Posts by Shay Lambert
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Stephen, I don't mean to sound like some sort of anti-drug moraliser - I'm not, I actually agree with decriminalisation with some reservations. I just don't buy the supposed social benefits you seem to envision.
As for the "just look at the Netherlands" argument, this is New Zealand, not the Netherlands. Replicating their policies will not have the same results for a multitude of attitudinal, social, historical, geographic and cultural reasons.
-
it's a damn sight better than 'tinny' houses which happily sell pot to my 14 year-old sons classmates.
If you are proposing sales restrictions, what makes you think your son's 14 year-old classmates won't still be buying pot from a tinny house?
Criminals don't care what the legalities are, they care about whether they can make money and if a large chunk of their market still can't buy cannabis legally, they will keep selling to them. As I said earlier the blackmarket is so well established, it won't just disappear.
-
The balloon effect describes a situation where the proactive prohibition of one action produces a similar counter-action
But when it comes to drug use - at least in NZ - the more readily available a drug is, the higher the use. And I simply don't see how legalising cannabis will make it less available.
-
But anyway, I do see a big "harm reduction" coming from cutting organised crime out of the market.
I don't see how you cut out organised crime without making cannabis as readily available as alcohol is currently.
Any restrictions on the sale of cannabis will keep drug dealers in business because their supply, distribution and sales networks are so well established.
If we got rid of booze in supermarket shelves and 24-hour liquor stores, on the other hand, I doubt there would be a sudden proliferation of sly groggers and illegal stills.
I agree with the decriminalisation by the way - prohibition doesn't work and is inconsistent. I just don't see any great social benefits from legalising cannabis either.
-
The key flaw in this argument is the presumption that cannabis would become an alcohol substitute for a lot of people if it were legal.
The vast majority of dope smokers I knew as a teenager were binge drinkers as well, and the majority of adults I know who smoke an occasional still enjoy a drink or two.
I don't imagine there would be much reduction in social harm from both drugs being legal - some people use drugs responsibly, lots of people don't.
-
Fox comes through again...Hadron Collider being sabotaged by agents from the future.
Don't dismiss it just because Fox News reported it - apparently this is being seriously discussed in physicist circles...
But by agents from the future, I don't think they mean actual agents like the Men in Black or the Matrix. Still, pretty wacky.
-
That is good news on China. They get demonised by the environmental lobby a lot, but I suspect much of the technology with the best potential for turning climate change around will be coming from that part of the world in the future, not Europe or the US (or NZ for that matter).
-
the Chinese and Indians are going to have to lead the world on an alternative energy path.
Luckily for us they are generally getting their shit together a lot faster than the west did - took hundreds of years for a genuine middle class to emerge in Europe, they're doing it in less than a generation. And climate change concern is a fair way up the hierarchy of needs, so the while growth of the middle class and consumption is bad in the short term, in the longer term it's the only way those countries will change the way they view the problem.
If NZ wants to make a meaningful contribution, we should be sinking money into biotech to reduce carbon emissions caused by cattle and sheep. Solving that problem alone would reduce this country's carbon footprint sustainably, not to mention create a new industry helping other countries' agricultural sectors do the same
I wonder if Greenpeace would be so vocal if NZ's best response to climate change was more research into genetic modification ?
-
And Tom Cruise can suck my dick
Jesus, I'm all for bagging celebrities, and especially Tom Cruise for that matter- bastard still owes me $14 for Mission Impossible III - but where did that come from. Although it does have a certain ring to it.
Tom Cruise can suck my dick if you think I'm paying 12 bucks an hour for a parking space!
Flat tax rate for high income earners!? Tom Cruise can suck my dick!
-
Ah, that explains the hiring of Hammond: Son of Spot.