Posts by paulalambert
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Isn't social justice kind of the opposite of majority rule ?
-
We have only a bastardised version of harm reduction. MOH nearly managed it back about 1998 when formulating first National Drug Policy. The plan was to provide real context, list all drugs incl alcohol and nicotine together, but apparently lobbyists killed that idea, the political buy-in disappeared, and there was a separation into legal/illegal drugs. It was further diluted in the latest NDP earlier this year.
Re licensing trusts, don't think I know enough about them to have a sound opinion. They kept alcohol out of supermarkets, which I think is a good thing, and decisions local. I agreed with later licensing hours for bars, but not the 24 hours we got.
-
I take it you disagree with harm reduction :)
The Presbyterian in charge in Britain now says he will focus on health and education. Can't wait to see what he'll make of it . . . he's been the money man for years so must have worked out how to make it cost effective without harm reduction principles. Stand by for a miracle !
-
The head of the National Addiction Centre - one of the select few who make up the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs - did not actually attend their meeting in Welly last November that resulted in the recommendation to ban BZP.
Instead he was at an A&oD workers national training day seminar in Christchurch - also attending was the Chch A&E Dr Gee who lobbied so hard against BZP - where we were told the NAC's research showed there was a (relatively very low) 2% risk of dependence for BZP.
This seminar was also where the first report in SI of IV use of BZP surfaced. I was sitting beside the Needle Exchange people and it was definately news to them, so I daresay not at all widespread.
There was also a very funny 'blind' exercise with all the A&D workers that showed well over half of them, based on listed side effects, would ban peanuts. At least they had the grace to look sheepish. I was sitting in front of Dr Gee. He had nothing to say and left early.
-
Michael Men are made more Responsible for their actions but are held less Responsible for their children by the Justice Department. And this is liberation? No - this is the cycle continuing. .
Liberation ?? Darn, which way did it go, I missed it :)More info about Pot needs to be out there (he he).
There hasn't been a mass shooting in NZ without it!
It wasn't an axe murder it was a Rasta Ritual?
Doh ! An unexpected slur. Share it, what are you on ?Jackie God, we spend enough time as adults dealing with the hard stuff. Leave the kids alone.
I agree but it seems that is getting less achievable and kids' bullshit detectors are on *full* at all times these days. Our schools already teach a bit of civics - my son's does anyway - and dare I say it, many girls are quite capable at 16 and could vote as intelligently as most of the rest of the population if they wanted to, and so probably could most of the boys.IO__ What I can't fathom is why 16 and not 17 or 15?__
Its probably about sex. -
think the reason why those under 20 year olds are kept away from the "adults" is more to do with how those over 20 treat those under 20.
Exactly, and look at how WE are - gently - rubbishing 16 year olds in this thread. Noone really thinks this Bill will succeed, but it has got a few discussions going, and for may teens it certainly is a novel idea that rights come with responsibilities. And of course a lot of people would say many parents could do with civics education too. The alcohol age is a red herring. Most youngsters I come into contact with would rather have things put into a realistic context, eg. decriminalise and regulate pot, even jack up the drinking age, and would be happy if defensive driving was a prerequisite for driving instead of just an option to reduce the learner period. It is also surprising how many have read things like this way before their parents have http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/vlr/vlrtoc.htm and this http://www.alternet.org/story/21818I will go away for a while now, you are probably all tired at my lack of polsci polish, I did speech and language therapy at uni (grin)
-
Guys get custodial sentences at a 3:1 ratio compared to Gals.
So Yes Women have Rights but with reduced Responsibilities.
Thanks for earlier explanation. But are you sure about this 'fewer responsibilities' ? I'd have thought women get fewer custodial sentences because they have far more responsibilities, as well as the fact that far fewer prison beds are available for females, way way below a 3:1.Doesn't Ron Mark's Bill call for a 12 year age of criminal responsibility? Do you seriously think that will squeak through ?
-
As too the logical extention of this suffrage at 16yrs would leave troubled youth in the general prison population.
Thats a bit of a strain this time of night. What do you mean ?At work today the discussion covered similar points as this thread, except there were a couple of 16-17 year olds making contributions. Which reminded me yet again that media representations of that age group is so often based on disapproval about extreme examples of behaviour. The 'old enough to drive, bonk, parent, pay taxes' came up first. Another was that they are far more media-savvy these days than we were - when they can be bothered engaging with all the hypocrisy.
1978 was the first year I was eligible to vote and did, even though it was by 'special' because I was away for the weekend in another city. Can't say for sure whether I'd have gone to the trouble when I was 16.
-
I did most of the really wrong stuff I got up to at 14/15yrs.
was what I was agreeing with. -
Agree, and from talking with teens, which I do regularly and often, that is still happening. Surprise !
My Vote! rally in Queen Street: 3,000 high school students in Aotea Square and another 14,000 inside the CD stores and Burger King.
LOL'd too, thanks you made my day, even after seeing Breakfast's coverage this morning's showing one teen saying 'legalise weed.' I predict not huge numbers of 16 year olds would vote, but the Greens and ALCP might definately pick up a couple of points.No-ones arguing about civics .
All the time, aren't we, or should I check the dictionary ? In terms of responsibility, giving them the vote at 16 hands them their stake, and that could only be a good thing.