blogging it real

Can someone please inform fuck-knuckle Jim Anderton and his mates what progressive actually means.

For example, fuck-knuckle et al stick banners on their website saying "we will raise the drinking age to 20; Now that's progressive".

No it's not.

Progressive means "moving foward, proceeding in steps, or favouring progress" it does not mean reversing to adopt old policies.

The policies your party champions are regressive shit for brains.

What's worse is that this dork is getting a free run in Parliament when it comes to cracking down on drugs.

Here's what Jim says about Nandor.

The real argument is about the use of cannabis as a recreational drug.
If cannabis is legal, more people will use it. More harm will result. It’s a matter of economic logic.
Decriminalisation would inevitably see the price fall, and so demand would rise. In the Netherlands, decriminalisation in the mid-1980s was accompanied by steep increases in use even among the young. There are many adults who can make individual choices to use cannabis moderately. A middle-aged user like Mr Tanczos suffers no apparent cost to his employability or social acceptability. But not every user is like him

What studies are you quoting here Jim?

According to mine, you are full of shit:

Decriminalizing marijuana doesn't lead to more widespread use, according to a new study comparing the drug's users in Amsterdam and San Francisco. The study, published in the May issue of the American Journal of Public Health, flies in the face of prohibitionists who argue that relaxed laws will lead to a rampant increase in the use of marijuana. Drug warriors, who often talk about marijuana being a first step to the use of harder drugs, should also take note that decriminalization appears to reduce the so-called "gateway effect."
Highlights of the study include:
The mean age at onset of use was 16.95 years in Amsterdam and 16.43 years in San Francisco
The mean age at which respondents began using marijuana more than once per month was 19.11 years in Amsterdam and 18.81 years in San Francisco.
In both cities, users began their periods of maximum use about 2 years after they began regular use: 21.46 years in Amsterdam and 21.98 years in San Francisco.
About 75 percent in both cities had used cannabis less than once per week or not at all in the year before the interview.
Majorities of experienced users in both cities never used marijuana daily or in large amounts even during their periods of peak use, and use declined after those peak periods.

Here's the full study Jim.

How does that work Jim, kids are starting at a younger age in countries where it is illegal, I thought you said it this was all easily explained by your economic logic?

Last week the Greens released food awards, denouncing fizzy drink, French fries and breakfast cereal. How is it that the Greens want cannabis decriminalised, but breakfast cereal banned?

Because fuck-knuckle, the punishment associated with being caught - the chances of which are much higher if you've got brown skin - far outweigh the dangers associated with smoking the drug.

If we decriminalised cannabis, what message would we send to the quarter of all girls aged 15-17 -- who have tried it but haven’t continued to use it?

Ummmm, perhaps that they didn't risk arrest when they did decide to experiment with pot? Its legal status obviously didn't deter them taking that first toke....they just decided they didn't like it.

A Judge wrote to me about young girls on the streets in Christchurch, drawn into prostitution in order to buy Methamphetamine (or ‘P’). The dealers hook these girls first by giving them a free sample when they come in to buy their cannabis.

But young people, in my experience, don't want to go to tinny houses and give their money to gangs its just they don't have any other choice. If it was decriminalised they wouldn't have to be buying it from P dealers in the first place.

If cannabis is decriminalised, the P marketers won’t go away. And criminal gangs will continue to supply and market cannabis just as they do now. Few people will bother to grow their own – why would there be any more people than those who grow their own vegetables? The tinny houses will boom, not disappear.

Again, what sources are you getting your information from Jim?

(And don't you just love it how the Honourable Minister keeps referring to P in every second sentence in his argument against marijuana...desperate for a real argument????)

I for one would definitely chuck a couple of plants in the garden to save me the $ if I knew I wasn't going to get arrested for it.

In fact, so too would quite a few of my friends.

"Why would there be anymore people than grow their own vegetables?" you ask: becuase shithead, pot is a much more valuable commodity than vegetables.

Further, tinny houses operate because there are high profit margins in selling pot and you've just said the price would fall; therefore so too wouldn't the incentive to sell?

I'm starting to see a pattern here Jim, you only employ your "economic logic" when it suits you.

Decriminalisation tells young people that drugs are not that bad, and no education campaign will erase that message. Young people won't believe drugs are OK for adults but not for them. Talk to the school principals who know that young people are reading the signals from Mr Tanczos – and saying it is OK to smoke if he can.

Perhaps decriminalisation also tells these young people that they shouldn't smoke before they're 18 and that when you are a consenting adult you can make your own decisions in life and that cocksuckers like you won't have them arrested?

Crude, but honest.