The Lineup
B.I.R. Column Of Fame
Man of Steel... Wood... and Mud: Bear Grylls
Rock Legend: Tom Morello

League Gods: The Emperor and Alfie

Str-8 Shoota: Malcolm X

Str-8 Shoota: Zack de la Rocha

Super Bad mofo's

Comrade Hillary

Friday, March 18, 2005

League, dope and chocolate 

Right, I've decided to slightly alter the Bennyasena versus Jessup points system.

I've decided its going to get too messy if we play the 12-and-under and 13-and-over game too so we're just going head to head.

Not because I lost against him in round 1 - I didn't - we both tipped five matches correctly and I picked all of the five wins by the correct margin compared to Jessup's two - and that's giving him the benefit of the doubt on the Dog's match.

I saw the Bulldog's versus St George match last week and Sonny-Bill played as well as all the media reports suggest. Reminded me of the way Ali Lauitiiti could set a game on fire.

Graham Lowe made a similar point in the Herald this morning.

Since Ali Lauitiiti was sacked early last year they have not had a ball-playing second-rower to create any opportunities in the attacking zone, and this was once more very evident against Manly last week.
The sad thing is that the big former Warriors second-rower could have been doing the same sort of damage that Sonny Bill Williams does for the Bulldogs.
Christ the Panthers played poorly to lose against the Sharks. If they play like that again this weekend they'll go down to the Roosters by 13+.

Round 1= Bennyasena 5 Jessup 5.

Round Two of the NRL:

Cowboys v Bulldogs: Jessup - Cowboys, Bennyasena -Bulldogs
Raiders v Knights: Jessup - Raiders, Bennyasena - Knights
Dragons v Storm: Jessup and Bennyasena - Storm
Broncos v Warriors: Jessup - Broncos, Bennyasena - Warriors
Sea Eagles v Sharks: Jessup Sharks, Bennyasena - Sea Eagles
Panthers v Roosters: Jessup - Panthers, Bennyasena - Roosters
Rabbits v Eels: Jessup Eels, Bennyasena Warriors

Now I know Yamis ripped shit into the Warriors for their round 1 performance but I think Manly's currently red hot and the Warriors will turn it around with a win over the Bronco's this week.

Anyways, it's taken a while, but here is a rebuttal to Polar Bob and his case against the demon weed:

As to relaxation of cannibas law in NZ. No. People keep looking at the fact it is a mild drug that does littl harm. True. They also look at it as no worse than smoking. Also true. As stated previously (and repetitively by me), it should be illegal to sell cigarettes due to health issues or addiction. Same with dak.
If we're going to advocate the State banning substances or activities because of their potentially adverse impact on health, or addicitive qualities, then surely we'll also be getting it to ban alcohol, TAB's, sugary products, and race tracks right?

What the fuck am I going to do in the weekend Polar Bob?

Driving through the Waikato and swimming on the West Coast are also potentially harmful - they'll have to go.

How about contact sport - how far do you advocate the State going to protect us from ourselves?

OK, maybe that's drawing a wide bow but no wider than linking spliff butts on the ground to syringes as an argument for criminalisation:

And how many [cigarette] butts do you see on the ground? Or thrown out of windows? A lack of respect for your surrounding in general. So lets add spliffs around the neighbourhood to that. Or needles. Personal choice right?
Discarded needles endanger peoples lives while discarded spliff butts - unlike their cigarette cousins are cardboard and biodegradeable.

And if goods being discarded in environmentally irresponsible ways is an argument for their illegality then pamphlets and Pump water bottles will be banned.

Now lets say we should relax the laws. Only for adults of course. In their own home only because in public there are other people who don't want to partake second-hand style.That's fair. But the kids should be in a different room. We can trust people to do that, ay?

Right, so cannabis should remain illegal because some irresponsible users may puff around their kids......

Like you say Polar Bob its a mild drug which does little harm - and I'd argue the criminalisation of people for imbibing does greater damage than people having a toke.

While its illegal status may provide the police with an effect tool to disproportionately target and arrest cheeky darkies, it does not, has not, and never will stop people from smoking it.

Further its illegal nature forces particularly young smokers to send their business the way of tinny houses run by gangs.

If the harm inflicted upon people punished for consuming a good outweighs the harm caused to them by its consumption then shouldn't that be reason enough to decriminalise the good?

Helen Clark has in a a round-about way admitted she's puffed pot, if she'd been caught would she be PM today?

You need to chill out Polar Bob.

And for chocolate lovers out there here's a concerning industry development.

My sources tell me that New Zealand Cadbury is deliberately sacrificing the quality of its chocolate in an attempt to increase profit margins.

Apparently the best cocoa beans are sources from Ghana yet Cadbury has turned its back on the more expensive African beans and is now buying solely from the inferior South East Asian cocoa-growing region.

The Cadbury executives know they are sacrificing their product's taste and quality yet their desire to make a bit more profit is outweighing any concern for the consumer or their companies reputation.

Apparently Whittakers gives a shit about the quality of their chocolate and still sources from Ghana and is the better buy.

I wouldn't know I don't even eat chocolate.

I'm also sitting on 5 points and I'll go for
Dragons (should be a good game)
Broncos (if the Warriors win I'll be stunningly delighted)
Sea Eagles
By the way Bennyasena, you picked the Warriors to wina game they aren't even playing in. Namely the Rabbitohs and Eels match.

That'll be quite some feat if they can beat 3 teams in one weekend.

6 points please.
Thanks for the rebuttal Bennyasena. Someone reads my rants, YAY! I'm not here to say my point is better than yours, but what's below can be taken however you want. The majority of society decides that one, tokers and non-tokers alike.

In regards to spliffs on the ground, I concede its a loose argument. It's mainly to illustrate people not giving a shit because what they want is all that matters. This encompases litter in general. Cigarettes are a large part of it on the street and this doesn't need to be increased by joints (short-term due to biodegradability or not). Although that largely depends an how many people feel like lighting up in daily public life.

State enforced limitations to prevent harm are everywhere as it is. The key is whether or not the harm is limited to a group of people who accept that. A sport that everyone signed up for is different. The risks are known and legal responsibity is covered. It also is not an addictive narcotic. The Warriors are NOT addictive Bennyasena! : ) Certain things could be considered addictive but the level is minor. Marijuana, cigarettes and alcohol are on a different level and so should not be. Alcohol is also taken directly. I don't get sick or drunk from 2nd hand breath.

As for driving, the danger is more in poor driving ability and cars more powerful than they need to be. I don't advocate more rules, just a change in where they are.

Here's a compromise. Let's make all (or some, whatever) drug use legal, but illegal to store unless purchased via a pharmacy. This include cigarretes. Laws can be made around safe use, so people can be charged with dumping needles using with minors etc.

Because of the pharmacy it is presciption only. The trade off is your use is monitored for your health record. If you develop a condition directly attributable to the drug then, as you have made that choice, you pay for all your medical bills surrounding it. Big enough to use it. Big enough to pay for it. I'f you overdose or use irresponsibly then you lose the right to use.

The end result is I have no objection to many aspects, only how they are implemented.
If you accept minor drug use then why not major if controlled correctly with correct education? I know a few people who'd get an "A" in that class.

Just putting it out there. Feel free to keep the ball rolling.

As for chilling out, I relax fine. But I thought I was fostering discussion. I have opinions but that's all they are. They, and any rebuttals, encourage thought. To help separate feelings from rational analysis. Something there isn't a lot of around. Based on feelings I don't really give a fuck if someone lights up. Nor do I care if they overdose and die. Their choice. Personal choice. That's all that matters, right?

Polar Bob
Bennyasena: rabbits to beat eels!!Jessup's up one nil already
This would be a good duscussion to get going in the discussion board. Easier to get across and follow I mean.

I reckon I must one of very few around that has never smoked a regular cigarette in my life but most definately 'inhaled' on many occasions.

It would be interesting to see what restrictions will get placed on marijuana use (when it's decriminalised which it will eventually be). I think people get the idea that folk will be walking down the main street pushing a pushchair puffing on a blunt. But we don't let people walk down the street swigging from a bottle of whiskey doing the same thing.

So long as similar restrictions are placed as there are on other similarly 'harmful' drugs then things should work out just fine and the world won't end as we know it.

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

The New
Blogging it Real supports the following sporting organisations