1601

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Medicinal cannabis trial in Australia

« on: April 19, 2015, 04:51:58 PM »

Its not about "we have to try".

Read the thread title.

1602

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Medicinal cannabis trial in Australia

« on: April 19, 2015, 04:28:47 PM »

But that would make them addicted to nicotine.

Which their mind will remember was acquired from my weed specifically. They'll get that craving unless they buy more specifically from me. It is foolproof. Until I get sued or something. Hm.

I fully support your right to do that, so long as you clearly label your product as what it is. Anyone who buys your product is responsible for their own choices, not you and not the government.

Here's a speech from Australian Liberal Democrats senator David Leyonhjelm, which I completely agree with and find to be a very powerful argument (as is usual for Leyonhjelm's speeches) for legalisation of marijuana:

1603

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Medicinal cannabis trial in Australia

« on: April 19, 2015, 03:13:00 PM »

Actually, research finds that legalizing marijuana might make the roads safer. It's surprisingly difficult to say that there's a correlation between pot use and accidents, according to the research I've found. So that argument is out.

This article supports my primary point, too:

One key factor is the reduction in alcohol consumption. The study finds that there is a direct correlation between the use of marijuana and a reduction in beer sales, especially in the younger folks aged 20-29.

A drop in beer sales supports the theory that marijuana can act as a substitute for liquor.

Thanks for the link, Tausami.

1604

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Medicinal cannabis trial in Australia

« on: April 19, 2015, 01:25:54 PM »

Is there a breathalyser test for marijuana? Or doesn't being high effect your driving? I'd say that would effect others.

No, just like there isn't a breathalyser test for being agitated, stressed or tired, all of which can adversely affect your driving. Fortunately, there are blood tests, and while they are more difficult to perform than breath tests, this problem is easily addressed by permitting police to perform random blood tests at their discretion. This is a very minor issue and has little bearing on the matter at hand.

Why do you think making cannabis legal will reduce drinking? It hasn't in the Netherlands and Portugal despite your assertion. Portugal drink way more than us Brits and by God, we drink a lot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption_per_capita
That's a very very weird theory with no scientific backing at all. If you want to stop people drinking so much, just get bar staff to breathalyse customers and set a limit. Or raise the cost of alcohol. Legalising cannabis to reduce drinking is like banning guns to prevent obesity.

Oh boy, where do I start?

First, the fact that their alcohol consumption is high does not imply that it has not been reduced. Second, my point was not that cannabis had reduced the amount of drinking in Portugal, but rather that it has had a net positive impact on their society. In particular:

In the Portuguese case, the statistical indicators and key informant interviews that we have reviewed suggest that since decriminalization in July 2001, the following changes have occurred:

• small increases in reported illicit drug use amongst adults;
• reduced illicit drug use among problematic drug users and adolescents, at least since 2003;
• reduced burden of drug offenders on the criminal justice system;
• increased uptake of drug treatment;
• reduction in opiate-related deaths and infectious diseases;
• increases in the amounts of drugs seized by the authorities;
• reductions in the retail prices of drugs.

Whether we also see positive results with our social problems in Sydney remains to be seen. My point is that we don't know for certain what effect it will have until we try it.

Finally, I'm not suggesting that making cannabis legal will reduce drinking, only that it stands a chance of addressing our alcohol-related violence problem. There are any number of ways it could do that, one of which is a reduction in the amount of drinking, but another could simply be that its relaxant properties help to suppress the antisocial behaviour associated with alcohol. As I said, we don't know for certain until we try it.

People I know tend to just mix the two of them, which is stupid. Small sample size and all though.

Yeah, they will. Its not an alternative to drinking.

That depends entirely on what your motive for drinking is. The blanket statement that "its [sic] not an alternative to drinking" completely ignores the fact that other people might drink for reasons different than your own.

In my particular case, sometimes I have a drink just because I feel like unwinding, or want a buzz. In that case, I would likely be equally well satisfied by marijuana. As someone who has never taken cannabis, it's impossible to comment directly on what the after-effects are like, but I would be very interested in trying alternative ways of getting a buzz without alcohol's withdrawal symptoms.

Of course, there are also some people for whom it would not be an alternative to drinking, and that's perfectly fine because the point is not to prevent all alcohol consumption. Why is it so difficult to get this point across?

1605

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Medicinal cannabis trial in Australia

« on: April 19, 2015, 11:58:00 AM »

Also, there seems to be a theme amongst you all that marijuana has no ill effects and is absolutely fine, like drinking a cup of water. It is a psycho active drug. Prolonged use can cause all kinds of issues. Paranoia, anxiety, schizophrenia, depersonalization disorder, bipolar disorders, and major depression.

No. See also:

This seems to be a recurring problem with you; you seem to see someone saying "X should be legal", and somewhere between your retina and your cortex, the message transforms into "I think X is a great thing and we should have no restrictions whatsoever on it".

I am saying that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and therefore it would reduce the harmful effects of alcohol if it were easily available as an alternative. Not everything is black and white.

Furthermore, the harmful effects of cannabis are entirely on the user; alcohol causes antisocial behaviour which creates harmful effects even for people who are drinking responsibly. Even if they caused the same degree of harm, it is still preferable to have someone mess up their own life than to mess up the lives of others.

I used to get high and then go out for drinks. Once you get used to smoking weed a lot, you don't get sick off it. You aren't going to solve the issue by adding more drugs to choose from. But you are likely to elevate crime as 'chavs' need some money for their new hobby.

Once again, not everything is black and white. The fact that the availability of marijuana won't stop people from drinking does not imply that it won't stop some people from drinking, or that it won't reduce the amount people drink, or that it won't reduce the harmful effects of alcohol on society.

Ultimately, these are effects we can't be sure of until we trial it and measure its success, which I understand has worked well in the Netherlands and Portugal. I want to see if we have the same success in Australia.

1606

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Medicinal cannabis trial in Australia

« on: April 19, 2015, 11:25:54 AM »

Making cannabis legal may sound very hipster and cool, but it goes against the strategies put in place by your nation to protect the public and minimise health issues.

Incorrect. As I alluded to in the OP, there is already a significant amount of alcohol-related violence in Sydney. Legalising recreational marijuana has the potential to reduce the impact of alcohol on society by providing a less harmful alternative.

1607

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Medicinal cannabis trial in Australia

« on: April 19, 2015, 10:59:00 AM »

This is a very bipolar approach.

No, introducing a new subject and labelling it "progressive" doesn't make my use of the term "progressive" any less consistent.

Yours is a nation that is 'progressive'. You were the first nation on earth to enforce plain packaging on cigarettes. Something we will be doing in the very near future. It actually hasn't worked and cigarette sales have gone up in Oz, but you can see the underlying sentiment.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10718244/Australia-tobacco-sales-increase-despite-plain-packaging.html

Packaging regulations are entirely orthogonal to substance legality. There is no conflict here.

Yours is the most anti-smoking nation on earth, bar none. you beat us to banning smoking in a car with children in it, and you just beat us to banning smoking in public places.

Regulations on where and when smoking is acceptable are entirely orthogonal to substance legality. Again, no conflict.

So, how can allowing people to smoke weed by progressive? Its backward. It goes against your world leading approach to stopping smoking. Joints usually don't have filters, you have tobacco in the joint and you get all the oils from the weed in your lungs too. How can a nation say "smoking is really bad and we'll be the first to stamp it out" and then go down the route of "we must allow people to smoke weed".

As you've already pointed out, we haven't stopped smoking. All we've done is introduced regulations that limit the damage smoking can do to society.

Legalisation of marijuana is not an all-or-nothing issue. This seems to be a recurring problem with you; you seem to see someone saying "X should be legal", and somewhere between your retina and your cortex, the message transforms into "I think X is a great thing and we should have no restrictions whatsoever on it".

Cigarettes and alcohol are both legal in Australia, and both have regulations as to where, when and by whom their use is acceptable. All I'm suggesting is that cannabis be given the same treatment.

I think you are more likely to be the first nation to make tobacco sales illegal, than you are to sanction the legal smoking of dope.

If we do that, it will certainly prove my point about us falling behind on the social policy front.

There are cigarettes in joints. You don't smoke it by itself.

Uh. Wow. This is just... I don't even.

1608

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Medicinal cannabis trial in Australia

« on: April 19, 2015, 09:25:36 AM »

Three Australian states (NSW, Victoria and Queensland) and one territory (ACT) have agreed to begin trialling cannabis for medicinal use for serious illnesses. If successful (as I have no doubt it will be), this could open the door to more progressive drug laws in the future.

Despite being blocked in Tasmania and Western Australia, I'm very optimistic about this move. Australia has developed a tendency to fall behind on social policies in recent years, including those regarding drugs, marriage equality, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and while the situation at the moment is far from dire, it will become so if we don't start keeping pace with progressive governments in Europe and North America. The first step has now been taken, at least on the drug front.

My eventual hope is that this trial, combined with the NSW government's obvious concern for alcohol-related violence in Sydney, will lead them to decriminalising recreational marijuana as an alternative to Sydney's decadent alcohol culture.

1609

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Australian Politics both National and State.

« on: April 19, 2015, 05:12:38 AM »

So PARSIFAL and other Australians,  out of sheer curiosity (since I don't understand Australian politics at all; I am more familiar with American National, Iowa and California State, British National, and Israeli National elections), what is your opinion in general of the current National Government of Australia and that of your home State? (New South Wales, I gather)? Any other Australian is welcome to answer as well. I'd like to learn more about that country's politics. What are the National Parties, what are the State Parties where you live, and what do you personally prefer?

Of course, since this is all new to me, you'll have to treat me as a total "Newbie", I think the slang word is. But I am honestly curious. So fire ahead!

We have had two major parties (at both state and federal levels) for the past 60 years or so; the socially conservative and economically right-wing Liberal/National Coalition (abbreviated LNP, for Liberal National Party) and the historically progressive but increasingly conservative in recent years Australian Labor Party (ALP).

The drift of the ALP towards conservatism has resulted in many Labor voters jumping ship and voting for the Australian Greens (GRN), who occupy the centre-left, socially progressive position that Labor did many years ago. They're gathering enough support in recent years that they're poised to become our third major party. The major advantage we have over the US in this regard is our preferential voting system, where candidates are ranked rather than a single one selected; this makes it very easy to preference a minor party first without throwing a vote away.

Those three parties tend to dominate Parliament both at federal and state level, especially in the lower house (the House of Representatives at federal level, and the Legislative Assembly in NSW state), where the practice of each division electing a single representative makes it difficult for minorities to get representation. However, other minor parties have an easier time getting elected to the upper house (the Senate at federal level, and the Legislative Council in NSW state) because they are elected by proportional representation for the entire state.

It's complicated to go into the details of upper house voting in Australia, not least because each state seems to have its own way of doing it (and the federal way is different from that in NSW), but the basic idea that's common to all of them is that you have a huge list of candidates that get ranked in one way or another. As candidates with the least votes are eliminated and preferences redistributed, a candidate needs a "quota" of votes to get elected. The way this works out, in theory, is that each representative gets elected by the same proportion of the state (e.g., if 21 seats are up for grabs, you need 1/21 of the votes to get elected).

In practice, what this means is that a majority of seats go to the major parties, and there are usually a few that go to the most popular minor parties (in the case of NSW state, where preferences are selected directly by voters) or a somewhat unpredictable selection of minor parties (in the case of federal parliament, where preferences are selected by group voting ticket). Because of the unpredictable nature of the federal voting system (which is hopefully due for reform soon, among other reforms), I'll focus on the NSW Legislative Council here.

The minor parties that have enough support to always get a seat in NSW are the Christian Democratic Party (CDP), and the Shooters and Fishers party (S&F). The CDP's stated goal is to see "all legislation being brought into conformity with the revealed will of God in the Holy Bible" (reference), which I think speaks for itself. Shooters and Fishers have few policies, their primary goal being to protect the rights of individuals to pursue outdoor activities (including hunting and fishing); the main value I see in their representation is as a counterpoint to the Greens' socialist-leaning approach to conservation.

At the federal level, a representative we currently have in office who I'm keeping an eye on is David Leyonhjelm of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), a right-wing, socially progressive party. His views are somewhat too free-market-ish for me to see eye-to-eye with him on everything, but he's raising a lot of what I consider to be important issues, including marriage equality and the right to keep Australian native animals as pets. The fact is that these things wouldn't be getting talked about if he wasn't elected, which is a pity, because his election was something of a fluke and unlikely to happen again.

It might have become evident from my focus on minor parties, but I believe that keeping as many minor party candidates in office as possible is the best way to ensure progress gets made (and in the right direction). The major party candidates know their party is going to get back into power eventually when the other side fucks up, so they don't actually endeavour to serve the people, instead passing laws that simply put the country back where it was when they were last in power (a good example is the recent repeal of Labor's carbon tax by the incumbent LNP administration).

On the other hand, having minor party representation helps to stem the flow of the government's legislation, both by having more viewpoints be heard and by reducing the likelihood of the government controlling a majority of seats in both houses of parliament. At the moment, for example, the federal LNP has a majority of seats in the House of Representatives but not in the Senate, which has enabled Labor and Greens to block their education reforms (which would deregulate university tuition fees and put us into an America-like debt-for-life situation) on more than one occasion.

In short, I think our preferential voting system is what sets us apart from American politics, by enabling minorities to more easily get representation through minor party candidates without throwing a vote away. Whether the LNP or the ALP is in power at the time doesn't make much difference, particularly in recent years as Labor has become more conservative, but having additional parties helps to avoid one of them controlling parliament altogether.

I will say, though, that I think the Abbott administration is a complete joke. He may well be the worst PM we've ever had, and the only reason his government gets anything done is thanks to his ministers, not himself. He's capable of functioning as little more than a figurehead, which is immediately evident whenever he gets asked a question. Next year's election can't come soon enough.

As for my personal preferences, I usually try to consider how to vote based on what I think will have the most positive impact on the functioning of parliament. I live in one of the safest LNP electorates in NSW, which means that my lower house vote never makes a difference, so I focus on the minor parties I agree most with in the upper house (usually, Pirate Party, Future Party, Sex Party, LDP, Socialist Alliance and Greens, roughly in that order).

1610

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (cast list released!)

« on: April 18, 2015, 03:58:16 PM »

Wow, this conversation seems awfully familiar. Oh wait.

Hey guys, I have an idea. Why not wait until the film comes out and go see it and then criticise the movie they're actually making instead of the one you think they're making based on a 2-minute trailer?

1611

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: New South Wales state election 2015

« on: April 18, 2015, 01:22:34 AM »

It turns out that all my predictions were correct, except that the minor party that got the last seat was Animal Justice. Since I preferenced them before Greens, that'll be where my vote went to. I wasn't expecting that, but I am pleased with the result, and I feel like I made a difference this election (given how close many other minor parties were to that seat).

1612

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Membership

« on: April 15, 2015, 10:57:44 AM »

That thread you linked was dated 22 June 2014.

As you well know, you killed that thread and others like it with your talk of reunification that culminated 3 weeks later in the following thread set up by you
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1722.0
And that was because Wilmore showed up a week before that moaning about the wiki page being edited.

Once that occurred, obviously all talk of membership certificates etc ceased as we had no idea what Daniel would have control over. Tom had done some good work to that point looking at certificates, the T-shirt thing died and it took another 6 months to sort, I'm now saying we should sort this too. you seem to have a great memory for what I say but a very poor one for the plans you tried to push through.

In the interest of keeping this thread on topic, I'd ask you not to throw around unfounded accusations. It was your choice not to work towards improving this site back in July, something which might have influenced the forum's members (remember, we put this to a vote; I wasn't "pushing" anything) towards your point of view by demonstrating that we are capable of functioning independently as a society, rather than just as a forum. We did nothing to stop you.

Rather than acting like we're blocking your every contribution, why not try actually making a contribution and seeing if it gets blocked?

And this site is like the old site in as much if you or pizaaplanet are required to change something and you don't want to ... it ends there. So its important not to rush off and do things and expect you to implement them.

No, please stop presenting your blatantly false opinion as fact. Both myself and pizaaplanet have made it clear that we are here to serve the community, not to make decisions for them. That's why every major decision (bar one that I can recall) affecting this site has been put to a vote, and we would do the same in the absence of broad agreement here.

In order to vote on something, though, you first need a proposal to consider. It doesn't take all that much time to put together a brief plan, and if the community doesn't like it, we (meaning the community, not "myself and pizaaplanet") are much more likely to amend than veto it. If you're worried about your time being wasted, would it be of any comfort to know that I have spent my own time on several things we ended up not using, or getting rid of later?

So again, lets see what other people think membership should be ... free?, includes a pack of things you pay for?, what might go into such a pack?, anonymous?, public listing?, wording of certificates?, etc before I rush off having made these decisions on behalf of everyone only to get told it aint happening cos people object.

We've already seen what other people think last June. I have no idea why you think starting again from scratch is going to produce different results. There's only so long you can talk about the same issue over and over before you need to just do something about it.

1613

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Membership

« on: April 15, 2015, 12:01:34 AM »

I'd first just like to know we can do this. Last time we tried it got vetoed.

No, it didn't. You just said "hey guys let's do membership" and then abandoned the thread without doing anything about it:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1710.0

This thread seems awfully familiar, now that I re-read that one.

I can't set about executing a plan without you and pizaaplanet saying yes to it

That's where you're wrong. This isn't a dictatorship like the old site; we don't want to get in the way of people making contributions to the society just because they don't have our endorsement. Look at the Reddit page, for example; that was set up without our knowledge, is run completely independently of us, and we still link it from the homepage (after we later found out about it).

On the other hand, we can't give our endorsement to a plan that doesn't exist. If you want me to say I support this idea in principle, then sure, it sounds great. But until I see an actual plan, I'm going to assume you're blowing more hot air.

If we can do memberships and it will be taken seriously and we put a community approved plan in place, I will endeavour to action parts of it. In the mean time can you f-off out of the thread so we can get some opinions?

I'm not sure what you want opinions on that isn't just a restatement of what you said in this thread's previous incarnation (linked above).

1614

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Membership

« on: April 14, 2015, 11:22:47 PM »

Can membership be put back on the table?

I'm sure it can. Why don't you do some research, come up with a plan, and then ask us for thoughts, instead of expecting us to do all the work?

1615

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: New South Wales state election 2015

« on: April 14, 2015, 02:46:54 AM »

The Legislative Council result is due to be announced tomorrow. Looking at the initial count, we can expect at least 9 Coalition, 6 Labor and 2 Greens councillors, of 21 seats up for election. That leaves 4 seats unaccounted for.

With Labor being very close to getting 7 seats, I predict redistribution of preferences will give us a 7th Labor councillor and 3 minor party reps. There are numerous minor parties with 0.1-0.2 of a quota, which makes it difficult to predict which minor parties those will be. I guess we'll find out tomorrow.

Edit: I've just looked over the results again, and both Shooters and Fishers and CDP look to have over 0.5 of a quota, so we'll most likely get one from each of them. The remaining minor party with the highest number of votes is No Land Tax. I suppose they can't possibly be worse than CDP, but I'm hoping for an Outdoor Recreation win. My first preference, the Future Party, has no chance.

1616

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Same Sex Marriage as such, anywhere.

« on: April 14, 2015, 12:07:14 AM »

Oh I see what you are saying.  I still don't want my adults sleeping with 9 year olds, but that is another issue entirely.

Yes, that's exactly my point. Read my previous sentence for context:

I do believe there should be some protection against taking advantage of the young and mentally challenged who are unable to give informed consent, but I also don't see any reason to couple such protections with marriage.

1617

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Same Sex Marriage as such, anywhere.

« on: April 13, 2015, 02:06:07 PM »

A de facto relationship between a 45-year-old adult and a 9-year-old child is no less immoral than a married relationship, and should be treated equally under the law.

I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.  Seeing as a 9 year-old is not fully developed mentally, physically and emotionally, and children are much more susceptible to manipulation and coercion that adults are, on average, most relationships between a 9 year old and a mature adult are not analogous to a relationship between two adults.

I wasn't comparing it to a relationship between two adults; I was comparing it to a marriage between the same two people, which could hypothetically become legal if marriage were completely deregulated.

1618

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Same Sex Marriage as such, anywhere.

« on: April 13, 2015, 01:54:28 PM »

I voted for the state not being in the business of regulating marriage, but I'd also like to qualify that. I do believe there should be some protection against taking advantage of the young and mentally challenged who are unable to give informed consent, but I also don't see any reason to couple such protections with marriage. A de facto relationship between a 45-year-old adult and a 9-year-old child is no less immoral than a married relationship, and should be treated equally under the law.

1619

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: IRC kills the forum, so lets kill IRC

« on: April 12, 2015, 11:16:22 PM »

I don't like coding. Its not a hobby for me, its always been a means to an end ... usually financial.

In this case, the end is a change you want made that nobody else does. When your viewpoint is in the minority, it's up to you to either convince others or do the work yourself.

When you read 'suggestions and concerns', why are you surprised to receive my suggestions and my concerns?

In this case, your suggestions and concerns are rash and counterproductive. They're rash because you made this thread after a single day of lower activity, without waiting to see if it was a running trend or a once-off. They're counterproductive because you're asking us to undo the work we've been doing to improve the site, without contributing anything of your own.

Well-founded, productive suggestions are welcome; incremental improvements most of all, since they are easiest to implement and measure the effectiveness of. This thread is none of those things.

1620

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Reorganizing The Zetetic Council: Yay or Nay

« on: April 12, 2015, 11:06:44 PM »

It is definitely time to reorganise the council, starting with elections. We initially said we'd look for new councillors after maybe 3-6 months and then have individuals step down and replace people one at a time so there was continuity and yet fresh blood.

I offered to step down 3 months ago and yet no elections for a replacement was made. I don't feel it is the corpses duty to organise their own funeral, so if someone can sort a vote to replace me, I will step down with grace.

That both doesn't solve the general problem and isn't directly related to the topic. Start a new thread if you want to make this about you.

I abstain from the vote, and have no comments, except to say that I'm glad to see progress is being made on this front.