Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Sorry. Andrew Geddis is being rather bullish on Pundit, I notice, but then he is a leading lawyer and knows where the line lies.
-
If Auckland continues along the more cars/more sprawl/more motorways track they'll need the land in a few years for a future stage of widening the North Western motorway.
(The M25 in England is up to 6+6 lanes in places and still jamming solid).
-
They could just redevelop the Vodafone data centre next door - or have they already?
-
Hard News: Labour's medical cannabis…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
I'd think the same might apply here (much as it's apparently possible to escape a fine for public drinking if your lawyer demands evidence that the substance you were imbibing was in fact alcoholic).
-
Maybe the MP should just have to provide evidence that they were engaged in the business in question before entering politics. I doubt Curran had many starts for the Highlanders.
-
whereas more mainstream MPs turn up in football shirts, or that stoopid yellow jacket Hide wore:
-
Polity: A wilting rose, in reply to Steve Barnes,
In more recent times,, Nandor was obliged to wear a suit, such as the rather dapper number here:
-
Depends on what you mean by "die". There are those (represented heavily in the nuclear industry) that consider that unless you're on the ground twitching within minutes of being exposed to their substance, then no foul.
OTOH, it seems unlikely that inhaling any kind of smoke from burning organic material is going to do your lungs any good - possibly Norml feel that smoke particles from weed have been blessed by Ras Ta Whari and float in and out of ones lungs harmlessly, but the less poetically aligned might disagree.
Not to say that weed should be illegal, but that people should have a realistic view of what it might do.
-
Polity: A wilting rose, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Wasn't Shipley "Coke" and Mallard et al "Pepsi"?
-
eventually didn’t feel I could usefully respond to its requirement to score each drug
And I don’t see how many people could do so, in an objective fashion.
The only way you could do it would, as a specialist in the field, be to sit down and do a literature survey of mechanistic and epidemiological research and produce measurements of “harm” for each substance (along with an idea of the uncertainty in your estimate), rather as Cochrane do for medical drugs and interventions.
Which would take some time and involve payment, I suspect.
Otherwise, you’re just hunting for anecdata.
