Kochie and Kerry Anne Kennerly

[mull]

neostone, very well written mate

Welcome along too

[Al Fish]

“All [that government] can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitable he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is a romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent amongst those who are.”

 

H.L.Mencken A Mencken Crestomathy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1949),p. 145

 

1. Would Mr Dillon prefer to see adults consume cannabis, alcohol or Ice?

 

Mr Dillon would prefer to see adults consume no drugs whatsoever – unless of course these had no psychoactive effects and were prescribed by medical doctors whose ability to practice is strictly controlled by the State. If the ice is manufactured from fluoridated water then that’s OK.

 

2. Would Mr Dillon please explain why the Government has gone against scientific experts in it's stance on cannabis issues.

 

It’s a thing called politics. In 1774 Edmund Burke was elected to the Westminster Parliament as Member for Bristol. On the 3rd of November of that year he delivered an address in the city’s Guildhall in which he gave his definition of a Member of Parliament’s duty to constituents. His eloquent, self-serving speech continues to be quoted by politicians. Amongst a number of statements he made the following: “Your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving, you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

 

3. Would Mr Dillon agree that because the Government and people have no control over the mass distribution of cannabis, the people that distribute cannabis through large networks are mostly organised criminals?

 

Those people who constitute large networks of organised crime would not have it any other way. It’s called maximising profit.

 

4. Would Mr Dillon agree that it is easier for kids to access cannabis, because of the black market, rather than cigarettes or alcohol?

 

Mr. Dillon should refuse to answer this question because of its pointed nature.

 

5. Would Mr Dillon agree that his job relies on cannabis prohibition, so it is in his best interests to demonise the plant?

 

Not at all! Mr. Dillon just happens to be a lifetime fan of that great American Harry Arselicker.

 

6. Would Mr Dillon agree that cannabis useage does not cause as many problems to society than alcohol?

 

No! What problems does alcohol cause?

 

7. Would Mr Dillon agree that thousands of people in Australia die as a direct result of alcohol or cigarette consumption, yet there has never been a single recorded death attributed to cannabis?

 

Let’s not confuse the issue – cigarettes and alcohol are legal. I mean former NSW Premier Nick Greiner works for a tobacco company.

 

8. Would Mr Dillon agree that the Australian taxpayers are missing out on the tax revenue from the multi Billion dollar cannabis trade.

 

Sure, but who cares? Taxes are so high and regulation so rampant that those businesses still operating in Australia are either about to close down or about to head off-shore. It’s hard to believe that communist China has a thriving business sector full of formerly Australian businesses, but there you go.

 

9. Would Mr Dillon agree that because of our policy towards alcohol advertising that our children are being exposed to it on a regular basis, will predispose them to be alcohol users?

 

No not at all. All alcohol companies promote responsible consumption. There are sometimes tiny messages to this effect on the labels – use a magnifying glass.

 

10. Would Mr Dillon agree that due to the illegality of cannabis, many users would be to afraid to admit to useing it, so therefore the usage statistics can be dramaticaly underestimated?

 

No. Cannabis users aren’t afraid; they’re ashamed.

 

 

1. Considering that cannabis is tolerated in Holland and illegal in the United Kingdom, why are usage rates almost twice as high in the United Kingdom?

 

It’s because of the bad weather in the U.K.

 

2. If cannabis potency has increased somewhat in the last few decades, doesn't that mean that users actually use less of the drug, which would be better for their respiritory system?

 

It has nothing to do with health! Some time back the government diluted Sudafed tablets with paracetamol with the result that many older patients simply take more Sudafed tablets to clear up their congestion. Death takes sometime but the reasons given on the Death Certificates are always simply liver failure. They’re mostly old people anyway!

 

3. If cannabis usage has always increased over time, throughout the world, why has the schitzophrenia rates stayed around 1 percent worldwide?

 

Not true! Two out of every one person is a schizophrenic!

 

4. Cannabis has been proven effective at treating or relieving symptoms, for a wide range of illnesses, why is it not legal for medicinal usage?

 

It’s called politics. Pharmaceutical companies make political donations – have you made any recently?

 

5. Why would American authorities class cannabis as category 1, which has no medicinal value, but then authorise the sale of Marinol and Sativex, which are both derived from cannabis?

 

Because they are Born-Again Christians living with the constant fear that someone somewhere may be having a good time. Anyway you just can’t explain what people that stupid do.

 

6. If the cannabis plant releases oxygen 5 times faster than any other plant, why is it not mass planted to help replenish the oxygen levels and create a cleaner environment for our children?

 

It’s called politics. Logging and petroleum companies also make political donations!

 

7. If there are three hundred thousand daily users of Cannabis in Australia, then why are there not three hundred thousand raving lunatics roaming our streets on a daily basis?

 

There are more than three hundred thousand raving lunatics roaming our streets on a daily basis but I don’t think most of them use cannabis! You should get out more!

 

8. Why can a person be found guilty of driving under the influence of cannabis, even though they may have had cannabis days before being pulled over, and clearly not intoxicated?

 

Did you know that under the Traffic Act, NSW insulin is classified as a drug (although in medical books it’s a hormone)?

 

9. Why do we always hear news stories about violence, car crashes, crime and other antisocial behaviour, because of alcohol, but cannabis users rarely make the news about these serious problems?

 

Because cannabis users are sneaky!

 

10. Why do we condone spending thousands of dollars in locking up one individual, when he committed a victimless crime?

 

Because victimless crimes have been keeping the police, courts and churches in work for centuries! At one time in Britain the penalty for a failed suicide attempt was hanging. It makes perfect sense to me.

[auspamp]

In the Aug/Sep 2006 edition of Cosmos Magazine, Paul Dillon ( a spokesman for Australias National Drug and Alcohol Research Center), was quoted as saying" If you talk about a drug of dependance, that heightens attention and the chance that the legal ramifications will be upped. A lot of people simply don't consider marijuana<sic> to be that harmful."

So why less than a year later he is declaring the opposite. Why are they bragging about a 1/3 believing their shit. They should have asked about the other 2/3 people.

[RainbowChild]

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g270/reecePhotophucket/SmallKochie.jpg http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g270/reecePhotophucket/kerryAnneKennerly_size.jpg

"DRUGS ARE BAD KIDDIES! (except for alcohol

which we sometimes consume on air. The kiddies

can see that if they want to. It's okay, it's different!)"

 

David Koch went in to bat for the prohibitionists yesterday (Monday) on 7's Sunrise when he applauded the results of this new study which shows that pot is now "uncool" amongst Australia's youth and that the government funded "education program" in schools is working. I recorded their interview with Paul Dillon of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. Just in case you missed it here is my transcript of the interview:

 

 

No!!! I'm never watching Kochie and Mel again! Thank God Jessica Rowe was "boned" from Today. Now I'm switching to Sarah and Karl!