Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Access to tobacco is a right under International Human Rights law.
Just sayin' =)
ref: Articles 26 and 28 of the Third Geneva Convention
Do you want ordinary law-abiding non-violent people subject to less rights than Prisoners of War?
Shame, hiss, booo, etc.
=)
-
But that doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't hit, slap or punch anyone of any age, the law says so, and you can be prosecuted for hitting people if the circumstances warrant.
Rich - that was basically my point. People - including some here - were outraged that the amendment was called "anti-smacking" - because it was a law change that wasn't about smacking.
I happen to believe that because of the law change, the legal position of smacking has changed (it is now illegal, it was not previously). I just found it interesting that John Key was being taken to task for seemingly holding the quite common view that the amendment to section 59 was not "anti-smacking"
-
More notably, this same story features PM Key basically giving parents carte blanche to go back to smacking their kids provided it's "light". Which is not what the law Key voted for actually says, but apparently he, not Parliament, is the supreme authority on such matters
Exactly. If he actually said that, the Herald should've been right up in his grill about it. I thought Key had handled things very well until I read that. Perhaps he's a friggin' idiot after all.
Haven't we been repeatedly told it wasn't an "anti-smacking" law?
Why is there is concern that the PM has said light smacking is okay (read lawful) if the law we passed wasn't about smacking at all?
-
My pool prediction didn't come to pass, and I owe Graeme Edgeler a beer, but I still think we did alright.
The odds were just too good to pass up! I've a DVD heading this way from Amazon which includes among its special features the complete 6th game of the 1977 World Series ... beer and baseball seems a good combination :-)
-
I also predicted that one pool would be: Argentina, Japan, Nigeria, and Serbia, if anyone would care to wager a beer on that.
I like those odds!
-
The Doctor Will See You Shortly
And he did.
And now I'll be able to read his work without picturing David Slack, instead :-)
-
There's a quick rundown on their website (I was going to quote it, but it's worth reading in full.)
And the NZLS submission (.pdf) itself.
-
My understanding from workplace drug testing regimes is that there is no way to actually test for impairment with cannabis. They can tell how much is swimming around in your system but not what it is doing to your brain.
They're not undertaking clinical tests for impairment.
The test for impairment is kinda like those one's Americans do on TV for alcohol - the walk in a straight line, stand on one foot kind of thing - fail one of those tests, and show up with drugs in your system and you'll probably be charged.
-
good to see the provocation defense has gone.
Anyone know who/why five MPs voted to keep it?ACT, which basically adopted the New Zealand Law Society's concerns.
-
But Section 58 indicates that actually any indication at all of a controlled substance in your blood test is an offence in itself:
The section 58 offence only related to any class A drug.
The section 11A offence is any drug (including prescription medication), but requires proof of impairment.