Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Same comment as I made in a previous thread and as pointed out at the end of the post...
We should really stop doing what doesn't work and try something else.
But in this case it's more complex. I see two big problems with stopping the current response, first is too many people profit from the status quo - on both sides. Not just the people making money selling drugs but also the people making money enforcing the "war on drugs". Both groups have sufficient funds to corrupt just about anyone and do.
But the second problem is that it is not entirely clear what the aim of the the "war on drugs" really is. It is loudly not "reducing harm" yet harm is what is used to justify the war. It is also not that the public want to be drug free, far from it, the public are quite keen on their drugs of choice. It might be that people don't want to see the victims of drug abuse "in their back yard".
Until there is widespread agreement on what the aim of any drug policy should really be (reducing harm would be a good start for me) then figuring our what works and what doesn't is going to be hard. Having sorted out the aim, the first problem remains.
-
Hard News: A good soldier dies, in reply to Joe Bloggs,
New Zealand has one of the world's toughest regimes on media reporting of individual suicides. Despite this our suicide rates (particularly youth) are amongst the highest in the developed world.
Clearly this approach is not working. We should stop doing what isn't working and try doing something else. No guarantees it will be an improvement but doing nothing is just allowing people to die.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Matthew Poole,
When the limit is so high
This is the bit I'm not convinced about Matthew. In practice we are a long way from getting New Zealand to accept a zero limit and personally I'm sure I'd want that either.
So the question what should the limit be?
There are two ways to answer that, the first is the one you seem to be arguing, that you should set the limit at the point where people become significantly impaired. The problem I have with that method is it is highly variable from person to person and day to day. There is not a single number that works for everyone. Nor is there a measure of "significantly impaired" that is really all that useful. In the end what you devolve down to is a zero limit, that might in the end be what society chooses but it certainly won't pass the vote right now.
But there is a second way to choose the limit. Essentially you set the limit at the point where the accidents where people are below the limit are non-lethal and prefereably cause only minor injury and where those above the limit are "serious". What that does is define empirically a level of alcohol that is unlikely to cause significant harm. It says nothing about how impaired people are at that limit but instead says that those drivers over that limit are likely to do significant harm.
That later approach is in some ways unfeeling about those harmed by drivers below the limit. But the data says that where alcohol is involved in serious accidents the drivers are usually way over the current limit so logically there is no advantage to having a lower limit if you are concerned primarily with reducing serious accidents.
IMO the second approach is reasonable for the current society we have in New Zealand. I suspect the public may choose a different level later.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Bart Janssen,
that is if you drink regularly the liver will produce more enzyme to process the toxin
I should note that even with the liver's amazing ability to process toxins, regular stress by alcohol will produce permanennt damage to the liver that it will never recover from.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Russell Brown,
The way he had it explained was via the metaphor of a bathtub. People’s bathtubs fill up at different rates (ie: alcohol enters the bloodstream at different rates) but everyone’s drains at roughly the same rate – about one standard drink an hour.
Of course it's even more complicated than that. The liver enzymes that break down alcohol are incredibly variable between people. Almost everyone will break down alcohol at a slightly different rate. Worse, depending on what elses is going on in your body your liver will behave differently from day to day as will your kidneys. This gets complicated by the fact that the liver enzymes will adjust to stress, that is if you drink regularly the liver will produce more enzyme to process the toxin.
As for uptake that's a mess as well. Alcohol and water are two of a very small group of chemicals directly absorbed in your stomach, most things are absorbed in your intestines. But the rate of absorbtion is highly variable, almost certainly depends on your parents and what is in your stomach and guts.
So I'd say the rate you absorb and clear alcohol will be variable from person to person and from day to day.
You are a complex system and simple rules will never completely cover all the details. But a really simple guideline, if you feel even remotely compromised by alcohol, then you are, and you'd be smart to not drive. But there will be times when you feel fine but are over the limit (been there and known better than to drive) and other times when one glass of wine makes you feel completly unsafe (been there as well and at 100 kg and male I know I was under the limit yet still wouldn't drive).
-
Up Front: Twenty-Two Two, Two, in reply to Emma Hart,
Nor are these the most damaged schools: those are remaining open. They are Unlimited and DiscoveryOne (both decile 7) and Redcliffs (decile 10).
If one were cynical, one might suggest that the education ministry has been encouraged to "save" schools in National electorates in order to please the current government. One also might suggest that the "saving" of those schools might be mentioned in the next election campaign or at National Party fundraisers.
However, since any such actions would border on corruption and manipulation of public office for personal or political party gain, that couldn't possibly be the explanation. It must surely just be chance.
It is sad that it now seems accepted that which ever political party is in power will abuse that power.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Our standard of driver education is woeful.
Our driver education could be better sure. But most of what I see on the roads is just people who either are so impatient they won't obey the rules or just don't care. They do actually know what a no U-turn sign means, but it would inconvenience them if they didn't do the U-turn where ever they liked. They know that going straight from the turn only lane is wrong, but they got in the wrong lane and if they obeyed the rules they would have to drive out of their way for ... what ... maybe 2 minutes tops before they could turn around and come back.
It really seems to me that most of the poor driving is people being impatient ... with the rules ... with everyone else on the road ... with themselves even.
And most times it doesn't matter, the police just don't bother enforcing minor infringements even if they do see them. If they have a close call then giving the other driver the finger works just fine. If they have a little accident well it's just another ding on the car, either they leave it or the insurance pays for it.
What they never consider is that sometimes those little accidents involve a bicycle or a pedestrian ...
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Stewart,
this little rant has debased all your previous posts on this thread for me
Nothing wrong with a little rant every now and then.
While I agree that Moz's tone is harsh, his point is valid. Spend 15 minutes watching traffic at the Mt Albert rd Dominion rd intersection and you'll get a pretty jaded view of the quality of driver behaviour.
It is probably true that most drivers drive pretty well. But a large percentage drive with poor skill or are so impatient that they simply break rules for their own convenience. That percentage is large enough that any given 15 minute period of watching is quite depressing.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Moz,
plod
See my guess is that if you refer to them that way they are going to be significantly less interested in helping you. If you think about them in those terms it will show up in your body language, even if you are verbally polite.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Russell Brown,
see if I can do Mt Albert, Mt Roskill, Big King, One Tree Hill and Mt Eden
When my knees were younger there was a run that included Mt Albert, Mt Roskill, One Tree Hill and Mt Eden - the closest I got to it was a critical digestive system failure on the way to the last of the hills.