Posts by Russell Brown
-
Hard News: Friday: A happier place, in reply to peter mclennan,
My fave find of the week, steel drum take of Voodooo Ray…
Oh, I pressed play and that just made me smile! How fab.
-
Hard News: Friday: A happier place, in reply to octopusgrrl,
Here’s a few that never fail to cheer me and make me bounce about a bit:
How did I not include Voom!? They just embody the joy of music, that band.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
Not exactly on point, but: I’ve taken one positive lesson from this whole series of events, and the stories of Helen and others.
No, this week hasn't been all for nought. It has brought out these experiences, these really hard stories. A friend of mine related an experience yesterday on Facebook that filled in a lot for me and, I presume, her other friends who didn't know about it. It offered a context for why she is sometimes "difficult", and starkly illustrated the awful damage that sexual assault and the disbelief of family members can do. As I say in today's Music Post, the best I could manage in reply was to send her this song.
I've cried every time I've played that fucking song today.
-
Washington DC is poised to decriminalise.
Meanwhile in Arizona, prosecutors aver that even the pot you smoked months ago will see you go down on a drug-driving charge,
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Danielle,
To be fair, I say fuck in my posts all the damn time and don’t really think it has much to do with anything except emphasis. Please don’t take my swears away. :)
That will never happen.
-
Hard News: Cannabis: The Experiment is Real, in reply to BenWilson,
I am surprised. Who knew he was a sleeper cell?
They all get turned eventually. Evidence is powerful when you get close to it.
-
Hard News: Cannabis: The Experiment is Real, in reply to Stephen Judd,
The question came up at the Labour leadership forum in Christchurch. Jones was a very firm no, not at all, and Robertson and Cunliffe were slightly more open but said not a priority, too much of a policy distraction when there are more important things to do.
If it happens, it will happen quietly, and on a cross-party basis. I don't think there's necessary much to be gain by making a a partisan issue.
And you might be surprised. Here is Peter Dunne, one week ago:
31 October 2013
A sure sign of looming danger is when a politician opines the eerie words, “I’ve been thinking.” It is usually a warning some new crackpot idea is about to be unleashed, or hobby horse indulged. In fact, politicians’ “thinking” lies at the heart of many of the problems we face today.
Now, of course there are exceptions to every rule. There have been occasions when politicians’ thinking has led to profound positive social and economic change, or times when the lofty aspirations outlined by a politician have inspired a nation or a generation. (Nelson Mandela’s struggle against apartheid is the obvious contemporary example.) But generally speaking these occasions are the exception rather than the rule.
So, against that background, and with a fair measure of trepidation, let me share some of my current thinking about a contentious issue.
Just over a couple of months ago, the Psychoactive Substances Act of which I was the principal architect was implemented. It provides for the first time for a regulated market for the sale and supply of psychoactive substances, based on the level of risk they pose to the user. It is attracting interest from around the globe, as an innovative solution to an international problem, and, after a few not unanticipated teething problems, seems to be settling down quite well.
Now, here is where I have been thinking. Although the Psychoactive Substances Act was intended to deal with that issue only, and not to have wider application, it does occur to me that, if after a period of time, it is shown to be working effectively, it could well become the model by which narcotic drugs, currently controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act, are regulated for the future. The yardstick of level of risk – based on sound pharmacological and toxicological evidence – would become the determinant of availability, not public sentiment or prejudice.I am not suggesting a revolution, but simply observing that the regulatory regime introduced for psychoactive substances could well have wider application and that we should not be averse to that possibility. After all, most experts now concede the so-called “war” on drugs has failed, and new initiatives are required.
So, is this another crackpot idea from a politician with time on his hands to be “thinking’? Or is an idea with merit worth considering further?
You be the judge.
Chris Fowlie has told me that a number of MPs he has spoken to share this view.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Which means I’m quite happy to say they’ve lied about their progress after Louise Nichols, in as many words. But for more than that, show me the fucking proof!
In so many words: one or more sworn police officers have actively lied to their superiors and the public about the lack of formal complaints against the rape gang. I think that reads better.
-
Hard News: Cannabis: The Experiment is Real, in reply to Jeremy Andrew,
As soon as you let anyone start selling it, regardless of laws and regulations, whether it is private industry or a single state supplier, you risk all the temptations of increasing income at the expense of the vulnerable, either deliberately, or by omission.
Temptations to which the people already selling it are not prey?
-
Meanwhile, Giovanni has been contacting Radio Live advertisers.
As a consequence, the AA has pulled its ads from the Willie and JT show.
Yellow has pulled its advertising from Radio Live altogether.
Both organisations cited both the content of the original interview and the nature of the subsequent "apology".
Meanwhile John Drinnan reports that a staff meeting has taken place at the behest of Radio Live employees angry at the station's response.