NZ Politics Thread

All things Rugby
jamesfreeman
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:08 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by jamesfreeman »

Mr Mike wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:19 am
Dark wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:16 am
Flockwitt wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:13 am
Jay Cee Gee wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:04 am No on Cannabis.

f**king stupid decision, IMO. There's sod all decent arguments in favour of keeping it illegal.

And I gave up smoking weed at 17.
Agreed. Time to move on from failed attitudes of the 1950s.
What a crock of shit.

No cop these days is going to arrest you for smoking a joint of growing a couple of plants in the garden.

The argument everyone goes to jail is bollocks
That’s a stronger argument for legalization. Leaving laws in the books which are not enforced or inconsistently applied is a very poor outcome.
:thumbup:
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 6165
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Mr Mike wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:19 am
Dark wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:16 am
Flockwitt wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:13 am
Jay Cee Gee wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:04 am No on Cannabis.

f**king stupid decision, IMO. There's sod all decent arguments in favour of keeping it illegal.

And I gave up smoking weed at 17.
Agreed. Time to move on from failed attitudes of the 1950s.
What a crock of shit.

No cop these days is going to arrest you for smoking a joint of growing a couple of plants in the garden.

The argument everyone goes to jail is bollocks
That’s a stronger argument for legalization. Leaving laws in the books which are not enforced or inconsistently applied is a very poor outcome.
My point would be who cares?

No one loses out.
Jay Cee Gee
Posts: 18286
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Jay Cee Gee »

Dark wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:30 am
Mr Mike wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:19 am
Dark wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:16 am
Flockwitt wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:13 am
Jay Cee Gee wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:04 am No on Cannabis.

f**king stupid decision, IMO. There's sod all decent arguments in favour of keeping it illegal.

And I gave up smoking weed at 17.
Agreed. Time to move on from failed attitudes of the 1950s.
What a crock of shit.

No cop these days is going to arrest you for smoking a joint of growing a couple of plants in the garden.

The argument everyone goes to jail is bollocks
That’s a stronger argument for legalization. Leaving laws in the books which are not enforced or inconsistently applied is a very poor outcome.
My point would be who cares?

No one loses out.
Every year minor drug convictions number in the thousands. Young people, poor people and brown people are all over-represented in those convictions. Do you think that's likely to have a material affect on their quality of life going forward?
User avatar
JPNZ
Posts: 2274
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:58 am
Location: Christchurch NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by JPNZ »

Enzedder wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:18 am
Jay Cee Gee wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:04 am No on Cannabis.

f**king stupid decision, IMO. There's sod all decent arguments in favour of keeping it illegal.

And I gave up smoking weed at 17.
Daft thinking - what part of the current legislation is working FFS.

Don't need Winnie now - introduce a private members bill and just do it.
More effort should be spent on getting rid of the 45 year old "Misuse of drugs" act and update it to something closer to current world standards.
User avatar
kiwigreg369
Posts: 5316
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by kiwigreg369 »

Great that NZ had a ref on this.
Gives a good flavour of the view of the public...

Regardless of the outcome good process and engagement of people in key items. I hoping technology helps make this easier and more regular. I think there are some topics MPs avoid taking a position on because it alienated voters - this is a way around this...
User avatar
Flockwitt
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Flockwitt »

kiwigreg369 wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:46 am Great that NZ had a ref on this.
Gives a good flavour of the view of the public...

Regardless of the outcome good process and engagement of people in key items. I hoping technology helps make this easier and more regular. I think there are some topics MPs avoid taking a position on because it alienated voters - this is a way around this...
:thumbup:
User avatar
deadduck
Posts: 6162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Vandean Coast

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by deadduck »

Jay Cee Gee wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:34 am
Dark wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:30 am
Mr Mike wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:19 am
Dark wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:16 am
Flockwitt wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:13 am

Agreed. Time to move on from failed attitudes of the 1950s.
What a crock of shit.

No cop these days is going to arrest you for smoking a joint of growing a couple of plants in the garden.

The argument everyone goes to jail is bollocks
That’s a stronger argument for legalization. Leaving laws in the books which are not enforced or inconsistently applied is a very poor outcome.
My point would be who cares?

No one loses out.
Every year minor drug convictions number in the thousands. Young people, poor people and brown people are all over-represented in those convictions. Do you think that's likely to have a material affect on their quality of life going forward?

If young poor brown people want a better quality of life wouldn't they be better off not wasting their money on stupefying drugs
Jay Cee Gee
Posts: 18286
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Jay Cee Gee »

deadduck wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 3:33 am
Jay Cee Gee wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:34 am
Dark wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:30 am
Mr Mike wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:19 am
Dark wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:16 am

What a crock of shit.

No cop these days is going to arrest you for smoking a joint of growing a couple of plants in the garden.

The argument everyone goes to jail is bollocks
That’s a stronger argument for legalization. Leaving laws in the books which are not enforced or inconsistently applied is a very poor outcome.
My point would be who cares?

No one loses out.
Every year minor drug convictions number in the thousands. Young people, poor people and brown people are all over-represented in those convictions. Do you think that's likely to have a material affect on their quality of life going forward?

If young poor brown people want a better quality of life wouldn't they be better off not wasting their money on stupefying drugs
Thanks for that Mike Hosking.
jamesfreeman
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:08 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by jamesfreeman »

Jay Cee Gee wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 3:35 am
deadduck wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 3:33 am
Jay Cee Gee wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:34 am
Dark wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:30 am
Mr Mike wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:19 am That’s a stronger argument for legalization. Leaving laws in the books which are not enforced or inconsistently applied is a very poor outcome.
My point would be who cares?

No one loses out.
Every year minor drug convictions number in the thousands. Young people, poor people and brown people are all over-represented in those convictions. Do you think that's likely to have a material affect on their quality of life going forward?

If young poor brown people want a better quality of life wouldn't they be better off not wasting their money on stupefying drugs
Thanks for that Mike Hosking.
:lol:
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 20043
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 »

JPNZ wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:44 am
Enzedder wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:18 am
Jay Cee Gee wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:04 am No on Cannabis.

f**king stupid decision, IMO. There's sod all decent arguments in favour of keeping it illegal.

And I gave up smoking weed at 17.
Daft thinking - what part of the current legislation is working FFS.

Don't need Winnie now - introduce a private members bill and just do it.
More effort should be spent on getting rid of the 45 year old "Misuse of drugs" act and update it to something closer to current world standards.
We can now that Winnie has gone but will any politician ignore a referendum result and do it anyway?

The gangs are delighted that they still have a monopoly on sales of dope to the youth of NZ. Well done to the uneducated and misinformed idiots who voted for the current broken system to continue.
User avatar
Flockwitt
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Flockwitt »

Enzedder wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 3:52 am
JPNZ wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:44 am
Enzedder wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:18 am
Jay Cee Gee wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:04 am No on Cannabis.

f**king stupid decision, IMO. There's sod all decent arguments in favour of keeping it illegal.

And I gave up smoking weed at 17.
Daft thinking - what part of the current legislation is working FFS.

Don't need Winnie now - introduce a private members bill and just do it.
More effort should be spent on getting rid of the 45 year old "Misuse of drugs" act and update it to something closer to current world standards.
We can now that Winnie has gone but will any politician ignore a referendum result and do it anyway?

The gangs are delighted that they still have a monopoly on sales of dope to the youth of NZ. Well done to the uneducated and misinformed idiots who voted for the current broken system to continue.
The trouble is the majority of the people who voted no aren’t uneducated idiots.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 20043
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 »

They come under misinformed. Some of the trash being posted on social media was trump like.
User avatar
Flockwitt
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Flockwitt »

Enzedder wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:31 am They come under misinformed. Some of the trash being posted on social media was trump like.
Misinformed is on the mark. Had picked the general result from listening to people I know in middle New Zealand suburbia. A lot of inherited stereotypical attitudes and scare monger sound bites came out of the wash.
User avatar
kiwigreg369
Posts: 5316
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by kiwigreg369 »

Shirley the reality is that there was probably the same number of misinformed / swayed by sterotypes on both sides. I think it's presumptuous to think people are idiots because they think differently - it would be easy to argue that the case was not presented in a compelling enough way to encourage voting behaviour (so a failure of the YES movement).

The process was clear and fair and democratically achieved - which in itself is a good achievement.
User avatar
Fat Old Git
Posts: 21133
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 »

kiwigreg369 wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 5:12 am Shirley the reality is that there was probably the same number of misinformed / swayed by sterotypes on both sides. I think it's presumptuous to think people are idiots because they think differently - it would be easy to argue that the case was not presented in a compelling enough way to encourage voting behaviour (so a failure of the YES movement).

The process was clear and fair and democratically achieved - which in itself is a good achievement.
Quite possibly. Although my impression for both topics there was significantly more scare mongering from the no campaigns, much of which was at best inaccurate and misinformed, and at worst just straight out lies. Some of the anti-end of life stuff reminded me of the anti-1080 campaigns.
User avatar
Gordon Bennett
Posts: 2287
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Gordon Bennett »

I haven't had cannabis since a very unfortunate, highly paranoid episode with some at a party in my early 20s. For me, one of the main benefits of legalisation is you're much, much more likely to know exactly what it is you're smoking than when you're getting some from some acquaintance of a friend of a mate.

That, and the saving from not having a justice-system response to the issue but instead using the tax income to support a health-system response made the cannabis referendum a much clearer need for change from my point of view than the euthanasia one.

I guess though that the result is actually reasonably close, and likely to become closer with the specials (which tend to break slightly more liberal than conservative) which might allow a government to tackle the criminalisation aspects without moving to legalisation.

EDIT: Though I see now that the Government is effectively ruling out decriminalisation if the interim result stands after specials.
User avatar
kiwigreg369
Posts: 5316
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by kiwigreg369 »

Fat Old Git wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 5:20 am
kiwigreg369 wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 5:12 am Shirley the reality is that there was probably the same number of misinformed / swayed by sterotypes on both sides. I think it's presumptuous to think people are idiots because they think differently - it would be easy to argue that the case was not presented in a compelling enough way to encourage voting behaviour (so a failure of the YES movement).

The process was clear and fair and democratically achieved - which in itself is a good achievement.
Quite possibly. Although my impression for both topics there was significantly more scare mongering from the no campaigns, much of which was at best inaccurate and misinformed, and at worst just straight out lies. Some of the anti-end of life stuff reminded me of the anti-1080 campaigns.
You're much closer so i'm sure what you felt was your experience.

In terms of campaigns often those for change position on the positive - e.g. Obama's 'Yes we can', Trump's 'Make America Great Again' (which is both a step forward and backward) - and it feels positive or progressive. The status quo group have a harder time - it's more about the risk of change, keeping things like they are etc - Trumps "keep America Great'. So it was probably exactly like you said - but it does depend on the person receiving the message - you open to the change is different from someone who seeks safety in the status quo.
tubbyj
Posts: 1148
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by tubbyj »

Yeah it is a shame. The fruit picking industry was counting on all those former drug dealing gang members applying for jobs once weed was legalized.

Not like they could have just upped the pushing of P onto the younger generation to replace their lost income. I am sure or those police hours and money wouldn't have to be redirected into the increased number of P dealers and people trying to import alternative harder drugs into NZ.
User avatar
deadduck
Posts: 6162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Vandean Coast

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by deadduck »

Jay Cee Gee wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 3:35 am
deadduck wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 3:33 am
Jay Cee Gee wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:34 am
Dark wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:30 am
Mr Mike wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:19 am That’s a stronger argument for legalization. Leaving laws in the books which are not enforced or inconsistently applied is a very poor outcome.
My point would be who cares?

No one loses out.
Every year minor drug convictions number in the thousands. Young people, poor people and brown people are all over-represented in those convictions. Do you think that's likely to have a material affect on their quality of life going forward?

If young poor brown people want a better quality of life wouldn't they be better off not wasting their money on stupefying drugs
Thanks for that Mike Hosking.
I think your response pretty much sums up why the 'Yes' movement failed.

People who didn't favour legalisation were written off as stale old boomers who just don't want to see young cool people have fun, instead of engaging them with a rational argument that actually appeased their concerns the way David Seymour so excellently did with the End of Life Choice Act referendum.

I think more people than you expect would have been genuinely conflicted about which way to vote as the argument for liberalisation is quite strong and philosophically there aren't many good reasons to keep cannabis illegal.
However there is clearly a balance to be achieved between the social harms caused by the criminality and the associated black market elements of its distribution, and the social harms caused by its use. While one of those might be mitigated by the legalisation the other may be worsened and there was almost zero acknowledgement from the 'Yes' campaign that that social harm from cannabis use even existed. That is a failure of the 'Yes' campaign because they could not successfully rebut the anti-legalisation arguments
User avatar
Fat Old Git
Posts: 21133
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 »

kiwigreg369 wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:00 am
Fat Old Git wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 5:20 am
kiwigreg369 wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 5:12 am Shirley the reality is that there was probably the same number of misinformed / swayed by sterotypes on both sides. I think it's presumptuous to think people are idiots because they think differently - it would be easy to argue that the case was not presented in a compelling enough way to encourage voting behaviour (so a failure of the YES movement).

The process was clear and fair and democratically achieved - which in itself is a good achievement.
Quite possibly. Although my impression for both topics there was significantly more scare mongering from the no campaigns, much of which was at best inaccurate and misinformed, and at worst just straight out lies. Some of the anti-end of life stuff reminded me of the anti-1080 campaigns.
You're much closer so i'm sure what you felt was your experience.

In terms of campaigns often those for change position on the positive - e.g. Obama's 'Yes we can', Trump's 'Make America Great Again' (which is both a step forward and backward) - and it feels positive or progressive. The status quo group have a harder time - it's more about the risk of change, keeping things like they are etc - Trumps "keep America Great'. So it was probably exactly like you said - but it does depend on the person receiving the message - you open to the change is different from someone who seeks safety in the status quo.
Absolutely agree with that. I almost added a similar comment. It's usually a bigger ask to make the status quo seem scarier than change with it's inherent unknowns. So those promoting it are more likely to take a positive approach.

I probably should have worded my post better that make it clearer the main focus was on the inaccuracies in in the campaigns.
Jay Cee Gee
Posts: 18286
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Jay Cee Gee »

deadduck wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:10 am
I think your response pretty much sums up why the 'Yes' movement failed.
No it fucken doesn't, it sums up how asinine your comment was. If you wanna discuss things seriously, starting with "Only got themselves to blame"

Here's why I think it hasn't passed - it doesn't affect boomers much, so they mostly voted no. End of life does potentially affect them so enough voted yes to tip it over the line.
User avatar
kiwigreg369
Posts: 5316
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by kiwigreg369 »

Before i left NZ i voted in the referendum on proportional representation.

Given the polarisation of political parties (globally) i think that the +20yrs experience in this will help NZ navigate the next years as a more united country (ironically under the first majority).

I think this system will hold NZ in good steed.

By and large NZ is hard to categorise - a progressive 'socialist' conservative nation? (think voting for women, nuclear free, sexual equality, recognition and promotion of Maori culture/rights/remuneration & constitutional recognition, the recent two referendums, plus the flag etc).

On legalisation of cannabis i'm sure they'll get there, will just take a bit longer.
User avatar
deadduck
Posts: 6162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Vandean Coast

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by deadduck »

Jay Cee Gee wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:52 am
deadduck wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:10 am
I think your response pretty much sums up why the 'Yes' movement failed.
No it fucken doesn't, it sums up how asinine your comment was. If you wanna discuss things seriously, starting with "Only got themselves to blame"

Here's why I think it hasn't passed - it doesn't affect boomers much, so they mostly voted no. End of life does potentially affect them so enough voted yes to tip it over the line.
People who didn't favour legalisation were written off as stale old boomers
Jay Cee Gee
Posts: 18286
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Jay Cee Gee »

deadduck wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 7:15 am
Jay Cee Gee wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:52 am
deadduck wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:10 am
I think your response pretty much sums up why the 'Yes' movement failed.
No it fucken doesn't, it sums up how asinine your comment was. If you wanna discuss things seriously, starting with "Only got themselves to blame"

Here's why I think it hasn't passed - it doesn't affect boomers much, so they mostly voted no. End of life does potentially affect them so enough voted yes to tip it over the line.
People who didn't favour legalisation were written off as stale old boomers

Well, firstly sometimes cliches exist cause they're true.

But secondly I didn't say all people who didn't favour it were stale old boomers, but I strongly suspect stale old boomers predominantly didn't support it and that was a large reason why it didn't get over the line. Maybe they could have been engaged more, but like I said in my last post - It doesn't really affect them (unlike end of life potentially) so they're less inclined to give a shit.
User avatar
kiwigreg369
Posts: 5316
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by kiwigreg369 »

Jay Cee Gee wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:52 am
deadduck wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:10 am
I think your response pretty much sums up why the 'Yes' movement failed.
No it fucken doesn't, it sums up how asinine your comment was. If you wanna discuss things seriously, starting with "Only got themselves to blame"

Here's why I think it hasn't passed - it doesn't affect boomers much, so they mostly voted no. End of life does potentially affect them so enough voted yes to tip it over the line.
Your analysis maybe right but your comment doesn't reflect the accountability to encourage people to change is with the group promoting change. They've got the hard job - but they knew that - and they failed to convince enough people full stop.

It might have been all 'boomers' - but it's hardly like the boomers were hiding from them and jumped out at the last minute. The Yes campaign knew they had to convince people from all demographics but they failed to do it and find the reason / reasons (ethos, logos, pathos etc).

My mum - a boomer - voted yes because as a cancer survivor (& nurse) she is in favour of the medicinal benefits.

The Yes campaign failed to compel enough people to change. 1.281m voters voted No / more than voted yes.

-----

Boomers are people greater than 55 yrs old (born before '64). The age demographics in NZ are (wiki):
0–14 years: 19.62% (male 457,071/ female 434,789)
15–24 years: 13.16% (male 307,574/ female 290,771)
25–54 years: 39.58% (male 902,909/ female 896,398)
55–64 years: 12.06% (male 266,855/ female 281,507)
65 years and over: 15.57% (male 327,052/ female 380,701) (2018 est.)
User avatar
deadduck
Posts: 6162
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Vandean Coast

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by deadduck »

I think what the result shows is that fundamentally a large bloc of NZers want to see a reduction (or at a minimum, no increase) in cannabis use and consequentially cannabis-related harm and that was probably the primary driver of their vote in this referendum.

The challenge for the Yes campaign was convincing those people that legalisation was the best way to achieve that compared to the status quo. Obviously it wasn't successful.
brat
Posts: 4513
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by brat »

Anyone who thinks that it’s totally black and white on both referendums are seriously deluded- there are pros and cons on both

I see some idiots on social media are saying people that voted no on cannabis are ‘uneducated’ and are astonished that it didn’t get through.. mainly as they don’t understand that a lot of people don’t make their decisions based on ‘likes’ and social media propaganda -which was a prolific ‘yes’ to the cannabis referendum

I especially love the falsity that gangs will somehow be licking their lips with the no vote and it’s a disaster - they were always going to be involved in cannabis either way- the black market will still exist for various reasons as it has in other countries/states that have legalised it- in some areas it’s actually increased black market activity
User avatar
mr bungle
Posts: 12566
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by mr bungle »

brat wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:46 am

I especially love the falsity that gangs will somehow be licking their lips with the no vote and it’s a disaster - they were always going to be involved in cannabis either way- the black market will still exist for various reasons as it has in other countries/states that have legalised it- in some areas it’s actually increased black market activity
In the last 2 years gang’s trading in cannabis has diminished significantly in Canada.

You only have to look at the US to see that after a decade or so after the end of prohibition the Irish and Italian gangs control of alcohol had all but ended.
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 6165
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Jay Cee Gee wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:52 am
deadduck wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:10 am
I think your response pretty much sums up why the 'Yes' movement failed.
No it fucken doesn't, it sums up how asinine your comment was. If you wanna discuss things seriously, starting with "Only got themselves to blame"

Here's why I think it hasn't passed - it doesn't affect boomers much, so they mostly voted no. End of life does potentially affect them so enough voted yes to tip it over the line.
fuck some people are idiots. Learn what a boomer actually is.

Most people who voted know just don't agree with your arguments.

Get over it tweenie
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 6165
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

kiwigreg369 wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 7:25 am
Jay Cee Gee wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:52 am
deadduck wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:10 am
I think your response pretty much sums up why the 'Yes' movement failed.
No it fucken doesn't, it sums up how asinine your comment was. If you wanna discuss things seriously, starting with "Only got themselves to blame"

Here's why I think it hasn't passed - it doesn't affect boomers much, so they mostly voted no. End of life does potentially affect them so enough voted yes to tip it over the line.
Your analysis maybe right but your comment doesn't reflect the accountability to encourage people to change is with the group promoting change. They've got the hard job - but they knew that - and they failed to convince enough people full stop.

It might have been all 'boomers' - but it's hardly like the boomers were hiding from them and jumped out at the last minute. The Yes campaign knew they had to convince people from all demographics but they failed to do it and find the reason / reasons (ethos, logos, pathos etc).

My mum - a boomer - voted yes because as a cancer survivor (& nurse) she is in favour of the medicinal benefits.

The Yes campaign failed to compel enough people to change. 1.281m voters voted No / more than voted yes.

-----

Boomers are people greater than 55 yrs old (born before '64). The age demographics in NZ are (wiki):
0–14 years: 19.62% (male 457,071/ female 434,789)
15–24 years: 13.16% (male 307,574/ female 290,771)
25–54 years: 39.58% (male 902,909/ female 896,398)
55–64 years: 12.06% (male 266,855/ female 281,507)
65 years and over: 15.57% (male 327,052/ female 380,701) (2018 est.)
Another failed argument by the yes side.

They didn't think people were bright enough to realise medicinal is already legalised a while ago and tried to mix medicinal with recreational, which basically made them look dishonest
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 6165
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

..
brat
Posts: 4513
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by brat »

mr bungle wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:01 am
brat wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:46 am

I especially love the falsity that gangs will somehow be licking their lips with the no vote and it’s a disaster - they were always going to be involved in cannabis either way- the black market will still exist for various reasons as it has in other countries/states that have legalised it- in some areas it’s actually increased black market activity
In the last 2 years gang’s trading in cannabis has diminished significantly in Canada.

You only have to look at the US to see that after a decade or so after the end of prohibition the Irish and Italian gangs control of alcohol had all but ended.
In Colorado black market activity has gone up by 50%, Oregon has increased

Regarding California I found this statement- the last sentence being pertinent

Despite all of the innovation and energy in the legalized market, the black market is still dominant. Only around 3 percent of marijuana farmers in the (California) state have obtained licenses… The problem is that regulated marijuana, which is subject to testing, taxes and many other regulations — as it will be in Canada — costs significantly more than pot grown and sold on the black market. As long as there is onerous regulation and taxation imposed on the legal market, you can forget about getting rid of the illicit market.”
Santa
Posts: 11100
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Santa »

How fudge.ng dare people have a different opinion than me. :frown:
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 6165
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Santa wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:46 am How fudge.ng dare people have a different opinion than me. :frown:
:lol:

I feel sorry for Neve.

Her mum tonight smoking a quiet spliff on the porch, listening to really bad cruisey music, hoping the special votes tip it.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 20043
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 »

No coalition deal but will cooperate in certain areas (Greens Ministers will be outside of cabinet)

Green co leaders have been offered two ministerial portfolios outside of cabinet. Marama offered minister of family and sexual violence prevention and James minister of climate change.
User avatar
Gordon Bennett
Posts: 2287
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Gordon Bennett »

If I was a Greens member, I wouldn't accept it. If they'd been offered Conservation as one of the portfolios, then perhaps yes. As it is, Davidson has been offered a tough hospital pass and Shaw can take the blame for anything the rural folk don't like. I can't really see the benefit to the Greens in signing up.

On the other hand, rejecting this proposal and then seeing no left-of-centre policies from the Ardern Government could see the Greens suck up the leftish rump of the Labour support at the next election.
User avatar
Muttonbirds
Posts: 1621
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2020 11:22 am
Location: Aotearoa

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Muttonbirds »

Dark wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:27 am
Jay Cee Gee wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:52 am
deadduck wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:10 am
I think your response pretty much sums up why the 'Yes' movement failed.
No it fucken doesn't, it sums up how asinine your comment was. If you wanna discuss things seriously, starting with "Only got themselves to blame"

Here's why I think it hasn't passed - it doesn't affect boomers much, so they mostly voted no. End of life does potentially affect them so enough voted yes to tip it over the line.
fuck some people are idiots. Learn what a boomer actually is.

Most people who voted know just don't agree with your arguments.

Get over it tweenie
A big Marley would do you good.
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 6165
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

So the Greens are just lackeys again for another 3 years.
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 20043
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 »

Dark wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 6:06 am So the Greens are just lackeys again for another 3 years.
They asked David Seymour how to do it.
User avatar
Dark
Posts: 6165
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Location: NZ

Re: NZ Politics Thread

Post by Dark »

Enzedder wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 6:19 am
Dark wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 6:06 am So the Greens are just lackeys again for another 3 years.
They asked David Seymour how to do it.
Agree, but

Seymour has actually achieved something
Post Reply