Posts by paulalambert
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think there were two important factors in the Chch skew in BZP hospital admissions. One was the somewhat blinkered Dr Gee, whose research (for quantities he relied on self-report, the weakest of all research) found in most instances coingestion of other substances. Of the 61 patients who presented to the ED on 80 occasions:
alcohol was coingested on 39/80 hospital admissions, marijuana in 12/80, and nitrous oxide used in 10/80 presentations respectively. Four patients used multiple illicit coningestants which included MDMA, LSD, and ritalin
The other (main) factor was the rather dodgy supplier of a group of BZP outlets - the Herbal Heaven shops - who will remain anon. He is already very familiar to the IRD and numerous other state agencies.
Quality control was a foreign concept. I was very reliably informed there was only a kitchen table used for packaging the goods, and very rarely gloves or any other basic hygiene/preventative measures. I also visited several of the shops to see what sort of advice they provided customers, and they were just rubbish at that, they were only about sales. And right up until the law change the actual shop workers knew nothing about it changing!
Anecdotally.. I had a 31 yr old male boarder during the period of Gee's study. He used to take 6 strongest BZP capsules at a time, coingest cannabis, and occasionally alcohol, usually on Thursday AS WELL AS Saturday nights. Thankfully he never had to go to the ED, although a couple of times I sure felt like calling an ambulance, just to get him out of the house. Not the sharpest tool in the shed.
-
lol... all it takes is a skewed moral compass to turn otherwise intelligent people articulately dumb.
I've spent decades amongst all socio-economic levels, all types of substance use and abuse. Its not the lower levels who are murdering the rational debate, its the others who think they will be some sort of losers under a legally regulated (honest) system.
edit: oh.. and often the boozers too, who don't want to hear or accept that alcohol is a drug.
Not that I'd deny any adult their plonky habit, but I'm nowdays leery of them, having once worked in a bar.
-
For the really curious I found the link, and don't think I've posted it here before:
Misuse of Drugs (Restricted Substances) Regulations 2008Anyone wanting a copy of it as 5 pg pdf: paula @norml.org.nz
-
The UK's "Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) describes itself as "an intelligence-led law enforcement agency with harm reduction responsibilities". Its job is to cut not crime, but harm."
Mark Easton's current BBC blog also talks about the obvious need "for a sophisticated crime harm matrix" and concludes:
So the idea of harm reduction in a crime context is not entirely new but suggesting it be used to decide the focus of police activity is still, I think, a radical notion.
Our own Organised & Financial Crime Agency talks about "disrupting" and seems to make no mention whatsoever of any sort of harm reduction responsibility.
So real harm reduction here - although enshrined in our National Drug Policy - will remain mainly a lip-service item and very limited while we have that shonky police-commissioned BERL harm index and reports like the OFCA's first pretty little offering.
The raft of new legislation passed here in the last couple of years giving police and other govt departments increased powers of surveillance and interdiction indicate only a gross accelleration of individual and social harms.
Thats even though, not so long ago, Greg O'Conner inadvertently gave three excellent reasons to re-classify cannabis (and other substances far less toxic than meth) out of the realm of criminal anti-social behaviour and into the legal Class D style regulations that the outgoing Labour govt left us. Bugger.
-
What does the advice giver mean by "modern"? If he means post-1980, that's not a particularly large segment of the housing stock
True, but the interviewer didn't question and he didn't explain further.
If theres another big one during waking hours I'll probably be sticking to flooring it and cuddling the low cupboard/bench thing that separates my kitchen from dining/lounge areas, and pulling the dining table up close. Apart from chimney risk - now much reduced - glass avoidance is my main concern here, incl. interior sliding doors, and large windows. I still haven't pulled the drapes back on many of them.
I also suspect I'll be eternally grateful I was already awake, up and mostly ready for the day when that first one hit. I imagine being woken like that has really added to how shocked people are feeling.
If I'd dropped out of bed one way I would have got hit by a heavy mirror, and the other way I would have got hit by a falling bookcase. The great thing about doorways is that they are away from falling objects as well as windows.
This darn quake has been a good reminder to look around the house and decide on the safest places. Despite having a good emergency supply of water, food, cooking and lighting gear etc (thanks scouts!) I hadn't ever walked around considering pros and cons re where to cower, lol.
I am more afraid of things that could be my fault than things that are beyond my control - and the earth will shake the same whether I am afraid or not.
Thats a very good way of putting it.
-
The only things swinging around in this 90 yr old wooden house were the lighting and the chimes. The cupboard doors just rattled. And the chimes haven't sounded in any but the biggest of the aftershocks since.
-
A civil defence person on tv last night explained about sheltering in doorframes. He said something like ... in modern homes the doorframe is far less likely to be in a load-bearing wall and therefore less safe to shelter in, and that it would just come down with the ceiling. The other danger if you were standing in doorway was the obvious get 'thrown to the floor'.
Yesterday I asked one of the firemen who came around to sort out my chimney about the triangle thing. He said even dropping out of bed onto the floor beside it would be enough to save you from falling beams, ceilings. But if you were upstairs in an old multi-storey building you should probably kiss your a*** goodbye! lol
Gotta keep a sense of humour... gotta keep a sense of humour....
-
Many of that 5% may be older people who have finished paying off mortgages? My elderly disabled cousin finished paying her mortgage off three years ago and earlier this year went to the US for a large family wedding. She hasn't had insurance since then. Her home only lost its chimney and this morning I steered her in the direction of the Mayor's Fund, so here's hoping.....
On the other hand I'm hoping there may be a silver lining and am keeping my eye on seek.co.nz for reliable diligent record-keeping typist or anything similar. There's got to be an upside somewhere!
-
Yeah sure. Being a beneficiary, in terms of income I'd be considered at the lowest end of the scale. I'd rather eat slightly less than forego insurance, so that is what I do. I'm a bit peeved that for EQC claims under $20,000 I still have to pay a darn excess of $200 though, lol.
-
Both my chimneys are on the verge of falling, and that was a bloddy long jiggy aftershock just now. I wouldn't be hanging around sinkholes if I was small (I bet my teenage son is up the road somewhere near you).