Rikkitic:

Dratsab:

Rikkitic: Most recently he emphasised there was no prospect whatsoever of any softening of marijuana laws. This in response to a question about the change regarding medical marijuana approvals. 

That's because he's not willing to conflate marijuana laws which are aimed at curbing the use/abuse of an illicit substance and medical cannabis extracts.

This issue and all related ones has been thoroughly thrashed out on the drugs thread.

 

This is just silly. If the two of you have such a need to attack me, at least find something substantive to do it with. My reference to cannabis in my original post was in passing. The post was about Peter Dunne and MMP, not the drug laws. There is another thread for that and I pointed it out. Enough said.

Rikkitic:

This is just silly. If the two of you have such a need to attack me, at least find something substantive to do it with. My reference to cannabis in my original post was in passing. The post was about Peter Dunne and MMP, not the drug laws. There is another thread for that and I pointed it out. Enough said.

 

The reason I made my comment was that I felt the thread was veering off-topic and there was already another thread on the drug subject. It is the privilege of the originator of a thread to lay out what the thread is about. Staying on-topic is a convention that is generally encouraged on Geekzone. 

The post was just a trill imo....title says it all.

Rikkitic:

 

Pumpedd:

 

Rikkitic:

 

There is a difference between what he says and what he does. Most recently he emphasised there was no prospect whatsoever of any softening of marijuana laws. This in response to a question about the change regarding medical marijuana approvals. He has been in parliament forever. He has been a Minister much of that time. He has been on all sides of the political spectrum. He has had more than time enough to actually do something. It is way past time for a change.  

 

But you are right. I don't like the bow tie either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One Associate Minister can't do much( I dont believe he is even in cabinet)....softening marijuana laws would probably be a conscious vote  and it wouldnt have a hope in hell of passing. Not only is National against it so are most of the others. Dunne was probably just preaching the obvious...

 

 

That may be so but he has had long enough. It is time to try someone new.

 

 

 

That simple isn't your decision to make, it is his electorate and party voters.

I am pleased you are trying to make our minds up for us, but I am more please there is a democratic process in place to stop you Mr Rikkitic Trump.

Edited for spelling.

Rikkitic:

This is just silly. If the two of you have such a need to attack me, at least find something substantive to do it with. My reference to cannabis in my original post was in passing. The post was about Peter Dunne and MMP, not the drug laws. There is another thread for that and I pointed it out. Enough said.

 

dickytim:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That simple isn't your decision to make, it is his electorate and party voters.

 

I am pleased you are trying to make our minds up for us, but I am more please there is a democratic process in place to stop you Mr Rikkitic Trump.

 

As part of our democratic process I am saying what I think about it and explaining why I think that. 

Rikkitic:

 

dickytim:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That simple isn't your decision to make, it is his electorate and party voters.

 

I am pleased you are trying to make our minds up for us, but I am more please there is a democratic process in place to stop you Mr Rikkitic Trump.

 

 

As part of our democratic process I am saying what I think about it and explaining why I think that. 

 

 

 

And so are they who take an opposite aspect to you.

Dratsab:

 

I'd like you to point out exactly where it is that I attacked you?

This was supposed to be a thread about Peter Dunne. Then it started going in the direction of drug policy. I was willing to discuss both, but I felt they should be kept in their separate threads since there was already a drugs thread. I tried to point this out and then MikeB4 started going on about me trying to change the subject and you chimed in. I was perfectly happy to discuss the matter, I just felt it should be done in the correct thread. GZT had no problem with that, and he and I did carry on in the drugs thread. 

Here is your statement: 

'As MikeB4 says, you're the one who brought this subject up on the first place. Now you object to it. My response was directly related to what you said.'

My objection was that you both kept going off-topic. That was all. First it was about Dunne, then about drugs, then about the fact that I suggested the drugs discussion was better placed in the drugs thread. I wanted to get the topic back to Dunne. Yes, drug policy is also related to that, since he has a role in it and I did bring it up in that context, I just felt the focus was getting moved. That was my perception of it. 

MikeB4:

 

And so are they who take an opposite aspect to you.

 

I wasn't suggesting anything else.

Rikkitic:

 

Dratsab: I'd like you to point out exactly where it is that I attacked you?

 

This was supposed to be a thread about Peter Dunne. Then it started going in the direction of drug policy. I was willing to discuss both, but I felt they should be kept in their separate threads since there was already a drugs thread. I tried to point this out and then MikeB4 started going on about me trying to change the subject and you chimed in. I was perfectly happy to discuss the matter, I just felt it should be done in the correct thread. GZT had no problem with that, and he and I did carry on in the drugs thread. 

 

Here is your statement: 

 

'As MikeB4 says, you're the one who brought this subject up on the first place. Now you object to it. My response was directly related to what you said.'

 

My objection was that you both kept going off-topic. That was all. First it was about Dunne, then about drugs, then about the fact that I suggested the drugs discussion was better placed in the drugs thread. I wanted to get the topic back to Dunne. Yes, drug policy is also related to that, since he has a role in it and I did bring it up in that context, I just felt the focus was getting moved. That was my perception of it. 

As demonstrated above, you're unable to point out where I attacked you because it simply didn't happen. I have pointed out a factual occurrence, nothing more.

As I said before, all I did was respond, pertinently, to a point you raised. If you think the point was off topic, that's because you took it there. You need to learn to accept that people are perfectly entitled to make comments in public forums such as this. Back to Peter Dunne now or do you want to keep dragging out this OT point?

You seem to be the one making this about me but if you have anything meaningful to say on the topic I will do my best to respond.

Rikkitic:

 

You seem to be the one making this about me but if you have anything meaningful to say on the topic I will do my best to respond.

 

 

 

It is not a meaningful topic and it should be closed.