Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: A Strange Surprise

132 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

  • Matt Crawford,

    My feelings on that advertisement mirror yours - it makes the police look like they are running a campaign on Driving While Young.

    Wellington • Since Dec 2006 • 25 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    But why? Is the LTSA actually trying to give the impression that the new law will be used by police officers in an arbitrary and capricious fashion?

    And illegal...

    Section 71A of the Land Transport Act makes clear that:

    An enforcement officer may require [a driver] to undergo a compulsory impairment test given by an enforcement officer trained to give the test if the enforcement officer has good cause to suspect that the person has consumed a drug or drugs...

    Absent "good cause to suspect", they're breaking the law.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2988 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Gary Gotlieb and Jock Anderson duel over name suppression;

    While I've been tempted to slap both men on other occasions, they both contributed to a useful discussion rather than a migraine-inducing shouting match. WTF do you put in the green room coffee, Russell? :)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11786 posts Report Reply

  • Geoff Lealand,

    Terry Hall was very good--and courageous.

    Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2272 posts Report Reply

  • dc_red,

    And they are, well, happy (which is not, so far as I am aware, against the law).

    Just give the bastards time, RB.

    Oil Patch, Alberta • Since Nov 2006 • 706 posts Report Reply

  • JP Hansen,

    Being Friday, are we allowed to do the usual and embed fabulous YouTube clips?

    Because if you're not one of the over 3.5 million people who have viewed this in the last 3 days, you damn well should be!

    ^
    I recommend it be watched it in widescreen and full definition.


    Disney (who now own The Muppets) seem to have them back on course, and with a lot of stuff planned for the next year.

    Waitakere • Since Nov 2006 • 199 posts Report Reply

  • Geoff Lealand,

    As it is Friday and the conversation often wanders a bit, I wonder if anyone else has had my experience with headphones. Another expensive set of Sony noise reduction 'phones are kaput, due to a design fault which seems to afflict many such devices ie the breakages adjacent to the earphone jack. Why don't they reinforce this point with a protective sleeve, or something?

    Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2272 posts Report Reply

  • Ngaire BookieMonster,

    Young people + late at night + eating + smiling = Must be stoned!

    Young people + late at night + vomiting + acting like dickheads + beating people up = that's alright, they're "on the piss".

    I'm over LTSA's ad strategy. Way past time for a change.

    At the foot of Mt Te Aroh… • Since Nov 2009 • 173 posts Report Reply

  • dc_red,

    Geoff L - I've had two pairs of Sony noise-reducing headphones for 3 years. Still going great guns, despite one pair being sat on (twice) by an obese fellow airline passenger.

    Oil Patch, Alberta • Since Nov 2006 • 706 posts Report Reply

  • dc_red,

    Young people + late at night + vomiting + acting like dickheads + beating people up =

    A night at Jesse's place?

    Oil Patch, Alberta • Since Nov 2006 • 706 posts Report Reply

  • Josh Addison,

    Yeah, that was pretty much my reaction - "So if your mates are eating burgers and acting like dicks, the cops will think you're on drugs?" There's no indication (that I could see) that the guy did anything to warrant getting tested.

    Onehunga, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 297 posts Report Reply

  • dubmugga,

    no russell, you're not alone:)

    http://publicaddress.net/system/topic,2179,discussion-uncivil-rights.sm?p=138418#post138418

    its the arbitrary nature with which the cop in the ad decides these younguns need drug testing and the threat of arrest by which it can be applied which worries me.

    'either come down to the station and submit to a blood test or we'll arrest you but either way consider your good time well and truly fucked with.'

    My advice is, if you're a peckish poly in the backseat, hide that shit before the police pull you over.

    the back of your mind • Since Nov 2006 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • DeepRed,

    And longtime Dom Post financial commentator Terry Hall gives a moving interview about the often unseen damage done by the finance company failures. One clear point to emerge is that the litigious nature of some of the people involved in that sector has quite effectively blocked and frustrated reporting on their businesses.

    Hell Pizza has spoken on our behalf.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 4064 posts Report Reply

  • Rogan Polkinghorne,

    Yes, when I saw that ad I thought I'd either misunderstood the changes to the legislation, or they waaaaay misrepresented them...maybe a bit of Exhibit A + a bit of Exhibit B...but I have spoken to a number of people who are quite paranoid (even for stoners), some even going to extreme lengths such as not driving at all...speaks to their love of the green and other enhancements that'd they would rather be housebound than risk getting tested hahaha.

    A-town • Since Nov 2006 • 105 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    But why? Is the LTSA actually trying to give the impression that the new law will be used by police officers in an arbitrary and capricious fashion? That officers just will enact what amounts to an arrest without the bother of arresting someone because they feel like it?

    If the choice of who to take back to the station after passing 2 tests is entirely random then it would be less scary. If it is even based on some kind of criterion it would make me feel better, like dilated pupils or whatever. But the idea that it could be 'on suspicion' seems like a license to print harassment. Invoking the Misuse of Drugs act was always a pain in the tit for anyone innocent, but at least a roadside search is relatively quick.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 8305 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    My advice is, if you're a peckish poly in the backseat, hide that shit before the police pull you over.

    Or dine-in?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 8305 posts Report Reply

  • Michael Savidge,

    And if you do go down to get tested, what constitutes a failed test? Are there established limits? And, if so, does being below said limit but still guilty of having measureable traces leave me liable for a charge of 'being high at some stage recently'?

    Enquiring minds want to.........what were we talking about again?

    Somewhere near Wellington… • Since Nov 2006 • 310 posts Report Reply

  • MikeE,

    "Absent "good cause to suspect", they're breaking the law."

    All young people are on drugs... apparently.

    Kingsland • Since Nov 2006 • 138 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Invoking the Misuse of Drugs act was always a pain in the tit for anyone innocent, but at least a roadside search is relatively quick.

    Quite. I went through a few of those with my mates when we were in the demographic of the people in the ad, but at least they had to let you go on your way when they couldn't find anything.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18521 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    OK. As it's Friday.
    This is what people on drugs do.

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4613 posts Report Reply

  • Dylan Reeve,

    A roadside test (like the sniffer or the blow in the bag) for drug use wouldn't be a huge issue for application to "happy looking young men snacking late at night" but to essentially detain and transport them for an evidential test based on no clear suspicion is well past reasonable.

    And how long does the test take to decide a result? What are the limits? Etc etc etc.

    I was searched under misuse of drugs act once - it was only after the cop, who'd stopped me just to ask why I wasn't at school, found out I went to Metro college that he decided he had reason to believe I might have drugs on me. It was about 9:30 in the morning. The search was fruitless.

    Auckland • Since Aug 2008 • 198 posts Report Reply

  • Sam F,

    As it is Friday and the conversation often wanders a bit, I wonder if anyone else has had my experience with headphones. Another expensive set of Sony noise reduction 'phones are kaput, due to a design fault which seems to afflict many such devices ie the breakages adjacent to the earphone jack. Why don't they reinforce this point with a protective sleeve, or something?

    In my experience too, many Sony earphones seem very vulnerable to breaking either by the jack, or where the cords meet the earpieces themselves (another fragile spot). I bought a set recently on special, and have been religiously packing them away in their little wind-away case to protect them from damage.

    That said, they do sound good, and except for the looks they are in every way superior to the appalling standard iPod earphones.

    Here endeth my contribution to the earphone threadjack.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1549 posts Report Reply

  • jeremy gray,

    It is hard to tell the LTSA ad from the McDonalds ad where they are eating in the car in a park until the police turn up. Maccas must be pissed they are gonna lose a good deal of their middle of the night customers.

    point chev • Since Apr 2008 • 43 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    The courts have historically been quite good at slapping limits on the cops' misuse of "good cause to suspect". The old "I think I smell pot" has been turfed in cases where nothing was found, or where whatever was found was in no way related to drugs, and that's likely to be applied to this new law.
    If we start seeing cases that look like "We stopped them because drive-thru BK at 3 on a Saturday morning is indicative behaviour", I can see some court rulings to the effect of unlawful detention.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3889 posts Report Reply

  • Andre Alessi,

    And if you do go down to get tested, what constitutes a failed test? Are there established limits? And, if so, does being below said limit but still guilty of having measureable traces leave me liable for a charge of 'being high at some stage recently'?

    Enquiring minds want to.........what were we talking about again?

    As far as I can tell from the amendment, the test is simply whether it impairs the ability to drive (Section 11A.)

    Persons may not drive or attempt to drive while impaired and their blood contains evidence of use of controlled drug or prescription medicine

    A person may not drive or attempt to drive a motor vehicle while—
    (a) impaired; and
    (b) that person's blood contains evidence of the use of—
    (i) a controlled drug; or
    (ii) any prescription medicine.

    But Section 58 indicates that actually any indication at all of a controlled substance in your blood test is an offence in itself:

    (1) A person commits an offence if the person drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road—
    (a) while under the influence of drink or a drug, or both, to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle; or
    (b) if the person’s blood, as ascertained from an analysis of a blood specimen subsequently taken under section 73, contains evidence of the use of a controlled drug specified in Schedule 1 (except thalidomide) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
    (1A) To avoid doubt, subsection (1)(b) does not limit subsection (1)(a).

    The key here is that a blood test cannot be demanded unless "impairment" is established, which is done via a "compulsory impairment test" (Section 71) performed by the police officer, or in the case of an accident causing injury or death (Section 62). So there needs to be reasonable grounds for a blood test to be demanded, but once this occurs any amount of a controlled substance detected is an offence.

    Devonport, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 846 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.