Posts by Moz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Cannabis reform is a serious…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
That's great news, especially the now un-suppressed other non-convictions. But it does rather reinforce the point that the legal system uses discretion to keep nice middle class white people safe from the howling mob of Laura Norder crusaders. And that's why we need reform.
-
The Conversation has an Australian perspective but there's nothing new as far as NZ is concerned. They're still at the "wouldn't testing be a good idea" stage.
-
Hard News: About that Rhythm and Vines…, in reply to Craig Young,
There was a wonderful moment on one of those awful cop-reality shows the other day. Some dude pulled over, says "I took coke over the weekend" and tested positive for P, negative for cocaine. He was disgruntled about the mis-selling, and doubly so when convicted of driving under the influence.
So... the cops can and do test drugs and tell you what you bought. Just in a really backwards way.
-
Hard News: About that Rhythm and Vines…, in reply to Craig Young,
Fred Nile is in the NSW Legislative Council
It's more about the christian reich control over the (NSW) Liberal Party, there's a consistent push to force everyone into prosperity gospel style behaviour, on everything from sex to driving to drug use (wine is ok, the bible mentions that). Prime Minister at Time of Writing Scott Morrison is also in one of those churches, but they have a very US style ability to disregard the details if they're getting their own way (and if they're not... god help whoever has annoyed them). Hence their support for that Catholic near-heathen, Tony Abbott.
-
Hard News: About that Rhythm and Vines…, in reply to Russell Brown,
I'm so glad our politics is different here.
One of the few good aspects of NSW is consistency - we have stupid laws about alcohol, tobacco *and* illegal drugs. I'm really glad to see Aotearoa moving in a sensible direction (and FWIW, I'm not a user, I just think the law is painfully stupid).
Having visited MPs in parliaments in NZ, NSW and Au, even the "new high security" in NZ is lax by comparison. In NSW I had to wait 20 minutes while they found a flunkey, who questioned me then wandered off to physically get a staffer to escort me round the building. Apparently just ringing them to come down wasn't enough. Federal parliament is not even worth the effort, the MP will come out and take you away for a meeting. It was easier to get into Lucas Heights nuclear reactor (as a legitimate visitor*).
* famously once when Greenpeace was at Lucas Heights security opened up to let someone drive out and 100-odd Greenpeace protesters literally danced through the open gate.
-
It does suggest there's no reality-based opposition, and even the saner right wing pundits have decided that this isn't one that makes them look good. I think the discussion has largely turning into a "allow pill testing vs let them die" argument (per Stuff comments).
"having drug-free festivals is not a hardline approach"... no, it's a religious approach. If only they took the same approach to other political questions. "God will appoint our candidates directly so we do not need to participate in the election" maybe.
-
Hard News: About that Rhythm and Vines…, in reply to Russell Brown,
It's hard to keep track!
I believe the current title is "Prime Minister at time of writing", or at least that's the way the media refer to it.
-
They (intentionally?) left "illegal" out of that. "I drank a lot of alcohol yesterday and now I have a headache and am extremely photosensitive" qualifies. Curse those people putting ethanol in paint thinners!
"I took a paracetamol and my headache went away... I fear the tablet may have contained paracetamol!"
I'm sorry, my inner pedant keeps getting out and poking fun at inappropriate things.
-
Hard News: Another year on earth, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
anybody out there…
Evolving consensus is that we can't know, unfortunately. At least not with current physics.
Sad news about Jackie's Ian, condolences from me too.
-
Hard News: Lost Men, in reply to mark taslov,
the way we raise males to tolerate violence, to be our warriors, defenders, to be disposable;
... and then wonder why, having been raised with violence and taught to valourise violence, so few of them are violent? I'm occasionally shocked by women who are habitually violent toward men and how acceptable that is. I mean the "casually punching him on the arm" type violence... hint: if he can't respond in kind, it's not a "we're good mates" thing.
It's not just a matter of "violent defense is ok", it's a whole raft of social subtlety around exactly what attacks permit defense and in what context. But that's very rarely addressed explicitly, even in violent occupations. Which is why we see everyone from sports stars to military personnel being educated by the legal system. Why is it ok to use violence to defend unjust laws but not to defend unjust privilege?(1)
I do wonder why we expect those people to be able to turn off major parts of their personality and experience on demand, when that's considered hugely problematic when we ask other people to do the same thing? It occurs to me that PTSD might be one result of that demand. "just stop being someone who was raped" is mind-bogglingly stupid, but "just stop being a violent thug when you're not at work" is normal...
(1) Saying "the legal system couldn't work otherwise" is a condemnation of the legal system, not a defense of it.