wandjina

Much love to those that knew and loved Aaron, Fly high psycho0

last night alio die - incantomento, alio die & opium - mother sunrise delightful ollabelle - riverside battle songs twang

thank you gorgeous ones man am i mashed oh lord torsten will you marry me?

most of those people probably turned to cannabis becouse of their unsettled state.........flawed stats!!! true, it's a chicken and egg argument...as it is for the aetiology of any habitual drug use or drug dependence. imo it doesn't matter what the substance is, any dependence can have adverse effects....use, and the consequences of use, occur on a continuum, of course. not everyone who smokes ganga everyday turns into a couch-bound nintendo junkie....so so many variables. my view would be everything in moderation. i smoked cannabis every day for 10-odd years, almost exclusively 'bush'...nice bush. over time it ceased to relax or inspire me, and instead made me lazy, stupid, paranoid and anxious. overcoming the habit was bloody hard, the withdrawals were quite difficult. i hold that cannabis can activate or exacerbate pre-existing or underlying 'mental health' issues....for want of a better term....in some people....and that a lot of people drawn to chronic use probably arent doing themselves any favours. i think most chronic smokers have seen evidence of this in themselves or friends and acquaintences. that said, some people may have become lazy, depressed and paranoid regardless of their cannabis (or any other drug) use, but for many others cannabis clearly amplifies, and maybe causes, psycho-pathological states. i know it did for me, and a large number of people i have known and loved over the years. on the other hand, there are some people who smoke regularly for years, maintain a good attitude towards, or relationship with, the plant and do not seem to experience serious problems...these fall into one of verts categories but professor copeland is right when she says the 'natural herb that relaxes' idea is a misconception. Vert...loved your post. some excellent points and observations. good-karma bush yandi is a whole other kettle of fish to the stenchy poo sucked down by many a suburban conehead. but try saying this to your average suburban conehead, and they'll defend their habit till blue in the face. if they arent anoxic already. they'll rattle off facts and figures of marihuanas medicinal and healing properties, that its been worshipped and cultivated for millenia, its enviro creds re fibre, paper, rope....the declaration of independance was written on it, man...and george washington even smoked it! then there's the obligatory rant about how pot heads differ from junkies and people who use 'synthetic' drugs, and a few government or scientific Establishment conspiracies thrown in for good measure. you know the schpiel. but at the end of the day they're mulling up with cheap durries and assaulting their lungs with tar-laden water vapour, cant get to sleep without pulling a billie or ten, and behave like irritable and/or emotionally erractic fucktards when they cant score. look, I'm not bagging yandi...it's a beautiful plant with many virtues....and am not anti smoking it ever again... but like any psychoactive plant or substance, it isn't absolutely harmless. claiming that it is is plain stupid. remember what paracelsus said. no drug should be demonised, but we do the plant no favours by blindly doing the opposite. respect goes both ways.

well, you sure showed me

not a drug movie per se.....but, i would recommend 'the last mimzy' recent release, sci fi (loosley based on 1940s novel), and billed as a family movie...though there's an interesting darkish undercurrent you dont usually see in 'family' films, and themes ranging from telepathy to communication with insects as a result of contact with strange objects... whoever wrote the screenplay and designed the CGI effects was inspired by something interesting imo. i read some ppl who worked on the matrix were involved. worth a look

It just seems wrong how willingly they prescribe theses brain chemistry altering drugs these days for anxiety shit yeah, they're handing them out like tic tacs....it seems you're not even allowed a bad day anymore without being offered 'medicine'. i can understand wanting to medicate some ppl with severe clinical depression or anxiety disorders, but many GPs are prescribing psychotropic meds for relatively minor complaints, or anxiety/sadness well within normal human range of experience. ramon made a good point re 'downregulation' at AE...and the same can be said for any drug...getting off them may prove very difficult when your endogenous supplies have been 'supplemented' for prolonged periods. and the same would seem to be true re serotonin....ssri withdrawal can be excrutiating, for me it was, and some of the side effects are scary shit dizziness or light headedness nausea and/or vomiting headaches lethargy anxiety and/or agitation tingling (paresthesias), numbness or "electric" shock-like sensations in the head or limbs tremors sweating insomnia irritability vertigo (dizziness) diarrhea more here including 'anticholinergic rebound' http://bipolar.about.com/cs/antidep/a/0207_ssridisc1.htm

stargate are probably best known at the moment for their production of the Rihanna track "don't stop the music" for a moment there i read that as starship...as in 'we built this city'. used to love that song. still rather partial to it and other 1980s pop...like duran duran and the whole 'new romantics' thing. you know, strapping lads with big hair, make up and keytars. also have a penchant for 1950s doo-wop...the Platters, Drifters, Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons, the Five Satins...and love a bit Motown..four tops, temptations, otis redding, supremes, martha reeves and the vandellas. probably the daggiest albums in my collection (and there are many) would be Olivia Newton John and ABBA. imo the latter is underrated in terms of production values, musical arrangment.... and no one can deny the catchiness of some tunes even if the sugary schmaltz factor is high. I'm a sucker for a catchy melody and/or nicely arranged harmonies (doo-wop...sigh, they sure knew how to craft 4-5 part harmonies). great thread...gonna have to check out britneys new album.

look, I´m not saying "bugger the consequences", as I DON´T BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE COMPARED TO WHAT IS BEING BROUGHT TO BEAR HERE. For the sake of discussion, what if 'what is being brought to bear here', isn't? What if the tree bears no fruit? Phlebophylla was a good example of how greed and egotism make this community not all that different from other communities. In some regards I agree re this community being not unlike others.... It seems that a number of people have, and continue to, harvest phleb, yet concomitantly profess to be concerned with its conservation and protection from 'opportunists'. But who gets labelled opportunistic and who genuine? How do we distinguish? Where do we draw the line re appropriate/acceptable levels of profit? As far as I know folias does not profit in any financial sense..... unlike some others who do (or at least attempt to) in regards to wild-harvested acacias. And then there's those that aren't as up-front about their activities and don't seem to cop any flack. Not taking sides here, but I think there is some interesting 'boundary-work' going on insofar as delineating what constitutes acceptable behaviour in this community...and the different tacks used to legitimise, justify or undermine. Whether you agree with folias' stance or not, I think there's something to be said for transparency , especially when others seem to be operating under the radar.

Cachaca is pretty easy to get also, some bottle shops stock it...pretty close approximation to firewater I assume

yep, fluoride works topically...so consuming it really isnt necessary. This is a pretty even-handed paper...covers most of the major points (in a nut shell, not really any rocksolid evidence for or against): Cheng, KK, (2007) 'Adding fluoride to water supplies' BMJ 2007;335:699-702 Adding fluoride to water supplies to prevent dental caries is controversial. K K Cheng, Iain Chalmers, and Trevor A Sheldon identify the issues it raises in the hope of furthering constructive public consultation and debate Several countries add fluoride to water supplies to prevent dental caries (boxes 1 and 2). Since the 2003 Water Act, water companies are required to add fluoride to supplies when requested—after public consultation—by a health authority in England or the Welsh Assembly in Wales.1 Summary points Water fluoridation is highly controversial Evidence is often misused or misinterpreted and uncertainties glossed over in polarised debates Problems include identifying benefits and harms, whether fluoride is a medicine, and the ethical implications This article provides professionals and the public with a framework for constructive public consultations Box 1 Dental caries What is dental caries? Dental caries is a process of demineralisation of dental hard tissue caused by acids formed from bacterial fermentation of sugars in the diet. Demineralisation is countered by the deposit of minerals in the saliva—remineralisation. Remineralisation is a slow process, however, which has to compete with factors that cause demineralisation. If remineralisation can effectively compete the enamel is repaired. If demineralisation exceeds remineralisation a carious cavity finally forms. Fluoride prevents caries by enhancing remineralisation. How common is caries? The figureGo shows the average numbers of decayed, missing, and filled teeth in 12 year old children for several European countries. In most countries this number is around 1.5 and 50% of children have no caries. Although the prevalence of caries varies between countries, levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades, and national rates of caries are now universally low. This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt, and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps aspects of nutrition. Figure 1 View larger version (51K): [in this window] [in a new window] [PowerPoint Slide for Teaching] Tooth decay in 12 year olds in European Union countries2 Box 2 Exposure to fluoride How common are water supplies containing fluoride? About 9-10% of water supplies in England and Wales contain 0.5-1 mg/l fluoride, either naturally or as an additive.2 3 4 Limited fluoridation trials were introduced in England from the mid-1950s, but resistance by water companies curtailed their spread. Currently, 1.5 million people receive water containing fluoride drawn from ground that is relatively high in the mineral. Another five million people in parts of the West Midlands, Yorkshire, and Tyneside receive water with added fluoride (1 mg/l). Fluoride is not added to water supplies in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland. In Western Europe 12 million people receive water with added fluoride, mainly in England, Ireland, and Spain.5 In the United States, just under 60% of the population receive fluoridated water.6 Water fluoridation has also been introduced in Australia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Canada, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, Israel, Malaysia, and New Zealand. Worldwide, about 5.7% of people receive water containing fluoride to around 1 mg/l.5 In some countries such schemes have been withdrawn. These include Germany, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland. Systematic information on the rationale behind these decisions is not available. In the Swiss canton of Basel-Stadt, the fluoridation scheme was withdrawn in 2003 after 41 years of operation because other measures were of "comparable effectiveness" to "compulsory medication."7 What are the sources of fluoride exposure? Before the widespread use of fluoride containing toothpastes, fluoride in water (natural or fluoridated) was the main source of exposure in adults and children.8 Although the relative contribution from toothpaste has increased, in fluoridated areas drinking water remains the main source of exposure. Young children are more likely to ingest fluoridated toothpaste, so its relative importance as a source of exposure is higher in children than in adults. Plans to add fluoride to water supplies are often contentious. Controversy relates to potential benefits of fluoridation, difficulty of identifying harms, whether fluoride is a medicine, and the ethics of a mass intervention. We are concerned that the polarised debates and the way that evidence is harnessed and uncertainties glossed over make it hard for the public and professionals to participate in consultations on an informed basis. Here, we highlight problems that should be confronted in such consultations and emphasise the considerable uncertainties in the evidence. Known benefits of adding fluoride to water In 1999, the Department of Health in England commissioned the centre for reviews and dissemination at the University of York to systematically review the evidence on the effects of water fluoridation on dental health and to look for evidence of harm.9 The review was developed with input from an advisory committee, which included members who supported and opposed fluoridation, or who had no strong views on the matter. Exceptional steps were taken to avoid bias and ensure transparency throughout. Given the certainty with which water fluoridation has been promoted and opposed, and the large number (around 3200) of research papers identified,9 the reviewers were surprised by the poor quality of the evidence and the uncertainty surrounding the beneficial and adverse effects of fluoridation. Studies that met the minimal quality threshold indicated that water fluoridation reduced the prevalence of caries but that the size of the effect was uncertain. Estimates of the increase in the proportion of children without caries in fluoridated areas versus non-fluoridated areas varied (median 15%, interquartile range 5% to 22%). These estimates could be biased, however, because potential confounders were poorly adjusted for.9 Water fluoridation aims to reduce social inequalities in dental health,10 but few relevant studies exist. The quality of research was even lower than that assessing overall effects of fluoridation. The results were inconsistent—fluoridation seemed to reduce social inequalities in children aged 5 and 12 when measured by the number of decayed, missing, or filled teeth, but not when the proportion of 5 year olds with no caries was used. Potential harms of fluoridation The review estimated the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth) and fluorosis of aesthetic concern at around 48% and 12.5% when the fluoride concentration was 1.0 part per million,9 although the quality of the studies was low. The evidence was of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms (such as cancer and bone fracture). The amount and quality of the available data on side effects were insufficient to rule out all but the biggest effects. Small relative increases in risk are difficult to estimate reliably by epidemiological studies, even though lifetime exposure of the whole population may have large population effects. For example, an ecological study from Taiwan found a high incidence of bladder cancer in women in areas where natural fluoride content in water is high. The authors attributed the finding to chance because multiple comparisons were made.11 Testing the hypothesis that drinking fluoridated water increases the risk of bladder cancer would need to take account of errors in estimating total fluoride exposures; potential lack of variation in exposure; the probable long latency between exposure and outcome; the presence of strong confounders such as smoking and occupational exposures; and changes in diagnostic classification of bladder tumours. Therefore, a modest association between fluoridation and bladder cancer would be difficult to detect, both in communities and in individuals. This is of concern because a modest (for example, 20%) increase in risk of bladder cancer would mean about 2000 extra new cases a year if the entire UK population was exposed. The methodological challenges of detecting harms of long term exposure to fluoridation are further illustrated by a case-control study on hip fracture in England.12 It reported "no increase" in risk associated with average lifetime exposure of ≥0.9 part per million fluoride in drinking water. Although exemplary in many other aspects, the study had less than 70% power to identify an odds ratio of 1.5 associated with exposure. If the odds ratio was only 1.2—which would mean more than 10 000 excess hip fractures a year in England if the population was so exposed—the study would have a less than one in five chance of detecting it. Thus, evidence on the potential benefits and harms of adding fluoride to water is relatively poor. This is reflected in the recommendations of the Medical Research Council (MRC)13 and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline14 on preventing and managing dental decay in preschool children (box 3). We know of no subsequent evidence that reduces the uncertainty. Box 3 Key recommendations for future research on water fluoridation * "Studies are needed to provide estimates of the effects of water fluoridation on children aged 3-15 years against a background of widespread use of fluoride toothpaste, and to extend knowledge about the effect of water fluoridation by . . . (socio-economic status), taking into account potentially important effect modifiers such as sugar consumption and toothpaste usage"13 * "A robust evaluation of the benefits of water fluoridation, as well as the potential risks of fluorosis . . . should be a health priority"14 There is no such thing as absolute certainty on safety. While the quality of evidence on potential long term harms of fluoridated water may be no worse than that for some common clinical interventions, patients can weigh potential benefits and risks before agreeing to treatments. In the case of fluoridation, people should be aware of the limitations of evidence about its potential harms and that it would be almost impossible to detect small but important risks (especially for chronic conditions) after introducing fluoridation. Alternative ways to prevent caries The evidence from systematic reviews of randomised trials is strong for alternative ways of preventing caries—mainly toothpastes containing fluorides. Analysis of 70 randomised trials of 42 300 children yielded a pooled preventive fraction for decayed, missing, or filled teeth of 24% (21% to 28%).15 However, the use of toothpastes depends on individual behaviour, which has implications for reducing inequality. Is fluoride added to water supplies a medicine? Fluoride is not in any natural human metabolic pathway. Because it mainly reduces caries by remineralisation of demineralised enamel (box 4), some people regard water fluoridation as a form of mass medication. Other people point out that fluoride occurs naturally at concentrations comparable to those used in fluoridation programmes and is therefore not a medicine. If viewed as a medicine, water fluoridation would require approval from a relevant authority. Box 4 Effect of fluoride on the association between sugar and caries Fluoride is the main factor that alters the resistance of teeth to acid attack and interacts with sugars in plaque. Fluoride affects tooth structure during and after development. It reduces caries in three ways: * It reduces and inhibits dissolution of enamel * It promotes remineralisation; remineralisation in the presence of fluoride not only replaces lost mineral but also increases resistance to acids and to subsequent demineralisation * It affects plaque by altering the ecology of the dental plaque and reducing acid production Fluoride is most effective when used topically, after the teeth have erupted The legal definition of a medicinal product in the European Union (Codified Pharmaceutical Directive 2004/27/EC, Article 1.2) is any substance or combination of substances "presented as having properties for treating or preventing disease in human beings" or "which may be used in or administered to human beings either with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action." Furthermore, in 1983 a judge ruled that fluoridated water fell within the Medicines Act 1968, "Section 130 defines ‘medicinal product' and I am satisfied that fluoride in whatever form it is ultimately purchased by the respondents falls within that definition."16 If fluoride is a medicine, evidence on its effects should be subject to the standards of proof expected of drugs, including evidence from randomised trials. If used as a mass preventive measure in well people, the evidence of net benefit should be greater than that needed for drugs to treat illness.17 An important distinction also exists between removing unnatural exposures (such as environmental tobacco smoke) and adding unnatural exposures (such as drugs or preservatives).18 In the second situation, evidence on benefit and safety must be more stringent. There have been no randomised trials of water fluoridation. Ethical implications Under the principle of informed consent, anyone can refuse treatment with a drug or other intervention. The Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine 199719 (which the UK has not signed) states that health interventions can only be carried out after free and informed consent. The General Medical Council's guidance on consent also stresses patients' autonomy, and their right to decide whether or not to undergo medical intervention even if refusal may result in harm.20 This is especially important for water fluoridation, as an uncontrollable dose of fluoride would be given for up to a lifetime, regardless of the risk of caries, and many people would not benefit. The convention makes provision for exceptions to the principle of informed consent if necessary for public safety, to prevent crime, or to protect public health (article 26).19 Potential benefit must therefore be balanced against uncertainty about harms, the lower overall prevalence of caries now than a few decades ago (and smaller possible absolute benefit), the availability of other effective methods of prevention, and people's autonomy. Research on areas suggested by the MRC is needed.13 Methodological challenges due to problems of measuring fluoride exposure, long latency in chronic disease, and modest effect sizes will need special attention. Trust in the dissemination of evidence Public and professional bodies need to balance benefits and risks, individual rights, and social values in an even handed manner. Those opposing fluoridation often claim that it does not reduce caries and they also overstate the evidence on harm.21 On the other hand, the Department of Health's objectivity is questionable—it funded the British Fluoridation Society and, along with many other supporters of fluoridation, it used the York review's findings9 selectively to give an overoptimistic assessment of the evidence in favour of fluoridation.22 In response to MRC recommendations,13 the department commissioned research on the bioavailability of fluoride from naturally and artificially fluoridated drinking water. The study had only 20 participants and was too small to give reliable results. Despite this and the caveats in the report's conclusion,23 this report formed the basis of a series of claims by government for the safety of fluoridation.24 Against this backdrop of one sided handling of the evidence, the public distrust in the information it receives is understandable. We hope this article helps provide professionals and the public with a framework for engaging constructively in public consultations. We thank Edward Baldwin, June Jones, Aubrey Sheiham, and David Sloan for their comments on the manuscript. Contributors and sources: All authors contributed to the original idea of the paper and its writing. TAS chaired the CRD fluoridation review advisory panel. IC was a member of the same panel. KKC lives in Birmingham where the water is fluoridated. The sections on potential benefits and harms of water fluoridation are largely based on a systematic review and recent materials identified through Medline searches. The rest of the paper reflects the authors' opinion. KKC is guarantor. Competing interests: Please see the Contributors and sources section. Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. References 1. Drinking Water Inspectorate. Fluoridation of drinking water. 2006. www.dwi.gov.uk/consumer/concerns/fluoride.shtm 2. WHO. WHO oral health country/area profile programme.www.whocollab.od.mah.se/expl/regions.html 3. Whelton HP, Ketley CE, McSweeney F, O'Mullane DM. A review of fluorosis in the European Union: prevalence, risk factors and aesthetic issues. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2004;32(suppl 1):9-18.[CrossRef][iSI][Medline] 4. Jowell T. House of Commons official report (Hansard). 1998 May 6: col 697. http://tinyurl.com/3xvxwc. 5. National Public Health Service for Wales. Briefing paper on fluoridation and the implications of the Water Act 2003. 2004. http://tinyurl.com/2onuvw. 6. Centre for Disease Control. Fluoridation statistics 2002: status of water fluoridation in the United States. 2002. www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/us_stats2002.htm 7. Gesundheits-und Sozialkommission des Kantons Basel-Stadt. Bericht der Gesundheits-und Sozialkommission des Grossen Rates zum Anzug René Brigger betreffend Fluoridierung des Basler Trinkwassers. P975485. 2003. www.bruha.com/pfpc/ber-9229_Basel_document.pdf 8. Murray JJ, Rugg-Gunn AJ, Jenkins GN. Fluorides in caries prevention. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wright, 1991. 9. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. A systematic review of public water fluoridation. York: NHS CRD, 2000. 10. Locker D. Deprivation and oral health: a review. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2000;28:161-9.[CrossRef][iSI][Medline] 11. Yang CY, Cheng MF, Tsai SS, Hung CF. Fluoride in drinking water and cancer mortality in Taiwan. Environ Res 2000;82:189-93.[Medline] 12. Hillier S, Cooper C, Kellingray S, Russell G, Hughes H, Coggon D. Fluoride in drinking water and risk of hip fracture in the UK: a case-control study. Lancet 2000;355:265-9.[CrossRef][iSI][Medline] 13. Medical Research Council. Working group report: water fluoridation and health. London: MRC, 2002. 14. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Prevention and management of dental decay in the pre-school child: a national clinical guideline. SIGN, 2005. www.guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=8395http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign83.pdf. 15. Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Sheiham A, Logan S. Fluoride toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;(1):CD002278. 16. Lord Jauncey. Opinion of Lord Jauncey in causa Mrs Catherine McColl (A.P) against Strathclyde Regional Council. The Court of Session, Edinburgh, 1983. 17. Cochrane AL, Holland WW. Validation of screening procedures. Br Med Bull 1971;27:3-8.[Free Full Text] 18. Rose G. The strategy of preventive medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. 19. Council of Europe. Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: convention on human rights and biomedicine. Council of Europe, 1997. http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/164.htm 20. General Medical Council. Seeking patients' consent: the ethical considerations. London: GMC, 1998. 21. Connett P. Fifty reasons to oppose fluoridation. Fluoride Action Network, 2004. www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm 22. Wilson PM, Sheldon TA. Muddy waters: evidence-based policy making, uncertainty and the "York review" on water fluoridation. Evidence Policy 2006;2:321-31. 23. Maguire A, Moynihan PJ, Zohouri V. Bioavailability of fluoride in drinking-water—a human experimental study. Report for the UK Department of Health, June 2004. Newcastle upon Tyne: School of Dental Sciences, University of Newcastle, 2004. 24. Lord Warner. House of Lords Official Report (Hansard). 2004 June 29: col WA6. http://tinyurl.com/37hgel (Accepted 15 July 2007)

you've got a point. In this instance, sounds to me like Morg is aknowledging the reality of the situation, he cares about her, and it hurts to cause her pain. He has also acknowledged his concerns re physical attraction... " I worry that it might be something as superficial as looks. I find her moderately attractive and I'm concerned that that could be part of the problem. I still look at other girls. " for a start, don't the vast majority continue to look at other girls? I know I do. I'm not sure that's an indicator. Perhaps I'm being romantic, but I really believe that love is blind...and you dont ask yourself these kind of questions because it just is. I think if you are asking these questions, it may be because there are other things going on below the surface...for yourself and the other person, and that maybe these need to be worke dthrough before you can have a long-term relationship with them, someone like them, or anyone else. Whether the feelings are 'right' or 'wrong', 'ethical' or 'immoral'....at some points the way you feel is the way you feel, and you cannot continue in a particular direction without someone getting hurt. Let's say Morg is merely caught up in 'looks' (although he doesnt seem sure of this going by his post ---sorry to talk about you as if you're not in the room M ), OK...so what to do? Can this be overcome by sheer willpower, meditation, psychotherapy or some other kind of self-analysis? Or is it a natural part of life, a way of being or natural 'phase' of relation? Or is there something going on at the 'chemistry' level that Morg somehow sniffed out earlier on that indicated incompatibility on subtle/deep levels? Or is there a cat and mouse dynamic here both people need to work through before they can have long-term relationship with anyone? Having spent many years as a cat, I kept going for mice....who kept going for cats...reinforcing patterns of relating, working through. If you can see a pattern in your life of always being the cat, or always being the mouse...I think people need to look at that. At the end of the day, time will tell. I think the best choice would be to see what develops with time....will a heart open up and see beyond the surface to true love, or will a different picture emerge? Only Morg knows the answer. Doesn't make it any easier though

I don't think there are enough words for the varieties of love. Some Inuit dialects have dozens of words (or something) for types of snow, and though I can't remember which lingo it is, there is one with as many words for love (possibly Hindi?). My ex, and father of my child, comes to mind. Even after all we went through, and he put me through, I truly love him...but in a way quite distinct from being 'in love' with him. And it's definately not just about lust, of that I can assure you. Then the love I have for my daughter, for my parents, my siblings, friends etc etc....many different flavours, which doesnt mean any are 'better' than the other, only different in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. and while we're on the topic...what would make anyone think women don't want lust too? Jeez, lesbians must have pretty boring sex lives, and women - as a species - are never shallow lol. more...does sincerely caring about an exs welfare automatically mean you'd both be happy in a long-term relationship, or could it just be that you're a decent human being?

So if Brissie tap water is fluoridated...what kind of filter(s) would you use?

ah Morg, I really feel for you. I know how much situations like this can hurt and confuse. There is alot I could add to the above, some good advice there^....but going with my gut instincts...I think you know the answer in your heart of hearts. I think you really care about this girl, and love her...but I also think that there are many 'kinds' of love. Being 'in love' isn't always about the infatuation stage, and though I can see what ramon is saying, my sense is that for whatever reason, a deep kind of connection was never there for you with this girl, at least not in the kind of way she wanted and needed it to be for the relationship to work long-term. I think if there is a deep connection there, you should still be in la-la-land after a year...the challenging stuff, as far as long-term relationships is concerned, usually kicks in later than that...(ime and from what i've observed in other relationships). I've been on both sides of the fence...and when it was me being broken-up with, at the time it felt like the end of the world, and he was so upset that i was upset, and he felt terribly guilty...but it just wasn't there for him, and the truth was that deep down, it wasn't really 'there' for me either. As mentioned above, there's certainly something about the cat and mouse dynamic...but not all relationships need be like this, far from it. I dunno, it all gets so complicated so quickly, and every relationship is different. So, yeah, my gut feeling is that 'it's' just not been there for you, and I dont think you can force that...even if you were, say, an emotional retard or some other such creature cried over in girly deep & meaningfuls (or a bunch of manly blokes cryin into their beer...lets not pretend it doesnt happen ;)), you still can't manufacture 'it'. True, sometimes it can be about getting out of your own way, but connection isn't just about having common interests or a good sex life, sometimes there's no accounting the 'x' factor(s). I know things are pretty awful right now, but my advice would be to hold on to your instinct (which can be difficult to distinguish from fear/guilt etc, but follow your heart of hearts). If it all just feels too confusing, then allow yourself time...and plenty of it. If it is to be, it will be. lots of good feelings your way my friend

I don't have special access to the calendar, anyone can add events thanks for doin it anyway

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm raspberry jam que? I'll be there. yay!!! I just spoke to mike...said he was gonna give you an ultimatum lol

Sorry, bit late notice...but there's to be an ethnobot meet at the sydney botanic gardens on Saturday the 15th. Let's say around noon at the herb garden? Could you put this in 'upcoming events' please Sina? cheers

happy birthday gorgeous and yeah...where are ya? You better show at the sydney meet

The plant knows what it's doing I think this is wondeful...brings to mind the article in Penthouse last year.

Perhaps this is a US import? (along with alot of other post WWII Aussie drug laws/ideologies). Strange that given Australias success with harm minimisation/reduction strategies in regard to virtually halting the transmission of HIV (via injecting drug use)...policies wholly at odds with US zero tolerance palaver...that we have concommitedly shaped and aped other aspects of the most ineffective, no...disastrous, drug laws/policies in the western world. The seemingly arbitrary quantities listed in SI may be another reflection of such 'US standards'.

Thinks the law is logical. yep, the law exists in a logical vacuum completely insulated from culture, politics, economics, history, and society in general....to say nothing of numbnuts. I haven't read all of the above thread, but anyone arguing the administration of law (and in practise 'law' itself, broadly speaking) aint plastic, perhaps especially in regards to drug legislation, don't know bo diddly about 'the Law'. At the end of the day, say if someone got busted with a trailer of bark, the outcome could come down to the mood of the police/magistrate/judge, how the relevant part of an act is seen to apply given circumstances... blah de blah, a bottle of brown liquid could be just that, or '500ml of harmaline' etc... contingent on many factors. You mean N,N-DMT right, not N,N-DMA? lol, you got me. I just saw the NN-dimethyl bit and ran with it I love skimming through Schedule I , some really exotic sounding substances in there...many unfamiliar to me, like Thebacon ...the bacon? (thebaine derivative), and funky sounding research chemicals like 5-(2-aminopropyl) indan. How often would people ever actually get busted for stuff like this? the arse covering bit at the bottom of SI is also interesting. How on earth they get one dosage unit as being 200mg i don't know but that's pretty hardcore. yeah, how do they determine dosage units? the ones for harmala alkaloids seem odd...0.0002g. Could that ammount elicit any effect? Or is this the smallest amount their scales can register or something?...its the same for lyergic acid and derivatives. Funny how these two seem to have been put in the same category of potency.

It is definitely worth reading that, but remember that Austlii tends to be a couple of years out of date, so don't rely on it. The WA legislation it hasn't been updated since 2004. All states have their legislation on their government websites, so I don't understand why people bother using austlii. For a number of reasons, one being easy access. Search the dmta, and austlii is the first link...finding the nsw gov one isnt as easy.... As part of my prior research into the history of Australia Drug laws, Austlii was fantastic... it is also used regularly as a resource by the AOD training sector, ie, in studying drug legislation and policy for Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) workers. An especially important part for workers relates to safe injecting facilities and what clients can legally carry etc. As workers, we need to know this stuff. Whilst its true Austlii can be a bit behind, based on the presumption (my presumption) that this thread relates to NSW law, it makes sense to provide a link to the relevant legislation...the DMTA, regardless of source (NSW). More good info for anyone interested in NSW drug Acts: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/liac/ho...c/2000/4/3.html and drug legislation in general: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/liac/ho...c/2000/4/2.html also Manderson, Desmond (1993) 'From Mr Sin to Mr Big, a History of Australia Drug Laws.' Oxford University Press Australia Interesting stuff... may not get you off , but worth a look imo.

well worth a read: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/con...t/dmata1985256/ schedule I: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/con...85256/sch1.html for reference: Quantity - Traffickable, small, indictable, commercial, large commerical N, N-Dimethylamphetamine 3.0g 1.0g 5.0g 0.25kg 1.0kg Heroin 3.0g 1.0g 5.0g 250.0g 1.0kg Coca leaf 30.0g 5.0g 90.0g 2.5kg 10.0kg Cocaine 3.0g 1.0g 5.0g 250.0g 1.0kg Cannabis leaf 300.0g 30.0g 1 000.0g 25.0kg 100.0kg Cannabis oil 5.0g 2.0g 10.0g 500.0g 2.0kg Cannabis plant cultivated by enhanced indoor means 5 50 50 200 Cannabis plant-other 5 50 250 1 000 Cannabis resin 30.0g 5.0g 90.0g 2.5kg 10.0kg

could it be a brother energy thing? My brother gets protective of me, and he's only 17....you should have seen the look on his face when he met a friend of mine the other day...if looks could kill. lol but with friends it can be difficult to say. I've never felt weird about any of my male friends having partners, but i think its a case by case thing really isn't it? ive had female friends get jealous and resentful of relationships ive been in (im not implying you're resentful), but in those cases it seemed to boil down to their insecurities of losing me as a friend, or competing for intimacy (platonic). maybe its a combination of factors....as a result of your long-time friendship and connection, perhaps there's a brotherly protective energy going on, or something more animally, instinctual near-darwinian kinda thing re male-female relations? perhaps you cannot help but find other males threatening in some sense? or maybe there's some complex psychodynamic explanation to do with your relationship with your mother? lol Could be you were scared off, but i'm not so sure going by what you've said. Long-term familarity can foster sibling-like relationships. only you can know for sure...my bet would be its a combination of factors, and all up, natural