Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I/S; it appears this way.
Given though that Treasury are part of the reference group for the study, they seem to be happy with the methodology which, they will surely have known, leads in only one direction.
-
Interestingly, this looks like it examined only direct costs and didn't account for any second-round effects (i.e. Input/Output analysis only). Perhaps someone can correct me if I've missed something? If this is, as they say, the industry standard, then it's understandable (it enables extra-jurisdictional comparisons such as they've made with Australia) but the methodology is not capable of addressing questions like the long-run costs of some sort of decriminalisation? Surely this is an important question when considering optimimum levels of resourcing for Policing?
Consistent with New Zealand public policy, and the argument set out in Collins and Lapsley (2002: 20-21), this study assumes that illicit drug consumption is abusive and imposes a social cost. Therefore, all resources diverted by illicit drug consumption are regarded as social costs.
I find this a little frustrating. What if pot-smoking doesn't only lead to psychosis, at x-cost factor per annum, but is a substitute for alcohol for which the cost factor is 2-3x? This isn't a criticism of the methodolgy, as above, rather the assumptions that are fed into this study.
-
__I can only conclude that the knowingly set the brief for this report clearly with PR in mind.__
I think that is the correct conclusion, unfortunately.
I think an equally likely explanation is that Police believe they need more resources and this is a way to wedge government (I've had my own experience managing projects like this, albeit focused on investment in education). The current fascination with various forms of modelling is a function of Treasuries' control in most jurisdictions; you want Treasury to support your budget bid, better get some evidence they consider valid (econometric modeling is best, Input/Output analysis of limited value).
Although there's bound to be some methodological limitations to this study, they'll not be great nor unacceptable to the brethren and therefore Police go to go the top of the budget list.
I suspect if the Salvo's had had this funding, they'd do a similar study but focused on alcohol and would gazzump the Police by a significant factor.
-
This was the exact same Michael Laws who, during the 1981 Tour, wrote a university thesis justifying the apartheid regime in South Africa.
Law's left a bit of a legacy during his time at Otago. I've seen copies of publications he was allegedly responsible for. They were sexist, racist and homophobic; little appears to have changed.
He was writing under a pseudonym, but as I understand it (__literally__ second-hand), he wasn't very discrete. These are probably still around - at NZUSA or OUSA.
-
The downside to that 'tude is you may just find more people saying 'OK then..." than you'd like.
Exactly what I've done. David posts some stuff that I find interesting however. He's clearly well informed and comes from a different perspective which makes some of blog interesting. What's frustrating however, is how quickly they degenerate. The half-life seems less than a dozen comments. I could contribute, and occassionally do, but there's often little point.
Anyway, I didn't mean to turn this thread into a criticism of kiwiblog, I just noted how different the tone was their compared with PAS.
-
Craig, I think David's 'management model' is dependent upon throwing out the odd thread that's designed to create a swam of beligerants spewing abuse. I won't pretend to know why he does this, but it's pretty obvious.
Is he responsible for this level of intolerance; no. Should he enable it; no. I frequently wonder how his approach, in those specific threads, is any different from the tactic Winston uses to demonise Asians? He doesn't make the comments, but he must surely know they'll be made. Is it only a matter of degree?
-
Why is it so very satisfying to imagine Michael Laws as David Schwimmer in this particular Band of Brothers?
A perfect characterisation. Someone who, in equal measures, is self-important and devoid of self-awareness!
-
A round of apologies seems in order.
Sue said:
Can i reccomend nobody read kiwiblog on this, i did after what paul said, and i pretty much threw up after reading the comments.
I should have said that myself, sorry. And sorry too, to Simon G.
Finally, Craig:
Paul: Can you please leave me out of that pathology? I sure wouldn't want to see Russell (who I also consider a friend and a honourable and decent man) judged by certain parties hereabouts.
I didn't in fact mean to tar everyone with that brush Craig. I should have said something more specific. I know you and Russell are friends with David. I don't know him but I have mixed feelings. I think he all too often sets up threads that lead to incredibly predictable commentary and I don't think he can avoid some responsibility for that.
-
If you ever needed convincing of the tragedy that is kiwiblog, the thread on this issue is conclusive proof; imagine the most sexist crap you've ever heard and you pretty much have it. Farrar himself might not be a misogynist, but his mates are.
-
That was kind of my point; that men are responsible for their own actions, and the women-as-gatekeepers thing is a damaging myth because it tells a story where all men want sex all the time and so can't be held really responsible where sex is involved.
Agreed Lucy - it is just a lame revision of an earlier defence which went something like; "come on, he's just a bloke and you know what's on their minds aye..."