I recently watched the Ken Burns documentary miniseries on Prohibition. What was very interesting about it was all the unintended consequences of those laws and how that played out. Various commentators in that series may have overstated their views but the criminalisation of alcohol was said to have created many of the organised crime in the U.S at the time.
I think it is worthwhile to point out that the prohibition of alcohol in the USA in 1920 was effectively "decriminalised". That is private ownership and consumption of alcohol were not made illegal, under federal law. It was the production, importation, transportation and sale of alcohol which was criminalised.
Which is what "decriminalisation" advocates wish for here with regards for cannabis.
Over half of all people apprehended and processed for drug offences in Northland last year were charged with a criminal offence
I bet to them, "defacto decriminalisation" is as meaningless as it is to me.
So I'm happy enough with the phrase "de facto decriminalisation".
That is nice, be safe and be nice to police officers, because you have to.
But the number of arrests and prosecutions for use and possession has been falling significantly, while use and possession haven't. Something is happening.
It is not any sort of decriminalisation.
Alfie should post the phone numbers of his dealers.
But of course he should not. Cannabis is very much illegal and criminal
In lieu of the government getting off their arses and actually doing something about the issue, Police have been practicing selective decriminalisation for years
I am so in disagreement with this.
People are still getting busted. Ask them if it is "de facto decriminalised". Use a phone for personal safety.
There is no way to score if you are new to town. Before prostitution (technically soliciting) was legalised it was easy to find a brothel. They were in the phone book as "massage parlours", still are. There is no equivalent for tinny houses.
Cannabis is de jure and de facto banned. That is the meat hook reality for dope smokers.
National keep saying it's a supply issue. I say FUCK THAT, it's a demand issue, Auckland is full, nobody should be let in who isn't a citizen. After 10 years, and lots research and evidence then I'd be happy to reconsider.
It is patently a supply issue and a demand issue. How are you going to keep people out of Auckland? Dawn raids? Internal passports?
This is a world wide problem. Most western world major cities are in the same boat.
There are multiple causes and solutions, and many mentioned here. My favourite solution is a decent social housing program with secure long term tenancy. And regional development (I am *never* going back to Auckland where I grew up, the quality of life is so much better in other parts of the country. Way way better. Off the chart better...)
But a cause that we are forgetting is the crash, throughout the stable section of the western world, of interest rates. Not so much that borrowing is cheap but that there are very few places to put capital for a decent risk adjusted return .
It will be interesting to see how much investment is from non-resident foreigners, we need many data to know and we have close to none (Chinese sounding names is racist cant - shame). That is probably "hot money", volatile. There is a good chance the "hot money" buyers will get spooked, liquidate and leave for any number of reasons.
Then as Paul Campbell pointed out a sudden increase of interest rates would wipe out a lot of investors and banks would be forced to liquidate.
Which ever way you look at it it is reasonable to expect that we will see a crash in the housing market, world wide. No government policy changes can prevent it or protect us (except decent secure social housing - but that is a communist plot apparently).
We are at an economic cross roads. All the old assumptions about wealth are getting turned on their head. Now the most valuable thing is ideas not factories, the value of labour is in free fall. This is a symptom, and expect some very rough weather ahead.
Nice one. Two important things about free speech (thanks Noam):
(1) Free speech is for speech you hate. If it is only for speech you are OK with it is not "free" at all.
(2) The best cure for "bad speech" is "more speech'.
I have read and attempted to reread Rob's post. Let us call it what it is: Racist.
It may well be true that "... ethnically Chinese house buyers tended to purchase flash houses....". So what?
The offensiveness in all of this is thinking that surnames are a valid way to judge residency or that ethnicity (race) matters. IMO Phil Twyford should go. Far far away.
I am a bit tired of "Harm reduction". People do not take drugs because they are harmful. People do not use LSD because it is less harmful than alcohol (it is, according to David Nutt) they take LSD because it has benefits for them.
The same applies to all drug taking. There is some harm from drugs but it does not follow that drugs are harmful.
I can illustrate that with an analogy: Many people have broken the bones of their feet and lower legs by jumping or falling onto concrete. They suffer harm from concrete and car needs to be taken around concrete. But that does not make concrete harmful. Concrete is useful.
This is a human rights ssue. Not a legal issue and not a medical issue. It is as much a human rights issue as sexism, racism, homophobia, class predjudice....
I have a friend who has both. Installed the hot water system first and a year later installed the PV. Says now doing it again he would not have installed the hot water system.
Do the research. Price the PV system. Watts per square metre hot water will be better. Dollar per watt, it may well be PV