Posts by chris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Always get a good Lawyer,
Lest we forget Tony Vietch who broke a woman's back, wasn't sent to prison (because he could afford to break a women's back), but we can for a moment simply overlook the blatant ideological corruption our own justice system has become predisposed to and focus on another country's. What country's justice system is isn't in some way ideologically corrupt? Why do we care so little about our own that we watch gross miscarriages of justice occur on our own doorstep and satisfy our misgivings nattering away online. Not to be harsh, merely to be contextual.
lest we forget that rugby player with name supression
or that prominent entertainer
or that olympian
or that comedian
or david bain
etc etc etc.Simply, you guys are New Zealanders right? That's the country we're last year a guy avoided prison in part because he paid the victim off?
How many of us could afford to break someone's back?
Can we do more than talk? -
No you didn't, Angus. Do yourself a favour and don't try to lie about things you said in print on the same page you said them.
Classic.another victory for good sense. I strongly support team non-Angus.
"prominent entertainer" case, where the police agreed to drop very a serious charge after security camera evidence showed the alleged offence could not have taken place.
tangential, but the thing that never quite sat with me on that case was that the offense was deemed serious enough to the point that it would affect the entertainer's livelihood and thus necessitated permanent name suppression, and yet, not quite serious to incur any significant conviction. All dealt by a straight faced judge in a country with a population of 4 million who do have internet access. I try not to think about it too much. It's baffling.
-
Why did they omit Lou Vincent?
-
cause we're inhibited so and sos
Compared to say, Koreans, sure, that argument could be made.
-
The hippies! The hippies are here! Run for your lives!
My type of people. At last I've found my place: D
Decriminalise. Rehabilitate. Educate.
word.
re: Coke. Drank it almost everyday for 5 years. It stripped the enamel off my teeth, Now I require 7 fillings. I didn't see much in the way of health warnings or criminalization for dealing it. That'd be where common sense was expected to prevail...
-
Drugs have been a part of their lives but not all. Like anything, tolerance becomes the adult decision we make, (I like to think, when we grow up) and we then choose as to paths we take.
I agree.
cause alcohol made us do it.
Like all drugs, just catalysts to express what is ultimately still (on some level), just our own free will. Criminalizing any of it negates this benign classification, placing the onus on the drug rather than user, perpetuating the lack of responsibility. re: ads,I like the angle Stephen, but the 'taunting'.... it'd be nice to see super jovial folk, some wasted, some not so much, text challenging; "can u enjoy yourself this much?" I know it's dumb, but I think ultimately good examples provide more tangible positive reinforcement.
-
Sofie, I agree with 99% of what Islander said but the term 'deranged' is ignorant and offensive (unclear as to whether that's the wording used by the competent medics or Islander herself. I just don't like it, it's nothing personal, simply diversity of opinion. nice edit Sofie, hiding 'tit for tat' in the middle eases the ego bruise ; r
-
Strangely islander, I find the disenfranchisement prescribed by the medical professionals ie. 'deranged', not dissimilar to your categorically dismissing a series of words as entirely nonsensical.
Taking the time to ponder and attempt to form an independent opinion as to their collective meaning regardless of the initially perceived apparent lack of logic, is not always a waste of time.
I do not pretend that we don't all suffer vulnerabilities, merely that our capacity to be consciously aware of our vulnerabilities indicates the potential to interact with our own vulnerabilities.
-
but I will back my experiences against your beliefs
As I'm guessing you've never been formally diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, it's more likely that you're backing your belief in others experiences against my experiences.
Sorry if you couldn't make sense of this
"Incompetent medics, parlaying to a theocracy of victimhood"
basically, medical professionals who still don't know enough, working at the behest of drug companies in a manner that disenfranchises sufferers. Thus, The sufferer's potential to exploit the same faculties that exacerbated the problem in order to consciously solve the problem are categorically denied (limited profitability.)
-
But while I believe cannabis may be able to bring on a schizophrenic episode in someone who already has the condition
While I'm in total agreement about this, I don't think enough is said about the potential to use cannabis to suppress (mild) paranoid schizophrenic episodes.
"oh that wasn't real, I'm just stoned"
is a remarkably powerful grounding point, especially considering THC is relatively unimpairing. The danger of (mild) paranoid schizophrenia is not so much the hallucinations themselves as much as our belief in them. Just personal experience there though...
And in answer to lung cancer...........moon cake.