Birds

lol'd harder at Peter Ray being the egg white in all those yolks

f**king scumbags The plaintiffs that is

Could really go for a durian ice cream sandwich right now

Ey Pat Kevin Rudd already said sorry

Huge milestone for Leesh Body weight bench ftw

Needs moar pop art canvas from junk stores

I brought him here because the flames had died down a bit

Are these circuit familiarisation days worth it the day before track days? And by this I mean in terms of how fast you're allowed to "familiarise" yourself, if the passenger laps are limited in speed and what etc. How much time on the track? Nearly doubles the price of a track day but curious on the worth of it beyond getting to know the lines.

So many opinions Opinions are like drugs Everyone carries them And gives them to someone else

Define good drugs In fact Define drugs altogether

Got caught carrying a small amount of drugs for someone else who uses them

Being black, the chances of being in a happy marriage looking after kids weighed up against time in the big house...not looking good.

If I may quote Tupac here "Instead of a war on poverty, they got a war on drugs so the police can bother me." And really, is he not the voice of a generation?

Which supports my logic theory here Where some teens are only doing it to rebel and be edgy and dangerous committing an illegal or looked down on act, meanwhile the rest of the population who previously feared the law, reprimand and judgement...are giving it a go because, now they can, free of some inhibitions.

Yep, who probably make up .5% of the drug handling population

But it doesn't. Illegal use went down. Nowhere in that article did I see hard evidence that decriminalizing possession resulted in less users. Not to mention it's completely illogical, unless your users are only doing it because it's illegal. Which would be way overcome by the statistic of people wanting to use/try now that it is legal.

I also don't see an influx of more than double the admissions to rehab clinics as necessarily a measure of success, quite the contrary unless I'm given more information about the admissions, such as their use before and after the introduction of decriminalisation. Do people really think that making a drug legal is going to reduce people using it?

Really? My point is pretty clear I thought. They decriminalised the possession of drugs and illegal use of drugs went down. Illegal use going down is an obvious and redundant positive to decriminalising drugs - you can decriminalise running through a red light and amazingly the number of fines issued for running a red light will see a significant decrease. Do you see where this gets stupid? I'm still trying to ascertain the point you were trying to make in suggesting that personal possession does not equal use. So I ask you, who carries a personal amount of drugs but does not use actually them?

My bad, I forgot about the people who like walking around with drugs for the sake of it but don't actually use them?

If you think a normal person is going to go straight to heroin... They are called gateways for a reason

And Branson's article... No shit sherlock. Illegal drug use went down when they made it not a crime to use drugs? Who'd have thought. Number of people seeking addiction treatment more than doubled - is this a good measure of effective treatment or a reflection of an increase in addicts? I would need better inferences than this to be convinced decriminalisation is the way to go...

That's a very sweeping statement there and one I disagree with. You cannot guarantee the safety of any recreational drug for everyone even if a majority of users are fine with it. I also reject the notion of them being less harmful than prescribed medicine (not that prescribed medicines haven't killed anyone before, but the incidence, numbers and frequency are much less than deaths from OD of illicit drugs). What old mate in huff post article doesn't understand (it took him 3.5 years to work out that drugs are synonymous with the poor and underprivileged?), is that the brain produces its own chemical hook, dopamine, amongst other neurotransmitters. This is where gambling becomes a chemical addiction through the reward system we have in all of us. Most humans experience this kind of addiction one way or another in their daily life, on a lesser scale - putting your foot down in a fast car, switching on your favourite tv show, killing people in a video game and winning. Gambling is only a problem addiction because it can cost a lot of money and isn't repeatable after that without borrowing money. Then it becomes about a complex downward spiral chasing losses and holding onto hope that doesn't exist. People don't enjoy gambling without money at stake because the reward isn't as great; it has to mean something to the person hence problem addiction. You directly control the severity of your highs and lows by choosing how much you gamble; winning $1000 is a bigger high than $100. It's an extreme high and an extreme low, consistently alternating between the two and that's where gambling is a powerful and encapsulating experience. He neglects to mention this potential downward spiral in his rat analogy, where a lot of people have good lives but fall from grace; end up addicted to drugs and on the street after simply trying a few times (and vice versa if you're a successful rapper). And here is where I make my sweeping but legitimate statement that drug use is not limited to an underprivileged demographic and that these users are the obvious ones because they are the ones buying cheap shit, unable to financially support their habit, ODing on it with no one around, and hanging with the kind of people who have fallen from grace due to excessive drug use. You can argue that a certain compulsive personality type is predisposed to this sort of uncontrollable addiction, but as a society we need to account for and protect that, which is why illicit drugs are so. A lot of people cannot think or research for themselves, or control their actions, or consider consequences before acting, therefore you need limitations and safe education somewhere, so that even if people are determined to try, they at least do so cautiously instead of jumping head first into it.

Maybe they are going for the "buy this car and you can look like me" angle? Fastest Copen in Australia? Love how he says he can claim that, then proceeds with no subsequent evidence. Cause of an exhaust and GT wing? Also annoys me when I see people with a 2 million dollar car who can't string together a sentence; "It has 610kW engine with 860 BHP"

That red they come in looks so shit I don't think even a concourse condition one would get a second look from me