Planet Rugby Forum
https://forum.planetrugby.com/

NZ Politics Thread - NEW ZEALAND ALERT LEVEL TWO THREAD
https://forum.planetrugby.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=47826
Page 464 of 736

Author:  BillW [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Legalising marijuana will have the same positive effects on the "wellbeing" of low income people as the legalisation of pokies, suburban all night liqour outlets and the increase in tobacco prices.

If, of course, anybody actually gives a shit.

Author:  Wilderbeast [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

booji boy wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
Dark wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
booji boy wrote:
So let me get this straight. National do some lame arse advertisement (which I haven't seen BTW) taking the piss out of Labour's under achieving Kiwibuild program and it's being panned because it's sexist? FFS! :roll:


The fact that kiwibuild is shit doesn’t give you leeway to be sexist (let’s assume it is for the sake of this argument).


Let's not assume for the sake of argument

This argument tends to rely on said ad being sexist, and this bit is extremely arguable.

Bearing in mind we are living in an age where the opposition just calling Ardern "weak" got cries of extreme sexism.


Booji’s comment, and my response, were not questioning whether the ad was sexist. He hasn’t even seen it, of course he’s not going to argue it.


So what was the point of your response? :?


Think I misread you, and thought you were saying that the kiwibuild failure is a worse offence than a sexist ad. Hence my response, if that makes sense.

Author:  Enzedder [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

BillW wrote:
Legalising marijuana will have the same positive effects on the "wellbeing" of low income people as the legalisation of pokies, suburban all night liqour outlets and the increase in tobacco prices.

If, of course, anybody actually gives a shit.


Isn't it more that the rich pricks in Remmers can go and get some to have with their lattes and sauvignon blancs without having to mingle with the current dealers?

Author:  BillW [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Enzedder wrote:
BillW wrote:
Legalising marijuana will have the same positive effects on the "wellbeing" of low income people as the legalisation of pokies, suburban all night liqour outlets and the increase in tobacco prices.

If, of course, anybody actually gives a shit.


Isn't it more that the rich pricks in Remmers can go and get some to have with their lattes and sauvignon blancs without having to mingle with the current dealers?

I'm not convinced that that's the demographic pushing for the law change.

Author:  Auckman [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Latest poll: 1 News/Colmar-Brunton

Image

Image

Author:  booji boy [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Pretty consistent with the recent Newshub poll that 'some' were calling a rogue result.

Simons gone shirley?

Author:  Tehui [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Let's keep on eye on the polling when the tax reform group's report becomes public. As one commentator aptly put it, the Nats would happily talk about tax all year if they could.

Author:  booji boy [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Enzedder wrote:
BillW wrote:
Legalising marijuana will have the same positive effects on the "wellbeing" of low income people as the legalisation of pokies, suburban all night liqour outlets and the increase in tobacco prices.

If, of course, anybody actually gives a shit.


Isn't it more that the rich pricks in Remmers can go and get some to have with their lattes and sauvignon blancs without having to mingle with the current dealers?


Yeah for all my Remuera friends this legalization of pot just can't come soon enough. :roll:

Author:  guy smiley [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Tehui wrote:
Let's keep on eye on the polling when the tax reform group's report becomes public. As one commentator aptly put it, the Nats would happily talk about tax all year if they could.

Fair call, the rising levels of hysteria based on nothing at all so far indicate a tsunami of something sordid, smelly and sorta shit once it is released.

I predict an epidemic of lisping. Possibly a bit of flagrant sauntering.

Author:  Kahu [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

BillW wrote:
Legalising marijuana will have the same positive effects on the "wellbeing" of low income people as the legalisation of pokies, suburban all night liqour outlets and the increase in tobacco prices.

If, of course, anybody actually gives a shit.


It really can't make things worse.

Author:  Fat Old Git [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Just out of interest, when was the last time we had a one term government?

I was having a discussion with a workmate today about how the "middle" voters in NZ are quite risk adverse. We seem to have a history of going with the devil we know more often than not. So for all that it might look like Labour aren't delivering on many of the aspirations that brought them to power, unless National look super super convincing (and they certainly don't at the moment), I think they're unlikely to be voted out after just one term.

Author:  Kahu [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Kirk's 3rd Labour Government got the boot in 75

Author:  Flockwitt [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

National have to find somebody other than Bridges that's for sure. A fresh candidate to motivate the voters could do a lot. With Bridges at the helm National's stuck in 2nd gear.

Author:  brat [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Flockwitt wrote:
National have to find somebody other than Bridges that's for sure. A fresh candidate to motivate the voters could do a lot. With Bridges at the helm National's stuck in 2nd gear.


Yeh I think mark Mitchell or Adams would be the best candidate long term

Even though I like Collins and she would rip ardern a new one - she’s too divisive

National need to look for the nz first disgruntled vote

Author:  Dark [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

This will be slightly awkward for Ardern after bowing to Trumps wishes over Huawei so soon

UK say they are fine to help with building 5G

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12204757

Author:  brat [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Enzedder wrote:
BillW wrote:
Legalising marijuana will have the same positive effects on the "wellbeing" of low income people as the legalisation of pokies, suburban all night liqour outlets and the increase in tobacco prices.

If, of course, anybody actually gives a shit.


Isn't it more that the rich pricks in Remmers can go and get some to have with their lattes and sauvignon blancs without having to mingle with the current dealers?


Get the feeling you’re consistently on the wind up with bugger all to say enzedder

Interesting and sad that people have so much resentment for (financially)successful people in Nz though .. social media is full of it

Author:  Mr Mike [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Kahu wrote:
Kirk's 3rd Labour Government got the boot in 75

By then wasn’t it was Rowling’s?

Author:  BillW [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Mr Mike wrote:
Kahu wrote:
Kirk's 3rd Labour Government got the boot in 75

By then wasn’t it was Rowling’s?

Big Norm died in 1974.
Pity.
One of our best Prime Ministers.

Author:  Wilderbeast [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

BillW wrote:
Mr Mike wrote:
Kahu wrote:
Kirk's 3rd Labour Government got the boot in 75

By then wasn’t it was Rowling’s?

Big Norm died in 1974.
Pity.
One of our best Prime Ministers.


Yeah, it’s between him and Jacinda.

Author:  Ted. [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Dark wrote:
This will be slightly awkward for Ardern after bowing to Trumps wishes over Huawei so soon

UK say they are fine to help with building 5G

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12204757



Why on earth would you say that?

To expand on the above. the article is full of cheery picking quoyes fro selected sources. In a nutshell, the 5 Eyes Alliance were nervous about Huawei, including the Brits for your and the article Author's information.

If they have now set their resources to digging out some further intelligence that doesn't support their initial suspicions, they quite rightly, and within their rights, change their stance based on that informationn. In light of new information, I would expect them to reappraise their current stance. Why you, or anyone, would think that any belief, suspicion or statement must be for ever set in stone beggars reality. :?

Author:  jambanja [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

guy smiley wrote:
jambanja wrote:

Well colour me dumb because I don't think anyone got schooled there, she did what politicians are good at and deflected any tough questions by quoting things as positives when in fact they made no real difference to the status quo. She certainly didn't do anything to allay any fears that parents and other interest groups may have, again by going on about the difference between liberalisatin and legalisation. Which if you're a concerned person is just semantics, despite her being at pains to suggest that it isn't. I'd score this one as a nil all draw

If I was in government I too would be eager to get this across the line because of the potential to control certain aspects of it, that and the fact that it could become a great revenue earner, but to try and sell it as anything other than that is nonsense.



He's just going off there like a balloon let go, all huff and no substance. His empty hysterical rhetoric isn't based in fact and he's refusing to come back and argue simple basics, he prefers to maintain the bluster. That's what he's paid to do I guess, so it's all we'd expect... she just maintains the civil discourse and points out his errors and conflation calmly, without getting into any herself. The points she makes are valid, anyone concerned by the current situation related to weed in NZ should also see the sense in regulating the supply alone, without getting into any of the other strawmen he flung around in there like a desperado.

I had a conversation with a lady in a campground the other day about the revenue issue. It was all she could see in the whole debate... as if the idea of trying to regulate the availability of weed was only about revenue. That's a distraction, unfortunately it seems to be one that must be mentioned after decade of cost / expenditure arguments, that there will be an economic advantage to doing this but that's not the key issue here...

the issue is harm minimisation. That's what we're really talking about here and people like Garner hijacking debate are actually arguing for harm to continue unchecked.


Believe me, one person I can’t stand is Duncan Garner, like you say, a balloon let go, yes that’s supposedly his role but it’s not really his personality so it comes across as contrived.
I still don’t agree that there is going to be any significant harm minimisation and she certainly didn’t convince me, just repeatedly saying it does not make it so. Anyway you look at it Marijuana is a harmful substance especially for younger people, yes you can improve the quality and reduce “bad” dope being sold on the black market, but it is still harmful.
However I do understand that like alcohol, another harmful substance, it is here to stay and so gaining some measure of control is a benefit.
Something Garner touched on which she didn’t really answer, save to question which studies/reports he was referring to, was the 80% increase in students suspended for drugs, which lends credence to the argument that legalisation leads to legitimacy, so rather than decreasing harm it could be increasing it.

It’s one thing to say that any kid today can get hold of the drug anytime they want to, but the fear of breaking the law probably stops a great many of them

Finally, if regulating and controlling drugs is primarily about harm prevention, why are they stopping at marijuana, there are plenty of drugs out there that are potentially lethal because of bad mixes etc, why not those drugs?

Author:  Dark [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Ted. wrote:
Dark wrote:
This will be slightly awkward for Ardern after bowing to Trumps wishes over Huawei so soon

UK say they are fine to help with building 5G

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12204757



Why on earth would you say that?


They appear to have jumped the gun

Author:  UncleFB [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

brat wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
BillW wrote:
Legalising marijuana will have the same positive effects on the "wellbeing" of low income people as the legalisation of pokies, suburban all night liqour outlets and the increase in tobacco prices.

If, of course, anybody actually gives a shit.


Isn't it more that the rich pricks in Remmers can go and get some to have with their lattes and sauvignon blancs without having to mingle with the current dealers?


Get the feeling you’re consistently on the wind up with bugger all to say enzedder

Interesting and sad that people have so much resentment for (financially)successful people in Nz though .. social media is full of it

You’ll find resentment for all types of people on social media ....

Author:  mr bungle [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Kahu wrote:
No matter how that advert was filmed there was always going to be a way for identity politics to attack it. I'm waiting for the call for it to be racist because they're all white actors.

In other news

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/02/cannabis-clash-chloe-swarbrick-takes-on-duncan-garner.html

Duncan Garner imo was completely owned in this interview by the more impressive by the day Chloe Swarbrick. Needs to become a pornhub meme 'middle aged man wrecked by young girl'


I heard this this morning on the way to work. Garner wasn’t very forthcoming with his sources. “Out of LA” was a bit of a crutch for him. And 500 odd convictions in the state of California is bugger all, Duncan. She was very impressive.

Author:  guy smiley [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

jambanja wrote:
Something Garner touched on which she didn’t really answer, save to question which studies/reports he was referring to, was the 80% increase in students suspended for drugs, which lends credence to the argument that legalisation leads to legitimacy, so rather than decreasing harm it could be increasing it.

Where is that happening and how does that lend credence to anything? What's the context? If kids in NZ are being suspended then it has nothing to do with legalisation because that's not the reality here.

It’s one thing to say that any kid today can get hold of the drug anytime they want to, but the fear of breaking the law probably stops a great many of them

a bigger issue would be peer pressure and the desire to conform... one thing she said that directly addresses that is that where laws have been changed to accommodate weed, kids are starting to see it as boring

Finally, if regulating and controlling drugs is primarily about harm prevention, why are they stopping at marijuana, there are plenty of drugs out there that are potentially lethal because of bad mixes etc, why not those drugs?

well... weed is a gateway drug :nod: if you want reform, start with the easy stuff and work up. Or of course, we could look at Portugal and just do what they did

Author:  jambanja [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

guy smiley wrote:
jambanja wrote:
Something Garner touched on which she didn’t really answer, save to question which studies/reports he was referring to, was the 80% increase in students suspended for drugs, which lends credence to the argument that legalisation leads to legitimacy, so rather than decreasing harm it could be increasing it.

Where is that happening and how does that lend credence to anything? What's the context? If kids in NZ are being suspended then it has nothing to do with legalisation because that's not the reality here.
it’s apparently happening where it has already be legalised that was the point, after legalisation there was an 80% increase. I’ll be the first to admit that Dunc didn’t sound at all convincing when she asked which report that was, hopefully even wouldn’t stoop so low as to invent figures but you never know
It’s one thing to say that any kid today can get hold of the drug anytime they want to, but the fear of breaking the law probably stops a great many of them

a bigger issue would be peer pressure and the desire to conform... one thing she said that directly addresses that is that where laws have been changed to accommodate weed, kids are starting to see it as boring
i would love to see those figures and sauce for that information
Finally, if regulating and controlling drugs is primarily about harm prevention, why are they stopping at marijuana, there are plenty of drugs out there that are potentially lethal because of bad mixes etc, why not those drugs?

well... weed is a gateway drug :nod: if you want reform, start with the easy stuff and work up. Or of course, we could look at Portugal and just do what they did


Don’t know what Portugal did? Have they gone full legislation

Author:  Dark [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Personally I have no real problem whether weed is made legal or not as long as the restrictions are sound and the quality is regulated.

It won't stop gangs doing their thing like people say, but not much will.

What I do have a problem with is as usual they have highjacked the medical side of things which is more important and should be sorted first and foremost.

That and no one goes to jail for smoking weed these days, so why bother?

Author:  Ted. [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Dark wrote:
Ted. wrote:
Dark wrote:
This will be slightly awkward for Ardern after bowing to Trumps wishes over Huawei so soon

UK say they are fine to help with building 5G

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12204757



Why on earth would you say that?


They appear to have jumped the gun


So that you don't have to scroll back to my edit:

Ted. wrote:
Dark wrote:
This will be slightly awkward for Ardern after bowing to Trumps wishes over Huawei so soon

UK say they are fine to help with building 5G

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12204757



Why on earth would you say that?

To expand on the above. the article is full of cheery picking quotes fro selected sources. In a nutshell, the 5 Eyes Alliance were nervous about Huawei, including the Brits for your and the article Author's information.

If they have now set their resources to digging out some further intelligence that doesn't support their initial suspicions, they quite rightly, and within their rights, change their stance based on that information. In light of new information, I would expect them to reappraise their current stance. Why you, or anyone, would think that any belief, suspicion or statement must be for ever set in stone beggars reality. :?


More:
Quote:
... the British government has now concluded that it can mitigate the risk from using Huawei equipment in 5G networks


Now even Spark is couching the issue in terms of "concerns" that they may be able to find a way to "mitigate".

On nther other hand, if GCSB had sat on this, or the Govt had not reacted smartly, some would be spewing outrage equivalent to those vilifying the GCSB and Govt now.

Author:  jambanja [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Dark wrote:
Personally I have no real problem whether weed is made legal or not as long as the restrictions are sound and the quality is regulated.

It won't stop gangs doing their thing like people say, but not much will.

What I do have a problem with is as usual they have highjacked the medical side of things which is more important and should be sorted first and foremost.

That and no one goes to jail for smoking weed these days, so why bother?

Well the cynical side of me thinks they are hijacking an election by having a referendum at the same time as an election.

I too have no real problem with it(legalising it) just don’t bullshit about the reasons, the war on drugs, particularly this one is unwinnable, so they are trying to now get control of it.
This minimising harm really is a crock IMO, if they regulate the strength too much, the gangs will just take over again...not that they’re going anywhere. It will eventually become a great source of revenue for the government, just like alcohol is. Like I said very cynical view

Author:  Kahu [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Jambanja, what do you mean by regulating the strength too much?

Author:  Dark [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

jambanja wrote:
Dark wrote:
Personally I have no real problem whether weed is made legal or not as long as the restrictions are sound and the quality is regulated.

It won't stop gangs doing their thing like people say, but not much will.

What I do have a problem with is as usual they have highjacked the medical side of things which is more important and should be sorted first and foremost.

That and no one goes to jail for smoking weed these days, so why bother?

Well the cynical side of me thinks they are hijacking an election by having a referendum at the same time as an election.

I too have no real problem with it(legalising it) just don’t bullshit about the reasons, the war on drugs, particularly this one is unwinnable, so they are trying to now get control of it.
This minimising harm really is a crock IMO, if they regulate the strength too much, the gangs will just take over again...not that they’re going anywhere. It will eventually become a great source of revenue for the government, just like alcohol is. Like I said very cynical view


Shared by quite a few I think

And I agree it is designed with the election timing in mind

Think the problem Labour don't seem to get though is a shed load of younger people these days just aren't into weed or alcohol anymore.

Cheaper things have taken over, so it may not even bring many more out to vote

Author:  Dark [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Ted. wrote:
Dark wrote:
Ted. wrote:
Dark wrote:
This will be slightly awkward for Ardern after bowing to Trumps wishes over Huawei so soon

UK say they are fine to help with building 5G

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12204757



Why on earth would you say that?


They appear to have jumped the gun


So that you don't have to scroll back to my edit:

Ted. wrote:
Dark wrote:
This will be slightly awkward for Ardern after bowing to Trumps wishes over Huawei so soon

UK say they are fine to help with building 5G

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12204757



Why on earth would you say that?

To expand on the above. the article is full of cheery picking quotes fro selected sources. In a nutshell, the 5 Eyes Alliance were nervous about Huawei, including the Brits for your and the article Author's information.

If they have now set their resources to digging out some further intelligence that doesn't support their initial suspicions, they quite rightly, and within their rights, change their stance based on that information. In light of new information, I would expect them to reappraise their current stance. Why you, or anyone, would think that any belief, suspicion or statement must be for ever set in stone beggars reality. :?


More:
Quote:
... the British government has now concluded that it can mitigate the risk from using Huawei equipment in 5G networks


Now even Spark is couching the issue in terms of "concerns" that they may be able to find a way to "mitigate".

On nther other hand, if GCSB had sat on this, or the Govt had not reacted smartly, some would be spewing outrage equivalent to those vilifying the GCSB and Govt now.



And it makes Labour look weak

Author:  jambanja [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Kahu wrote:
Jambanja, what do you mean by regulating the strength too much?

When Garner was interviewing Chloe, they discussed the fact that the stuff in the States was very potent, to which Chloe said that that was one of the benefits of being able control the drug, I.e control it’s potency, if they do that to too great an extent, like speights mid, then they will drive customers away into the waiting arms of the gangs...imo

Author:  guy smiley [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

jambanja wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
jambanja wrote:
Something Garner touched on which she didn’t really answer, save to question which studies/reports he was referring to, was the 80% increase in students suspended for drugs, which lends credence to the argument that legalisation leads to legitimacy, so rather than decreasing harm it could be increasing it.

Where is that happening and how does that lend credence to anything? What's the context? If kids in NZ are being suspended then it has nothing to do with legalisation because that's not the reality here.
it’s apparently happening where it has already be legalised that was the point, after legalisation there was an 80% increase. I’ll be the first to admit that Dunc didn’t sound at all convincing when she asked which report that was, hopefully even wouldn’t stoop so low as to invent figures but you never know
It’s one thing to say that any kid today can get hold of the drug anytime they want to, but the fear of breaking the law probably stops a great many of them

a bigger issue would be peer pressure and the desire to conform... one thing she said that directly addresses that is that where laws have been changed to accommodate weed, kids are starting to see it as boring
i would love to see those figures and sauce for that information
Finally, if regulating and controlling drugs is primarily about harm prevention, why are they stopping at marijuana, there are plenty of drugs out there that are potentially lethal because of bad mixes etc, why not those drugs?

well... weed is a gateway drug :nod: if you want reform, start with the easy stuff and work up. Or of course, we could look at Portugal and just do what they did


Don’t know what Portugal did? Have they gone full legislation


I think Garner was absolutely bullshitting about 80% of kids... where did he get that from? What is the verifiable source for that? He should be made to account for the statement and why is it that his statement is allowed through and believed when her statement is questioned?

As for Portugal, everyone with a stance on drug strategies really should have a look at what they did...

from Wiki...

Quote:
The drug policy of Portugal was put in place in 2001, and was legally effective from July 2001. The new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. However, the offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than a ten-day supply of that substance.[1]

In April 2009, the Cato Institute published a White Paper about the "decriminalization" of drugs in Portugal,[2] paid for by the Marijuana Policy Project [3] Data about the heroin usage rates of 13-16-year-olds from EMCDDA were used to claim that "decriminalization" has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates. However, drug-related pathologies - such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage - have decreased dramatically.[2][4][5] In 1999, Portugal had the highest rate of HIV amongst injecting drug users in the European Union. The number of newly diagnosed HIV cases among drug users has decreased to 13.4 cases per million in 2009 but that is still high above the European average of 2.85 cases per million.[1] There were 2,000 new cases a year, in a country of 10 million people. 45% of HIV reported AIDS cases recorded in 1997 originated among IV drug users,[6] so targeting drug use was seen as an effective avenue of HIV prevention. The number of heroin users was estimated to be between 50,000 and 100,000 at the end of the 1990s.[7] This led to the adoption of The National Strategy for the Fight Against Drugs in 1999. A vast expansion of harm reduction efforts, doubling the investment of public funds in drug treatment and drug prevention services, and changing the legal framework dealing with minor drug offenses were the main elements of the policy thrust.



That's a very brief summary. There is a lot to it and critics have been able to draw negatives from the outcomes but in the main, those negatives have been something of a reach to try and argue it down. They targeted harm reduction and it worked. On most measures... crime, social harm, health issues and the like, their drug policy worked and continues to work.

Author:  Flockwitt [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Ted. wrote:
Dark wrote:
Ted. wrote:
Dark wrote:
This will be slightly awkward for Ardern after bowing to Trumps wishes over Huawei so soon

UK say they are fine to help with building 5G

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12204757



Why on earth would you say that?


They appear to have jumped the gun


So that you don't have to scroll back to my edit:

Ted. wrote:
Dark wrote:
This will be slightly awkward for Ardern after bowing to Trumps wishes over Huawei so soon

UK say they are fine to help with building 5G

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12204757



Why on earth would you say that?

To expand on the above. the article is full of cheery picking quotes fro selected sources. In a nutshell, the 5 Eyes Alliance were nervous about Huawei, including the Brits for your and the article Author's information.

If they have now set their resources to digging out some further intelligence that doesn't support their initial suspicions, they quite rightly, and within their rights, change their stance based on that information. In light of new information, I would expect them to reappraise their current stance. Why you, or anyone, would think that any belief, suspicion or statement must be for ever set in stone beggars reality. :?


More:
Quote:
... the British government has now concluded that it can mitigate the risk from using Huawei equipment in 5G networks


Now even Spark is couching the issue in terms of "concerns" that they may be able to find a way to "mitigate".

On nther other hand, if GCSB had sat on this, or the Govt had not reacted smartly, some would be spewing outrage equivalent to those vilifying the GCSB and Govt now.

Nobody has jumped any gun and what it "appears" is wrong. If Australia's banned Huawei NZ pretty much has to do the same.

Author:  Dark [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

jambanja wrote:
Kahu wrote:
Jambanja, what do you mean by regulating the strength too much?

When Garner was interviewing Chloe, they discussed the fact that the stuff in the States was very potent, to which Chloe said that that was one of the benefits of being able control the drug, I.e control it’s potency, if they do that to too great an extent, like speights mid, then they will drive customers away into the waiting arms of the gangs...imo


Exactly

Author:  Dark [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Flockwitt wrote:
Ted. wrote:
Dark wrote:
Ted. wrote:
Dark wrote:
This will be slightly awkward for Ardern after bowing to Trumps wishes over Huawei so soon

UK say they are fine to help with building 5G

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12204757



Why on earth would you say that?


They appear to have jumped the gun


So that you don't have to scroll back to my edit:

Ted. wrote:
Dark wrote:
This will be slightly awkward for Ardern after bowing to Trumps wishes over Huawei so soon

UK say they are fine to help with building 5G

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12204757



Why on earth would you say that?

To expand on the above. the article is full of cheery picking quotes fro selected sources. In a nutshell, the 5 Eyes Alliance were nervous about Huawei, including the Brits for your and the article Author's information.

If they have now set their resources to digging out some further intelligence that doesn't support their initial suspicions, they quite rightly, and within their rights, change their stance based on that information. In light of new information, I would expect them to reappraise their current stance. Why you, or anyone, would think that any belief, suspicion or statement must be for ever set in stone beggars reality. :?


More:
Quote:
... the British government has now concluded that it can mitigate the risk from using Huawei equipment in 5G networks


Now even Spark is couching the issue in terms of "concerns" that they may be able to find a way to "mitigate".

On nther other hand, if GCSB had sat on this, or the Govt had not reacted smartly, some would be spewing outrage equivalent to those vilifying the GCSB and Govt now.

Nobody has jumped any gun and what it "appears" is wrong. If Australia's banned Huawei NZ pretty much has to do the same.



This is new

Why?

Author:  Kahu [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

jambanja wrote:
Kahu wrote:
Jambanja, what do you mean by regulating the strength too much?

When Garner was interviewing Chloe, they discussed the fact that the stuff in the States was very potent, to which Chloe said that that was one of the benefits of being able control the drug, I.e control it’s potency, if they do that to too great an extent, like speights mid, then they will drive customers away into the waiting arms of the gangs...imo
thanks wasn't sure if you were meaning potency or strength of regulations.
I'm looking forward to growing hundreds of plants of dozens of strains in my backyard. I'm looking forward to making the most potent hash possible. Sadly I think the way it is going I won't be legally allowed that opportunity.

Author:  jambanja [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

guy smiley wrote:
jambanja wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
jambanja wrote:
Something Garner touched on which she didn’t really answer, save to question which studies/reports he was referring to, was the 80% increase in students suspended for drugs, which lends credence to the argument that legalisation leads to legitimacy, so rather than decreasing harm it could be increasing it.

Where is that happening and how does that lend credence to anything? What's the context? If kids in NZ are being suspended then it has nothing to do with legalisation because that's not the reality here.
it’s apparently happening where it has already be legalised that was the point, after legalisation there was an 80% increase. I’ll be the first to admit that Dunc didn’t sound at all convincing when she asked which report that was, hopefully even wouldn’t stoop so low as to invent figures but you never know
It’s one thing to say that any kid today can get hold of the drug anytime they want to, but the fear of breaking the law probably stops a great many of them

a bigger issue would be peer pressure and the desire to conform... one thing she said that directly addresses that is that where laws have been changed to accommodate weed, kids are starting to see it as boring
i would love to see those figures and sauce for that information
Finally, if regulating and controlling drugs is primarily about harm prevention, why are they stopping at marijuana, there are plenty of drugs out there that are potentially lethal because of bad mixes etc, why not those drugs?

well... weed is a gateway drug :nod: if you want reform, start with the easy stuff and work up. Or of course, we could look at Portugal and just do what they did


Don’t know what Portugal did? Have they gone full legislation


I think Garner was absolutely bullshitting about 80% of kids... where did he get that from? What is the verifiable source for that? He should be made to account for the statement and why is it that his statement is allowed through and believed when her statement is questioned?

As for Portugal, everyone with a stance on drug strategies really should have a look at what they did...

from Wiki...

Quote:
The drug policy of Portugal was put in place in 2001, and was legally effective from July 2001. The new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. However, the offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than a ten-day supply of that substance.[1]

In April 2009, the Cato Institute published a White Paper about the "decriminalization" of drugs in Portugal,[2] paid for by the Marijuana Policy Project [3] Data about the heroin usage rates of 13-16-year-olds from EMCDDA were used to claim that "decriminalization" has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates. However, drug-related pathologies - such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage - have decreased dramatically.[2][4][5] In 1999, Portugal had the highest rate of HIV amongst injecting drug users in the European Union. The number of newly diagnosed HIV cases among drug users has decreased to 13.4 cases per million in 2009 but that is still high above the European average of 2.85 cases per million.[1] There were 2,000 new cases a year, in a country of 10 million people. 45% of HIV reported AIDS cases recorded in 1997 originated among IV drug users,[6] so targeting drug use was seen as an effective avenue of HIV prevention. The number of heroin users was estimated to be between 50,000 and 100,000 at the end of the 1990s.[7] This led to the adoption of The National Strategy for the Fight Against Drugs in 1999. A vast expansion of harm reduction efforts, doubling the investment of public funds in drug treatment and drug prevention services, and changing the legal framework dealing with minor drug offenses were the main elements of the policy thrust.



That's a very brief summary. There is a lot to it and critics have been able to draw negatives from the outcomes but in the main, those negatives have been something of a reach to try and argue it down. They targeted harm reduction and it worked. On most measures... crime, social harm, health issues and the like, their drug policy worked and continues to work.


I hope someone does hold him to account if he was bullshiting!

That thing on Portugal is very interesting and is a good argument for legalisation , although I don’t think our politicians are brave enough to go the whole way

Author:  Tehui [ Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NZ Politics Thread

Auckman wrote:
Latest poll: 1 News/Colmar-Brunton

Image


I wonder where the other 41% of the preferred PM votes went to?

Page 464 of 736 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/