Posts by Craig Young
-
In some ways, not others. Clearly, we could have done without the pandemic and negative cannabis referendum outcome, but on the positive side, abortion and euthanasia have both been decriminalised, the Ardern government was elected for a second term, New Zealand First disappeared, and we finally saw the (elderly, flabby and orange) end of Donald Trump. Still, insofar as the pandemic went, we fared better than the United States, United Kingdown, Canada and Australia.
-
If people wanted a more representative (?) electoral system than MMP, then they should have voted for the Single Transferable Vote, which tends to reward large demographic concentrations of specific constituencies without a five percent threshold. In practice, it's worked over in Ireland and Tasmania, but at the Australian federal and state level, it's used for bicameral Upper House elections and has resulted in the election of single-issue hobby group parties, fundamentalist Christian zealots like NSW;'s Fred Nile and the odious anti-immigrant racist One Nation rabble. It could be said that it denies potential authoritarians absolute political power within the Australian Labor and Liberal-National Coalition blocs, but Australia has no elaborated Bill of Rights like New Zealand does.
-
Let's face it, Nick Smith is dead man walking. The Nats can be quite ruthless when it comes to purging the weak and discarded, so this may be his last term and probably Gerrys as well.
-
What a shame,67,662 votes in it, after all that effort. I also suspect that the Christian Right targeted cannabis because they thought that it was a better bet than the euthanasia referendum, which they may have realised that they could never win. Ironically enough,another four US states legalised recreational cannabis a few days ago through referenda. I think the cannabis campaign was the victim of displaced anxiety about Covid-19 and the manipulation of fears about risk and harm, and particular exploitation of social conservatism within Pasifika communities. I think there are probably also questions to be asked about competitor monitoring of your opponents in this context and ready response to their claims. Family First skilfully played on that and no Yes advertising did.
-
I think the problem here is libertarian orthodoxy in advertising regulation. It's also inconsistent. New Right apologists are often fond of raging against smoking advertisement bans as an infringement on free and commercial speech, because nicotine is a legal substance and its consequences are long-term harm. When it comes to recreational cannabis, however, the question of intoxication and impaired workplace function arises, so conservative libertarians (like ACT's David Seymour and many National MPs) will not extend their selective concept of 'individual liberty' to the consumption of regulated recreational cannabis.
-
There are some disturbing heavy handed tactics from Scientology';s central headquarters against their flawed Narconon programme:
This is why the Narconon programme is controversial (NB: five year old story): https://www.vice.com/sv/article/4w89z9/scientology-the-truth-about-drugs-narconon
It is also being wheeled out in British schools:
https://globalnews.ca/news/3174287/a-scientology-based-anti-drug-program-is-being-used-in-schools-across-the-uk/"Drug Free World" and national groups curricula and evidential content has been questioned: https://culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/34637-claims-by-scientology-linked-anti-drugs-group-baseless-and-misleading-authorities-say.html
What is also worrying about Scientology is its crusade against prescription antidepressant and antipsychotic medication. To which this quite happy and contented SSRI user says shove off: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/scientologys-war-on-medicine/
-
Meanwhile, on the dork side of the debate, FamF seems to be pontificating about nothing else. It seems to have concluded that they'll be heavily defeated when it comes to the decriminalisation of abortion and euthanasia referendum, so for once they're actually focusing on a specific issue. Supporters of reform might want to complain to the companies that own any such billboards, particularly if you're business owners and currently have accounts with them. Or contact businesses that do advertise with the billboard companies and state that you won't buy their products or services.
This is what I mean: http://www.familyfirst.org.nz
-
I think the perspective amongst mental health consumers is to steer well clear of some subspecies of weed which may exacerbate pre-existing latent psychosis, especially in the case of people with schizophrenia. That said, I understand that methamphetamine can also cause severer psychosis, and of longer duration. Surely therefore containment and interdiction should be directed toward that objective, given that severity.
-
I think the question is the standard and provenance of the cannabis harm and risk research relied upon by opponents of cannabis liberalisation and whether the premises and methodology are faulty, which I suspect may be the case.
-
Potentially more serious is this piece that featured on Spinoff and TVNZ about psychiatrists opposed to liberalisation of cannabis laws. What's your response to this, Russell, Joe and others?: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/nz-psychiatrists-stress-potential-harm-cannabis-ahead-2020-referendum