occidentalis

Brilliant, my friend. The collar is genius.

thank you very much

That is a good point that I hadn't considered. On the taste issue, some brews certainly taste better than others - of course it depends on which ingredients are used and the amounts, but apart from that I don't know why there is this difference.

yes they do but no xanthorrhea in minniritchi country.

There are many dietas followed. As an example, the one I follow involves no bananas. However, I have read about a plantain dieta where only bananas and small fish are eaten. I have never heard of any dietas which forbid vinegar though.

Yes well basically knowing a little bit of latin helps. a good resource is http://davesgarden.com/guides/botanary/ i often use it to learn the meaning of part of a latin name. one i learned recently was 'oleracea' which means edible. I always wondered where 'camaldula' was - thanks.

I guess the water issue would be a problem here too, but wouldn't a solution to the first problem be to generate hydrogen gas on site and transport that in tankers to the cities? no problems with power loss due to resistance there.

I'm not sure about specifically in relation to Stapelia, but twin embryo seeds are well known in many plants.

Skepticism is not opposite or incompatible with optimism. Skepticism is to question, inquire and require evidence before accepting something as true. Skepticism does not mean immediately dismissing things that don't fit into an established worldview, it means keeping an open mind and reserving judgment until there is sufficient evidence to support a theory. Optimism is "hopefulness and confidence about the future or the successful outcome of something". I'm both.

State quarantine would have nothing to do with it and the TGA wouldn't be able to comment on state legislation. In WA the Acts of interest are the Poisons Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act.

As I understand If you plead innocent, the hearing would be adjourned and they would go away and assess the situation. At that stage they would probably analyse the material, find that it's cocaine, and charge you with that. If you plead innocent, they don't lose their chance to charge you in any way. In fact, they get more of a chance because pleading innocent will drag the case out and they might find a few extra charges they can throw in. The system is set up to make it very easy to plead guilty - in many cases it is simply better to do that. If the charges you were facing in court were 'not too bad', ie a simple possession charge of a single drug, I would plead guilty straight up, because once you plead guilty and the cops get a conviction, they go home happy and you are unlikely to hear anything more about it. There is also the possibility that, because different drugs have different quantities where intent to sell or supply is assumed (I am not sure what the relative amounts are of speed and cocaine, it also differs in different states) but depending on the two drugs in question and the amount confiscated, pleading innocent to a simple possession charge of one drug may land you with an intent to sell or supply charge for the other drug. Or, it could be vice versa. There is a lot to juggle in this situation and I would feel very sorry for anyone who ended up dealing with it and suggest that they get themselves some real legal advice as quickly as possible.

Does it grow real plants? It kinda looks like it just 'grows' 'virtual' plants.

Much love bro

Sorry guys as I said, didn't want to spoil the fun I use facebook and I'm 'friends' with a few ethnoheads. But I think a group like this is making things just a bit too easy for the other team.

One of the downsides of such a group is the ease it would give a surveillance operation to infiltrate and collect information on members and their relationships to each other. While no doubt the same could happen here, on facebook there is much less of a veneer of privacy and people's relationships are mapped out in much more detail. Don't wanna rain on the parade, I'm sure it will be a fun group, but I don't think I'll join for that reason.

Yeah I did find that but surely there are other qualified people, more qualified than a phd student, who can comment on the issue. Perhaps they did contact them also, but she was the one that gave them the indignant angle they wanted.

I have been debating whether or not to email "Adelaide PhD student Emily Jaehne" (why the hell did they contact her for a comment?) to bring up a couple of points... I think I'll leave it for now but if anyone else wants to, please make sure you are civil and rational... http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queen...sbanetimes:top5 Young Queenslanders would be safer if they swore off binge drinking and instead consumed a small amount of ecstasy, a prominent researcher at Queensland's Alcohol and Drug Research Centre (QADREC) says. In the wake of new data which shows more young Queenslanders are switching to ecstasy following the Rudd Government's 70 per cent tax hike on alcopops, QADREC director Professor Jake Najman said ecstasy was actually a "lesser evil" than binge drinking. However, the statement brought a stinging rebuke from another researcher, who cited the 1995 death of Sydney schoolgirl Anna Wood after she took an ecstasy pill at a dance party. Professor Najman, who has a PhD in Social Epidemiology and a Bachelor's degree (Hons) in Medical Sociology, said ecstasy was "relatively benign if taken in small quantities". "When young people switch from a substantial amount of alcohol to a small amount of ecstasy ... I don't think that's a bad trade at all," Professor Najman said. "It is not likely that one pill on a Saturday night poses the same dangers as frequent binge drinking." Illicit drug use is associated with around 1000 deaths per year in Australia. However, Professor Najman said ecstasy was actually "cheaper and safer" for young people than excessive amounts of alcohol. "Even drug-related problems, including psychotic episodes and violent behaviour are not seen with ecstasy, as they are with amphetamines and alcohol," he said. Professor Najman's comments drew scorn from University of Adelaide PhD student Emily Jaehne, who said ecstasy was often laced with potentially lethal substances such as the nerve-numbing horse tranquilliser ketamine, morphine, anti-anxiety medication and a substance used to treat dogs and cats for incontinence. Ms Jaehne said MDMA, ecstasy's major chemical component, increased body temperature by up to five degrees. "When taken at hot nightclubs or rave parties the heightened effects could lead to severe brain damage or death," Ms Jaehne said. She said it was crucial people were made more aware of the "grave" dangers associated with the pills, and "not misguided by ridiculous information". Anna Wood died after taking ecstasy and dehydrating so badly that she drank water until her kidneys shut down and her brain swelled. She was found vomiting in a toilet, taken to a home and put to bed before eventually being taken to hospital the next morning. She never regained consciousness. Annabel Catt, 20, died in February last year after going to a dance party and taking what she thought was ecstasy. It actually turned out to be the deadly drug PMA. Anecdotal evidence suggesting young Australians have now discovered the benefits of buying ecstasy pills in bulk, has strengthened criticism of the Rudd Government's alcopop tax hike. Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia research manager Stephen Riden said recent data made a mockery of the Government's stated aim. "The words 'abject failure' would spring to mind," Mr Riden said.

I recently listened to the audio book of A New Earth. It's basically eastern mysticism, packaged in a non-religious, easy to understand box for mainstream spiritually-curious westerners. But I still found it quite useful in reminding me of the path, and think it would definitely be valuable for those who have not had much exposure to such ideas.

agree with genki

Good on you for raising this watertrade Although this community has 100s of active members, Erowid only has a few (less than 50 last time I checked) Australian supporters. I know that many of us are not wealthy and finding the dollars for a charitable is nearly impossible, but I do think that there are many who could afford it if they prioritised it. When I was a poor student, dumpster diving half of my food, I still donated (at the lowest level) to erowid because I see it as such an important thing to support. At this stage in my life, I have enough money to donate at the basic level, but in future I hope to be able to provide more support. Although it is unlikely, if erowid was able to achieve charity status in Australia I would be inclined to donate much more. A donation has two reasons, in my view - firstly it is 'payment' for all the information that erowid has made available to me for my research. Secondly, it is because I see accurate information as being the cornerstone of a better system of drug regulation and thus erowid is possibly our best weapon in the 'war on drugs'. We should all support organisations such as erowid that are leading the way towards sensible drug policy.

Awesome not bad photos for a phone cam.

Well, kangaroos exhale CO2 like all other animals, but they don't burp and fart methane like ruminants. Methane is over 20 times more potent as a GHG than CO2, so animal agriculture makes a big contribution to climate change.

Even more important than the land degradation issue due to grazing (IMO) is the issue of climate - Roo is a carbon free meat. I used to get it from a local butcher. Now I don't eat any meat, but I am considering going carnivorous again, although it would only be low impact animals such as natives and ferals.

Right thanks for correcting me guys

I am not going to bother replying to many of your points, because it is clear that you have a strong opinion that will not be changed. But a few points below: What do you think is in Avils? Sorry man, but if your argument requires me to watch a 9 part documentary then it is not a very good one. Colombia is fucked up for a variety of reasons, but one of them is the fact that the prohibition of drugs creates a black market which fuels levels of criminal activity high enough to cause political and social instability. If the drugs were legal, this would not be an issue. I was not saying that I believe there hasn't been a problem - I was saying that the authorities didn't seem to think it was a problem. The point was that we should not trust anything the government says about the reasons behind prohibition, because they do not stick to them themselves when it suits them. Certainly, and I understand why they would say that. Because the drug has high potential for abuse. I am not condoning abuse, just saying that people who wish to use the drug should be able to. Use is not the same as abuse. No, it should be not the role of the government to protect people from harm they may cause themselves out of their own stupidity. Yep You can pick the responsible ones quite easily - they are the ones who do not suffer major drug related illnesses, because they used drugs in a responsible manner. OK, so you accept that drug use can have benefits as well as risks. That is a good place to start from. You also seem rather hung up on the notion of drugs being harmful. Let's look at some other things that are harmful: Cars Guns (specifically created to cause harm) Electricity Spoilt food Fatty food Scopolamine Alcohol Cigarettes Swimming The sun These things can all kill you. Some of them are statistically quite likely to be your cause of death in our society! However, in all cases, the risks are controlled, in some cases through a system of licencing, in others through education, common sense, and darwinian selection. This allows these things to be used in the safest way for the highest benefit. These are all things that you are likely to come into contact with at some time in your life, and maybe every day. But most people chose to drive a car, because although it is a very risky activity and has countless negative effects on the environment and society, it offers a high level of convenience which supposedly offsets the damage and the risk of personal injury or death. People want to use drugs. This has been the case for ever, and is not going to change any time soon. That demand can either be supplied by criminals, who do not have good standards of quality control, or it can be supplied by the Government, who currently oversee the supply and quality of many other dangerous substances and activities. What makes you think that the criminal underworld are the best people to regulate this?