OnPoint: Association of Community Retailers. Again.
139 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Or it might be that every bit of home-grown tobacco I have ever smoked has been foul. Maybe if somebody could produce a quality product that might be different.
I refer you to Tuo Lei's post above:
That’s all very well, but how does a home grower add all of those things that make cigarettes just so more-ish and delicious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes
-
merc,
-
License to Grow Tobacco, c. 1937.
Snapped today by Gudrun Gisela at the Christchurch Philatelic Society Stamp & Coin Show, Addington Raceway. -
bmk, in reply to
Yep, I read that post. And that is the problem. Cigarettes are a very pleasurable product, if I could buy a home-grown produced product that was as good I would. But in the meantime big tobacco can keep having some money. Not that I am a regular smoker - I only smoke socially which I find makes it all the more enjoyable. If I smoked on a daily basis it would just be a habit but when you have something only occasionally then it becomes like a treat and thus more enjoyable.
-
Islander, in reply to
Fuck - they cant spell 'licence' - or that's an American (USA) one-
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
Fuck - they cant spell 'licence' - or that's an American (USA) one-
The money is in pounds, shilling, and pence, and the grower is - if I parse the handwriting correctly - of "Ngatimoti", so you'll have to settle for bad spelling.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Or it might be that every bit of home-grown tobacco I have ever smoked has been foul. Maybe if somebody could produce a quality product that might be different.
This. Like so many acquired tastes (and the acquisition of a taste for tobacco is typically a very forced affair, the very epitome of forcing oneself to do something the body recognizes as harmful from the very first touch of it on the throat) I think people home in quite quickly on a preference. Since most people do not start with home grown, it's likely to taste as gross to them as tobacco smoke tastes to most people the first few times. The homing in gets tighter until it has to be an exact and particular type of cigarette - just yesterday a guy walked into my local dairy with trembling hands and bleary eyes, and asked for Camel cigarettes. The owner shrugged sadly, and the guy pursed his lips, sucked it up, and left without buying anything, clearly his search for the right cigarettes had been going on for some time now. I just thought "you poor bastard, that's one hell of a monkey on your back, leading you on a merry dance around the city". Although I wonder if even the ritual of the hunt for the right tobacco forms part of the addiction, that it's so much sweeter when hunted down, satisfying that primitive urge too.
I'm sure it is a very difficult affair to make home grown as even a pale imitation of what the highly processed kind is like. And it's not just about the nicotine, not by a long stretch. My brother, a heavy smoker, rebuffed my suggestion that electronic cigarettes could possibly save him a lot of money and are known to be less harmful. He said he'd tried them, but the loss of the ritualistic element was the most missed part, and he couldn't stick with it.
-
The Tobacco-growing Industry Act (referred to in the licence/license above) was repealed in 1987.
S68A of the Customs and Excise Act contains a specific exemption for tobacco grown for personal use as long as it at your own private home, for your own use (no sharing!), and no more than 15kg/year of manufactured tobacco. (As opposed to weight of leaf.)
I find the amount incredible - over 40g/day.
-
Good pieces in the Sunday Star-Times yesterday (not online as far as I can tell) by Anthony Hubbard on plain packaging and Big Tobacco.
-
Phil Lyth, in reply to
he told me that if you dry your tobbacco and offer it through an honesty box system at a roadside farm gate stall, you are not breaking any law, apparently
Um, the S68A exemption prohibits 'sale or other disposition to any other person'. Kinda rules out that idea. See S68A(2)(c)(ii).
-
bmk:
Maybe if somebody could produce a quality product that might be different.
Hmm...
Since this is a reference to tobacco, "quality product" has to be the oxymoron of the month.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Since this is a reference to tobacco, "quality product" has to be the oxymoron of the month.
Not really. You can have a quality handgun or a crappy one, despite the sole purpose of it being to harm humans. Indeed the quality one is probably more fit for that purpose. If you're going to use something as harmful as tobacco, I can see that you'd want to do it with the best stuff you could afford.
I was only joking, really about the fact that homegrown has not gained popularity. The forces that work to get people smoking are anathema in every way to that kind of concept. Growing your own requires time and patience, and some labor at something you'll have to teach yourself. Probably, you wouldn't make it into cigarettes, which are the epitome of an industrial product, an instant and convenient (you can buy them practically everywhere) product that burns evenly and leaves a waste byproduct. Growing would never be cool, the very idea could only be used by property owners free from parental control. Not the kids that cigarettes are targeted at. So long as it's forbidden to let anyone else do the work except for big tobacco, the natural barrier of having to do something more than tear open a packet and light the thing is sufficient to keep them in their mega billions. Such is the modern world. Our addictions are much deeper than physical.
They're like sports drinks, which anyone could make the equivalent of for about 10c a bottle, by adding sugar and salt to water. No, the main differentiation is not really on the effects of these drinks (because there really is fuck all difference to most people's ability to train between drinking a sports drink or drinking tap water), but rather all the minor differentiations, like the subtleties of the taste, the attractive bottle, and the story it tells about you releasing your inner potential using the power of ozone, or whatever the latest trick is to sell something that costs about 1c/liter. Indeed, many of them have nothing more than water, they don't even hide it. It's sold as an advantage, a more pure product. Classic, really. We wonder why our economy is fucked, yet we buy water from Coca Cola Amatil, and pay more for it than we would for a Coke.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
they cant spell ‘licence’ – or that’s an American (USA) one
Americans use licence as both the verb and noun, so a licence spelled as a license is unlikely to be from the US.
The OED ((c) 1971) has the following note:
The spelling license, though still often met with, has no justification in the case of the sb. In the case of the vb., on the other hand, while the spelling licence is etymologically unobjectionable, license is supported by analogy with the rule universally adopted in the similar pair of related words, practice sb. practise vb., prohpecy sb., prophesy vb. (the rule seems to have arisen from imitation of the spelling of pairs like advice sb. advise vb. which expresses a phonetic distinction of historical origin.)…
Johnson and Todd give only the form license both for the sb. and vb. … Recent Dicts., however, almost universally have license both for sb. and vb., either without alternative or in the first place.
[ bold added ]
It would appear that the licence = noun, license = verb rule is of relatively recent vintage.
-
includes discussion on astroturfing and the tobacco lobby, related to plain packaging in Aussie.
-
Joe Bennett has been called a curmudgeon at times but today he has hit a few nails on the head. (His opinion piece in te DomPsot not yet seen on Stuff)
Talking about Marryatt.
A CEO runs a competitive business that has to make money. The council is a monopoly that does not have to earn money. It just demands money from it's ratepayers. So Mr Marryatt'a job is merely to oversee the spending of a guaranteed income. Spending is easier than earning.
On PR
The council has a vast communications department. Yet it is lousy at communicating. This is becasue to corporate speak "communicating" does not mean communicting. it means propoganda.
It means press releases expressing concern for my safety when the the council is only concerned about its own legal liability
And on the real purpose of a council after the CCC marketing.dept got into the act.
They coined the ludicrous slogan "Love your rubbish" and they wrote "Your city; Your people" on the side of council vehicles. All of it is propogandist puffery, in imitation of the exciting corporate world.
And that, in the end, is what is wrong. The council is not a corporation but a public service that has lost sight of its purpose.
That purpose is to serve the people with honesty and humility. The people are not the consumers to be duped and milked, or idiots to be patronised. They are autonomous adults and they are the council's masters.
-
merc,
Local Government Minister Nick Smith's spokesman said the minister did not comment on council expenditure, which was a matter between ratepayers and their council.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/6272357/Councils-catering-bill-1000-a-day
Obey.Tony Dale, chief executive of the External Reporting Board, had $10,522 of expenses, including $154 on a tea caddy for the boardroom and $20 for an office door chime.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/6272191/Orchestra-tickets-perk-for-director
Consume. -
merc,
"There are a number of prospects open to me that I am not at liberty to disclose.''
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/6270310/Council-CEO-to-quit
Quit. -
Robert Urquhart, in reply to
Joe Bennett has been called a curmudgeon at times but today he has hit a few nails on the head. (His opinion piece in te DomPsot not yet seen on Stuff)
-
-
Sacha, in reply to
Gold
-
merc,
Government Warning Stickers please.
-
merc,
Government Warning, we are addicted to gambling,
''We want to get a good deal on behalf of the Crown and in terms of what's appropriate and so does, obviously, SkyCity on behalf of its shareholders,'' Joyce said.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/6284932/SkyCity-pokies-deal-to-go-ahead
On thread I think because I am wondering about the lobby dollars. -
Geoff Lealand, in reply to
Yes, these are great. I have been using them for a while but they do need to be enlarged.
-
ChrisW, in reply to
http://ondemand.tv3.co.nz/The-Gruen-Transfer-January-6-Fri/tabid/59/articleID/5050/MCat/259/Default.aspxincludes discussion on astroturfing and the tobacco lobby, related to plain packaging in Aussie.
Relevant item starting at 25 mins - good stuff.
Above some branded cigarette packaging with all its appeal, seen while holiday roamin', but belongs here. The context seems very relevant, tragic really - on the foot space by 'picnic' table at the Waiotahi Domain, by the outer estuary of the Waiotahi River, eastern Bay of Plenty, one of the few and much the best pipi-gathering spot in the district, still going strong after the decades and centuries of harvest, much frequented at low tide by predominantly Maori locals.
Black white and red, kia kaha! Yeah, stick it to the man!
Freedom kills.
-
linger, in reply to
Americans use licence as both the verb and noun
As the noun, in American English, the -ence spelling is theoretically possible, but not actually used to any appreciable extent.
As one recent example, the Macmillan English Dictionary contains the following headword listings:
licence noun
license[1] verb
license[2] the AmE spelling of licence [i.e., the noun]Cf. also such American-only noun spellings as defense.
Sigley (1999) provides the following figures for nouns potentially showing this spelling variation in American, British and NZ English:
1961 AmE (Brown corpus): 2.4% -ence, 97.6% -ense (n=251).
1961 BrE (LOB corpus): 100% -ence, 0% -ense (n=209).
1986 NZE (Wellington corpus): 99.3% -ence, 0.7% -ense (n=295).
1991 AmE (Frown corpus): 2.4% -ence, 97.6% -ense (n=248).
1991 BrE (FLOB corpus): 99.4% -ence, 0.6% -ense (n=181).These differences in American English are legacies of Webster’s spelling reforms, which predominantly sought to match spelling to pronunciation – in these cases, promoting <s> to represent [s].
Reference:
Sigley, R. (1999) Are we still under England’s spell? Te Reo 42: 1-19.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.