2014 New Zealand Election thread

[BeeGee]

Just as of yesterday I was starting to think about where I'd like to take a gap year - the answer has been found for me I see

Colorado is an awesome place to visit, even without the pot.

 

[Teja.]

Hurricane,

First, The 'study' you're citing states that one joint = 20 cigarettes, not 30. I might be appearing pedantic but 50% more is quite a lot.

Secondly, the study is a complete farce, as a) it has a sample size of 79 people b) the results was derived from purely anecdotal evidence not actual scientific data. Quoting from the study:

For the study, researchers interviewed 79 lung cancer patients in an effort identify the main risk factors for the disease, such as smoking, family history and occupation. The patients were questioned about alcohol and marijuana consumption.

In the high-exposure group, lung cancer risk rose by 5.7 times for patients who smoked more than a joint a day for 10 years, or two joints a day for 5 years, after adjusting for other variables, including cigarette smoking.

Such precise conclusions are meaningless from that lolsample size and interviews IMO.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

is this just the appeal to nature or is it true? genuinely asking, i have no idea. i do live with someone who hits the legals pretty hard (i'm not sure i've ever talked to him not high) and well...sometimes he's very good at day dreaming lets put it that way.

i hate the rubbish and have no idea why anyone would want to touch it let alone implicitly encourage it by legalising it but legalise it imo. people are allowed to wreck themselves with booze and ciggies. weed is no different.

Synthetics have all these nasty additives in them to make them addictive. I used to have a couple of good mates who were stoners,who then discovered legals and quickly destroyed their lives. They say for all recreational drugs including alcohol, about 3% of the population will click once exposed to them and become addicted overnight. For synthetics the rate would be more about 10%

 

[Hurricane]

Hurricane,

First, The 'study' you're citing states that one joint = 20 cigarettes, not 30. I might be appearing pedantic but 50% more is quite a lot.

Secondly, the study is a complete farce, as a) it has a sample size of 79 people b) the results was derived from purely anecdotal evidence not actual scientific data. Quoting from the study:



Such precise conclusions are meaningless from that lolsample size and interviews IMO.

Maybe 30 may just be scare mongering - I heard it from a teacher at school here is another study that suggests it is 2.5 to 5 times worse. Either way, 30 or 2.5, it is worse.

https://www.drugfree.org/join-together/drugs/study-says-smoking-marijuana

Smoking a single marijuana joint is equivalent to smoking 2.5 to 5 cigarettes in terms of damage to the lungs, largely due to differences in how pot and cigarette users smoke.

The Guardian reported July 31 that researchers at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand found that the deep drags taken by marijuana users, along with their penchant for holding smoke in before exhaling, can cause problems like obstructed airways and hyperinflation of the lungs. The lack of filters on marijuana joints also contributes to lung problems, researchers said.

The study involved 339 adult volunteers divided into four groups: marijuana-only smokers, tobacco-only smokers, marijuana and tobacco smokers, and nonsmokers.

All of the smokers reported coughing and wheezing, but only tobacco smokers exhibited signs of emphysema.

 

[Hurricane]

Nah, I don't agree with you, Hurricane.

Alcohol leads to drunken violence, drink driving, alcoholism etc etc
New Zealand's "drinking culture"

Marijuana leads to cottonmouth, munchies, sunshine, and lollipops.

Regarding the Dunne quote, you don't even need to visit a hospital to see what damage alcohol can do.

Taking drunk driving out of the equation which can result in deaths including innocent people on the other side of the road (I am excluding it because I have no comeback to it) - if you drink to excess for 4-5 years and then stop you will probably be ok minus the divorce and loss of friendships in your life, however your health will recover. If you smoke pot for 4-5 years there is probably and I making this up but if you challenge me I will google it - there is a 5-10% chance you will be mentally ****ed for life (in a psych ward).

Also the effects of pot are insidious. If you smoke up more than once a month you will lose your ambition. Now maybe ambition doesn't sound like an important thing, but to parents (I am not a parent) of some 21 year old who is living in their basement and content with his 3 day a week job at the corner store you are probably very concerned about it.

If you sense uptightness in my posts it is there for two reasons. I have known people who have lost all ambition and they were my friends. Secondly I get "offered it/thrust upon me" once every couple of months. I have no problem with people dabbling with it in their 20s to check it out and I certainly did. But I have issues with people doing it long term. I think it does harm other people and tax payers by creating costs for our health system and our economy. If there is every a referendum on legalising it I will be voting against it. Also remember when reading my posts I am an old **** if I was in my 20s and still dabbling then I would be all in favour of it no doubt.

Edit - I also don't see the need to legalise it as it is a piece of cake to acquire some and use. And it is affordable. So future teenagers will not be deprived of the traditional pot experience.

 

[NZTailender]

So basically, it's a life ruiner. It ruins lives.

 

[Flem274*]

it does ruin lives. so does alcohol. so do cigarettes.

but you wouldn't drink booze 24/7 would you? in moderation a bit of weed is harmless. i don't know what the relative normal person/you suck thresholds for weed and booze are but if you legalise it you can tax it and use it to make the next generation of weed shock ads to slot between a drunk dad throwing his young child into a cabinet and a tour of the smokers' cancer infested lungs.

 

[NZTailender]

Then there's the fat, diabetic elephant in the room: fatty foods. The key is education and not law IMO.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Then there's the fat, diabetic elephant in the room: fatty foods. The key is education and not law IMO.

Sugar as well. The sugar lobby is to the Democrats what the oil lobby is to the republicans

 

[Flem274*]

What do you guys think about the campaign to prevent testing the safety of legal highs on animals (appears to be dogs and rats in particular)?

I'm struggling to find any what/why/how on the internet because of the flood of petitions and anti-testing campaigns.

My first thought was if people don't want to risk the lives of dogs and rats from exposure to party pills and synthetic cannabis then perhaps these substances shouldn't be on the market? If the people campaigning against it didn't think there was a risk then they wouldn't have an issue with it. After all, if they're safe then the doggies will get a nice high before getting some serious Tux cravings.

Then I remembered a) the testers probably want to find the safety limits of these drugs and will overdose the animals and b) maybe people are objecting to gratuitous testing on animals using substances that are already proven to be relatively safe in correct doses.

I do think there is a level of Appeal to the Fluffy - they chose the photo of a dog with puppy eyes over a rat for a reason - but if the substances have been tested previously and approved for market sale (they would have to have been wouldn't they?) then this is a bit gratuitous and reeks of National trying to find a reason to permanently ban the substances for ideological reasons rather than them having an honest public health concern.

The uncomfortable reality is animal testing is necessary. Nobody cares about 100 dead rats except the lunatic fringe. 100 dead puppies is sad and makes baby Jesus cry. 100 dead people is even worse and would have serious repercussions. However, if this is gratuitous and powered by ideology then it is pretty dire.

So does anyone know why they are doing this test now and if tests have been done before, what they hope to achieve and how they plan to go about the experiment? Has any government body or scientific institute posted a research proposal anywhere, preferably with the intended methods included? I'd like to read it.

TL;DR - My facebook is flooded with the same sad, cute looking puppy asking me to sign a petition. Is he there because National want to kill him to further their anti-drug ideology or is he there because Labour and the Greens really want "National kills puppies" to be their campaign slogan?

edit: so it's the LD50 test apparently where they find the lethal dose at which 50% die.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I don't care how necessary animal testing is, it's a pretty morally borderline activity which needs to at the very least have a massive spotlight on it at all times. It's something which should have massive pressure.

 

[Flem274*]

I agree, but it is morally reprehensible to either go straight to human testing from the petri dish or worse, not test at all. It's not a nice or PC thing to say but you have to test everything on something that isn't human but more complex than a few cells in a test tube.

I still think if they had only proposed to kill off some rats then nobody would care. This issue is only an issue because they're using dogs and we like dogs.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I think they should use cats.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I think they should use politicians.

 

[Hurricane]

I think they should use cats.

awful

 

[wellAlbidarned]

insert more generic 19 year old opinions here

 

[Hurricane]

I don't care how necessary animal testing is, it's a pretty morally borderline activity which needs to at the very least have a massive spotlight on it at all times. It's something which should have massive pressure.

All the hot chicks at school were anti vivisection

 

[BeeGee]

All the hot chicks at school were anti vivisection

Were the ugly chicks pro-vivisection?

 

[BeeGee]

I don't care how necessary animal testing is, it's a pretty morally borderline activity which needs to at the very least have a massive spotlight on it at all times. It's something which should have massive pressure.

While I don't like the idea of animal testing, there are thousands and thousands people who owe their lives to life saving drugs that could only be developed by testing them on animals.

 

[Hurricane]

While I don't like the idea of animal testing, there are thousands and thousands people who owe their lives to life saving drugs that could only be developed by testing them on animals.

So you can see both sides of the issue but lean towards animal testing being allowed. I have no issue at all with animal testing but just wish that, like Flem says, dogs or cats weren't used. I also think they need better measures to protect the rights of the animals - some of the things are kind of unnecessary that they do - i can't think of any examples atm though.