One of the more striking conclusions from the Auckland Uni School of Medicine survey on drug us is the major reason people give for stopping using cannabis: they didn't like it any more .
The majority of New Zealanders who use cannabis stop using it at some point -- I know some very keen smokers who stopped for the same or similar reasons to you.
That's interesting, thanks. Now I touch every couple of years just to remind myself of how little I really enjoy it.
The Dunedin and Christchurch longitudinal studies have shown reasonably convincingly that the long-term risks of cannabis are much higher in users under 18, and the earlier the first use the greater the risk.
the science says it's a very bad idea for you to have it at your age when your brain's still developing
I want to read more on this. See I always knew that when I was high I couldn't learn new things. I could laugh at George Carlin but I couldn't learn. I also always thought that I had a bad memory and was just bad at maths and science. Lateral or logical thinking wasn't my thing. I was more into literature, music, etc.
Except my job now requires lateral thinking and in the 7 or so years since I stopped smoking, I've started doing expert Sudoku puzzles, riddles, etc. Stuff that I never did before because I thought I was just bad at it.
I have wondered whether I have just learned how to do these things -- learning being something I wasn't very good at before because I was often high as a kite.
I've wondered whether my brain had repaired itself because it seemed really incongruous. An old friend saw me doing a jigsaw puzzle and thought I'd lost my mind.
Anyway, really interesting because I'd been thinking about this for a while.
Great post, thanks. I totally agree with you. No one ever says "My dad used to get really high and then beat the shit out of us kids".
In high school, I found pot to be a really good study aid. It allowed me to calm down and focus on the pointless busy work that I resented. In fact, the more I smoked the better my marks were.
I also like your point about the Netherlands. I stopped smoking pot when I moved there for two years. I think this was because buying pot became as mundane as buying bread or milk. I could get it any time I wanted. So I ceased to care about whether or not I had it or could get it. Gone were the obsessive evenings with friends calling around trying to score pot.
Now it just makes me incredibly nervous and I never touch it. But man it served its purpose for a time.
I stand corrected. Cook's determination was released last week. His grievance was dismissed. I should have a copy soon. I'm only reporting what someone else told me so it could be wrong.
I got at the Grey Lynn Farmers' Market yesterday
Has it at all improved or is it still Kraftbomb with a different name?
Now THIS is journalism! Check the second par! Oh yes!
Surely the EMA is pumping up rhetoric against personal grievances before the Tories gut them.
BTW, no word on Stephen Cook's grievance yet. I wonder if they settled and the determination is no longer pending? The silence is strange.
By 'not getting the benefit of the defence', I would guess you mean his lawyer was unable to run that as a defence stategy at the trial.
Weatherston's lawyer did as she was instructed as any agent should. The defence, if I recall correctly, failed.
It's true that the Weatherston case brought the partial defence of provocation to the fore, but it's not as if the matter hadn't been debated before then.
Which is retarded because Weatherston didn't get the benefit of the defence. The homosexual panic defence was that crappest part of provocation. I was cool with it provided it worked both ways. Heterosexual panic defence is so hard to contrive a test case on though.
What if Sophie's dad had come in the room, found his dead daughter and then killed Weatherston? No more provocation for him! Think about it. I haven't.
@Dubmugga: that's some funny shit but people are going to collapse into an incredulous cluster fuck of disapproval if you keep that up.
The section 58 offence only related to any class A drug.
The section 11A offence is any drug (including prescription medication), but requires proof of impairment.
Interesting. You've answered my questions.
...so cannabis isn't in there. Just having THC in your bloodstream isn't automatically an offense, although before they could test for it the police would have to have reasonable suspicion that you're impaired, and you'd have to have failed the impairment test.
Also interesting! My understanding from workplace drug testing regimes is that there is no way to actually test for impairment with cannabis. They can tell how much is swimming around in your system but not what it is doing to your brain.
otherwise it would be a reason to oppose the entirety of criminal law in the country.
Yes, that's why I often do. It's a crime to be poor.
with additional info about the plea that I was aware of and would like to see aired, but don't feel able to do so myself.
Is it public? Just air it. What's the big deal?
Interestingly, though, different judges granted the interim and permanent suppression orders -- David Harvey and Eddie Paul respectively -- on the basis of the same arguments. I wonder if the police's "neutral" stance was pivotal here.
Too bad they had never heard of Barbara Streisand.
I had never heard of the person in question when someone told me who it was yesterday. So now I get to learn about NZ music and NZ law at the same time.
There are some awesome offences still on the books
The offence of bestiality is complete upon penetration. The Crown always forgets that.
ramped up name suppression as an issue
You know who always gets name suppression no matter what every single time? Doctors. The first time I had to write a name suppression application I got the template from a medico-legal lawyer. They had stacks of information on the shit. Look up the Disciplinary Tribunal rulings. Every doctor in this country is named W or L or M.
I'm much more convinced of the Canadian approach in a decision called Dagenais. In Canada, it is recognised that there is no hierarchy of human rights -- therefore, the right to a fair trial is no more or less important than freedom of speech. So there has to be a real and substantial risk of fair trial rights as opposed to a real (read: any) risk in NZ.
I reckon in this case suppression is bad. Sex crimes are under reported and under prosecuted. I think sex offences, unless they are against children or something, should never have name suppression.
His early plea, etc, as you said, would have pleased the judge though.
My apologies again then. I'm obviously mistaking your tone, but I do sometimes feel you're not posting in good faith.
And again, none needed. And always in good faith perhaps with a bit too much good fun.
I'm all for scrutiny of officials, but the abuse copped by Kiro was disturbing,
Yes, it probably was. That's too bad. But it comes with the job.
and I don't think it's unconnected to the difficulty in finding a new Children's Commissioner.
You're lawyerly double negative leads me to think that it was an inference. That was basically what I was driving at. I also get squeamish with journos saying "I like free speech but..." I spend a lot of time quixotically defending the media.
In terms of the pro child abusers, before Warriors games I would always agree to sign their petition. Then I would deface it and while handing it back, but before they noticed, I would say something like "You guys are doing great work. <Big smile> I can't wait to get home and smack my little daughter around if the boys lose today".
It often took them a minute.