Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Genter's Bill: Starting at…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
how the hell is the doctor going to be sure they aren’t “doing harm”.
If they're convinced the underlying treatment doesn't really have much notable harm, and they believe there is a case for it in pain treatment. They can recommend a delivery method that is not smoking it, and owning a vaporizer that has been used would no longer be illegal, so it would be quite compelling, not to mention that eating it would be the most sensible for medicinal purposes anyway, and not outrageously expensive if you are able to cultivate your own.
But more to the point, why do we really care whether some doctors might not be on board with it? Some would be. If most doctors say they would not prescribe it, then surely that's a sign of a functional system, they're using their doctorly discretion how its meant to be used. They may wish to wait until evidence accrues. But we don't have to wait for that for some people to genuinely receive treatment legally in the cases that pass the sensible threshold of a doctor's opinion.
Either you go for a genuinely medicinal bill and do it properly, or you legalise, but trying to do both in one amendment, yeah nah.
I would certainly vote for it. I believe in both medicinal cannabis AND legalisation. They're not mutually exclusive, nor does one have to wait for the other by any kind of logic beyond the art of the possible. Maybe it's not possible, maybe it's opposed by a majority in the population and in Parliament. Maybe not.
This bill isn't really legalization in this form, though, because the cannabis they're talking about is not the recreational kind. I don't fully grasp how self-growing could be controlled to ensure this, but presumably the idea is just to make it illegal to grow the other kind and let the chips fall where they may. That's the current status quo anyway, the only difference is that there would be a lot of cannabis plants around, and enforcement would need to be able to spot the more recreational kinds, and have tests be able to prove it. I'm pretty sure they can and do already.
So why let people grow their own medicinal cannabis? Pretty much for the same reason we let them grow their own tomatoes. Because why not? Because it normalizes a ridiculously demonized plant? Because it might save the people using it heaps of money? Because it's not really a big problem, most people would buy it anyway, as they do with tomatoes? Because it might not be financially viable for a big operator to do it initially? Because it might be difficult to buy it in some places? Because you're a farmer with a dicky back, and it helps, and you can supply your dying mum with endless relief at almost no cost?
-
Hard News: Interesting Britain!, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Thanks for that. It's really guarded, though. Sensible guy.
-
Hard News: Interesting Britain!, in reply to NoFace,
perhaps for a future referendum between some appalling deal and staying in the EU.
Ideally it would be between a sensible deal sensibly negotiated, and the status quo. There would be campaign of information about what the deal actually is, and clear pathways for each outcome. My understanding, however, is that the pathway of remaining in the EU now requires the agreement of every member state. That puts those states in a position to make new demands.
-
Hard News: Interesting Britain!, in reply to Rich Lock,
why, yes, I have had many small yet positive interactions and experiences
I guess it is rather hard for me to imagine living right on the doorstep of a continent that gave me open access to it with no questions asked to imagine not taking advantage of that. I mean it's roughly as easy for you guys to get to Berlin, Copenhagen, Zürich, Vienna, Rome or Madrid as it is for me to get to Wellington. There's all that stuff right there and it could be on the other side of a controlled border soon, with no clear vision of whether crossing that border will be an easy thing for Brits, particularly if one of the great visions of Brexit is to make crossing it difficult for Europeans. I would expect whatever strictures Britain wishes to enforce will be enforced right back on Brits.
But you'll still have Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland for domestic travel, I suppose.
-
Hard News: Interesting Britain!, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
What, no Wales?
-
Hard News: Interesting Britain!, in reply to Russell Brown,
That looks like the Tories getting hosed to me
-
Hard News: Interesting Britain!, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Yes, clearly the drying of the goatskin parchment upon which the speech is inscribed forms an important part of the people’s mandate!
-
Hard News: Interesting Britain!, in reply to Joe Wylie,
I dunno, sometimes when you scold people who fuck things up, it does sink in. But often the target is not them anyway, it's other people who may be considering fucking up in a similar way. 95% of my aim in debunking the exceptionalism of what just happened in Britain is because we have our own Labour Party, and our own political system, and overgeneralizing from their system to ours would be a big mistake.
In particularly, studiously avoiding the big national issue of the day is not going to cut it. Our big issue is different, but similar. We have a serious poverty and housing problem. Immigration may be a part of the picture, but it's not the whole picture. I do think it's a debate we have to have. We don't get to hide our heads in the sand. I don't pretend to have all the answers - maybe strongly targeted increases in immigration with policy settings geared directly at housing construction are appropriate. Maybe the exact opposite works better, reducing total population flows to be equal to or even less than our ability to build houses. Maybe limiting foreign ownership puts a sinking lid on skyrocketing prices. We have to be able to have this discussion sensibly.
-
Hard News: Interesting Britain!, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Wasn’t Brexit the “most crucial issue of the time” du jour simply because May and her media enablers decreed it?
The election was called specifically to mandate it. And no, it's the most crucial issue of the time because it has to be negotiated now, and it affects way, way more than just trade. This isn't a manufactured issue, it's a real and pressing issue and it will have a huge effect on Britain.
The country is sleepwalking into the most significant constitutional realignment in...Jesus I don't even know how far back to look for something of this magnitude. It's not business as usual, it's going to affect the freedom to travel and work of tens of millions of people, realign the entire economy, the military positions, the basic stability of the region, the currency, the banking system, all of the loan structure, the ability to influence Europe internally.
It's a huge deal. It's insane in a democracy to have had so little public debate of the detail. But I think it's a society that literally does actually not have a strong idea of what it wants at all. 40% of it like Corbyn's domestic promises. 42% of it want whatever May is about. The residual 18% want all sorts of things. A small majority wanted Brexit, strongly divided on age lines. Young people really, really don't want it, and they are literally the people who are going to be most affected by it. It's a nation flailing in indecision, with a system geared to deliver a minority government power to make changes that will never in our lifetimes be undone.
-
Hard News: Interesting Britain!, in reply to Rich Lock,
There are strong and valid criticisms/arguments against the European Union from ‘the left’.
Of course. That happens within Europe. There was an opportunity with a rapidly closing window for the "Left" of an entire continent to work together with British Labour on internal reform. They'll no doubt continue with it without Britain.
One of the many problems with the referendum is that it’s hard to get people to vote for (i.e. with at least a small teaspoon of enthusiasm) an institution which is essentially a bureaucratic trading block.
It's a lot more than that. But I guess these things will become clear soon enough, once lost forever. There's no champion for it within the ruling classes any more, so it really doesn't matter that the referendum was close. It got played by May, a hardline austerity Tory, the new Prime Minister Elect. In order for Labour to come back from the 20% range, the main issue had to be studiously ignored by the only possible party that could have represented the alternative choice. Far less important than the immediate future of the country was solidifying support internally and talking domestic agenda. That's how dysfunctional the political system has become, that not publicly debating the most crucial issue of the time, and then shaving in with a narrow loss is being heralded as a fucking revolution.