ron = ROSS? that's my guess, any prizes?
"As Dewar has been found guilty does this potentially open the door to retry Richards et al?"
Not possible. Already acquitted by a jury, so that is the end of the story.
I am curious though, why do you think somehing has changed regarding their guilt?
"I find myself generally aligned with Moore's views and horribly unimpressed by his presentation of them"
I am in the same boat, and then my friends who do not give a rats arse about politics, the enivironment, the war on terror all of a sudden start talking about climate change and Gore, guns and Michael Moore.
And I then feel the need to rethink my arrogant criticisms.
The thread trickles on intertwining comparative sauce commentary with health policy. Nice.
Wow, that Moore clip on CNN is astounding. I am not suprised they normally avoid showing him live.
I await for the usual suspects in our own little country to start discrediting the film before they view it.
Does anyone know one of the 27% who still support him and is willing to admit it openly?
Maybe you should run a competition to find one.
All the Americans I know disown him when the introduce themselves, often before giving their own name (it may just be the my circles, but maybe it's common?, anyone?).
"These things happen in a monarchy..."
I like that.
Do they have no shame?
"I've talked to a few people about this, and my impression is that he does actually pay attention to evidence."
What evidence, that the stuff is bad for you? Big deal. That does not in any way justify criminalisation. Risk of harm is insufficient for imposing the criminal sanction.
I could get a health committee to tell me how bad for you KFC is, yet it does not follow that fatty foods need be criminalised as a result.
It screams out 'regulate' yet he pushes to criminalise.
This is about Anderton's morals and his abuse of the criminal justice system to enforce them, nothing else. If you are keen to defend him can you tell me why 'risk of harm' must naturally lead to criminalisation?
It is conservative paternalistic nonsense from a has-been politician. Progressive my arse. His entire premise for criminalising is flawed and his is either too old-school to see it or too arrogant to pay it any attention.
"do you really think that if alcohol was introduced today, rather than arriving with the white man, it would get past Jim's eagle eyes?"
No, not for one second. And I would be running the exactly the same argument. It is about Jim's subjective morality, and if it arrived yesterday, then I am sure Jim would think it immoral thus requiring the criminal law.
And that is the problem. 'Subjectively immoral' does not equal 'requiring the criminal sanction'.
"so in both those regards They are suggesting They know far better than you what's good for you"
Bingo, that is exactly what he/they are doing. And, it can be justified regarding regulation yet cannot be justified regarding criminalisation. There is a massive difference.
The criminal law must be a tool of last resort. Here it has been used as a tool of first resort. With that we lose control, regulation, education, and information. It creates whole swags of people who blatently disrespect the law, and fosters mistrust authority. It undermines efforts to learn and to educate. It drives people into other substances that we know sweet fuck all about. It takes a whole bunch of good kiwis and labels them criminals, with all the associated sanctions and stigma. It costs so much more in so many ways. It creates a whole new waste of time for our bulging Police force. It puts further stress on courts and corrections etc etc etc. All for what??????
All for a reduction in the use of what is by all accounts a benign substance relative to others, with the likelihood that any reduction will be offset by an increase in God knows what other substances, as you rightly point out.
What a mess. BZP was screaming out to be regulated. Today is a good day for organised crime, as people will still get high.
Well, it was your 'they' (They don't want us to get high), so I assume you mean Anderton etc, and yes, that particular 'they' do not want to ban alcohol. And yes again, someone asked Them.
"Bottom line, They don't want us to get high, but it's too late to do anything about the bolted horses of Alcohol and Cigarettes."
Firstly, to me, that sums up the level of understanding regarding the criminalisation argument. "too late to do anything about cigs?" Hell, I thought they were doing something, and even having successes.
Secondly, 'they' do not want to ban alcohol.
Finally, why is it that the criminal sanction must be the natural solution to regulating social behaviour? (key word - 'regulating'). So much so that Anderton and co see regulation and other successful measures as 'doing nothing'?
This is all about old men's morals and the abuse of the criminal sanction to in order to enforce them.