Posts by Damian Christie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It was argued that it should be criminalised because of harm to self, and that is an insufficient premise for the criminalisation of anything. Or do you think otherwise?
*I* might not think otherwise, but NZ society (or at least our government of the time) certainly does. Hence seatbelts, bike helmets etc. Based on that, yes BZP does cause harm to self - though perhaps not death - so it's no surprise it's been banned on those grounds.
I just hope it doen't start yet another tiresome Jafas v. The Provinces war of words.
In my defence, the Metro article was written as a response to an article by Simon Wilson, a Wellingtonian living in Auckland, in which he accuses Auckland of being a city without a heart. My argument is that Wellington is a heart without a city. A cold, windy one at that.
-
Robyn, I think I found the answer to that one.
Not sure about Hamilton, but the difference between Auckland and Wellington is that not only is it mcuh smaller, but everyone walks everywhere, whereas Aucklanders generally drive.
And like those paths in the jungle that all the animals use, in Wellington every walks up and down Cuba St, up and down Willis St, up and down Lambton Quay etc. There just aren't that many options, so sooner or later you will see everyone you know/slept with.
-
Can you tell me how mush money was taken in GSt and income tax from BZP sales in the last year?
That's assuming of course that the purpose of GST and income tax is to offset the harm caused by the item they relate to. Can you tell me how much GST was collected from the sale of road maps last year? Ukeleles? What harm did they cause? So do we earmark all GST on BZP to covering related health costs, but the GST on roadmaps and ukeleles can go towards Education?
A specific 'sin tax' however is a different matter, hence those people supporting regulation and tax over a complete ban.
My point is, that the 'no harm' principle doesn't stand up, which is again separate from the 'but it kinda pays for itself, or at least it could' principle.
The other obvious point is that criminalising it will cost a fortune. Criminal justice is bloody expensive.
It is. But again we don't know just how much of a problem it's going to be. The amount of money spent on the cannabis ban? Huge. To use an example from my post, the amount of money spent on the ban on thalidomide? Not so huge.
Rather than seeing where BZP pills go - onto the black market or not - I'm far more interested to see what 'legal highs' take their place. Kids pepped up on No-Doze? Back to mixing Aspirin with Coca-Cola? Drinking nutmeg? Poppy seed tea?
-
What I do is my choice. If what I choose harms another person, then the state is justified in interfering. Anderton is not justified in interfering with my choice when the only harm that is even remotely possible is to me myself.
Yeah, it's a nice libertarian argument, but one that only works in a libertarian society. If every BZP victim that turns up in the A&E of hospitals around the country each weekend (and there are many such cases, none are dying no, but heaps are turning up) was to pay for his or her own hospital stay, and no-one else is missing out on treatment as a result, then the 'no harm' principle could apply.
But that's not the case. As much as I don't agree with many of the MSM beat-up stories, I've made the calls on this myself, and BZP cases ARE costing taxpayers money and stretching already quite stretched health resources. That's harmful.
(And as I've already expressed many times, yes, so are many other things that aren't illegal. But that's a different argument from the 'no harm' one.)
-
Or maybe you just weren't as much of a bike as your friend, Robyn?
-
Yeah, I deliberately stayed away from whether or not the ban is a good idea etc, and the inevitable comparisons with alcohol and smokes, because I don't want to tempt the bastards to make them illegal too (rather than legalise everything, which is what most people advancing that argument seem to want).
We know why drinking isn't going to be banned. It's entrenched in our culture, has been for hundreds of years, the liquor interests are far too powerful, and almost every voter drinks.
Whereas party pills are just something dumb kids do. Banning them hardly raises the ire of middle class NZ.
The argument can never be one about consistency or about societal harm or individual harm. Alcohol is legal and ecstasy isn't. Smoking is legal and LSD isn't. Nuff said.
It's about stopping people from getting high, while not upsetting the various powerful lobby groups and 'mainstream' NZers. Are we really that surprised?
-
One more thing, I also don't agree that as journalists we live a particularly 'privileged' life. We have much the same access as everyone else, I can't think of too many special rights I avail myself of in the course of my working day. Yes, I can call up politicians and try and get them on the phone, but so can you - the number is listed in the book. I can sit in on court hearings, so can you.
Most importantly, you also have the right (and it's not a privilege, it's a right), to publish whatever you want. It doesn't have to be significant or important. I have a blog that is neither, I publish stuff on it regularly. Knock yourself out, I say.
-
TV1 or TV3 could choose to deliver news at 6 pm. Instead they play for ratings. The NZ herald does the same. There is little of the NZ media that doesn't allow ratings to define what they present to the public.
Bart, many of us might like to see more worthy news, less 'trivia', more analysis, more world events etc etc etc, but I have to ask, in a fully commercial model, where is this imperative of which you speak? The TV stations could get rid of the news altogether if they wanted to, you have no authority - moral or otherwise - to prevent this, or (your copyright aside in this case) from them adopting the E!/Weather model.
Could you also force a shoe store to sell uncomfortable shoes that only a few people liked, or a supermarket to sell only brussel sprouts? If these are commercial companies, with no prior contract (like a KiwiShare, or in TV1's case, the Charter), who are you to dictate what they can and can't do?
Enter the public broadcaster.
There are a lot of people who say TV1 and 2 should be split, so that one can provide 'unpopular' programming free of the commercial imperative, while TV2 can do all the Paris Hilton carry on to its heart's content. I don't think it's mutinous of me to say I can see benefits in that model.
-
Yeah, I should point out that I have been a lawyer (before the lure of the big bucks of journalism got too tempting...), and yes, suing someone for defamation is a long hard expensive road. And putting a question mark at the end of a statement is certainly not a defence.
But regardless, I'm not too keen on exposing PublicAddress to an action it couldn't afford, if say, for instance, Hayley Westenra, who probably could afford to mount such an action, got out of bed on the wrong side and decided to sue.
(Disclaimer: Based on my encounters with her I'd bet my house that Hayley Westenra has never used heroin. I'd have to buy one first, but then I'd bet it.)
Anyway, legally actionable or not, I just don't think defaming people is a very nice thing to do.
Even when it's true (and therefore not defamatory, but just damaging) sometimes it's preferable not to say anything, lest the stones start flying in the direction of our own greenhouses. (Referring generally to bad behaviour here of course, not implying that we're all heroin users).
-
Sorry, I wasn't intending this to become a defamatory guessing game. So I've removed any names people have suggested in that vein (pun intended).
It's really not that interesting. "Musician does drugs" is hardly a revelatory headline - I wasn't trying to titilate or start a wee whisper circle, especially when I don't even know it's true. I just thought it might go some way to justifying the person's poor behaviour.