Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Aren't we measuring 'social harm' rather than impact on the treasury balance?
No, it's looking at the economy as a whole, which is broader than the impact on government finances but narrower than trying to put a value on whether Johnny would be happier if he didn't do drugs.
Say marijuana was legal to grow and sell, and taxed to keep the price roughly the same as today, just as a for instance. The industry would become a lot more productive (through being able to farm overtly with less people, not needing to evade police, etc). The revenue from this would accrue to the taxpayer and offset healthcare costs.
-
I reckon that by using their methodology, you could make a good case for banning rugby. Add up all the money put into paying players, coaches, use of valuable land and resources, rugby related crime, rugby injuries and deaths. Take off a bit for increased fitness (but add on for people who eat like athletes when they're not).
Billions, I reckon.
-
With Google, I think they are certainly "less evil" than Halliburton or BAe Systems, for instance.
But that could change easily. I don't use Google products because I trust them particularly, just because they suck less than the alternatives. As they mature, they will have more people locked in and less need to look nice. Equally, being nice isn't a prerequisite to hire smart people, NSA and the banking industry have no problem, though the latter has to pay big salaries.
At the end of the day, I don't think *nice* companies are the answer. Staunch privacy, competition and consumer protection laws are a way better way to protect people.
-
I haven't fisked the whole thing yet, but if you take the costs of prohibition out of their numbers, they reduce hugely. If you add in revenue loss from not taxing currently illegal drugs (something that was advocated by the party pill industry) then it's conceivable that legalisation would make recreational drug use a net fiscal positive.
I'd also point out that it's by no means certain that the problems of those presenting medically or being convicted as a "result" of drug use are actually wholly or partly due to drug use. People with existing psychiatric issues are more likely to have drug problems, and defending counsel will always produce any mitigation they can.
-
I feel Michael Laws should be somewhere at the head of the column - I can see him heroically splashing onto the beaches of the Zimbabwe coast under withering fire.
-
Isn't that, y'know, evil?
I call bullshit on the idea that corporations come in evil/not evil varieties.
All of them, be they Halliburton, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Body Shop or Neighbourhood Hippy Organics, Inc. are out to make money for shareholders any way they can. Some of them manage to do this in an ostensibly fluffier fashion, that's all.
-
What is it with men who want to watch each other having sex with a young woman? Do they ask her if that's okay? What exactly is that about?
There are people into consensual polyamory and all that sort of thing. How is it different from any other unconventional sexual behaviour? Isn't it discrimination to suggest that it's intrinsically wrong?
Women (and men) are entitled to have their wishes respected.
Equally, men (and women) are entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty. -
I promise that not all future posts will be on the Electoral Finance Act.
Yes, because it's starting to look like PA has been bought by the NZ Herald :-)
Anyways, I'm not a lawyer, but when a term isn't defined in a statute, doesn't the dictionary definition cut in.
Also, I'm thinking that if Parliament was making the "donation" (by passing a law requiring the Parliamentary Service to do so) then it's not something thats legally reviewable.
And why wasn't this flagged up at the time by all those lawyer/MPs in Parliament, not to mention the lawyers paid to draft and review legislation?
-
just talk to the police and tell the truth
Somehow doubt that will be the advice from Chris Comesky, Barry Hart or whoever they've got as a lawyer?
-
They geld thoroughbred stallions to make them more controllable.
Maybe do the same with rugby players? There isn't the same issue with not being able to breed from them, for as far as I know, unlike horseracing, no rugby code forbids artificial insemination.