Comments on: The farcical debate http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/ hopping along the corridors of power Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:34:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: bjchip http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/#comment-58893 bjchip Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:22:02 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/#comment-58893 Gerrit An old poster... "Acid indigestion? Check your source" There is NO known fatal dose of Marijuana. None. Clinically studied it has no fatal effects. Here in NZ the typical joint may or may not contain 'P' or something else, and the way that particular statistic is presented it could mean almost anything. I'm talking about the scientific studies of the drug. You can kill yourself by eating enough aspirin and by drinking enough Vodka. You can't do that with any amount of weed. respectfully BJ Gerrit

An old poster… “Acid indigestion? Check your source”

There is NO known fatal dose of Marijuana. None. Clinically studied it has no fatal effects.

Here in NZ the typical joint may or may not contain ‘P’ or something else, and the way that particular statistic is presented it could mean almost anything.

I’m talking about the scientific studies of the drug. You can kill yourself by eating enough aspirin and by drinking enough Vodka.

You can’t do that with any amount of weed.

respectfully
BJ

]]> By: bjchip http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/#comment-58892 bjchip Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:16:59 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/#comment-58892 Since "head to head" is more effective wouldn't the proper responses be - A. A round robin of debates - Labour vs Nats - Nats vs Greens - Labour vs Greens - Winston First vs Labour - Winston First vs Nats - Winston First vs Greens B. Taking each question in the debate and then giving each of the "minor" parties similar air-time to respond to the questions, presenting this juxtaposed against the major party responses. This isn't about the independent network deciding what to do, it is about the absolute and unconscionable arrogance of Labour and National. respectfully BJ Since “head to head” is more effective wouldn’t the proper responses be -

A. A round robin of debates
- Labour vs Nats
- Nats vs Greens
- Labour vs Greens
- Winston First vs Labour
- Winston First vs Nats
- Winston First vs Greens

B. Taking each question in the debate and then giving each of the “minor” parties similar air-time to respond to the questions, presenting this juxtaposed against the major party responses.

This isn’t about the independent network deciding what to do, it is about the absolute and unconscionable arrogance of Labour and National.

respectfully
BJ

]]> By: even http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/#comment-58891 even Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:13:16 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/#comment-58891 Ms. Fitzsimmons and Mr Dunne are advocating for their own interests as are Ms. Clarke and Mr Key. The same aspects that some quarters feel hard done by currently are still the same aspects and advantages that they have benefited from also over the years. THese things happen in arbitrary privilege systems and has been status quo for so long that m.m.p. is in real danger because of it. Ms. Fitzsimmons and Mr Dunne are advocating for their own interests as are Ms. Clarke and Mr Key.
The same aspects that some quarters feel hard done by currently are still the same aspects and advantages that they have benefited from also over the years.
THese things happen in arbitrary privilege systems and has been status quo for so long that m.m.p. is in real danger because of it.

]]> By: big bro http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/#comment-58888 big bro Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:41:38 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/#comment-58888 I have just heard Jeanette and Dunne on Radio left wing moaning about the lack of an all leader debate on TV3. Why is it that these two think they have the right to tell an independent network what to do, TV3 is a commercial operation and as such they can ask whoever they like to attend their debate. I have just heard Jeanette and Dunne on Radio left wing moaning about the lack of an all leader debate on TV3.

Why is it that these two think they have the right to tell an independent network what to do, TV3 is a commercial operation and as such they can ask whoever they like to attend their debate.

]]> By: kjuv http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/#comment-58842 kjuv Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:23:46 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/#comment-58842 btw, Frog. When does Daylight saving start for you? Or are you making some sort of naturalistic point? :) btw, Frog. When does Daylight saving start for you? Or are you making some sort of naturalistic point? :)

]]> By: kjuv http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/#comment-58841 kjuv Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:13:54 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/#comment-58841 Perhaps the Clark/Key thinking is merely an extension of the dumbing down of political debate (that seems to have occurred in the US at least)? According to the Listener US presidential contenders spoke at 11-12th grade levels in 1858 and Nixon and Kennedy at 10th grade in 1960. Apparently this had slipped to sixth and seventh grade by the turn of the century. It would be interesting to know the results of any similar analysis of the NZ electorate Maybe they feel that the vast majority of voters would only get confused by the different issues and solutions offered by the minor parties? If so, they may have a good point as there has not been any sign of any significant shifting of support to the minor parties. As a country, when it comes to the general elections, we do seem to be locked into a strictly two way presidential style way of thinking. Perhaps the Clark/Key thinking is merely an extension of the dumbing down of political debate (that seems to have occurred in the US at least)? According to the Listener US presidential contenders spoke at 11-12th grade levels in 1858 and Nixon and Kennedy at 10th grade in 1960. Apparently this had slipped to sixth and seventh grade by the turn of the century. It would be interesting to know the results of any similar analysis of the NZ electorate

Maybe they feel that the vast majority of voters would only get confused by the different issues and solutions offered by the minor parties? If so, they may have a good point as there has not been any sign of any significant shifting of support to the minor parties.

As a country, when it comes to the general elections, we do seem to be locked into a strictly two way presidential style way of thinking.

]]> By: Gerrit http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/#comment-58825 Gerrit Mon, 29 Sep 2008 02:59:00 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/#comment-58825 BJ, That you know off or do we have statistics? These old ones tell a different story (only one per year but one more then none) <blockquote>There were seven deaths over the period 1990-96 where a cannabis-related condition such as drug abuse or dependence was the underlying cause of death.</blockquote> http://www.nzhis.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesns/130 BJ,

That you know off or do we have statistics?

These old ones tell a different story (only one per year but one more then none)

There were seven deaths over the period 1990-96 where a cannabis-related condition such as drug abuse or dependence was the underlying cause of death.

http://www.nzhis.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesns/130

]]> By: bjchip http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/#comment-58824 bjchip Mon, 29 Sep 2008 02:50:20 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/#comment-58824 Gerrit All those folks smoking weed and no deaths.. Eventually, like smoking of any sort, it'll take out people's lungs... but it's not worse than cigarettes in that regard (unless you smoke as much weed as you smoke cigarettes). Compare with alcohol and you can see where kids can die just by drinking it too fast. There's no known "fatal" dose of weed. Nor is it physically addictive the way cigarettes are. ... and nobody should be driving under the influence. respectfully BJ Gerrit

All those folks smoking weed and no deaths..

Eventually, like smoking of any sort, it’ll take out people’s lungs… but it’s not worse than cigarettes in that regard (unless you smoke as much weed as you smoke cigarettes).

Compare with alcohol and you can see where kids can die just by drinking it too fast. There’s no known “fatal” dose of weed. Nor is it physically addictive the way cigarettes are.

… and nobody should be driving under the influence.

respectfully
BJ

]]> By: BluePeter http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/#comment-58823 BluePeter Mon, 29 Sep 2008 02:44:03 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/#comment-58823 With respect, the crime here is operating a motor vehicle whilst under the influence, not the smoking itself. With respect, the crime here is operating a motor vehicle whilst under the influence, not the smoking itself.

]]> By: Gerrit http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/#comment-58822 Gerrit Mon, 29 Sep 2008 02:37:04 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/09/28/the-farcical-debate/#comment-58822 weedeater, your "old mate" i'm not. My last accident was caused by someone who had been smoking weed, Said the "stop sign just did not come any closer" as he was driving towards and through an intersection. So I dont think cannabis smoking is any less a victimless crime then speeding or drink driving. But speeding is more prevalent (by a factor of 2) than cannabis smoking. Should we legalise speeding? Same sort of argument, No? weedeater,

your “old mate” i’m not.

My last accident was caused by someone who had been smoking weed, Said the “stop sign just did not come any closer” as he was driving towards and through an intersection.

So I dont think cannabis smoking is any less a victimless crime then speeding or drink driving.

But speeding is more prevalent (by a factor of 2) than cannabis smoking. Should we legalise speeding?

Same sort of argument, No?

]]>