So for the cannabis debate there is simply nothing he could say that already has not been said – the PMs office knows all the arguments and evidence and they have decided their policy based on ideology not evidence IMO.
When you say ‘generally’, does that leave a gap for willfully staying out of the cannabis policy disaster?
His voice should be heard, telling NZ – and Key – that the evidence is clear and to stop criminalising people. The costs to society are shocking.
Gluckman was responsible for a report that recommended the government stop criminalising young cannabis users. It was ignored, just as the Law Commission's thoughtful review of the Misuse of Drugs Act was ignored.
I honestly don't think Gluckman would have any luck trying again. These clowns aren't making drug policy on the basis of evidence or expert advice.
He is a very good scientist in his own field and as science adviser he has tried to advise without burning the delicate bridge between the adviser position and the office of the PM.
Agreed. I think he walks that line consciously and generally very well.
Yes, I mentioned that last week. But you've reminded me that I have four double passes to give away to that show. Click the email link at the bottom of the blog post.
The idea that a mob of journos chasing politicians around sticking a mic in their face could hold them accountable needs to be reexamined.
So much this. But that's not going to change any time soon. It's not unknown for Gallery journos to do actual investigative reporting, but it's not really part of the job description. There simply isn't time for it when Gallery journalists' job is to produce something every day and capture the major moments (which everyone else has too). On most days, the distinction between the leading reporters is in how they editorialise on the same news.
Hager's actually pretty understanding about this when he's asked in interviews. They're just different jobs operating to different deadlines.
I do feel the need to praise the Herald for expanding its investigative team with the Nippert hire. It's worth noting that Harkanwal Singh, their data journalist, also works in the investigative team.
When is Hosking a Journalist?
He's not. John Campbell is, however, and he gets TV money. Print journalist money doesn't really compare.
We spend millions of dollars telling people how to enrol and vote. We have the easiest ballot access laws in the world. So, yeah – winning 48% of the vote means that half of the only people New Zealand who count supported you.
I'm always amused/appalled by those people who declare that they registered a protest against the system by refusing to vote. No you didn't, dude. Everyone just ignored you.
My experience is different, I thought that I was a criminal, because what was going on was illegal ( gender) ... And here I am now, openly mentioning it on the internet. But at my own pace.
Good for you, Steven. I'm pleased that you've been able to share your story here too. We both remember it got a bit rocky in the early days, but I'm gratified by the trust that lets people talk about tough things here. Respect.
The comments by readers on this article were many, many in number and all shocked and supportive of Wendyl. They have since been removed. Is this normal practice for Herald comments? Are they removed after a certain period?
No, it isn't.
It appeared there was some legal heat and the column was briefly offline while a couple of small factual errors were amended. The language was also (unnecessarily) qualified in a couple of places.
But all the comments being disappeared? That's strange. The editors should not go along with this bullshit.