NZ Politics Thread

All things Rugby
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17405
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Ted. »

Gordon Bennett wrote:
Dark wrote:
Eugenius wrote:I’m hoping that Jacinda includes the Greens even if not strictly necessary for the numbers .

There’s some talent there and they will counter what’s left of the soft neo-liberals that remain in the party . The most progressive government possible is a Red / Green coalition of sorts .
Geezes I hope not
I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again, in New Zealand there is great value in there being an environmental voice in Parliament. Currently, only the Greens offer that and they do have some pretty sound politicians. I've was disappointed with what they achieved in the first two years of this government, but they've managed to get some decent policy wins in the last 12 months. I'd vastly prefer it if they could work with National as well as Labour as I think they would take the edges off the National policy that I really abhor. As things stand, I'm veering towards party voting Green as they'll take some of the edges off the Labour policy and add a bit more of an actual 'Green' to the parliament whilst being in coalition will mean that they'll have to compromise on their left-wing economic policy.

Here's a question - which Politicians would people love to see the back of? A lot of people have mentioned Winston and Shane Jones. On the other hand Tracey Martin seems to have been a pretty reasonable centrist politician (someone please point me to evidence to the contrary, as I'll confess I haven't dug into it much). My most disliked politician is Nick Smith. Doesn't have any redeeming features other than having stood up to the anti-1080 lobby. Maureen Pugh is a disgraceful science-denier (anti-vax, doesn't believe in anthropogenic climate change) too, so I'd love to see the back of her. Sadly and unbelievably, Judith Collins has promoted her way up the list. What's the inside scoop on Nick Smith and Maureen Pugh (other than Simon Bridges' thoughts), GON?

Also, wondering if any of the Wellington crowd might be keen for an election night cabal? Drinks as the results flow in or something.
Twist my arm, why don't you. Ow!

A bit of speculation on my part, but on the likes of Pugh, there has been a trend, and IMO a worrying one, of these sorts inveigling their way into a local body and national politics. Most of them appear to align with or use the National Party ticket, though not exclusively so. I think they regard National as a convenient vehicle, rather than necessarily being National people.
Eugenius
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Eugenius »

Kahu wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:The left needs to lose that “rich prick” attitude, and fast.
Why? Stereotypes work because they are true. If rich pricks don't want to be labelled as rich pricks they need to stop acting like rich pricks. Same goes for beneficiaries.
Dark wrote:
I get you don't mind going into elections completely blind and will just vote for a party name, but a lot of people don't
You voted for Winnie and got mad when he chose Jacinda over Bill eh?

:nod:
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5761
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Kahu wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:The left needs to lose that “rich prick” attitude, and fast.
Why? Stereotypes work because they are true. If rich pricks don't want to be labelled as rich pricks they need to stop acting like rich pricks. Same goes for beneficiaries.
Dark wrote:
I get you don't mind going into elections completely blind and will just vote for a party name, but a lot of people don't
You voted for Winnie and got mad when he chose Jacinda over Bill eh?
Nope
Eugenius
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Eugenius »

Pity
User avatar
Kahu
Posts: 3471
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Kahu »

Sadly JuCo missed another target today with National's latest policy announcement on non-compulsory 3rd party car insurance. As the party of self-responsibility and anti-bureaucracy it was disappointing that it appealed to neither principle.
Last edited by Kahu on Mon Aug 10, 2020 5:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19643
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

Kahu wrote:Sadly JuCo missed another target today with National's latest policy announcement on compulsory 3rd party car insurance. As the party of self-responsibility and anti-bureaucracy it was disappointing that it appealed to neither principle.
It wasn't that though. It was a directive that your insurance details be added to the car regn sticker so you cannot fib about them in an accident.
User avatar
Kahu
Posts: 3471
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Kahu »

Apologies for the typo Enzedder it was meant to say non-compulsory. She should have gone the whole hogg and announced compulsory 3rd party car insurance imo
User avatar
Fat Old Git
Posts: 20860
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Fat Old Git »

Kahu wrote:Apologies for the typo Enzedder it was meant to say non-compulsory. She should have gone the whole hogg and announced compulsory 3rd party car insurance imo
I'm in favor of compulsory third party insurance in principle, but it would need to be well controlled to ensure insurance companies can't milk the system. I remember friends trying to get it when I was living in the UK years ago and the premiums were ridiculous.
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5761
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

After being told we have to pay for people to isolate in luxury hotels as it is the only safe place....

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12354576
Covid 19 coronavirus: Two people in managed isolation at home in South Auckland

Two people who recently returned from overseas are in managed isolation at their own house in a suburb in South Auckland.

The Herald has confirmed the pair were granted a special exemption on medical grounds. Both have returned negative tests for Covid-19 on day three.

A spokeswoman for Managed Isolation and Quarantine confirmed the incident after a neighbour became worried after spotting several security guards outside a property near their house.

"Two people have been granted an exemption from managed isolation for a medical reason and are safely self-isolating at a South Auckland property," the spokeswoman said.

The spokeswoman said this was not the first time someone who had returned from overseas had been given an exemption from undergoing managed isolation at a hotel - instead carrying out their 14-day quarantine at home.

She acknowledged that such exemptions were given only under strict conditions or compassionate reasons - in this case, a medical reason.

It was allowed when those needing to stay in 14-day managed isolation could not have their health needs met in a hotel.

The current case was being run in accordance with health guidelines and was "not unusual".

The Herald has sought further information about the case, including which country those in the household had returned from and how many similar exemptions had been granted.

Neighbours find out from security guards

A neighbour who contacted the Herald said he only spotted the guards outside the house yesterday.

He said he asked the guards what they were doing and they said it was Covid-related.

The man said the news was alarming.

"I've got family that stay just nextdoor to them and I don't want them catching it."

On the street today, a witness said up to three security guards were stationed outside the house, some wearing masks.

Two were seen at one point sitting in their car when it started to rain.

The other was seen walking around the property.

The news comes after director-general of health Dr Ashley Bloomfield said on Facebook this morning: "What we have put in place since April 9 is that everyone coming across the border, bar a very few exemptions, has to do that 14 days of managed isolation - so not even isolating at home."
User avatar
Fat Old Git
Posts: 20860
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Fat Old Git »

if that is the case I'm thinking of it's because they have other medical conditions that can't be managed in the isolation hotel.
User avatar
sonic_attack
Posts: 4111
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Contact:

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by sonic_attack »

Wheelchair access and amenities. They barely exist in any hotels.
User avatar
Muttonbirds
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2020 11:22 am
Location: Aotearoa

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Muttonbirds »

Hey Dark, in Britain it's unmanaged self-isolation at home on arrival. Perhaps we should just do that?
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5761
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Muttonbirds wrote:Hey Dark, in Britain it's unmanaged self-isolation at home on arrival. Perhaps we should just do that?

I don't think that is a good idea.

But if you do all good
User avatar
Muttonbirds
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2020 11:22 am
Location: Aotearoa

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Muttonbirds »

Dark wrote:
Muttonbirds wrote:Hey Dark, in Britain it's unmanaged self-isolation at home on arrival. Perhaps we should just do that?

I don't think that is a good idea.

But if you do all good
So why are you criticising managed quarantine in hotels?
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5761
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Muttonbirds wrote:
Dark wrote:
Muttonbirds wrote:Hey Dark, in Britain it's unmanaged self-isolation at home on arrival. Perhaps we should just do that?

I don't think that is a good idea.

But if you do all good
So why are you criticising managed quarantine in hotels?
I'll tell when you actually read my posts
User avatar
Muttonbirds
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2020 11:22 am
Location: Aotearoa

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Muttonbirds »

^No thanks.

Paula Benefit is still drawing a Parliamentary salary at the same time as hosting a right wing spot on a right wing radio station.

Double-dipping, anyone?
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5761
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Muttonbirds wrote:^No thanks.

Paula Benefit is still drawing a Parliamentary salary at the same time as hosting a right wing spot on a right wing radio station.

Double-dipping, anyone?
You think Willie Jackson is right wing given his last job

Interesting.

Have you told Ardern
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19643
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

The $311m increase to flexi-wage subsidies to help get beneficiaries back working is going to be a boon to job-seekers. Average subsidies have been increased to approx $7500 per placement for f/t work.

Maximum, including to those setting up a business, is $22k. This is all funded by the lower than anticipated Covid Wage Subsidy Extension takeup.

Great work from the Government to get things moving in that area - as it is my back-ground I cannot emphasise enough how useful a tool that is to employers and to those setting up a business.
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5761
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Enzedder wrote:The $311m increase to flexi-wage subsidies to help get beneficiaries back working is going to be a boon to job-seekers. Average subsidies have been increased to approx $7500 per placement for f/t work.

Maximum, including to those setting up a business, is $22k. This is all funded by the lower than anticipated Covid Wage Subsidy Extension takeup.

Great work from the Government to get things moving in that area - as it is my back-ground I cannot emphasise enough how useful a tool that is to employers and to those setting up a business.
Sounds like a good move reading about it.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19643
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

National party still at each other's throat I see

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... ndzL1D8wyU

JoCo should be taking a stand on this, not hiding behind a "No Comment"
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

That Merv thing seems like it belongs on the tv. Absolutely bizarre.
User avatar
Auckman
Posts: 9056
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Sydney Town

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Auckman »

Wilderbeast wrote:That Merv thing seems like it belongs on the tv. Absolutely bizarre.
I'm confuuuuuused
User avatar
JPNZ
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:58 am
Location: Christchurch NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by JPNZ »

JPNZ wrote:
Here in town, Christchurch's 6th full hotel has been taken over for quarantine travelers. The 204 room crowne plaza will be used for returning travelers from this weekend. I'd love to know how many people are currently in quarantine NZ wide.
Found my answer in today's news - 7100 people currently
Whether you like looking at planes, birds, the city, or the alps, there’s a varied outlook for guests stuck in Christchurch’s Covid-19 isolation hotels. There’s no choice of establishment so it’s the luck of the draw. But reviews suggest those in managed isolation are making the best of their 14-day experience. Unlike North Island isolation hotels, which vary in age and start at just three stars, all Christchurch’s isolation hotels have at least four-star ratings. Of the approximately 7100 people in managed isolation in 31 hotels around the country, about 860 of them are in five hotels in Christchurch.

Those hotels – the Commodore Airport, the Sudima Airport, the Novotel Airport, the Chateau on the Park, and the Distinction – will be joined by the Crowne Plaza from next week. These hotels, which have normal nightly rates ranging from $150 to more than $300, have been free for returnees to stay at until now, with many people now having to pay as government charges taking effect. Online reviews suggest the meals, outlook, and choice of TV channels assume major importance when you can’t leave for a fortnight. The government's information package for the hotels tells guests that as well as accommodation and meals, taxpayers provide tea and coffee in the rooms, basic toiletries, a laundry service, and unlimited wi-fi. Guests have to pay to use the hotel phone and any extra food or items they get delivered. They are allowed to buy alcohol.
User avatar
usermame
Posts: 5196
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Te Ika a Maui

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by usermame »

Dark wrote:
Eugenius wrote:I’m hoping that Jacinda includes the Greens even if not strictly necessary for the numbers .

There’s some talent there and they will counter what’s left of the soft neo-liberals that remain in the party . The most progressive government possible is a Red / Green coalition of sorts .
Geezes I hope not
I think I'll be voting Green, aiming to move the Government more left and to get the rivers cleaner, faster..

Of course, knowing the reactionaries are always with us, Crusher could cruise it and turn them blacker than pitch in the blink of a settling pond...
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19643
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

usermame wrote:
Dark wrote:
Eugenius wrote:I’m hoping that Jacinda includes the Greens even if not strictly necessary for the numbers .

There’s some talent there and they will counter what’s left of the soft neo-liberals that remain in the party . The most progressive government possible is a Red / Green coalition of sorts .
Geezes I hope not
I think I'll be voting Green, aiming to move the Government more left and to get the rivers cleaner, faster..

Of course, knowing the reactionaries are always with us, Crusher could cruise it and turn them blacker than pitch in the blink of a settling pond...

I'm thinking the same.

I see the JuCo Corporation has come out and said a Yes vote in the Cannabis referendum does not bind them and they may not legalise personal use.
A majority "yes" vote in next month's cannabis referendum would not necessarily lead to its personal use being legalised if National was in charge after the election.

The party's drug reform spokesman Nick Smith said the party would abide by a "yes" vote by introducing the Government's Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill, which outlines the proposed regulatory framework for a legal market.

But whether National, which opposes legalising for recreational use, would then support the bill to become law would depend on the select committee process following the bill's first reading.

The public will vote on legalising cannabis for personal use on September 19, but a majority "yes" vote doesn't necessarily mean it will be legalised. If the committee, for example, recommended that the bill shouldn't proceed, then National may shelve the bill.

The party, under Simon Bridges' leadership, has previously said it would honour the referendum result.

Smith said the party's position had not changed but merely been clarified. (So, which one was fake news?)

Act party leader David Seymour said his party had the same position as National on the referendum.

"We would certainly honour the referendum result at first reading, but we also believe in honouring the select committee process, so we would review after that."

National opposes legalising for personal use, while Act has no position and would prefer to see what happens in Canada, where cannabis was legalised for personal use in 2018.

On Tuesday, National Party leader Judith Collins said Labour leader Jacinda Ardern should also give a "straight answer" on whether she would vote "yes" or "no" in the referendum.

Ardern has consistently refused to say and did so again yesterday, saying it was a decision for the voters to make for themselves.

National Party drug reform spokesman Nick Smith says National opposes legalising cannabis for personal use. The referendum to legalise cannabis for personal use was part of the Labour-Greens confidence and supply agreement.

The Government has called September's vote a binding referendum because the governing parties have committed to abide by the outcome of the referendum.

Justice Minister Andrew Little has said that a "yes" vote would see a Labour Government pass the bill into law. If the select committee recommended changes, the current controls in the draft bill would remain as the bare minimum.

The Greens support the draft bill, meaning a Labour or a Labour-Greens Government would see the bill passed into law in the event of a "yes" vote.

NZ First also supports the bill, but its ongoing support is not as concrete as Labour or the Greens.

A spokesman said the party would send the bill to select committe, and if change was recommended or new evidence emerged during that process, it would consider those with "an open mind" in light of the strength of the majority "yes" vote.

The proposed legal framework includes a number of controls, including purchase age of 20, a limit on THC (the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis) content, a ban on advertising and a levy that would be ring-fenced to increase health and treatment services.

Last month an expert panel, led by the Prime Minister's chief science adviser Juliet Gerrard, released its peer-reviewed work to help inform the public debate in the lead-up to the referendum.

Gerrard told the Herald that the key question was not about whether cannabis was good or bad, but whether the proposed legal framework would be better at reducing cannabis-related harm than the status quo.

The panel found that illegal cannabis has led to a cascade of health and social harms that could potentially be addressed through legalisation, but whether that would transpire is unknown.

Cannabis is widely used despite its illegality, and proponents say legalisation would see consumers using regulated products - with messages about potential health impacts - while avoiding the debilitating consequences of being criminalised.

Opponents say it would lead to an increase in consumption and therefore harm, especially among groups whose health is most at risk - young people and frequent users.
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5761
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Enzedder wrote:
usermame wrote:
Dark wrote:
Eugenius wrote:I’m hoping that Jacinda includes the Greens even if not strictly necessary for the numbers .

There’s some talent there and they will counter what’s left of the soft neo-liberals that remain in the party . The most progressive government possible is a Red / Green coalition of sorts .
Geezes I hope not
I think I'll be voting Green, aiming to move the Government more left and to get the rivers cleaner, faster..

Of course, knowing the reactionaries are always with us, Crusher could cruise it and turn them blacker than pitch in the blink of a settling pond...

I'm thinking the same.

I see the JuCo Corporation has come out and said a Yes vote in the Cannabis referendum does not bind them and they may not legalise personal use.

Why would they?
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

I see she has stated all National will vote no. She can’t possibly enforce that of course.
User avatar
Monkey Magic
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Monkey Magic »

Gerrard told the Herald that the key question was not about whether cannabis was good or bad, but whether the proposed legal framework would be better at reducing cannabis-related harm than the status quo.

This is the key point that is swinging me towards yes. Especially with people getting criminal records for something huge numbers of people have done with few consequences
Santa
Posts: 10231
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

Dark wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
usermame wrote:
Dark wrote:
Eugenius wrote:I’m hoping that Jacinda includes the Greens even if not strictly necessary for the numbers .

There’s some talent there and they will counter what’s left of the soft neo-liberals that remain in the party . The most progressive government possible is a Red / Green coalition of sorts .
Geezes I hope not
I think I'll be voting Green, aiming to move the Government more left and to get the rivers cleaner, faster..

Of course, knowing the reactionaries are always with us, Crusher could cruise it and turn them blacker than pitch in the blink of a settling pond...

I'm thinking the same.

I see the JuCo Corporation has come out and said a Yes vote in the Cannabis referendum does not bind them and they may not legalise personal use.

Why would they?
It's bizarre. The Greens could not be in a weaker posirion than being in a coalition government with a Labour party that can govern alone anyway. They would be wallpaper and that is it.
Last edited by Santa on Tue Aug 11, 2020 7:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

Monkey Magic wrote:Gerrard told the Herald that the key question was not about whether cannabis was good or bad, but whether the proposed legal framework would be better at reducing cannabis-related harm than the status quo.

This is the key point that is swinging me towards yes. Especially with people getting criminal records for something huge numbers of people have done with few consequences
Largely my thinking :thumbup:
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5761
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Wilderbeast wrote:I see she has stated all National will vote no. She can’t possibly enforce that of course.
It isn't a conscience vote.

So yes, she pretty much can really.

One or two could possibly cross the floor, but doubt it would happen for something as pointless as making it legal.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19643
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

Why would they?
Will of the people

Not ignoring the wishes of the electorate
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5761
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Enzedder wrote:
Why would they?
Will of the people

Not ignoring the wishes of the electorate
Most referendums that yes are ignored.

A) They were against the thing
B) Only Labour signed up to have it. Blame them for not just passing it as law.
BillW
Posts: 1794
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by BillW »

Monkey Magic wrote:Gerrard told the Herald that the key question was not about whether cannabis was good or bad, but whether the proposed legal framework would be better at reducing cannabis-related harm than the status quo.

This is the key point that is swinging me towards yes. Especially with people getting criminal records for something huge numbers of people have done with few consequences
The legalisation of cannabis will be as harmless as the legalisation of pokies.
User avatar
Monkey Magic
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Monkey Magic »

BillW wrote:
Monkey Magic wrote:Gerrard told the Herald that the key question was not about whether cannabis was good or bad, but whether the proposed legal framework would be better at reducing cannabis-related harm than the status quo.

This is the key point that is swinging me towards yes. Especially with people getting criminal records for something huge numbers of people have done with few consequences
The legalisation of cannabis will be as harmless as the legalisation of pokies.
I'm not saying there won't be harm, but is legalizing it going to reduce the overall harm more than leaving it prohibited?

Thats what I'm weighing up, however there are interesting stats showing boozing and weed consumption has been dropping anyway, are we better to keep going down that path?

I'm not sold either way yet but find the hypocrisy of it creating criminals when large swathes of adults have done it a bit on the nose - especially given that those that get decent lawyers are likely to have minimal long term impact to their lives if caught, while others will have it hanging over them forever
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5761
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Monkey Magic wrote:
BillW wrote:
Monkey Magic wrote:Gerrard told the Herald that the key question was not about whether cannabis was good or bad, but whether the proposed legal framework would be better at reducing cannabis-related harm than the status quo.

This is the key point that is swinging me towards yes. Especially with people getting criminal records for something huge numbers of people have done with few consequences
The legalisation of cannabis will be as harmless as the legalisation of pokies.
I'm not saying there won't be harm, but is legalizing it going to reduce the overall harm more than leaving it prohibited?

Thats what I'm weighing up, however there are interesting stats showing boozing and weed consumption has been dropping anyway, are we better to keep going down that path?

I'm not sold either way yet but find the hypocrisy of it creating criminals when large swathes of adults have done it a bit on the nose - especially given that those that get decent lawyers are likely to have minimal long term impact to their lives if caught, while others will have it hanging over them forever
The irony being half the Judges, cops and lawyers were/are all into it.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 19643
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Enzedder »

If we do go down the legalised weed path, I hope that they can do something about the outdated testing regime.

I don't think that a test showing that you had a smoke two weekends ago means a damn thing for work situations - surely a test to determine whether you are under the influence 'now' has to be made the norm. Like booze
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6003
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Wilderbeast »

Dark wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:I see she has stated all National will vote no. She can’t possibly enforce that of course.
It isn't a conscience vote.

So yes, she pretty much can really.

One or two could possibly cross the floor, but doubt it would happen for something as pointless as making it legal.
It’s a referendum. She’ll have no idea what they vote.
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 5761
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Wilderbeast wrote:
Dark wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:I see she has stated all National will vote no. She can’t possibly enforce that of course.
It isn't a conscience vote.

So yes, she pretty much can really.

One or two could possibly cross the floor, but doubt it would happen for something as pointless as making it legal.
It’s a referendum. She’ll have no idea what they vote.
They still have to pass the bill after.
Post Reply