Hard News: About that Rhythm and Vines "dangerous drugs" alert
38 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Moz, in reply to
I'm so glad our politics is different here.
One of the few good aspects of NSW is consistency - we have stupid laws about alcohol, tobacco *and* illegal drugs. I'm really glad to see Aotearoa moving in a sensible direction (and FWIW, I'm not a user, I just think the law is painfully stupid).
Having visited MPs in parliaments in NZ, NSW and Au, even the "new high security" in NZ is lax by comparison. In NSW I had to wait 20 minutes while they found a flunkey, who questioned me then wandered off to physically get a staffer to escort me round the building. Apparently just ringing them to come down wasn't enough. Federal parliament is not even worth the effort, the MP will come out and take you away for a meeting. It was easier to get into Lucas Heights nuclear reactor (as a legitimate visitor*).
* famously once when Greenpeace was at Lucas Heights security opened up to let someone drive out and 100-odd Greenpeace protesters literally danced through the open gate.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
and thought drinking gallons of water would keep her safe.
This is also the story of the first two recorded MDMA deaths in New Zealand: Ngaire O'Neill in 1998 and Dai Bowden in 2001.
-
Unusually, the Herald has bylined its editorial on the drug-checking issue – and the byline is that of John Roughan ...
I'll see if I can find time later to go through the many misapprehensions and strange claims therein.
-
Mikaere Curtis, in reply to
Holy shit, Drug Free Australia have an article called "Could medical cannabis be the new THALIDOMIDE?". And one entitled "Why test pills when it is the ecstasy that kills?"
You can't make this shit up. This group is very dangerous.
-
Craig Young, in reply to
As a matter of interest, Russell, does anyone ever respond to McCoskrie's facile antidrug populist grandstanding with some good evidence-based rebuttal? Yes, I know it's onerous and I know he's an utter tosser, but the problem is that he's gibbering in an evidence-free vacuum and in the absence of harm reduction and risk management based substance, his nonsense will gain traction.
-
Craig Young, in reply to
Does that have anything to do with the fact that Fred Nile is in the NSW Legislative Council? I've spotted some of his reefer madness silliness on the CDP website, which I spy on for LGBT friends.
-
Moz, in reply to
Fred Nile is in the NSW Legislative Council
It's more about the christian reich control over the (NSW) Liberal Party, there's a consistent push to force everyone into prosperity gospel style behaviour, on everything from sex to driving to drug use (wine is ok, the bible mentions that). Prime Minister at Time of Writing Scott Morrison is also in one of those churches, but they have a very US style ability to disregard the details if they're getting their own way (and if they're not... god help whoever has annoyed them). Hence their support for that Catholic near-heathen, Tony Abbott.
-
Craig Young, in reply to
Hyponatremia is also a risk for me as a person with Type 2 diabetes and I don't even use recreational drugs, let it be noted.
-
Craig Young, in reply to
One thing I always wonder about in these cases is the polydrug angle. Was it a specific substance, or was it a mixture of specific substances?
-
Moz, in reply to
There was a wonderful moment on one of those awful cop-reality shows the other day. Some dude pulled over, says "I took coke over the weekend" and tested positive for P, negative for cocaine. He was disgruntled about the mis-selling, and doubly so when convicted of driving under the influence.
So... the cops can and do test drugs and tell you what you bought. Just in a really backwards way.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
As a matter of interest, Russell, does anyone ever respond to McCoskrie’s facile antidrug populist grandstanding with some good evidence-based rebuttal?
I covered some of his cannabis claims last year after he appeared on Q+A with Chloe Swarbrick, but I need to make time to do a full accounting. It helps that it's mostly a once-only job – his talking points don't tend to change.
-
One of the things I noticed after covering him for many years for Gaynz.Com was that the man has risible strategic planning skills. Remember too, his tertiary qualifications are in tax policy and accountancy, so while I'm sure Family First is well managed when it comes to fiscal probity, he has no qualifications in toxicology and pharmacology. Family First does tend to do a good job in initial mobiisation when it comes to 'fact' sheets and mobilising people to make parliamentary submissions, but doesn't seem to realise that his opponents are motivated enough to keep up the pressure through the process of successive parliamentary debate and MP lobbying. For that reason, he keeps ultimately losing any political debate that he is involved with. Apart from the "New" (sic) Conservative Party and sundry anti-drug populist outfits, they're on their own this time. Moreover, cannabis prohibition is not a frontline issue for US social conservatives so he lacks the constant updates when it comes to propaganda, tactics and strategy that he'd get when it comes to abortion, homosexuality and assisted suicide.
-
Moz,
The Conversation has an Australian perspective but there's nothing new as far as NZ is concerned. They're still at the "wouldn't testing be a good idea" stage.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.