I thought The Herald giving its whole front page (large border around three sides, large square advertisement within actual page) to the National party on its online edition on friday before the election was pretty nakedly partisan.
Yeah that's called advertising it - they sell it, someone buys it - stuff.co.nz had EXACTLY the same takeover on exactly the same day. Either we ban political advertising (which some say we should) or that's totally okay. I don't think there was anyone saying "okay guys we can't write anything bad about National today because they bought an ad here".
And the followup is *totally* legit:
Just an idea – if you’re going to take my twitter pic, maybe include the original tweet and hashtag (#akshuallyfake) that I used when I wrote it – it’s now got a life of its own without people being aware of its intended fakeness.
Do you think it's unreasonable for someone to assume that maybe KDC enjoys making ambiguous statements - effectively "I hacked the German Chancellor because I didn't like him... I don't like John Key either". It's the same as can be seen in the winky face I-wonder-who-hacked-Whaleoil message he allegedly sent to Wayne Tempero. Even if it's not true, he seems to like creating an inference.
I wasn't there, I didn't hear any more of the speech than that Chancellor quote pulled for the news, but it would seem either mischievous or just plain stupid given recent events.
If Kim Dotcom didn't want the Internet Mana event to be derailed, he could've left it to the actual candidates - I keep being told by IM people that "Kim's really keen to step out of the spotlight" but I'm yet to see any evidence of it, and today it indirectly (with the media's help of course) cost them positive coverage of the issues.
So thats the law enforcement angle covered …right
I've got no interest in (and I'm contractually prohibited from) going into further details of who I did and didn't speak to Steve, and I'm well aware of the jurisdiction of CDOT and the State Patrol, as well as everyone else I interviewed, thanks. I was just pointing out that I was doing a hell of a lot more than just 'soaking up the vibes' or whatever your original dismissive statement was.
Perhaps rather than scoff, you could add something constructive to the discussion with some firm evidence about the negative impacts of legalisation in Colorado thus far?
Your [sic] welcome. Maybe you could have said more of your itinerary in the main story than this -
Okay Sherlock. Perhaps you missed my oh-so-subtle clues, like...
“No trouble” seems to largely sum up Colorado’s cannabis experiment – a process being watched from within the US and around the world. I spoke to a State Trooper, and to the Department of Transportation.
Or perhaps the fact I spoke about travelling with a crew of non-pot-smokers as part of a project I'm engaged with - I don't expect you to know much about me, but perhaps you know that my *job* is a journalist?
With reading comprehension levels like yours, it's probably best you're not a smoker. If you don't like the conversation around these parts, perhaps you might feel more at home at Stuff Nation.
what i find amazing about Colorado is that nobody who grows or sells... can open a bank account
Not so, Sue - I did ask the biggest of the growers about this. Many banks are working on a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy at the moment, but it's still fraught, so every six months or so they change banks. But she did say they try and pay all their suppliers in cash wherever possible...
Did you happen to have any discussions with employers or employees around 'Drug testing' in a workplace and if testing has been relaxed or tightened up around this major issue?
Not really - Colorado has at-will employment, so you can fire anyone at any time for any reason anyway.
As for back home, I did a story recently about the expansion of workplace drug testing - well beyond those areas where safety is paramount, and into the offices of NZ. Obviously I have no issue with an employer requiring their staff not to be stoned at work, but you're right about saliva vs urine. I interviewed one drug testing organisation who proudly told me how far back they could go with hair testing - they can tell what you did months ago! Yay...
But hey, lets just visit some place, enjoy the vibes and then say go for it.
Yeah, that's exactly what I did. I didn't spend hours with the head of the Colorado State Patrol. I didn't spend half a day at the Colorado Department of Transportation. I didn't interview public prosecutors, lawyers, the Mayor, sellers, growers, smokers....
Oh that's right, I did all of that. I went looking for problems associated with legalisation. Problems that didn't already exist under prohibition. But thanks for reducing all that to a snide quip.
If you're worried about the fact that the tax will inevitably benefit the higher decile schools, perhaps you should consider the disproportionate effect that prohibition has on lower socioeconomic sectors - as you point out, it's not the chattering class smokers getting criminal records or worse...
I've just come back from a week in Colorado, looking at the effects of legalisation there. I'll write a post about it as soon as I have time, but spoiler alert: there were no naked people in trees setting fire to their children.
I can see why the public enthusiasm might be waning. Dotcom's tweet about not being stressed over problems with his "minions" might be some sort of ironic Despicable Me reference, but I'm surprised the Mana Party didn't run a hundred miles at such an arrogant phrasing.
Maybe together they can start campaigning for a Living Minions' Wage.