Posts by chris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Fascinating stats Russell, It's good to know this stuff. I'm often a bit skeptical about these kinds of stats in that they either seem to demonize the substance but not those who use it, or in this case demonize the users rather than demonizing the irresponsible users. However there's a reasonable amount of food for thought in some of those numbers. Namely that group who have binged for more than 48 hours in the past 6 months but have no difficulty stopping or going without. It'd be nice to see that 50%(-) tested more comprehensively. That's a high proportion who seem to have it under control, considering the hype it gets.
-
For numerous reasons, trial periods should be the employer's prerogative, the Government should ideally be focusing their attentions on writing fine print to protect potential casualties such as octopusgrrl's dear friend.
-
because we is after all but actors.
-
That sick day proposal is shocking, I worked for a company once with that condition and after waiting in a clinic for an hour to see a doctor to sign a certificate verifying I had the flu, I ended up worse for wear than if I had just stayed in bed. There's a healthy black market in China for those doctor's certificates. Requiring certificates does less for maintaining a healthy workforce, then allowing one off sick days.
-
I am not trying to answer on Lucy Stewart's behalf but WTF? Showing respect to 'the police' is not engrained in the ANZ character - and whenever was she not?
It was a dirty pun...silly as always. Once again, it's a pleasure to read your take on things. You're woven of a formidable earthy fabric.
-
firearms vs 70 million possums *is* a knife to a gunfight. Hypothetically Islander, if the scientists developed diseases to wipe these vermin off the face of New Zealand*, would that decrease the chances of the rioting?
*before the whanau brutally slays them all with guns and knives;) -
You want to take on wild pigs with a spear? Or a blow-dart? Be my guest. I'll watch. From a safe distance.
I don't really want to take on wild pigs at all, that was my point, and showing a little more respect to the police wouldn't go amiss Lucy; r
Bowhunting! Now that's I can respect. Obviously I was a bit of a fan of Steve Irwin and his ilk.
-
yes, many people own guns because it's legal to own *some types of guns*
but - what on earth has that got to do with "reguardless of any propaganda about our staunch environmentalism"?Beyond the extermination of vermin/pests I see the hunting of animals to be somewhat at odds with any truly integrated environmentalism, fish as extension of ocean, animals as an extension of the land. I know perhaps it's tenuous and wasn't thinking of vermin with that line - basically recreational hunters and their (somewhat celebrated)l killing.
I was taught to shoot (.22 air rifle, and .22) as a child, and later, with a .303 and a shotgun. As were all family children. Our targets? Possums, stoats, rabbits, feral cats, and later, deer and pig. These creatures - through no fault of their own - *are introduced vermin.*
And with my kiwi conditioning that strikes me as pretty cool. But there's no reason you couldn't accomplish the same ends with age-old devices like crossbows or blow darts or spears or whatever else our questionably superior human brains are capable of conceiving
Not that I'm any kind of anti gun advocate, but really, why not? I'd like to see 'hunters' show us their true abilities without recourse to night vision and laser sights. Thinking of our ancestors Islander, obviously they didn't have to contend with evils such as the opossum, but it's almost an admission of ineptness and the inferiority of our species to argue that we can't deal with these creatures without firearms.
My only reason to mention this is that guns here (not NZ) are banned in the general population and police don't carry them either (or tasers). And so there's not a huge groundswell of support for an armed population - and ultimately less danger all round.
I think that there would be a strong argument made in New Zealand by the rural population for retaining guns, but I'm not satisfied that the arguments in favour are any match for the arguments against. Sure banning firearms would incur a problematic changeover period when people would horde and hide weapons, but ultimately, After a fair few iffy house searches under the 'Misuse of Firearms Act' in the long term, on an island, the outcome could only be positive.
Comparatively there is little positive in an increasingly armed police force, conducting iffy house searches under the "Misuse of Drugs Act" with the intention of destroying good quality plants and getting shot in the process. That's an admitted step backwards for a society. It's not making the community any safer, and it's certainly not bringing about a greener tomorrow.
-
Chris, facts. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
prove it; )
-
I'm very much in favour of decriminalising pot, but I'm actually kind of relieved that the kind of people who shoot at police officers are off the street as an end result.
But they weren't on the street. They were at home chillin'. I think it's more complicated than saying;
Nobody had to shoot them.
To be fair, anybody who uses a firearm on Police (and dog) is a wannabe homicidal maniac
I had my door kicked in by police in the early 90s, and my first instinct was not to pull a firearm and shoot at them
fact 1: There is widespread perceived lack of immorality in something as benign as growing plants and woe betold selling them.
fact 2: A brain explosion may occur in the adult male at the sudden realisation that despite being discrete about growing and selling plants and whilst causing no trouble on the streets you're faced with the imminent reality of year long incarceration.
fact 3: People value their own freedom that much, that they are prepared to kill for it.
fact 4: Many people own guns because it's legal to own guns in New Zealand, (regardless of any propaganda about our staunch environmentalism), people like kiilling creatures, and despite the propaganda about our kiwi ingenuity, guns are essential for this purpose.
fact 5: The police were aware of all these facts
Supposition 1: The police were familiar enough with the aroma of cannabis (requiring a reasonable amount of exposure to the scent)
To contextualise;
A friend of a friend received a call from his gf informing him the police were in the lounge, they'd received testimony that he'd been selling hash and he must return home. He returned to find the police giving the house a going over, after about 45 minutes of searching the cops asked the guy where the drugs were. Bored and keen to be done with the invasion of privacy, the guy pointed to the hash clearly visible in front of them on the coffee table. He was arrested and taken away, he was jailed for 2 weeks in a room with 13 others, then he was set free, reclaimed his passport, end of story.
To further contextualise;
Another friend has a small courtyard, in which he grows the odd plant or three, the police came to check his living registration, as they walked in they brushed through the leaves of the plants which were at that stage well over a metre tall. Having checked his registration, they again walked through the greenery on the way out. I guess if they'd wanted to they could have asked what the plants were, then they could have arrested him and put him in jail for a few weeks, but being civilized, they realised that would entail a lot of extra work, which would bring no significant benefits for the community and at worse case could possibly incite some unfavorable reaction.
Not in New Zealand obviously.
Latent wannabe homicidal mania is a feature of humanity, especially in defence of freedom. Activating latent homicidal maniacs does not make our communities safer. Sure that guy won't be on the street for a few years, but eventually he will, and he'll be no less a homicidal maniac for the experience.