Kevyn…I don’t fully understand the point you’ve made. Are you saying that traffic infringements have increased hugely since 2000? If so why?

Was there a law change that led to the increase? Or has the population gone up significantly (which I suspect is true).

Certainly in Auckland there are now huge numbers of drivers (particularly immigrants) who have clearly not grown up understanding our traffic culture. They just drive differently.

I guess they are bringing habits from elsewhere, or else have not driven elsewhere at all.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

One other aspect of decriminalising rather than legalising is that you are likely to see the same pattern that has occured with traffic offence prosecutions. Serious offences that must be prosecuted in a court of law have increased by 25% since 2000. But infringement offences where payment of the fine is prima facie admission of guilt have increased by 100% for the offence of exceeding a speed limit and 200% for other infringement offences.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Yes, decriminalisation seems the most minimal step called for and would make a huge difference to people’s lives. In the States its compared to a parking ticket. Not allowed, but not something you need be hauled off to jail for either. Seems entirely sensible as opposed to calling half of Kiwis criminals. But your statement was much stronger than that in decrying any liberalisation at all, a la Peter Dunne circa 2002. How about medicinal use? Non wishy washy legalisation even?

I don’t disagree with your concern re S59, but being entirely black and white seems sure to lead to way more trouble regardless of where you draw the line. The parent/child relationship is so intimate that circumstances become very relevant to determining whether an assault has occurred. I am uncomfortable with the idea of leaving such decisions up to the police – one of the main arguments for decriminalising cannabis is that police are known to use it to do investigations they otherwise wouldn’t be able to do – but in this case it seems the only feasible approach.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

greengeek – can’t you differentiate between de-criminalisation and legalisation? To me, it’s degrees of punishment. Short term and long term. Fair and unfair.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Hemp seems like a nice fibre. I have no problem with it being grown.

My cannabis concerns are based around the peculiar view developing these days towards law and decriminalisation.

It just seems odd to me that we should have “pseudo-laws”. ie: if cannabis is illegal, then it’s illegal. The whole concept of “decriminalisation” seems a wishy washy nonsense to me.

Similarly with the S59 repeal…why make a law that says it’s illegal to hit your kids, but then add a rider saying “but we expect the police to turn a blind eye if it is inconsequential”

I don’t understand why there seems to be so much pretense. If someone chooses to do something illegal, then they can take the rap for it.

There should not be an expectation that laws are there for everyone else except us.

Maybe this is why our politicians are so duplicitous….because they know that no-one has clearly defined standards any more.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

WTF? Cannabis is your bottom line? Sheesh.

Even Dunne isn’t blocking medical use any more. So you’ve got left NZF and National? I’m not even sure what parties are still so backward as to deny medical use. Labour would support plenty liberalisation. Is growing hemp a problem for you?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“What’s the Green vision? Voting for a kid on a wharf. ”
Way to miss the message, BP. Actually, scratch that – you’re normally a more intelligent commenter, so you’re just being disingenuous as a means of avoiding the debate. Lift your game, won’t you?

“Quite enjoyed your posts rainman.”
Thanks, we aim to please.

“For the first time ever I can’t see clearly which party/coalition will improve this country.
Too many people pulling in too many directions.
Help me out here…which way should I vote? (assuming that my bottom line is that I will never vote for any party that accepts a more liberal cannabis stance)”

I can relate to the problem, we’re certainly not spoiled for choice. I don’t have a strong anti-cannabis view (not in favour, just not top of my list) so it’s easy for me. The Greens aren’t perfect, and to be honest much though I admire Jeanette I don’t know I’d want her running the country. But they’re important enough an influence that they’ll get my party vote. But if the cannabis issue is too much for you to vote Green (it’s not been front of policy of late, to be fair), yet you’re in the general neighbourhood, I’d think your options are Labour or Maori. (Only including people who stand a realistic chance of being >5%). Tariana’s not keen on the dole either

Remember it’s a “lesser of evils” type decision, for the most part.

Candidate vote is more tricky. I have no idea who to vote for there. I’m in ECB, so could vote Sue B, but trust me, she ain’t gonna win around here. I won’t vote Murray McCully for as long as my bum points to the ground, and the Labour candidate is a relative unknown, so won’t win either. I hope you have an easier candidate choice! (And if you have any advice on my candidate vote, I’d love to hear it…)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

rainman Says:
- National claims to be inherently more efficient than Labour but so much of that view is ideologically based it’s hard to assess. Considering the whole problem (not just the money), I would score them both poorly.

“Less tax” has little appeal to me. “More community” is far better as a present goal, “a better world”, “genuine progress” and “greater social resilience” in the longer term – but the major parties aren’t so good at those bits.

Quite enjoyed your posts rainman.

You are right about the tax…we should all expect to be generating it, handing it over to the government, and trying hard not to be beneficiaries ourselves.

I’d probably rate Labour as better at encouraging economic/business variety within our society (ie tax generation), but inherently more wasteful due to too much encouragement of beneficiarism.

National on the other hand, I would rate as less effective in generating productivity via business creativity, but more efficient in spending the little tax they generate.

For the first time ever I can’t see clearly which party/coalition will improve this country.

Too many people pulling in too many directions.

Help me out here…which way should I vote? (assuming that my bottom line is that I will never vote for any party that accepts a more liberal cannabis stance)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>Leaders need to have a compelling vision

New Zealand not turning into an economic basket case is good enough for me.

What’s the Green vision? Voting for a kid on a wharf.

Whatever….

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Planet Spondre.”

hahaha

population 1 copulation 0

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

fwwog .. KYOTO is old … so old fwwog
so old that it deaded fwwog,
KYOTO whers that fwwog
its old like the dead snapper fish what nobody like,
Winston voting NAT,
MAORI independent,
put yous feet web things up fwwog,

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Whatever.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“John Key … more leader-like”

You’re taking the piss, aren’t you?

Leaders need to have a compelling vision, and the (for want of a better word) mana, to be able to inspire people to follow them to achieve it. JK, to be charitable, is a “mostly harmless”, “me too”, “like them only better” model of self-serving git.

Leader my arse.
http://www.despair.com/leaders.html

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>> 2% of the papers and 6pm news is way better than 0%

Not if it helped John Key look more leader-like, which in my opinion, it did….

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Yes, yes, mediated comms vs unmediated comms, I know the difference. You need both. And to underestimate the importance of mediated comms is a big mistake in politics. The name of the game in the last two weeks for both types is to remind people that you are there, as there are still a frightening number of undecided’s and soft votes that can be swayed by the last thing they hear. 2% of the papers and 6pm news is way better than 0%. There is no media manager in a political campaign that would argue.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

where the intense gravity makes the inhabitants especially dense

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Valis,

Trouble with your “media exposure” is that it is not a controlled message.

Your interpretation is fastly different than say BP’s.

Because you dont control the message you cant target the outcome.

It got the greens about 2% coverage in the papers and a little reaction from the people in the mall at the time.

Would it persuade any voter?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Planet Spondre.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“as all men are rapists in Green think ”

Wtf planet is that on?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Kahikatea is right, you’re definitely imagining things. The most PC thing imaginable is organic, free trade coffee from East Timor (available at Common Sense Organics) and we’ll drink it while singing The Internationale and having any sex kinky enough to be considered depraved by some demonstrably sane and upright independent authority – yourself for instance.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)