Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And every so often, some of those nutty pre-"modern-medical" treatments come back into vogue for entirely different reasons. Like leeches, which have now become the gold standard for encouraging healing in skin grafting and other reconstructive techniques. Or using maggots on gangrenous or otherwise dying skin as a non-surgical intervention for wound cleaning. So much for the absolute superiority of "modern medicine" (ie: drugs and surgery) over historical methods.
-
Anyone else see alcohol prohibition on the horizon?
I was about to say "Because that just worked so well for the Americans", and then realised that we seem to be cursed with polly-tubbies who can't learn from the history of other nations' mistakes. If they don't get made here, they didn't happen. Witness the apparent determination to engage in PPPs for infrastructure spending, and what looks like the beginnings of the end for ACC.
-
I recall seeing a "segment" (read: ad) on...probably 3 News about these, touting them as basically the next big thing for whatever ails you.
They are quite good for treating decompression illness (bends) in divers, I believe!
Also good for injuries and diseases that lead to tissue destruction, according to Wikipedia. And whilst Wikipedia may not be all that and a bag of chips for authority, I knew about the use of hyperbaric treatment for burns and the others in the "approved treatments" list are sufficiently similar that it is a logical extension.
I can certainly see how hyperbaric O2 therapy could be considered useful for "whatever ails you", just through the basic physiological implications of increased O2 saturation of the tissues, but it is definitely a big step from that to using it for psychiatric/psychological disorders.
-
the UN Security Council's permanent members blocking anything they don't agree with
And, in a wonderful case of fox guarding hen house, my understanding is that this can't be changed without, wait for it... a vote by the Security Council. Which means that any of the permanent members can veto a proposal that would change the rules.
-
But sadly, given the poor state of bureaucracy in NZ Aotearoa, someone will simply apply in another name
That'll last as long as it takes for the police to hear that there's a new application going in, though. Then they'll file an objection and, hopefully, this new-and-improved LLA will circular-file the new application.
That cancellation was way overdue, too. Four convictions for selling to minors?!?! That's at least one too many, and in my book two too many. I'd give licensees a single chance to change, and then that'd be the end of it. Slip-ups happen, so a single "freebie" (that still carries the consequence of a non-negligible trading ban) is not unreasonable, but on something like this there should be very little leeway for people to claim ignorance or misfortune.
-
The law on "not serving drunks" is wishful thinking, really.
Yes, possibly, but that's only one law of many that're obviously not being fully enforced. The one that's of far greater concern is the supply of liquor to minors, and that's one that's easily measured in an objective fashion: a person is either 18-or-older, or they're not. There's no room for wiggle. Some licensees have multiple strikes to their names, but still they hold licences to sell alcohol. That makes a mockery of all the strident messages at the time of lowering the age about how there would be no tolerance for breaches of the law, etc etc.
As far as "too drunk" goes, there have been cases of premises serving people who were so drunk they were unable to stand unaided. That's pretty objectively "too drunk".
-
That is quite disgusting, in so many ways. I feel thoroughly vindicated in my oft-repeated belief that the problem is not with the laws as they stand but, rather, with the non-enforcement. Enforcement that, we were promised, would be thorough and effective to tie in with the liberalisation of supply restrictions.
-
Is that never in Auckland, or never in New Zealand? Just out of curiosity.
-
Interesting article, thanks Sacha. Reading that, and also going back to Rod Oram's article from April, I can't help but be utterly outraged at the callous disregard for the Commission's considered suggestions that has been put on display by Rodney and his band of merry men. He really is the Monster of Local Government, and he's been ably assisted by a media that's done a generally poor job of really explaining what the Commission had envisaged. Instead we get this second-rate hack job.
The only bright light is that the left-wing seems to be coalescing to a Brown/Lee ticket, or was last time I heard any news on the shaping-up of the factions. The negative is the rumour that Bradford might run. The general sentiment toward her amongst the electorate is sufficiently negative that the right could easily turn her into a bogeywoman and hustle undecided voters in behind a right-wing ticket on the strength of Bradford possibly holding a seat at the Council table.
-
Actually it is very hard to lose your liquor licence. Very hard. The Liquor Licensing Commission has never ever revoked a licence.
What this says to me is that we don't need a raised drinking age or anything else. What we need is actual enforcement of the law as it currently stands. Selling alcohol, like driving a car, is not a right. Society grants you permission to do something that it is recognised can cause harm and great inconvenience to others, and (supposedly) punishes you when you fail to adhere to the duly promulgated rules.
If (and I'm not doubting you, just to be clear) nobody has ever had their licence revoked, that says that the "right" to make a living from selling alcohol has been given far, far too much precedence. It should never have been allowed to be a greater consideration than adherence with the not-very-complicated laws that govern the sale of alcohol. Fuck up, and fuck off, to put it coarsely.