Phil Rudd fined

Uh oh, I'm screwed. I both work for the government and believe that the psychodynamic school of psychology has a valid place in the system (especially Jung and Berne ... transactional analysis is brilliant). Freud built that house and the man was a visionary. Like any science, the first tranches are laughably flawed by today's standards. Compare his thinking to that which prevailed back in his day. Behavioural psychology is great for some things, but its focus on symptoms means it will only paper over cracks in cases with a deep-seated root. If you have rising damp, there's not much point replacing the wallpaper ever two months. The trouble with Freudian psychology is that it's powerful, which makes it destructive if not done well. So you don't go messing with the plumbing when the wallpaper only has a few marks and tears. Horses for courses.

As for government, it's not one homogeneous beast. There are different aspects, some good and some bad. The executive is pretty ugly, but there are tons of good people working in government. (present company excluded :). My main criticism of them is they are too conservative (for my liking), too close-minded. It should be said that private enterprise ain't always so wonderful either ... think News Ltd and Exxon.

Really, the problem isn't only government, the problem is BIG things. And the problem with the big things is that they dominate small things - to suit themselves, just like a cat and mouse (this is Bo's cue). If you're a mouse, you're going to find cats pretty inconvenient. All you do is hope to escape their attention. Julian Assange is an example of someone who came to the "cat's" attention. Karen Silkwood is another.

Buy can we really blame the cat? After all, how convenient are we to insects we see in the house? It's the cycle ...

As well, I'd suggest that Rupert Murdoch has done far more to shape our nations than any politician or bureaucrat. He calls the shots. If they don't jump, they are sacked. In the end, it's his fault that Phil got nicked!

Sorry about all this - I'm an analyst. That's what I do - I analyse things ... all the time. It drives me crazy. The only thing that keeps me sane is being able to get in a room with a bunch of people with instruments and play music, and later on wind down with a few cones :)
 
Last edited:
When organizing my life to match some of this country's most upright and intelligent, righteous and caring leaders, I choose to follow in the footsteps of Thomas Jefferson. He was the most intelligent and productive President of the US, and he grew marijuana at Monticello.

One day, after realizing that our country need some direction of its own and didn't need help from the tax-hungering Brits, he rolled up a big fat blunt from his private stash, inhaled some of that tasty smoke and then proceeded to write the Declaration of Independence on hemp paper.

If smoking weed makes me stupid and a burnout like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington (who also grew it on his land), then so be it.

Um, could you provide two or three unbiased sources that support this? I mean all of these arguments (I guess even my own) have not really been supported, but I really wonder about this...

I seem not very good at choosing words, but I will plainly say that marijuana is not good. You can not deny it has some of the same side effects as smoking a normal cigarette.
Also, anything that could become addiction, whether physical or mental, is not healthy. So many people say "I could quit if I wanted." But, can they really? No. Not without a struggle.
They are a slave to something that is essentially out of their control. Not a fun way to live. Also the culture associated with it is also detrimental to a person.
 
The problem is that it is not the business of the government to look after people's individual health. Public order yes, but to a significant degree individual choice is what dictates health.
The government cannot dictate individual choice without resorting to tyranny, therefore this does not work. The fact that it may harm your own health is no business of the government's. Even if they are putting money into your healthcare, if you live less long you will use less resources.
 
Yes, I see your point. No one wants the 'perfect', government ran, Utopian society you read of in books such as The Giver and Anthem, but that are a actually cold tyranny.
However, to some degree the government does have to watch after personal choices to promote the general welfare.
Speeding is a personal choice that can result in death or injury, thus it is unhealthy, but not only to the individual, but also to other people in the community.

But back to the main topic. Drug use harms a society. A bunch of individuals I just described running (more like living, but whatever) around in a community cannot promote public order or wellness.
Making something illegal with a fine of money or jail time is not what I call tyranny. Shooting someone on sight for smoking is what I call tyranny, which is not the case.

Besides the government never actually controls you. You can do whatever the heck you want, they just impose fines and penalties for those in actions.
 
Drug use harms a society because it gives criminals an opportunity to become powerful. Remove the restrictions on the supply and suddenly your organised criminals have lost their number one revenue stream. Look at the prohibition of alcohol. No benefit for people's health, but Al Capone got to become a big fish because he had something people wanted. It's obvious that drugs will always be around, so rather than trying to deny this fact it seems eminently more sensible to promote sensible use of them, OR remove the conditions that cause people to use them. You can see this with so-called 'legal highs', when one is made illegal people just go to something slightly more dangerous with a similar effect. Eventually you would have to make almost every substance illegal. It cannot, and does not work.
 
Um, could you provide two or three unbiased sources that support this? I mean all of these arguments (I guess even my own) have not really been supported, but I really wonder about this...

I seem not very good at choosing words, but I will plainly say that marijuana is not good. You can not deny it has some of the same side effects as smoking a normal cigarette.
Also, anything that could become addiction, whether physical or mental, is not healthy. So many people say "I could quit if I wanted." But, can they really? No. Not without a struggle.
They are a slave to something that is essentially out of their control. Not a fun way to live. Also the culture associated with it is also detrimental to a person.

No sweat bro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_legends_about_illegal_drugs#Cannabis
 
We should ban junk food. Too many people are abusing it. They are slaves to it, which is not a good way to live. They say they could stop any time they wanted and shift to a healthy veggie diet, but they'd find it a struggle. That's not a good way to live.

Okay, prohibition would put even more billions into the hands of organised crime, fill our very expensive jails with junk food addicts, create a huge load for our very expensive police and courts, and turn what are basically regular citizens into "criminals" but surely that's better than risking the terrible health problems associated with obesity, not to mention premature death.

It almost makes sense, doesn't it?

Trouble is, the tolerant Netherlands has half the pot and coke use of the prohibitionist USA. Surely that's an anomaly, isn't it? Surely prohibition couldn't be treating adults as children and increasing the number of them who live down to expectations?? Surely it couldn't be that we could reduce drug abuse, save billions and hurt organised crime by applying commonsense to public policy? And also stop intruding on people's private lives as well.

Sorry about the the sarcasm but it's all been said before and it seems we're going around in circles:
"Drugs are bad and I agree with prohibition"

"But prohibition has failed because
[lists the issues]".

"Yes, but drugs are bad and I agree with prohibition"

And so on.
If anyone is willing or able to argue that the problems of prohibition that we've covered will be greater than taking a health and education-based approach, please do it. It would help to provide stats, as Andy has done.

The control measure I'd like to see is a compulsory 30-second delay between plays built into gaming machines. I wouldn't ban them (same problems as any prohibition) but the delays would reduce the machines' addictiveness. Who knows? If they were less profitable maybe bars and clubs would hire more live music?
 
Furthermore, the main stockholder of the US Federal Reserve Bank is, get this, the Rothchilds of London! Not even an American!

Give me the control of a nations money supply (like the Fed has) and it matters not who makes the laws.

That is a quote from one of the Rothchilds.
Cool! Ya thought you'd got rid of us taxing limey bastards, & just when you thought it was safe to ruin the world economy & give us pain, we're right back at ya! Ha! Reagan thought it was "the reds under the beds", & those cigar exporting Cuban "commies", it was us Brits all along. We programmed the Rothchilds to dig under your very banking foundations & charge you stupid money for their wine. We can buy a bottle of 2000 Château Lafite Rothschild for under $10 in my village store, lol!
 
Just for interest.

USA figures for consumption at sometime over a 12 month period

Marijuana 25.77 million 10.3% of population.

The Netherlands figures for consumption at sometime over a 12 month period

Marijuana 5.4% of population.

Interesting that the country that operates an open supply policy (registered coffee shops, but still illegal drug status), takes it out of the hands of criminals, yet seeks to educate, has half the consumption in terms of percentage of population. Just in case you believe in the gateway theory, the Dutch have half the percentage users of coke too.

Same thing happened during 1920s liquor and beer prohibition. Social drinking in the US increased by 400% . In the South Side of Chicago alone, legal drinking establishments in 1916 (4 years before prohibition) numbered less than 10. By 1924 (four years into prohibition) there were over 600 illegal ones. Bottom line is you just don't get very far telling an American what to do when it regards a social behavior. The good news was that almost all of those 600+ venues hired a drummer.
 
As a blue-collar raised Australian, like Phil Rudd, this honestly isn't surprising, or a big deal. Marijuana is like tobacco or beer to most working class Australians I've met.
 
Really, the problem isn't only government, the problem is BIG things. And the problem with the big things is that they dominate small things - to suit themselves, just like a cat and mouse (this is Bo's cue). If you're a mouse, you're going to find cats pretty inconvenient. All you do is hope to escape their attention. Julian Assange is an example of someone who came to the "cat's" attention. Karen Silkwood is another.

Big things being a big problem...

I recommend you read Small is Beautiful by the EF Schumacher.
 
Hahaha, that's great Matt. The foundations of drumming greatness on the back of mass liver damage. How cool is that!
Iconic drummers who played their first steady gig in an illegal American drinking establishment.

Gene Krupa
Dave Tough
George Wettling
Sonny Greer
Chick Webb
Jo Jones
Sid Catlett
Ray Bauduc

God bless prohibition.
 
We should ban junk food. Too many people are abusing it. They are slaves to it, which is not a good way to live. They say they could stop any time they wanted and shift to a healthy veggie diet, but they'd find it a struggle. That's not a good way to live.

Okay, prohibition would put even more billions into the hands of organised crime, fill our very expensive jails with junk food addicts, create a huge load for our very expensive police and courts, and turn what are basically regular citizens into "criminals" but surely that's better than risking the terrible health problems associated with obesity, not to mention premature death.

It almost makes sense, doesn't it?

Trouble is, the tolerant Netherlands has half the pot and coke use of the prohibitionist USA. Surely that's an anomaly, isn't it? Surely prohibition couldn't be treating adults as children and increasing the number of them who live down to expectations?? Surely it couldn't be that we could reduce drug abuse, save billions and hurt organised crime by applying commonsense to public policy? And also stop intruding on people's private lives as well.

Sorry about the the sarcasm but it's all been said before and it seems we're going around in circles:
"Drugs are bad and I agree with prohibition"

"But prohibition has failed because
[lists the issues]".

"Yes, but drugs are bad and I agree with prohibition"

And so on.
If anyone is willing or able to argue that the problems of prohibition that we've covered will be greater than taking a health and education-based approach, please do it. It would help to provide stats, as Andy has done.

The control measure I'd like to see is a compulsory 30-second delay between plays built into gaming machines. I wouldn't ban them (same problems as any prohibition) but the delays would reduce the machines' addictiveness. Who knows? If they were less profitable maybe bars and clubs would hire more live music?


I just love this whole post. Right on Pol!
You can't legistate personal choices about what goes in my body, a line must be drawn. Government can't be given total power, because the only thing that matter to governments are money, energy, money, land, money, power and money. They also care about money too. Citizens don't really factor into their larger schemes. They are actually a nuisance to governments. It's up to the citizens to keep government where it belongs. (and we need all the help we can get)
In my mind my government is my arch enemy, sorry but that's how I really feel. Future Swedish citizen here.
 
I love prohibition because I like living in the seedy underbelly of society. You could make pot legal, but where would the fun be in that?!
 
. Future Swedish citizen here.
Why Sweden larry? I worked there for many years, & have a lot of great friends there. Cool place (in so many ways), & I love the Swedes, but their government is just as controlling as any western European establishment, & more than some. High taxes too, & ask any Swede about
Systembolaget. The government controls the sale of all alcohol except very weak beers. You have to buy your alcohol from the government, but the selection is superb. Pity about the prices!
 
larryace;815430the only thing that matter to governments are money said:
Bearing in mind that governments are controlled by multinationals. As I said earlier, the issue isn't "government" but the "big fish", who consume us little fish ... have a look at that book recommendation BassDriver gave me. The big fish include government but, rest assured, if governments don't do the multinationals' bidding they get voted out.

In Oz, most of our money comes through mining, which is largely owned by multinationals with majority foreign ownership. They are digging up non-renewable resources at breakneck speed and making mind-blowing profits. The government decided that we needed to keep some of this one-off money in Oz and aired the idea of a super profits tax - which only raised rates for the companies after the company had made billions and billions of profit. There is no way the companies would be struggling because they had already made "super profits".

Thing is, we're losing our resources and most of the money is going overseas. The mining companies spent many thousands on an aggressive advertising campaign. They cried poor, saying they'd be forced to leave Oz (BS) and sack thousands of workers (BS). With the help of the Opposition and the Murdoch press they got the prime minister sacked through his plummeting approval ratings. Soon afterwards the government lost their previously-healthy majority next election, surviving with only the help of two independents - and this was with a religious fundamentalist loony in charge of the Opposition who was previously considered an unelectable joke!

The tax made sense. When the resources are largely gone - we are screwed. We'll have diddly squat. We need to make the money when it's available. Thing is, we also need to invest that money wisely to set ourselves up for the time when the minerals are depleted.

And what better investment for a country's citizens is there than to pour thousands of dollars on police, lawyers, courts and administrative costs so as to humiliate rock stars and persecute harmless little people who enjoy a few scoobies?

So, yes, government sucks but they are only a cog in the larger sucking machine, which is largely controlled by big biz. They call the shots. Do you think about the spider's life when you pull down its web? Do you worry about the children when you kill pregnant cockroaches (apart from being glad)? If a trail of ants leads to the honey in your pantry, do you leave it be so they can get on with their lives? Or do you "tidy them up"?

We are big biz and the govt. The insects are Phil Rudd and other small, annoying pests like you and me. It's the law of the jungle. All we insects can do is avoid the predators ... the Big Things.

Sure, for some reason Scandinavians seem to be more evolved and have moved past some stupid stuff that we Yanks, Poms and Convicts obsess about. I suspect it's because they're usually stuck indoors in bad weather and are therefore forced to actually think.

I'd rather enjoy good weather and stay under the radar so I'm not squashed like a bug :) Then you have Mike's comment - when you're young it's satisfying to thumb your nose at being naughty and evading the Big Things. That, of course, is why the US has much higher drug use than Holland. Forbidden fruit.

On a musical note (ha) the speakeasies hired lots of musos. Now we have E-fuelled rave parties and they hire DJs.

// end insomniac rant - back to bed :) //
 
Nice job distilling Big Things down to its essence. You're very good at that and I agree with your assessment of Big Things vs. small things. It's not typically just about government control since, as you point out, gov is just a cog in the larger machine.

But I'm still not clear where big biz has much of a stake in this particular culture mini-war. My impression is that in this case it is solely politicians fretting over the next election cycle and the formidable block of social conservatives who would likely succeed in derailing the career of any who dared push for legalization.

Hopefully my adolescent comment was taken as the cheek it was meant to be. I doubt my habits would change much post-prohibition - unless repeal comes post-MikeM.
 
More Govt = less choices for people

Less Govt = more choices for people

Phil.......sorry dude.

The K
 
Back
Top