Hard News: Home, straight
117 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
yup as graeme says -
land transport amendment act 2009 comes into force 1 december this year .
goes like this -
If an officer has 'good cause to suspect you are driving under the influence of a drug or durgs' ( eg he opens the door and the car reeks of pot, or you're weaving all over the place but pass a roadside screening test for alcohol) s/he will require you to undergo a roadside 'impairment test' .
If you fail that test you will then be required to accompany back to the station (mandatory) for a blood test .
If the result of that test turns positive for any controlled drug *no matter how little* you will be prosecuted as if you are a drunk driver - the penaltys on conviction are the same . It will be a defence to call medical evidence to show the drug which showed positive was administered on medical grounds .
The concerning thing most immediately obvious is if you used cannabis a few days back - it will presumably still be in your blood stream , but clearly not affecting your driving at the relevant time - (although for some reason you did fail the 'roadside impairment test)you go down .
gulp - I can see a heap of work here - want my card ?? -
Having also had that experience, I agree with him, though I'm not sure that the conclusion follows.
That's why I'm blaming homophobia (partially) for this. 'I think boys who grow up without fathers are significantly disadvantaged' does not lead in any way logically to 'gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt'. It's like 'collect underpants, ???, profit!'
-
..it is Friday. after all;
A good Media 7 last night (and I second the comments about Marie McNicholas--we need more journos like her)--but the two radio guys were a waste of space. Don't they get more than enough time to stroke their egos on radio?
My 16 year old daughter Catherine Rose will doubtless love the Peaches clip.
-
Has the interview with McLelland on the TVNZondemand clip been removed? Every time I try to watch it it skips to part 3? I've tried to watch it 4 times - with the same result on each.
-
I can see exactly where Brian Edward's is coming from. His position is a personal one based on his life experience and as such it is one he has a perfect right to hold.
Whether or not it is useful to extrapolate from his particular to the wider general debate on gay adoption is another question entirely.
-
I can't figure out why the powers-that-be haven't used reaction time tests to determine driver impairment by any cause, alcohol, illegal or legal drugs, fatigue, dementia, stupidity, whatever. Even the simple ruler test will pick up that someone shouldn't be in control of a car. Dangle a 12" rule in front of the testee, with their finger and thumb ready to try to grab the rule as it is released. A drunk will be lucky to react in time to catch the rule at all.
I don't want to understate the impact that most drugs, including alcohol have on driving. I don't want people on the road who have consumed any drug that affects their state of consciousness. But a very large number of fatal accidents involve lack of sleep as a sole or co-factor. 20 hours without sleep is about equivalent to a blood alcohol level of 0.05.
That man driving home after a night in the club is putting himself and others at risk, because he has taken a substance, and has not slept since the previous morning.
Unfortunately, sleep deprivation has been chucked in the too-hard basket, as far as enforcement goes. There is simply no good way to test for it at the moment.
The Victorian TAC does advertise very heavily on the issue, and ACC should too. The message also needs to be - if you're exhausted, take a taxi. I've driven home from the clubs a few times at 6am, and it's not something I'd recommend.
-
Why personal anecdotes are a dumb way to argue a point: I was infinitely happier after my parents split up and my father left, because he was either neglectful and infuriating at best or abusive at worst. Therefore, using Brian Edwards' Extremely Illogical Argument Generator, I believe that all heterosexual marriages which have one or more children should be compulsorily split up. You see, from my own experience, this proves that the children will be happier that way.
Fucking ludicrous, in other words.
-
Danielle:
Snap! On the basis of my experience as the child of an alcoholic mother (adroitly enabled by a conflict-shy husband in very deep denial), let me spin the Brian Edwards' Extremely Illogical Argument Generator and posit that people who drink should be sterilised and not allowed to marry -- let alone adopt, foster or have any contact with children whatsoever. Just as a precautionary measure, you understand.
-
Maybe some people need to learn how to cope with another point of view.
-
Maybe some people need to learn how to cope with another point of view.
Dude, I *cope* with it fine. I just think it's fucking stupid as hell. Is that allowed?
-
Dude, I *cope* with it fine. I just think it's fucking stupid as hell. Is that allowed?
Careful, Danielle, you're damaging your cause by being angry.
I, of course, think the best adoptive parent for a baby is an invisible gay unicorn. There are, after all, no recorded examples at all of a child ever being abused by an invisible gay unicorn parent. It's another point of view! Learn to cope!
-
I just think it's fucking stupid as hell.
Use of four letter words would seem indicate otherwise?
Here is the problem I have. The argument seems to not that disagree with his point of view but that you seem to me to be demanding he not hold it all. That is what fucks ME off.
-
3410,
Thanks for the responces. I'm literally too tired to construct a coherent reply - I've been unsuccessfully trying for an hour - so I'll just make a couple of quick points.
1) Homophobia is ugly, stupid, cowardly, and destructive.
2) Edwards' position may be flawed (and probably is), but it's based on perceived harm reduction. The homophobia inherent in his argument is, I submit, at least debatable.
-
3410,
Brian Edwards' Extremely Illogical Argument Generator
I don't there's an implicit rule that all personal experience must be taken as indicative of the general, but if all personal experience must be abandoned, then there hardly seems any point in thinking at all.
-
Edwards' position may be flawed (and probably is), but it's based on perceived harm reduction.
3410, from what I've seen, ALL arguments against gay adoption are based on perceived harm reduction. The problem being that the perception of harm can be based on a homophobic position.
So the question might become, if BE was pointed at the research I linked to on the previous page which shows no difference in outcomes for children of two-parent straight and two-parent gay households, would he change his mind?
-
Use of four letter words would seem indicate otherwise?
Oh Jesus Christ. Really? I haven't had someone pull that shit on me online since the *1990s*. You're kidding, right?
you seem to me to be demanding he not hold it all
What *are* you on about? I'm saying his argument is stupid and illogical. He can hold it all he likes, and yet it will remain stupid and illogical forever and ever, amen.
Careful, Danielle, you're damaging your cause by being angry.
I'm glad you made that joke before someone actually said it seriously. :)
Maybe I could be the Yappy Little Dog of Gay Adoption, like you're the Yappy Little Dog of Gay Marriage?
-
I just think it's fucking stupid as hell.
Use of four letter words would seem indicate otherwise?So Danielle should have said "I think it's fucking stupid as" ?
Says the same really. -
Maybe some people need to learn how to cope with another point of view.
You first.
-
Maybe some people need to learn how to cope with another point of view.
Tom: Oh, nuts. I can "cope" with other, and fundamentally disagreeable, points of view -- otherwise I'd have flounced out of PAS about five minutes after it went live. :)
It's the ones that illogicallly and incoherently conflate the author's (admittedly sucky) childhood into a totally unrelated area of public policy while dog-whistling to some pretty noxious stereotypes about homosexuals that chap my arse.
Oh, and could we have been spared the gay version of "How can I be racist, I have loads of black friends and love Motown" line straight from the De-Railing for Dummies playbook? Hey, cookie for Brian that he supported homosexual law reform before it was trendy. And I'm the last person to bitch about him being a fan of marriage equality. But when it come to this issue, he's just wrong on so many levels it beggars belief. That's my POV, can you cope?
-
Careful, Danielle, you're damaging your cause by being angry.
I'm glad you made that joke before someone actually said it seriously. :)
Only bloody just. I really think I deserve some kind of 'predicting the internet' prize for that.
How depressing is it that the more cynical I become, the more often I'm right?
-
I, of course, think the best adoptive parent for a baby is an invisible gay unicorn.
Oh, there you go trying to ram your politically correct invisible gay unicorn agenda down people's throats. Isn't anyone thinking about the children, and the threat of losing an eye on the invisible pointy bit? Or has that been the plan all along?
-
*sigh*
Yes, you guys are all right on this issue - 100% in fact!
And you all wonder how it came to pass we got a government built on resentment of being patronised.
Besides I am sure Brian Edwards doesn't need me to argue his corner for him.
-
So let me get this right - people shouldn't condemn homophobia when it is based on a subjective experience of parental inadequacy ? because it is a diverse point of view ?
-
I just think it's fucking stupid as hell.
Use of four letter words would seem indicate otherwise?
Technically seven.
-
Not only will scientists be deeply offended by the 'documentary', journalists should be also as this level of journalism and debate scrapes the barrel.
My son has Down Syndrome and I have a M Sc (hons) . Russell your professionalism was a shining light in an otherwise disgraceful display of ignorance from TV 3.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.