsy, then very deaddy.

    No they didn’t. They witnessed someone die from a pill sold as ecstasy that probably contained rat poison.

    Another death for prohibition.

  80. Alcohol is by far the most likely to induce violent behaviour.

    I agree, and I say that as someone who enjoys a drink from time to time.
    It is a sad fact that some people become more violent from drinking to excess. This is not a reason to ban alcohol for the rest of us.

  81. Joe Goodacre

    Aussiepundit,

    You have repeatedly used the argument that if people don’t like the law they can always leave the country, to defend a law.
    Two things. Firstly, that’s not actually true. Not everyone can emigrate.

    That doesn’t change the point that you’re comparing to Utopia. If a person is unable to emigrate, then this is the best of their options available. It’s no different than saying that just because a person can’t get a job worth $1 million per year doesn’t make the system wrong.

    Second, that’s a failure to defend the policy.
    “if you don’t like it, leave” is not an explanation of why it’s a good law.

    We are arguing based on different premises. If Singaporeans believe that they don’t want drugs in their society and they criminalise it heavily to signal that, who are we to say that is not a good law if that country doesn’t restrict the free movement of people?

    Whether it is good or bad is irrelevant if people are free to leave because why is it our business what people consent to.

    In Australia, if a majority of people decide that they want to a drug free society unless welfare is removed, whether that is good or bad is irrelevant if people are free to leave because if they remain, they are consenting to it.

  82. Infidel Tiger

    Steve should definitely be executed. For ignorance and peddling death.

  83. Whatever you watched on scary drug movie of the day is bullshit. Alcohol is by far the most likely to induce violent behaviour. You are a drug peddler Steve. You peddle the most dangerous and harmful drug society has ever known.

    I’ll be harder to convince than that. Coz I’ve seen shedloads of both. And the real violence (mob violence and premediated gang hits excepted) is from the weird weird stuff that’s been getting around in the past several years.
    It is particularly noticeable in districts where the OH&S laws have killed stone dead the marijuana market.

  84. Infidel Tiger

    The lack of real world drug knowledge on display here could fill a blog.

  85. john constantine

    so if medical marijuana means legalising processed ‘tincture of marijuana’ that has no psychoactivity, does that mean there is no problem, or no support?.

  86. JC

    Steve should definitely be executed. For ignorance and peddling death.

    It would be totally justified and humane. In the end Stevie would thank us as the blade was released.

  87. Y’all have one obstacle to get over before holding a necktie part in my honour.

    What I do is licenced and regulated. Take those away, & if I continue, then go for your lives.
    At the moment I’m protected, coz the Crown is getting millions of dollars in revenue from me.

  88. Yobbo

    Drugs don’t cause gang violence, Steve. Prohibition causes gang violence by making it impossible to enforce contracts legally.

    Alcohol actually causes some people to become violent when they drink it. And you sell it. You should be ashamed of yourself, drug peddler.

  89. Aristogeiton

    Yobbo
    #1336593, posted on June 6, 2014 at 8:40 pm
    Drugs don’t cause gang violence, Steve. Prohibition causes gang violence by making it impossible to enforce contracts legally.

    Yes! The thing should be more widely known.

  90. Grigory M

    Wasn’t intended as a quip, Aussiepundit. We had all these useless arguments on the David L marijuana legalization post a couple of weeks ago. Now, a “petition” for “medicinal purposes” use has emerged (from the loony-ness that is the NSW Legislative Council) as a Trojan horse for the eventual legalization of marijuana use, and here we are on the Cat going through the same bullshit discussion. And please spare me any sanctimonious protestations in favour of legalization of marijuana for “medicinal” or recreational use. I have a close relative whose son is presently locked away in a mental institution dealing with the devastating effects of just a couple of years of recreational use of marijuana. The most likely prognosis is that he will never recover from it.

  91. sdfc

    You mean dexies Yobbo?. If some people are become paranoid psychotic violent arseholes on those little pills then they should stop prescribing them. It’s not much of an argument for legalisation.

  92. Alcohol actually causes some people to become violent when they drink it. And you sell it. You should be ashamed of yourself, drug peddler.

    Hehe, I’ll curl up & die of shame :)
    You’re dead right, in the piece I highlighted, however that wasn’t my point. Focus Yobbo, focus.

  93. john constantine

    http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/479912/20130618/cannabis-industry-australia-wall-street-new-south.htm

    is legalised marijuana the ‘tech boom’ of the twenty-teens?. one way to boost the recorded economy/economic figures/ tax take.

  94. Gang violence is caused by a group (gang) using their combined force against an outsider.
    I didn’t intend any other meaning to it. I’ve had a bit of it, it ain’t pleasant. However the primary cause of it is rarely (or not necessarily) driven by alcohol, or any other drug.

  95. That doesn’t change the point that you’re comparing to Utopia. If a person is unable to emigrate, then this is the best of their options available. It’s no different than saying that just because a person can’t get a job worth $1 million per year doesn’t make the system wrong.

    a) I’m not comparing to utopia, I’m saying that you can’t justify laws with the “like it or leave” defense because it is simply factually wrong to say that people who don’t like the law can just leave.
    b) As for your analogy to the person who can’t get $1million, mate – that analogy might be appropriate if we were talking about immigration law! We’re not.

  96. jumpnmcar

    Hope they don’t leagalize Weed, this artificially inflated commodity could supplement my retirement .
    :)

  97. Hehe, I’ll curl up & die of shame :)
    You’re dead right, in the piece I highlighted, however that wasn’t my point. Focus Yobbo, focus.

    He’s taking the piss a bit Steve, as are we all…. none of us want to see alcohol made illegal. We don’t want you out of a job!
    But trying to point out that, although alcohol has its downsides, we let people enjoy it all the same. And the same logic applies to other substances.

  98. john constantine

    victoria is about to expand the australian production of opium poppies.

    australia is a world leader in legal opium poppy production, and with the varieties industrial australian agriculture grow, there are a few hippies that kill themselves each year trying to drink a few gallons of aussie poppy tea, but it doesn’t work.

    so why doesn’t australia select a non psychoactive/low potential for abuse medical marijuana for domestic AND EXPORT ?.

    big market out there if australia can do with marijuana what we do right now with opium.

  99. Aristogeiton

    Steve at the Pub
    #1336605, posted on June 6, 2014 at 8:44 pm
    Gang violence is caused by a group (gang) using their combined force against an outsider.
    I didn’t intend any other meaning to it. I’ve had a bit of it, it ain’t pleasant. However the primary cause of it is rarely (or not necessarily) driven by alcohol, or any other drug.

    That’s why legal industry is rife with gang violence, right?

  100. Peter from SA

    31 people died from opiates in 1997 in Australia.

    why quote that year? I think heroin was cheap back then … suspect nothing like that number killed in recent years.
    Christ it has been difficult to score decent smack in the last decade …

  101. Aristogeiton

    Peter from SA
    #1336627, posted on June 6, 2014 at 9:04 pm
    31 people died from opiates in 1997 in Australia.

    why quote that year? I think heroin was cheap back then … suspect nothing like that number killed in recent years.
    Christ it has been difficult to score decent smack in the last decade …

    Opium is not available because it is too bulky to import. Heroin cannot be manufactured from precursors. You pretty much have to boot heroin up; opium is smokeable, which is a far safer method of use. Another win for prohibition.

  102. Peter from SA

    The lack of real world drug knowledge on display here could fill a blog.

    I.T. not only do you often win the humour prize around here but you also speak sense …

  103. Peter from SA

    Opium is not available because it is too bulky to import. Heroin cannot be manufactured from precursors. You pretty much have to boot heroin up; opium is smokeable, which is a far safer method of use. Another win for prohibition.

    all of this is imported. and injecting is equally safe. Just people don’t like talking about it.

  104. That’s why legal industry is rife with gang violence, right?

    Never seen violence in any industry.
    Seen plenty of gang violence that has nothing to do with anyting but some people don’t like each other, or are so bored they agree to do great violence to each other, purely for a lark.
    People do violence for recreation Aristo. Some people don’t need much reason.

  105. Aristogeiton

    Peter from SA
    #1336640, posted on June 6, 2014 at 9:11 pm
    [...]
    all of this is imported. and injecting is equally safe. Just people don’t like talking about it.

    Opium is not readily available in this country; sorry. Injecting drugs is far more likely to lead to overdose than smoking or ingesting. These are facts.

  106. Yobbo

    You mean dexies Yobbo?. If some people are become paranoid psychotic violent arseholes on those little pills then they should stop prescribing them. It’s not much of an argument for legalisation.

    Dexies, speed and meth are all the same drug with the same effects. Only difference is dosage and legality.

  107. Aristogeiton

    Yobbo
    #1336646, posted on June 6, 2014 at 9:15 pm
    You mean dexies Yobbo?. If some people are become paranoid psychotic violent arseholes on those little pills then they should stop prescribing them. It’s not much of an argument for legalisation.

    Dexies, speed and meth are all the same drug with the same effects. Only difference is dosage and legality.

    They are all species of amphetamine, but they are not the same.

  108. Yobbo

    so why doesn’t australia select a non psychoactive/low potential for abuse medical marijuana for domestic AND EXPORT ?.

    Because it would jeapordise our relationship with the barbarian countries to our north who still hang people for marijuana offences.

  109. MemoryVault

    Alcohol doesn’t “cause” some people to become violent.
    Alcohol merely reduces a person’s inhibitions and lets loose their true feelings.
    The violence some people exhibit when they are drunk isn’t the result of the alcohol.
    The anger was always there, bottled up, waiting to be released.
    Alcohol merely lets the dark genie out of the lamp.

    The guys who inevitably start fights and/or beat up their Missus when they are drunk, are the same guys who start fights and/or beat up their Missus when they are sober.
    It just takes a bit longer and/or a bit more provocation when they are sober.

  110. Yobbo

    They are all species of amphetamine, but they are not the same.

    In terms of effects they are. They have different chemical compositions but act on the same nerve receptors and produce the same effects through the same mechanisms. They have different names but are essentially the same drug.

  111. Peter from SA

    Opium is not readily available in this country; sorry. Injecting drugs is far more likely to lead to overdose than smoking or ingesting. These are facts.

    as I said, all of this is imported, agree. Yes injecting more likely to lead to overdose (at first), agree with that, but for a seasoned user it is (relatively) safe. People who inject drugs regularly don’t drop dead at random. It becomes like anything else.

  112. Aristogeiton

    Peter from SA
    #1336656, posted on June 6, 2014 at 9:18 pm
    Opium is not readily available in this country; sorry. Injecting drugs is far more likely to lead to overdose than smoking or ingesting. These are facts.

    as I said, all of this is imported, agree. Yes injecting more likely to lead to overdose (at first), agree with that, but for a seasoned user it is (relatively) safe. People who inject drugs regularly don’t drop dead at random. It becomes like anything else.

    If they could get a consistent concentration of the drug, there would almost never be overdoses.

  113. but for a seasoned user it is (relatively) safe.

    Don’t kid yourself, mate. I have personally known two people who died from overdose.
    One was a very seasoned user.

  114. MemoryVault

    so why doesn’t australia select a non psychoactive/low potential for abuse medical marijuana for domestic AND EXPORT ?.

    Because the psychoactive ingredient (THC) is the SAME ingredient with the medicinal properties.
    Weed without the THC has about the same medicinal value as a used tea bag.

  115. Peter from SA

    If they could get a consistent concentration of the drug, there would almost never be overdoses.

    high fives!
    there would never be any overdose (except in the case of suicide where it would be painless) if there was a pharmaceutical industry TGA-approved heroin available over the counter. As i understand there was until the Americans got into the multilateral agencies and banned it post-WWII.

  116. sdfc

    Dexies, speed and meth are all the same drug with the same effects. Only difference is dosage and legality.

    Dexies are low key, there is nowhere near the buzz.

  117. Peter from SA

    One was a very seasoned user.

    my experience is the opposite. does your definition of “seasoned” mean, say, 4 years+ continous using?

  118. Infidel Tiger

    I hope everyone is signing the petition.

  119. Peter from SA

    I hope everyone is signing the petition.

    I hope everyone is having a good time, all the time …

  120. my experience is the opposite. does your definition of “seasoned” mean, say, 4 years+ continous using?

    Oh yes, very much. There were special circumstances that I won’t go into, partly because I just don’t want to discuss it, and partly because you’re looking for confirmatory evidence.

    But here’s the thing. I agree that, in terms of each individual use, a ‘seasoned user’ is at very low risk. But that’s partly because they get into habits – in every sense – and repeated patterns. It becomes a routine, with their usual hangouts, usual dealers and son, and what didn’t kill you yesterday probably won’t kill you today.
    The risk comes with change, of any kind.

    The second point is that the low risk is for a single event of using the drug. So although the per-hit risk drops down to very low levels, they do so much of it, and do it every day, so that in the long run they actually have quite a high risk. it might not be this month or next month or next year, but if you take a 10 year window, they’re a sitting duck.

  121. typo:
    “usual dealers and son” = “usual dealers and so on.”

  122. Peter from SA

    Aussiepundit: you make some fair points.

    But this crap that every drug user is at risk of death because of bad product just doesn’t make sense with the facts.
    Every drug dealer wants the addict to live so they will buy more drugs. the worst outcome for a dealer is if their user dies.
    this idea that the drugs on the street are cut with drain-cleaner are just put out there by the anti-drugs nazis. what dealer, making their money, would want their product known on the street to be dangerous?

  123. Every drug dealer wants the addict to live so they will buy more drugs. the worst outcome for a dealer is if their user dies.

    This is true. All of what you say is true.
    There’s a lot of misinformation about drugs and about the drug world.

  124. Another point of misinformation is that in the public’s mind (and the law), there’s a chasm between users and dealers. This isn’t the case either. Users form networks and sell to each other.

  125. Peter from SA

    There’s a lot of misinformation about drugs and about the drug world.

    true dat.

    and a lot of emotion too.

  126. Peter from SA

    Users form networks and sell to each other.

    all part of the culture. most people reading this would (i presume) have no idea how to buy drugs. But for some Australians it is easier than ordering a pizza.

  127. Ren Hoek

    Speaking as someone with ADHD(yes it’s real kids) even Ritalin isn’t enough to keep me interested and focused on this thread.
    Will dose up again and return.

  128. MemoryVault

    But this crap that every drug user is at risk of death because of bad product just doesn’t make sense with the facts.
    Every drug dealer wants the addict to live so they will buy more drugs. the worst outcome for a dealer is if their user dies.
    this idea that the drugs on the street are cut with drain-cleaner are just put out there by the anti-drugs nazis. what dealer, making their money, would want their product known on the street to be dangerous?

    You’re making the mistake of assuming every gang member out there charged with raising a crop of hydro weed for sale in the city, is a Mensa candidate with a PhD in Chemistry. They’re not. They got allocated the job because they’re too dammed stupid to be let loose on the streets pushing the stuff.

    Their set mission is to produce something which will have the kids coming back for more, regardless of supply from other dealers/gangs. Having no knowledge of the science, they work on the “hit or miss” principle. Try Draino – see what happens. Try brake fluid – see what happens, and so on.

    No, they don’t intend killing anybody – yes it’s bad for business. Fortunately, very few die. Nonetheless, the “unintended consequences” are horrendous. Our youngest son grew up in a rural community where locally grown, healthy weed was always available. For over a decade there was never a problem.

    Then he finished high school, started work in Brisbane, and hooked into the local hydro grown weed supply. It took over a month to clean up the resultant mess. That was six years ago. Now he funnels similarly damaged souls to us, they stay here, and we help clean them up. Like we did with him. We’re a sort of unofficial “half-way house”.

    Truth is, most of you commenting haven’t got a fuck what you’re talking about. The line above – “this idea that the drugs on the street are cut with drain-cleaner” demonstrates the point. The conversion is specifically about weed. Weed is not “cut” with anything. Yes, other drugs apparently are. I claim no knowledge of that. But hydro grown weed grown for the gangs to distribute is most certainly adulterated by feeding it all manner of substances while it’s growing, in an attempt to increase its potency and/or addictiveness.

    There are entire websites devoted to this, if you know where to look.

  129. Armadillo

    Listening to Dan this morning on Al Jones, with his mother, explaining how the cannabis relieves his symptoms from the effects of chemotherapy (violent vomiting, 5kg weight loss per week, loss of appetite) was amazing. His mother’s a nurse and his father was a cop.

    Just been reading this thread (the second page anyway), and then flipped back to the first. I actually know these people (well Dans father anyway). Years ago as a finance broker, I went to their house and did an interview. Really nice people. The father was a very well respected policeman here, and he did a lot of volunteer work for kids and such. Dan was probably sitting in the corner doing his homework or something. Years later, life is cruel.

    I opened Kevin Andersons first electricity account (in another life). Mrs A opened his bank account the same day he got into town. He’s a good bloke (he was a news reader and played in a popular local rock band on weekends). Both these guys aren’t idiots. They are sensible and ‘down to earth’. They would have thought this through. It wouldn’t have been some sort of conspiracy to legalise marijuana as some have suggested. Where do I sign this petition?

  130. john constantine

    i could understand why my rasta mate would inject the growing buds with drambuie, as an experiment, but when i recommend that australia grow a genetically even medical marijuana for domestic and export, that is to distinguish it from the ‘gone overboard’ hydroskunk stuff, with god knows what injected in the massively potent buds.

    south australia for example sees a big difference between a bushy leafy outdoor plant, and indoor hydro things budded from top to bottom and dripping and oozing with gum. fines and court attention accordingly.

    medical marijuana needs to be consistent–it is for sick people. industrial agriculture provides a consistent quality product, processed into a tincture for ease of use, and a reliable consistent dose for the sick.

    completely different to hydroskunk.

  131. Percy

    Where do I sign this petition?

    Rafe has the link at the start of his article Armadillo

  132. Armadillo

    i could understand why my rasta mate would inject the growing buds with drambuie

    Hey, give the guy some credit for trying to innovative. He should have just buried it in a air tight container in the back yard for a few years. It’s a bit like letting a good scotch ‘mature’ in an oak cask.

  133. Armadillo

    Proceeding directly there now Percy. Ta.

  134. MemoryVault

    south australia for example sees a big difference between a bushy leafy outdoor plant, and indoor hydro things budded from top to bottom and dripping and oozing with gum. fines and court attention accordingly.

    Then the SA authorities are stupid. The big, bushy, leafy outdoor plant will ultimately produce far more buds dripping and oozing with gum, than the insipid, indoor, hydro plant, assuming they are the same variety to start with.

    You miss the point that the active ingredient for the “high” – THC, is the same active ingredient responsible for weed’s alleged medicinal properties. Low THC weed is eminently suitable for making paper, rope, and plastic, but has SFA curative or pain-relieving capacity.

  135. MemoryVault

    Hey, give the guy some credit for trying to innovative. He should have just buried it in a air tight container in the back yard for a few years. It’s a bit like letting a good scotch ‘mature’ in an oak cask.

    Back in my youth I knew a guy who grew a dwarf variety in the spare bedroom until it budded, washed off all the dirt, sealed the plant in a plastic bag, and buried it a hole in his back yard. The hole had a concrete garden slab at the bottom, and after he had stacked the individually wrapped plants on it, he put another concrete garden slab on top, and covered the whole lot with dirt for a fortnight to a month, depending on the season. Then he dug the plants up and dried them out.

    Mind blowing.

  136. Armadillo

    I signed the petition but a little wary it’s through change.org. If it’s anything like “Get Up”, they will use the numbers on one issue to batter the Government on how influential they are on ALL issues I.e we have all these Australians supporting us. Also, beware your email box may be inundated with crap you disagree with.

  137. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    There’s a lot of misinformation about drugs and about the drug world.

    true dat.

    and a lot of emotion too.

    The misinformation goes both ways (no-one owns this debate). On the one side, serial misinformation comes from ‘cool’ look-at-me libertarian users (plenty vying for personal accolades for their ‘insider’ knowledge re their usage on this site) and from brain-dead burnt-out cases citing drug-love burble (visit Nimbin for a selection of these on the street). On the other side, more misinformation is put out by frightened parents and relatives and nanny-types and NA grads. I’ve studied some of the epidemiology and chemistry (you’ll find the human body can deal with a lot; the human mind less so). I also mixed with a drug-using set at university (sooo cool and leftie). Let my house to two super-cool heroin-using academics once. No problems there, except they are now both dead.

    Drugs are an ongoing source of fun for some and a disaster of tremendous life-changing proportions for others. Personally, I’m all in favour of diminishing the cultural appeal of certain drugs by calling out superannuated hippies who glorify drug use, rather than relying on illegality to change behavior (it won’t). I’ve personally seen marihuana do an incredible amount of damage to teenagers, all of whom started out with great bravado about it, and other drugs, as some have mentioned above. I’ve used MJ (and LSD and Speed; no Eccies thanks) but don’t like ‘drugs’ much. Grown-ups use drink, imho, and get a lot of kicks from good conversation and dancing and sex. I want to keep my kids right away from marihuana: maybe move to Singapore (joke). I’ve got family members whose lives have been wrecked by long-term MJ use … polydrug use first, then welfare dependency, paranoia, schizoid behaviour. Long-term MJ and alcohol are fairly potent together (one a high, the other a low, and big agro emotional swings result). Friend of mine on Newstart long term (don’t ask) says dole day is always bad because of this mix. Drug driving is bad too. Worse than drink driving I think (personal experience long ago here).

    Finished the vino here in the land that nanny forgot (Sicily). Worrying though to see little two year olds in the front of cars with their foreheads pressed to the windscreen at 50kph in nightmare traffic. It’s always the kids that get you concerned and nannyish.

  138. incoherent rambler

    Dr Richard Vucinic, 37, is accused of writing prescriptions for high doses of Xanax, Diazepam, Valium and the testosterone supplement Sustanon for Hells Angels associate James Turner and his girlfriend Alyce Bertola.

    So, let’s hand prescription cannabis over to the honourable profession for “medical use”.
    Trust me, I am a doctor self interested.

  139. Truth is, most of you commenting haven’t got a fuck what you’re talking about. The line above – “this idea that the drugs on the street are cut with drain-cleaner” demonstrates the point. The conversion is specifically about weed. Weed is not “cut” with anything.

    The comment was obviously about heroin, not weed.
    The topic of the thread is legalisation of pot, but the conversation is exploring legalisation of drugs in general. It’s relevant and we’re not obliged to stick narrowly to the topic of the post.
    ———————————————–

    But hydro grown weed grown for the gangs to distribute is most certainly adulterated by feeding it all manner of substances while it’s growing, in an attempt to increase its potency and/or addictiveness.

    Gangs didn’t invent hydro and are not responsible for the super-potent stuff you can get these days. That was done by decades of independent growers, and through selective breeding.
    It’s not a grand conspiracy. It’s just that a potent plant is a good plant (from a grower’s point of view), so they’ll use the most potent, high yield plants to start the next crop.

    The reason we have high potency pot is the same reason we have juicy oranges and white sheep wool.

  140. john constantine

    i fully understand that thc is the active ingredient in marijuana, but i keep returning to medical marijuana, and getting the dose right for sick people.

    getting the spins, spacing out, and becoming delusional are side effects of medicines that are prescribed for the terminally ill anyway, and they are quite unpleasant and disturbing side effects. getting the dose right so that you don’t have to die in a medical chemical fog with ‘them out to get you’ is important.

    for medical marijuana, having the lowest effective reliable and consistent dose is what i would have wanted, when administrating medication, therefore having a medical standard marijuana tincture is a desired product.

    having low grade plants grown through industrial agriculture, that are undesireable to rip off, but can be processed in bulk into the required product–that approach has made australia a world leader in medical grade opium poppies.

  141. MemoryVault

    Aussiepundit

    Gangs didn’t invent hydro and are not responsible for the super-potent stuff you can get these days. That was done by decades of independent growers, and through selective breeding.

    It’s just that a potent plant is a good plant (from a grower’s point of view), so they’ll use the most potent, high yield plants to start the next crop.

    I am passingly familiar with the selective breeding of weed for potency, and cultivating it hydroponically, having pursued it enthusiastically as a hobby through the 1980′s to the mid 1990′s. I even made some money out of it, writing small books which I advertised and sold through various classified adverts (pre-internet days).

    I gave it away in 1996 as a result of the closure of the Melbourne Truth (my chief source of advertising) in 1995, followed a few months later by a police raid on another matter, which also unfortunately stumbled upon my little hobby.

    I can assure you the stuff being sold on the streets of our major cities by organised gangs today is NOT simply the result of selective breeding for potency. It is adulterated by all manner of substances principally to try and make it addictive and/or make more of the plant material potent, to some degree, rather than just the heads.

    In fact, as far as true weed goes, it is not even good. A simple analogy would be to make a poor quality orange nice and juicy by injecting vodka into it.

  142. I can assure you the stuff being sold on the streets of our major cities by organised gangs today is NOT simply the result of selective breeding for potency. It is adulterated by all manner of substances principally to try and make it addictive and/or make more of the plant material potent, to some degree, rather than just the heads.

    as much as I respect your insight and opinions, I am highly skeptical of this claim.
    The addictive component for any drug is the active component, which in the case of marijuana is the THC. That’s the thing that makes you high. adding other ‘addictive’ substances means adding other drugs. Is that what you’re saying they do?

  143. Aristogeiton

    Aussiepundit
    #1337022, posted on June 7, 2014 at 10:22 am
    I can assure you the stuff being sold on the streets of our major cities by organised gangs today is NOT simply the result of selective breeding for potency. It is adulterated by all manner of substances principally to try and make it addictive and/or make more of the plant material potent, to some degree, rather than just the heads.

    as much as I respect your insight and opinions, I am highly skeptical of this claim.
    The addictive component for any drug is the active component, which in the case of marijuana is the THC. That’s the thing that makes you high. adding other ‘addictive’ substances means adding other drugs. Is that what you’re saying they do?

    This is nonsense. Weed is sold by weight. The immediately saleable part is the bud; nobody will buy stem material. Hydroponically grown weed is sufficiently strong. There is no need for adulterants. The grower wants maximum weight in bud. Good horticulture is how this is achieved.

  144. john constantine

    as an agriculturalist, the simplest way to produce medical marijuana, would be to have a low thc variety [a fraction of illegal varieties?] so that the hippies don’t come and roll in the paddock like moggies in catnip.

    grow 100 acres of the low grade stuff, harvest it mechanically with a forage harvester, send b-double truckloads of it down to the processing plant where it is refined to a consistent reliable medical grade level, and the hemp fibre is left as a profitable by-product/co-product.

    industrial agriculture needs a variety that can be processed to the required level, but on its own isn’t attractive to the black market.

    really sick people don’t need to waste time trying to grow their own, or risk the produce of keen amateurs

    http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online/sciences/agsci/alkalo/popindus.htm

  145. john constantine

    northern aussie cattle stations can produce stuff besides beef. imagine a thousand acres of medical marijuana, unreachable via kombivan.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-11/opium-poppies-in-the-northern-territory/5015606

  146. Aristogeiton

    john constantine
    #1337174, posted on June 7, 2014 at 1:12 pm
    northern aussie cattle stations can produce stuff besides beef. imagine a thousand acres of medical marijuana, unreachable via kombivan.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-11/opium-poppies-in-the-northern-territory/5015606

    Last thing a farmer should be afraid of is a stoner. You guys still have guns right? Lol.

  147. northern aussie cattle stations can produce stuff besides beef. imagine a thousand acres of medical marijuana, unreachable via kombivan.

    But very accessible to every Wallaby between Kununurra & Normanton.
    And very attractive, being the only green feed for a thousand miles.
    I’d be like a thousand acre cafeteria for Skippy.

  148. stackja

    Liberty Quotes
    Taking responsibility is basically illegal in the modern regulatory state.
    — Philip K. Howard

  149. Joe Goodacre

    Aussiepundit,

    In my opinion a law is never good or bad from the perspective of the person that the law applies to. It is an irrelevant perspective because of the issue of consent – we are all consenting to laws on the books as the best option of our available alternatives (our other options being to move elsewhere or no longer seeking to protection of others).

    Magna Carta with due process and habeas corpus have distracted people from the fundamental bargain going on – that we want society’s protection and accepting the laws of that society is the price of that protection. Pre Magna Carta, this was obvious with the Writ of Outlawry – a declaration that a particular person was deprived of all legal rights and was outside the protection of society. People could maim, kill, kidnap, torture or rob the subject of the writ because they were literally outside of society’s protection. The protections afforded by Magna Carta have not changed this fundamental bargain – society’s protection is offered on terms outlined in our laws. If we don’t want to accept them, we are free to do so and accept how fun life is when everyone is free to go open season on us.

    So every law that is on the books is one that we consent to, right up and until the point we either leave or declare that we no longer want the protection of others. We may not like all the elements we consent to (i.e. speeding laws are a pet hate of mine), however just because the price of protection is not as favourable as what we’d like does not make it an unfair. That is why every law should be argued in my view from the perspective of whether it’s good or bad from the perspective of the people we are seeking protection from.

    When Dotty rages about slavery and how sickening it is, the situation is no less comical than a woman at the supermarket complaining at the supermarket about all the unreasonable prices around – while walking out with a bag of groceries. In my view the only relevant question is not whether the law is good or bad from the perspective of the individual (unless that individual is truly weighing up whether they would like to leave the country or want to chance their hand at a life without protection of their life and property; rather whether it is a good or bad from the persepctive of the people offering protection. Is it in their interests to provide more freedom. Examples of arguments this way include Laffer curve tax rates (higher tax rates may take in less revenue), more freedom equals greater wealth for all and less demand for welfare. More freedom equals more dignity and greater community bonds or more freedom with guns equals a smaller demand for police as the price of being a criminal increases with a well armed public etc.

    Silly arguments in my view are ‘it’s so immoral what you’re doing to me’, ‘now we need to execute people to save them from drug addiction’, ‘I’m a slave unless this law is gone.’ etc etc. These types of argments are easy to spot on here.

  150. .

    Magna Carta with due process and habeas corpus have distracted people from the fundamental bargain going on – that we want society’s protection and accepting the laws of that society is the price of that protection.

    You fucking lunatic. No one agreed to give up what they can imbibe/smoke/snort under the Magna Carta.

    The nobles forced King John to agree to provisions under previous coronation oaths of Henry I (1100) and Ethelbert of Kent (604) in exchange for his life essentially to make up for his abuse of power and poor governance.

    In my opinion a law is never good or bad from the perspective of the person that the law applies to. It is an irrelevant perspective because of the issue of consent – we are all consenting to laws on the books as the best option of our available alternatives (our other options being to move elsewhere or no longer seeking to protection of others).

    …and this rambling dickhead doesn’t reckon he is a caricture of Dr Pangloss “we live in the best of all possibly worlds”…

    Ignore this rambling, nonsensical fool.

  151. .

    31 people died from opiates in 1997 in Australia.

    …so what. It may be tragic but it is insignificant.

    129,400 people died in Australia in 1997, according to the ABS.

    If capital crime was introduced and 30 people were executed instead, we would have had fewer deaths.

    Since both groups of people consent to their fates if drug laws are widely known, it becomes an empirical question as to which results in less harm. You’re only including one side of the equation when you say that Singapore pays a high price in deaths.

    Apart from being grotesque, murderous and fucked in the head, this would never work.

    Penn & Teller in their Bullshit: Drugs episode note that in the US (2004), at the time in 2011, heroin was 600 TIMES CHEAPER than in 1971. The supply of drugs is simply too elastic for drug control to work without killing even more people than in a drug war state like Mexico or Colombia. The demand is too inelastic. These facts never change.

    The only way for this to work is to execute users, not dealers.

    We’re going to kill you to protect you. WHAT?! What kind of nonsense cost-benefit analysis would support this!

    Bullshit: The War on Drugs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEEQSeBgiNE

    It is just ridiculous: if we execute 30 users or dealers no one will die from drug use compared to 31 dying from drug use with no executions.

    This is absurd. So many more would die in an escalated drug war, plus additional executions for murder.

    Anyone who can’t understand this does NOT understand economics.

  152. .

    Please note from the link the hysterical Joe Goodacre gave:

    NO ONE died from marijuana use. Not one.

  153. Demosthenes

    I can assure you the stuff being sold on the streets of our major cities by organised gangs today is NOT simply the result of selective breeding for potency. It is adulterated by all manner of substances principally to try and make it addictive and/or make more of the plant material potent, to some degree, rather than just the heads.

    That’s absurd scaremongering straight out of the Just Say No era. Synthetics are cut all the time because it’s cheaper and the buyer can’t tell by looking. Marijuana can’t be made cheaper that way, so there’s no incentive for dealers to do it. And what miracle substance makes leaf more potent, since its potency is due to cannabanoid percentages?

  154. Aristogeiton

    Wow. This guy is such a fuckwit.

  155. Aristogeiton

    Demosthenes
    #1338229, posted on June 8, 2014 at 1:04 pm
    [...]
    And what miracle substance makes leaf more potent, since its potency is due to cannabanoid percentages?

    And the leaf is being sold to who? “Hey stoner, here’s your ounce of leaf, but don’t worry, chemicals made it super potent; that’ll be $300″ – “Here’s your money, man”. Not gonna happen.

  156. Aristogeiton

    Aristogeiton
    #1338236, posted on June 8, 2014 at 1:09 pm
    Wow. This guy is such a fuckwit.

    For Joe Slaveacre, not Demos.

  157. notafan

    If Cannibis is sold at pharmacies and subject to the same strict manufacturing guidelines what problem would there be.? And like all other drugs users can use at their own risk as long as they are warned of all the possible side effects. The courts also have to disallow any excuses based on the drugs made me do it as a defence for any criminal behaviour.
    GST excise, could be a nice little earner (to justify a reduction in income taxes).

  158. Joe Goodacre

    Dotty,

    No one agreed to give up what they can imbibe/smoke/snort under the Magna Carta

    You missed the point. The point was that we don’t practice outlawry anymore because of Magna Carta.

    How about you address the relevant question…

    Do you want other people to protect your person and property or do you want to be outside the protection of the majority?

    If yes – why is the majority beholden that they should provide a service that you desire, on the terms that you want.

    …and he is a caricture of Dr Pangloss “we live in the best of all possibly worlds”…

    That you bring this up as a response to comments above indicates that you don’t understand what Voltaire was critiquing.

    Gottfried Leibniz first proposed that the actual world is the best of all possible worlds in Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil in his attempt to explain how evil could exist in the world. Leibniz argued that if God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient then suffering and injustice could only exist in the world because God had allowed it, and if God allowed it it must be the best of the available possibilities and therefore good. It is an argument made by a Christian philosopher to explain an apparent inconsistency.

    Voltaire prior to Candide criticised Leibniz’s philosophy on the grounds that there was simply too much injustice and suffering for it being ‘good’ by being the best of all possible worlds. This criticism was extended into Candide and the satirical character Dr Pangloss who continually expressed the mantra ‘we live in the best of all possible worlds’ despite the continual injustices and misfortunes that occurred throughout the story.

    So Dotty, for Dr Pangloss to be used correctly in a comparable critique, the subject of the critique has to believe in God and the argument that the world is inherently good because God has chosen our reality is the best of those available.

    You would look a bit of an idiot if the person you were calling Dr Pangloss was neither a Christian, or believed in God or believed that the world was ‘good’ purely because it was the world chosen by God. Since I don’t fall into either of those categories, is this just a general example of your usual dottiness or you blathering is if you have something important to say when in fact further reading indicates that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    To clarify for your slow witted self – I don’t believe that the world is the ‘best’ possible one at all. I make no value judgements on the past because it’s already been a gone, the world as we knew it just is. I don’t recognise that there is an objective morality, rather that society is a collection of people who in their self interest, seek protection from others of their life, liberty and property. I would like to change that bargain, however I recognise that a bargain has been struck and people whinging about it want their cake and to eat it to. How about you address those points instead of only ascribing in your usual slow witted manner, irrelevant concoctions from philosophers long dead as if it’s a substitute for thinking.

  159. Aristogeiton

    By the way, some legal historical genius above started bloviating about Outlawry, arguing that being outlawed involved ‘society’ withdrawing its protection. As usual, this asshole is historically wrong. Outlawry imposed a positive duty on the citizen to raise hue and cry and kill the outlaw.

  160. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1338248, posted on June 8, 2014 at 1:25 pm
    [...]
    How about you address the relevant question…

    Do you want other people to protect your person and property or do you want to be outside the protection of the majority?

    You’re a totalitarian. Freedom means nothing to you, since it is whatever others decide, and the enslaved can like it or lump it. You’re a totalitarian.

  161. Aristogeiton

    If yes – why is the majority beholden that they should provide a service that you desire, on the terms that you want.

    Freedom is a service? Now I’ve heard it all.

  162. Aristogeiton

    It was now perceived that such phrases as “self-government,” and “the power of the people over themselves,” do not express the true state of the case. The “people” who exercise the power, are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised, and the “self-government” spoken of, is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest. The will of the people, moreover, practically means, the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people; the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority; the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this, as against any other abuse of power. The limitation, therefore, of the power of government over individuals, loses none of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community, that is, to the strongest party therein. This view of things, recommending itself equally to the intelligence of thinkers and to the inclination of those important classes in European society to whose real or supposed interests democracy is adverse, has had no difficulty in establishing itself; and in political speculations “the tyranny of the majority” is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard.

    (J. S. Mill, On Liberty, I)

  163. Joe Goodacre

    Ari,

    Caput gerat lupinum or ‘may he wear a wolfish head’ in Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th edition (2004: 225) reads “an outlawed felon considered a pariah – a lone wolf – open to attack by anyone.”

    Regardless of whether there was a positive obligation on those who remained with the laws, it doesn’t change the concept of there being an existence possible where the protection of life and property is not offered by others.

  164. Joe Goodacre

    Freedom is a service? Now I’ve heard it all.

    Except Ari you don’t want freedom.

    Freedom is no restrictions – otherwise known as anarchy.

    If you wanted freedom you’d be living in places where anarchy is available.

    You want protection and then to be left alone. They are two different things.

  165. Aristogeiton

    Hey, cnut, I don’t need a lecture on legal history from you. You’ve demonstrated exhaustively that you have no fucking idea, and I have a very comprehensive library covering the subject. Bullshit elsewhere.

  166. Aristogeiton

    Somebody else can explain to Joe Fuckface why freedom isn’t anarchy.

  167. Joe Goodacre

    Ari ‘see all the leather bound books in my study that I don’t understand’ togeiton.

    Freedom is the absence of restriction.

    Good luck explaining how laws saying you can’t kill or steal aren’t a restriction.

    They may be worthwhile regulations of freedom, but they are regulations nonetheless.

    So therefore you’re pro regulation, just regulation that protects you from what would otherwise be anarchy.

    So is a little fairy going to enforce those regulations for you? No – you want other people to. Now you make an offer to people that they can protect you for you providing the service of protecting them to the same extent. Other people go no – I want more. You can either choose to accept the deal and rely on their enforcement of the regulations you want + other regulations you may not want but have to accept because that’s the deal on offer or you can go back to relying on yourself a your fairy godmother for protection. Or in the case of yourself and Dotty, you can accept the bargain and then spend the whole time whinging about it.

    All your leather bound books have apparently not equipped you with the means of avoiding the simple truth – you’re pro the regulation of freedom and are looking to bargain with people to provide that regulation. Well no one around wants to bargain with you on the terms you want and you fail epically in convincing them why it’s in their interest to modify the bargain more towards the terms you like.

    Herb Cohen would not consider you very good at negotiating.

  168. Joe Goodacre

    You’re living with a sense of entitlement Ari and it’s a little childish really.

    No one owes you anything. You sound like a spoiled little brat who is chucking a nana because people won’t give you what you want. For all your talk of freedom, you are seemingly blind to the quaint notion that perhaps people don’t owe you your protection on the terms that you want. Maybe they’re free to get a say in it as well.

    That’s why you and Dotty are totalitarian and actually anti-freedom. You both are so blinded by self interest that you don’t recognise the freedom of people whose help you need to enforce the regulations you want, to put a price on their help. It’s your way on the highway.

  169. Aristogeiton

    My only leather bound book is my KJV, so I’ll quote from that:

    “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.”
    (Proverbs 26:4, KJV)

  170. .

    That’s why you and Dotty are totalitarian and actually anti-freedom. You both are so blinded by self interest that you don’t recognise the freedom of people whose help you need to enforce the regulations you want, to put a price on their help. It’s your way on the highway.

    What does this even mean?

    No one owes you anything.

    Correct.

    So get the hell off my lawn.

  171. .

    Herb Cohen would not consider you very good at negotiating.

    Since he’s never going to give me a job in real estate – not a single shit is given about this “barb”.

  172. Demosthenes

    So therefore you’re pro regulation, just regulation that protects you from what would otherwise be anarchy.

    OK, that makes sense, but I think you’re just taking advantage of Aristo’s injudicious language.

    Freedom is the absence of restriction.

    In which case freedom is a mirage, because living with other people means restrictions. But most would reject your all-or-nothing approach. What we should be concerned about is the maximisation of freedom within the context of a society.

  173. Aristogeiton

    Hold on, I have two volumes of Shakespeare which are bound in leather:

    “[I]t is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.”
    (Macbeth, Act V, Scene V)

  174. Aristogeiton

    Demosthenes
    #1338492, posted on June 8, 2014 at 6:53 pm
    So therefore you’re pro regulation, just regulation that protects you from what would otherwise be anarchy.

    OK, that makes sense, but I think you’re just taking advantage of Aristo’s injudicious language.

    I’m sorry, but telling the classical liberal that ‘freedom is anarchy’ either means you’re taking the piss, or haven’t been listening.

  175. Aristogeiton

    Further, since I was previously defending the common law, which Slaveacre wants to dismantle, this cannot be a fair summation of my views.

  176. Joe Goodacre

    Ari,

    You pretend there’s some mystical answer out there, stacked neatly on your mahogany bookshelf, but the truth is that you may have read a lot but thought through little. I would have thought it’s pretty simply if you know what you’re talking about to say in 3 lines or less why:

    a) you’re pro regulation to protect your life and property;
    b) you need more help than your fairy godmother to enforce that regulation;
    c) you seek that help from other people; and
    d) other people aren’t free to determine the price that they wish to charge you for that service.

    Why don’t they have the freedom to contract Ari – what have most of the people in this country done to you that you look down on them and they’re your slaves?

  177. .

    Goodacre

    Get the hell of my lawn!

  178. Aristogeiton

    Ok, dumbshit, if the false dichotomy is between libertarian anarchism and statism, then:

    a) I assert the right of myself, and those who I can convince to join with me, to protect my life and property;
    b) I only require the consent of those who would join in common with me and my own resolve;
    c) recapitulate above; and
    d) all are free to determine whether they would join with me in an enterprise association.

    Slaves? You fuckass. You’re the slave and the slaver. It’s pathetic. I’d be convinced of this Hobbesian drivel if you didn’t constantly represent yourself as an anti-authoritarian.

  179. Joe Goodacre

    Dotty,

    What does this even mean?

    I’ll say it for the umpteenth time – let’s see if you can drop your confirmation bias for a second.

    Anarchy is the absence of regulation.

    Libertarians who don’t want anarchy, actually want regulation – they want regulation that protects their life, liberty and property.

    They need the help of other people to enforce these regulations.

    Libertarians are an entitled bunch of people who speak as if they are against slavery. This is because they are either young, thick or delusional though because they demonstrate a key characteristic of slave owners – they completely ignore the ability of their serfs to contract on terms the serfs see fit. No, despite the fact that a large majority of Australia agrees with them, these people are just slaves who don’t know their proper place – at the boot of Dotty and Ari enforcing the regulations that they want and nothing more.

  180. .

    No.

    Your entire argument is bullshit, Goodacre.

    There is no need for regulation to protect us from violence, fraud, theft or to honour contracts.

    The government may regulate how it runs prisons or what police issue equipment is.

    You have completely forgotten what “regulation” actually means.

  181. Joe Goodacre

    Demosthenes,

    OK, that makes sense, but I think you’re just taking advantage of Aristo’s injudicious language.

    These are fundamental questions that go the point that Ari views other people as his serfs to enforce the laws he wants without the ability to charge for that service. Ari has spent a long time dodging this simple question and no time explaining the inconsistency.

    In which case freedom is a mirage, because living with other people means restrictions.

    Absolute freedom is a mirage.

    I incorrectly stated that anarchy is freedom which is incorrect, but has no bearing on my point.

    In anarchy there is not absolute freedom because the strong dominate the weak.

    Libertarians like others are looking for protection of others to protect them from that situation.

    The difference is that Libertarians think that they own the right to dictate the price for that protection.

    But most would reject your all-or-nothing approach.

    Dotty and Ari are the epitome of the all or nothing approach. My approach is that because I’m seeking the services of others, I’ll firstly respect their right to set a charge for their service and then negotiate with them to lower their cost for the provision of those services by stating why it’s in their interests to maximise freedom.

    What we should be concerned about is the maximisation of freedom within the context of a society.

    Agreed – I don’t think you achieve that through the tactics of Dotty and Ari – implicitly calling the majority of the people who disagree with them their slaves. They would appear to me to be about as good for the cause of liberty as Boko Haram is to the cause of moderate Muslims.

  182. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1338535, posted on June 8, 2014 at 7:11 pm
    [...]
    Libertarians are an entitled bunch of people who speak as if they are against slavery. This is because they are either young, thick or delusional though because they demonstrate a key characteristic of slave owners – they completely ignore the ability of their serfs to contract on terms the serfs see fit. No, despite the fact that a large majority of Australia agrees with them, these people are just slaves who don’t know their proper place – at the boot of Dotty and Ari enforcing the regulations that they want and nothing more.

    Isn’t this some dumbshittery? Maurice Cowling once wrote a book, which I have not read (who has the time to waste), called Mill and Liberalism which ridiculously accused J. S. Mill of ‘moral totalitarianism’. It is reviewed by Roland Hall in The Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 15, Number 53, pp. 69-71. I thought this kind of stupidity was confined to the academy, but Joe Slave proves that stupidity is more pervasive.

  183. Demosthenes

    Anarchy is the absence of regulation.

    No, it isn’t. Etymologically, anarchy is the absence of rulers, not laws or customs or conventions. Historically, anarchy is the rejection of hierarchical power, both state and market (something I find implausible, but there you are).

  184. Joe Goodacre

    Ari,

    a) I assert the right of myself, and those who I can convince to join with me, to protect my life and property;

    Except very few people would protect your life, liberty and property on those terms.

    b) I only require the consent of those who would join in common with me and my own resolve;

    We know what only you require. That’s irrelevant because you live and have bought property in a jurisdiction where the protection you require is available from a population who want to charge you more than you want for that protection.

    d) all are free to determine whether they would join with me in an enterprise association.

    Except that you call anyone who disagrees with you and asserts their right to charge you a greater price than you’re happy to pay a slaver. Your statement is no different than me saying that everyone is free to give me a million dollars for my labour. Who cares what price you want to pay – the market price for the protection of your liberty and property is determined also by what other people want to charge.

  185. Aristogeiton

    Don’t argue with your own strawman, dumbshit. I’m not an Anarcho-capitalist.

  186. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1338582, posted on June 8, 2014 at 7:28 pm
    Ari,

    a) I assert the right of myself, and those who I can convince to join with me, to protect my life and property;

    Except very few people would protect your life, liberty and property on those terms.

    I doubt you would, you amoral cnut. You don’t believe in reciprocity, only the forcible imposition of your will on others. Because you’re a fascist.

  187. Joe Goodacre

    Ari,

    #1338572, posted on June 8, 2014 at 7:25 pm

    Is this what passes for reasoning to you? Someone wrote a book that I haven’t read that argued something similar to what is being argued here (you think) that I disagree with so I’m going to say it’s dumb.

  188. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1338598, posted on June 8, 2014 at 7:37 pm
    Ari,

    #1338572, posted on June 8, 2014 at 7:25 pm

    Is this what passes for reasoning to you? Someone wrote a book that I haven’t read that argued something similar to what is being argued here (you think) that I disagree with so I’m going to say it’s dumb.

    You can read the review, which will outline why Cowling’s argument is so ridiculous. I’ve read enough Mill to know not to waste my time on such drivel.

  189. Joe Goodacre

    Demosthenes,

    Anarchy is the absence of regulation.

    No, it isn’t. Etymologically, anarchy is the absence of rulers, not laws or customs or conventions. Historically, anarchy is the rejection of hierarchical power, both state and market (something I find implausible, but there you are).

    Technically you’re correct regarding the history of the word. There are also many definitions of anarchy depending on the philosophy being argued. To avoid confusion, I’m referring to a state of nature where people’s natural advantages dominate – i.e. the strong dominate the weak the group dominate the individual. There is no morality here – people do what they want and what they can.

  190. Joe Goodacre

    It is from this state of affairs that people seek protection.

  191. Joe Goodacre

    Dotty,

    There is no need for regulation to protect us from violence, fraud, theft or to honour contracts.

    Except for all the laws that do regulate these things.

    The government may regulate how it runs prisons or what police issue equipment is.

    You have completely forgotten what “regulation” actually means.

    You’re using ‘regulation’ in a legal sense as opposed to the general sense my comments obviously intended. It’s a pointless diversion designed to hide the fact that you have no answer to the argument.

  192. Aristogeiton

    Yeah, this is gusseted-up Hobbsean drivel. We are arguing about the best and most moral way to organize society, not whether a tyrant is preferable to the bellum omnium contra omnes.

  193. Demosthenes

    To avoid confusion, I’m referring to a state of nature where people’s natural advantages dominate – i.e. the strong dominate the weak the group dominate the individual. There is no morality here – people do what they want and what they can. It is from this state of affairs that people seek protection.

    In other words, you’re regurgitating Hobbes. NTTAWWT.

  194. .

    That said, even if you are an ESL Joe, the level of regulation required for that is orders of magnitude below what we operate under now. To say it would be practically insignificant in terms of current costs.

    Your idea that cops get to decide what laws we have is utterly bizzare.

  195. Joe Goodacre

    Ari,

    It’s behind a paywall. How convenient for you to reference an argument that I can’t check and that you can’t apparently summarise.

    http://pq.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/58/69.full.pdf+html

  196. Joe Goodacre

    Demosthenes,

    In other words, you’re regurgitating Hobbes

    To the extent that I agree that there is a state of nature.

    Since that’s only a small part of what Hobbes actually argues with him ultimately justifying strong rule by a sovereign, how is that regurgitation?

  197. Aristogeiton

    Demosthenes
    #1338619, posted on June 8, 2014 at 7:48 pm
    [...]
    In other words, you’re regurgitating Hobbes.

    As per my comment #1338534, posted on June 8, 2014 at 7:09 pm.

    Hey, Shitacre, I have actually read Hobbes (it is on my bookshelf, not leather bound according to your fetish; the edition is Macmillan/Library of Liberal Arts with commentary by Herbert W. Schneider). Have you? I’ve also read Mill, Locke &c. Read more, dumbshit.

  198. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1338622, posted on June 8, 2014 at 7:50 pm
    Ari,

    It’s behind a paywall. How convenient for you to reference an argument that I can’t check and that you can’t apparently summarise.

    http://pq.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/58/69.full.pdf+html

    Fuck you. There’s a library in every state. I have a .pdf copy here. Find your own.

  199. Joe Goodacre

    Ari,

    We are arguing about the best and most moral way to organize society, not whether a tyrant is preferable to the bellum omnium contra omnes.

    You are intellectually lazy aren’t you. I’m not arguing for a tyrant or making Hobbes’ argument. I

    I’m arguing that morality has nothing to do with it the best way to organise a society because the decision to join society is being undertaken by consent. What is best is a question for the individuals involved. For you the best organisation of society is protection at a low cost. For someone poorer, the best organisation for society in their eyes is proportionate taxation and a safety net. Best is in the eyes of the beholder.

  200. Joe Goodacre

    Ari,

    Last time Dotty played the same line as you regarding Candide.

    I did my own research and found out he was talking out of his proverbial.

    You’re cut from the same cloth as him – he may be Dotty by name but you certainly share the same nature. If you can’t summarise why the review smashes the argument, in the same way that Dotty couldn’t summarise why ‘this is the best of all worlds’ applied to me, I’ll sleep comfortably with the conclusion that you probably haven’t read it yourself or thought enough about it to accurately apply it to our discussion.

  201. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1338647, posted on June 8, 2014 at 8:03 pm
    Ari,

    Last time Dotty played the same line as you regarding Candide.

    I did my own research and found out he was talking out of his proverbial.

    Well then fuck off and do your research then. Don’t let me waste your time, bloviator.

    I thought Dot was over the top calling you a Panglossian, but you have subsequently demonstrated the truth of the matter beyond doubt.

  202. Joe Goodacre

    I’ve read Leviathan many years ago and extracts of Locke and Mill at uni.

    So what.

    I don’t let the dead make my arguments.

    For all your talk you still haven’t actually responded to questions with anything remotely coherent that would show it to be incorrect. Instead you spout off lofty names ‘but Locke said it… you just haven’t read Mill have you’. Th laziest type of argument is the appeal to authority. Particularly without summarising where and why that authority shows it to be incorrect.

  203. Aristogeiton

    You do let the dead make your arguments, though, dipshit. As Demosthenes points out, you are here regurgitating Hobbes. Read more, because you have demonstrated precious little original thought here.

  204. Joe Goodacre

    Off to dinner – till next time.

    Maybe then you’ll have done some thinking of your own – now that would be Panglossian.

  205. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1338667, posted on June 8, 2014 at 8:15 pm
    Off to dinner – till next time.

    Maybe then you’ll have done some thinking of your own – now that would be Panglossian.

    You’re a fuckwit. DIAF.

  206. Aristogeiton

    Joe Cockmicron is too intelligent to consider the great thinkers of our civilization. He prefers to blaze his own path to stupidity and failure.

  207. Joe Goodacre

    You use these acronyms as if they do anything other than indicate that you’ve got the maturity of a 17 year old.

    We know that you’re still popping zits – how about something new for a change. An original thought would be nice.

  208. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1338694, posted on June 8, 2014 at 8:28 pm
    You use these acronyms as if they do anything other than indicate that you’ve got the maturity of a 17 year old.

    We know that you’re still popping zits – how about something new for a change. An original thought would be nice.

    I thought you were having dinner, fuckwit? No, you’re original; just like Maurice Cowling and a CliffsNotes for ‘Leviathan’. Fuck off.

  209. Joe Goodacre

    On the contrary – there’s a place for them all. No one writer has all the answers and often it’s about knowing which has something useful to add on a particular topic.

    What is mildly amusing is how you act as if there is something intelligent about saying this is so (pick a long dead philosopher who can’t defend themselves against your intellectual molestation) and leave it at that.

  210. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1338703, posted on June 8, 2014 at 8:31 pm
    [...]
    No one writer has all the answers

    Apparently you do, genius. Fuck off now.

  211. Aristogeiton

    Hey, dickwit, are you the same Joe Goodacre who is currently:

    delivering projects on time

    http://www.wem.com.au/index.php/overview/people/103-joe-goodacre

  212. .

    I wouldn’t do personal stuff. Sinc should delete that.

  213. Aristogeiton

    Well? Do you deliver projects on time?

  214. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1338758, posted on June 8, 2014 at 8:55 pm
    I wouldn’t do personal stuff. Sinc should delete that.

    The poster boasts of being held accountable for his views by using his real name. He further accuses other, anonymous posters of being cowards. Seems fair to me.

  215. Joe Goodacre

    What a surprise – instead of researching an answer, you research me.

    Will you put your own name to your comments?

    Unlikely – you’ve just proven that you truly are a troll with the integrity of a pygmy.

    And we’re supposed to believe that you’re a Libertarian for the benefit of others. Ok – you’re not the Boko Haram of libertarianism at all.

  216. Demosthenes

    Hey, dickwit, are you the same Joe Goodacre who is currently:

    Don’t take this outside the blog. We’ve had enough of that. And anonymous commenters taking advantage of others using their real name isn’t exactly courageous.

  217. .

    And we’re supposed to believe that you’re a Libertarian for the benefit of others. Ok – you’re not the Boko Haram of libertarianism at all.

    Comments like that make you deserving of abuse.

    You’re saying disagreeing with you is the equivalent of holding kids hostage.

    Yet you have the audacity to call others drama Queens. Get a fucking grip, pal.

  218. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1338822, posted on June 8, 2014 at 9:26 pm
    [...]
    And we’re supposed to believe that you’re a Libertarian for the benefit of others. Ok – you’re not the Boko Haram of libertarianism at all.

    I don’t smoke weed, nor do I have any interest in doing so. But I support its legislation. Explain that.

  219. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1338822, posted on June 8, 2014 at 9:26 pm
    [...]
    Unlikely – you’ve just proven that you truly are a troll with the integrity of a pygmy.

    Yes, I’m a libertarian ‘troll’ posting on a libertarian blog. Whereas you’re the counterfeit ‘libertarian’ fascist, posting on a libertarian blog. Do the math.

  220. Joe Goodacre

    Ari,

    I’ve been very clear that I consider anonymous people who swear and call other people names cowards.

    What else should we call someone who acts outside the boundary of courtesy and doesn’t put their name to it.

    I haven’t said anything discourteous to anyone who hasn’t abused me first which explains why most of my conversations on here are courteous with the exception of a few – you included.

    I found you mildly amusing before. Now you’ve just demonstrated that you’re scum.

  221. Aristogeiton

    Oh, so you’re a discourteous prick, but that’s ok because you’re using your real name? So you have no objection to your employer being public knowledge then?

  222. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1338856, posted on June 8, 2014 at 9:46 pm
    [...]
    I found you mildly amusing before. Now you’ve just demonstrated that you’re scum.

    Here’s where we differ. You never amused me.

  223. Joe Goodacre

    Comments like that make you deserving of abuse.

    Dotty you nearly had me thinking that you had a bit of intergrity there – that you recognised that there is a difference swearing and trolling anonymously and a person responding to that.

    Looks like the ends really do justify the means to you.

  224. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1338871, posted on June 8, 2014 at 9:55 pm
    Comments like that make you deserving of abuse.

    Dotty you nearly had me thinking that you had a bit of intergrity there – that you recognised that there is a difference swearing and trolling anonymously and a person responding to that.

    Looks like the ends really do justify the means to you.

    You know, the thing that turned me against you was the abuse you directed towards Dot. I knew your supercilious tone was only a facade. Don’t cry hurt now after you’ve directed a torrent of sarcastic abuse at another poster here. I don’t care if you are using your real name or not. You’re an asshole.

  225. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1338873, posted on June 8, 2014 at 9:57 pm
    Whatever scum.

    You are living proof of the failure of modern undergraduate education.

  226. .

    You compare me to someone who holds kids hostage and is a violent zealot, and want me to treat you with complete amity?

    No.

    You said previously everything you say can change meaning afterwards. Arguing with you is less productive than self harm.

    You are here only to frustrate any movement for greater liberties.

  227. Joe Goodacre

    So your contribution to the standards at the Cat is to troll people anonymously, lead personal attack after personal attack and when someone barks back to google them and implicitly threaten to take whatever goes on at the Cat to their employer (which is so pathetic that its cringeworthy). Seriously take some time off tomorrow to spend some time looking for your balls.

    You then follow it up with the laughable comment ‘you pushed it to this point with you treatment of Dotty’.

    So let’s follow the transcript. Dotty and I started going at about a week ago after I took umbrage to his personal attacks.

    That seems true right up until the link you posted a couple of comments earlier showing that you were being a tool and trolling anonymously nearly 3 months ago.

    I can see why you’d want to stay anonymous – people can’t trust a word you say. With the integrity of a pygmy and the self delusion of a narcissist not many people would be comfortable betting where you’d draw the line. Steal an old ladies handbag? She was on the pension and you were just getting back taxes she stole from you. Yep the cause of liberty is better off with you in the camp in the same way that gobal warming is better off with Michael Mann. What a sad little man.

  228. Joe Goodacre

    I don’t care if you are using your real name or not.

    Except that’s obviously false because you googled it, then shared what you found, tried to pick something from my employers home page to embarrass me and implied that you would communicate with my employer.

    Another word I don’t say often – liar.

    You’re a liar that apparently will say anything to weasel out from under the truth that you love being anonymous because having to be civil every day is such a drain and effort from your true personality. If I’m a product of our education system, to whom should we credit for your foul language, personal attacks, obnoxiousness and slipperiness with the truth?

    Put your name to what you write and let your family see it. Bet they’d be real proud.

  229. Aristogeiton

    Whatever you think ‘trolling’ means, is not what it means.

    Dot ‘started it’ did he? Boo hoo. Your attitude still stinks, particularly considering what a bloviating know-nothing you are.

    Seriously take some time off tomorrow to spend some time looking for your balls.
    [...]
    Steal an old ladies handbag? She was on the pension and you were just getting back taxes she stole from you. Yep the cause of liberty is better off with you in the camp in the same way that gobal warming is better off with Michael Mann. What a sad little man.

    You write this, and you’re seriously crying foul at people giving you a bit of stick on this blog? Are you fucking serious?

  230. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1339075, posted on June 9, 2014 at 12:27 am
    I don’t care if you are using your real name or not.

    Except that’s obviously false because you googled it, then shared what you found, tried to pick something from my employers home page to embarrass me and implied that you would communicate with my employer.

    So it is your employer? Got it. I implied no such thing; good luck delivering your projects on time. I do assert the right to discriminate against you personally, based upon your general stupidity.

    Another word I don’t say often – liar.

    Back at you.

    You’re a liar that apparently will say anything to weasel out from under the truth that you love being anonymous because having to be civil every day is such a drain and effort from your true personality. If I’m a product of our education system, to whom should we credit for your foul language, personal attacks, obnoxiousness and slipperiness with the truth?

    Please. Against this drivel I plead your bloviations upon ‘the sovereign’, racism and legal history.

    Put your name to what you write and let your family see it. Bet they’d be real proud.

    If your family are proud of your behaviour here then that explains a lot.

  231. incoherent rambler

    Aristogeiton. It’s time to retire. For your benefit and everyone else.

  232. Aristogeiton

    incoherent rambler
    #1339088, posted on June 9, 2014 at 12:37 am
    Aristogeiton. It’s time to retire. For your benefit and everyone else.

    The prohibitionist, ‘non-libertarian’ wants me to shut up? Quelle surprise!

  233. Aristogeiton

    On a scale of 9 to 10, how shit is Macquarie University?

  234. Joe Goodacre

    Found out what food I like? Seen what I wear to bed yet – which window should I wave out of?

  235. Aristogeiton, don’t out people. That’s for assholes.
    I think I’ve disagreed with pretty much every position Joe Goodacre has taken on this site but agree with him on that.

  236. also – be very careful about outing, as you can be tricked into “outing” someone who turns out to not be the person who posted the comments after all, knows nothing about the site, and wasn’t actually responsible. This is easily done if, for example, the person is using someone else’s name.

    If that happens, well, not to put too fine a point on it, you’re fucked.

  237. Gab

    Aristogeiton. It’s time to retire. For your benefit and everyone else.

    Seconded.

  238. Aristogeiton

    Aussiepundit
    #1339569, posted on June 9, 2014 at 9:31 am
    Aristogeiton, don’t out people. That’s for assholes.
    I think I’ve disagreed with pretty much every position Joe Goodacre has taken on this site but agree with him on that.

    Ok, willing to admit I might have gone too far here.

    Sinc, please delete the following comment:

    Aristogeiton
    #1338736, posted on June 8, 2014 at 8:43 pm

  239. Joe Goodacre

    It would be hypocritical to use my name and then say that you can’t google me.

    As to the views expressed, most are already known to people who matter at work.

    As to my behaviour, my time on here is split between being civil to people who are civil to me and uncivil to trolls.

    So it’s not necessary for the comment to be deleted. Make all the threats of ‘outing’ me to my employer as you want. Continue insulting myself and others – that’s just the hot air that fills your ballooning inadequacy.

    What actually makes you a cockroach is that you’re closer to the average person of being a stalker (no doubt there’s probably an ex-girlfriend you freaked out in the past) and you force nice people to keep their identities hidden because you demonstrate that if someone disagrees with them, there are grubs out there like yourself who will do whatever they can to find something personal to hurt them.

  240. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1340148, posted on June 9, 2014 at 4:49 pm
    It would be hypocritical to use my name and then say that you can’t google me.

    So what’s the problem?

    As to the views expressed, most are already known to people who matter at work.

    I’m sorry for them.

    As to my behaviour, my time on here is split between being civil to people who are civil to me and uncivil to trolls.

    Dot is a ‘troll’? This is a libertarian blog, dimwit. The people who defend liberty here are not trolls. You’re the troll.

    So it’s not necessary for the comment to be deleted. Make all the threats of ‘outing’ me to my employer as you want. Continue insulting myself and others – that’s just the hot air that fills your ballooning inadequacy.

    I made no such threat.

    What actually makes you a cockroach is that you’re closer to the average person of being a stalker (no doubt there’s probably an ex-girlfriend you freaked out in the past) and you force nice people to keep their identities hidden because you demonstrate that if someone disagrees with them, there are grubs out there like yourself who will do whatever they can to find something personal to hurt them.

    I suppose ‘fuck you’ is about as mild a response as I can make here. You would do well to consider how ‘personal’ it is to accuse proper libertarians of fascism, totalitarianism and an affiliation with Boko Haram. Put down your copy of ‘Leviathan’ and read Mill’s ‘On Liberty’ if you want to have a proper discussion with a classical liberal here; you have enormous holes in your knowledge and a seemingly dogged determination not to fill them with anything but your own facile reasoning. I judge that you consider yourself extremely intelligent, but you fall well short of your pretensions. I am disappointed that in the modern age somebody can be awarded the degree of LLB and be so devoid of basic civics as you are.

  241. Ren Hoek

    Ari:You may not agree with Joe but there was no need to bring RL into the debate as this may have adverse consequences for Joe.
    We are here to share ideas and humor and hopefully work together to find solutions.
    Shake hands both of you and reset.

  242. Aristogeiton

    Ren Hoek
    #1340193, posted on June 9, 2014 at 5:19 pm
    Ari:You may not agree with Joe but there was no need to bring RL into the debate as this may have adverse consequences for Joe.
    We are here to share ideas and humor and hopefully work together to find solutions.
    Shake hands both of you and reset.

    Joe should recall that he’s used the fact that he posts under his own name in an attempt to win arguments against ‘anonymous’ opponents in the past (see upthread for examples). It cuts both ways.

Comments are closed.