Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Neil, could you please enlighten me as to which drugs are taken with the deliberate intent to drive less well?
I took a shortcut. People take recreational drugs to alter their brain state and that (usually) entails producing a brain state less well adapted to driving. Usually, since people have pointed out that cocaine has been used to enhance the driving skills of formula one drivers. Personally I wouldn't buy that argument from boy racers who don't have quite the same skill set.
Surely what matters is whether a particular drug taken by the potential driver is likely to cause adverse effects that would make the driver an unreasonable danger on the roads. What difference does it make whether the drug is prescriptive, non-prescriptive, legal or illegal?
My understanding of the proposed legislation is that it is the degree of impairment that will be the most significant factor, whatever the nature of the drug.
What I see as different is the intent. There's a difference between drinking alcohol and driving and taking prescription medication. In one case you are deliberately choosing to drive impaired. In the other case, if one follows the advice of the prescription but still wind up impaired, then that is inadvertent.
What the Greens seem to be upset about is that people could get nabbed for dope. But that is a completely different issue. It's illegal and if you use then drive then you should suffer the consequences. I personally favor decriminalization but at the moment it's illegal. There's also an underlying feeling that pot heads consider being stoned to have no adverse effect on driving - my drug is superior to yours, sort of thing.
Also, there may be a bit of medications coming from "Big Pharma" and so are suspect compared to "natural" drugs. Like how they don't want natural medicines regulated in the same way as regular ones.
So on the one hand the Greens don't want a distinction (recreational and prescription drugs) and the other hand they do (natural vs. regular drugs). The thinking is the same in both cases.
-
I'd rather not be able to buy heroine at the supermarket than you very much
With appropriate age limits I wouldn't have a problem with that. But spare me the Greens arguing that a bit of recreational shooting up is some how equivalent to taking heart medication.
-
The ex-team doctor for Ferrari made claims in early 2005 that 30% of the field were using cocaine to improve driving performance.
Silly them. Speed would have been the obvious choice.
-
The focus, as she says, should be on impairment by whatever means,
but that is the focus. If you don't abide by the warnings of a prescription then you're equally in trouble.
I completely disagree with the Greens position. There is clearly a difference between prescription drugs and illegal drugs. The only reason to take illegal drugs is for the express purpose of changing one's brain state which always has the effect of decreasing one's ability to drive.
Whereas take prescription medication appropriately is not done with the deliberate intent to drive less well.
This sounds just as much like special pleading as their position of regulation of natural medicines.
-
...but it was still picked up internationally.
This after Key making the international stage for a mere gaffe. The world must be hanging out for news, or we really are important. Hard to know.
My experience of the RWC has been mostly positive, apart from the loss that is.
I'm not the world's greatest rugby fan (and a bit of a contrarian) and don't come from a rugby family but I was entertained and thrilled and didn't have a problem with the nationalism.
I think the national antham should be changed to Pokarekare Ana, the melody at least, maybe the lyrics could be changed. Oz really missed out by not going for Waltzing Matilda.
-
<quoteThere are better things we could be doing with the time.</quote>
and there could be worse. rugby is a better outlet for male agression and tribalism than many alternatives.
-
It'll be interesting to see how RAM do. They’re by far the scariest group out there.
-
There is a perfectly good case out there, explain why it's better for us to be spending the surplus on tax cuts or whatever rather than on paying off debt. I'm eagerly waiting for it.
On the other hand there could be a good case for an increase in taxation thru not adjusting the tax brackets on a regular basis, but the argument is not being made either. At least National is putting forward a case to agree or disagree with.
-
Perhaps at this level the coach of each team could be entitled to a limited number of challenges (say 1 per half) of the ref's descion based on the TV coverage. An appeal to the TV ref like for tries.
-
gyp: fr, noun
1. referee