Posts by dc_red
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Oh, so you want to argue on semantics? In which case, which method of tobacco consumption? Chewing? Snorting?
When one talks of consuming tobacco, for most the first thought is a cigarette. Similarly, a joint is the first thought for most when discussing pot. Sorry if I didn't make myself sufficiently clear.I assumed the point wasn't so much about the standard method of delivery/use (about which you are correct), but about the levels and styles of use.
e.g., 20 cigarettes per day, every day, versus one joint twice a week, often shared with a friend or two.
Smoking an entire joint, by yourself, in one sitting would be quite a mission, I imagine. The prospect of another one 20 minutes later would pose even more challenges.
i.e., cannabis is often smoked in relatively small quantities. The alleged increases in potency presumably encourage this.
-
The analysis that shows (smoked) marijuana to be more harmful than tobacco contrasts a joint with a cigarette - the carcinogen level of the joint is around 20-30 times (don't quote me) that of the cigarette, etc. (in part caused by the lack of filters in a joint).
Couldn't resist quoting you Graeme. The "joint is worse than a cigarette" line is an interesting one, with the extra magnitude of harm highly variable and often, it appears, invented for the occasion. e.g., the media will happily cite figures anywhere between 7 and 30 times more harmful.
I would be willing to accept 7 to 30 times more helpful.
-
There's a line between 'open to debate' and 'utter, dishonest bullshit', and the Police can't afford to be on the wrong side of it when making allegedly serious public policy arguments or effectively lobbying for legislation.
Surely though that's their modus operandi?
-
I was just wondering this morning whether it would be illegal - or morally dubious even - to raise a private bounty on Mugabe's head? Say 100 bloggers pledging $100/each (NZD no less!).
-
It's a shame that they didn't run a parallel headline about Transmission Gully. Along the lines of:
"Road no one will be able to afford to use cost NZ society $1.025 billion, study shows"
-
Depends on what they're buying. Around the corner (quite literally) from my home is a small strip of shops. They've historically been antiques retailers (the Market Rd/Great South Rd shops, for those familiar with the area), though recently there's been an up-swing in food outlets. The council wanted to remove all the parks outside the shops, to allow for a bus expressway. The retailers, understandably, objected. Antiques aren't something one carries home on the bus. I'm not sure of the final outcome, which I believe still hasn't been decided, but the point is that there are certainly some types of retailer who absolutely require that their customers be able to get moderately convenient access by motorcar. Either that or they start doing home deliveries of small lamps and other items.
The sporadic interruption of bus lanes with short areas of parking out the front of shops (sometimes as few as 3-5 spaces) annoys me no end. They dramatically reduce the utility of said bus lanes. Without knowing the shops in question ... can't they have customer parking 'round the back? Why does it have to be out the front?
Sometimes on an idle afternoon I count the number of cars my bus passes during a short burst down the bus lane. Then the number of cars that pass us as we (a) complete a stop, and (b) try to get back into the main lane of traffic as the bus lane has ended to allow for three cars to park out the front of a dairy. Unfortunately the two totals are often very similar - e.g., pass 23 cars; later passed by 18 of them.
-
Isn't that the Kiwi way of thinking? We're all entitled to compensation, especially if it's from a big, easy target like the gummint. They're responsible for ensuring I continue to have a comfortable easy life, regardless of what is happening overseas to petrol and food prices, interest rates etc, and for paying me heaps if anything goes wrong.
A wise person on PAS, on a thread many moons ago, observed that in the economic sphere, the NZ mentality is often to "privatize the profits, and socialize the losses." And to present both outcomes as god-given rights too, I expect.
-
My bicycle weighs ~12 kg, and has a fuel rating of 0.0 litres/100km.
I'm reminded of one of David Haywood's posts along the lines of "you don't get energy for free."
Something powers your bicycle (probably your legs), and the energy you need to do that has to come from somewhere (probably food, for which vast amounts of energy was spent in its production ... much of that energy probably from hydrocarbons).
You would use a lot less of that food energy sitting at the wheel of a car/SUV/Tahoe. ;-)
-
My American husband has a theory that New Zealanders are, in general, so laid-back and easygoing in their daily lives that the pent-up aggression has to come out somewhere, and that place is on the roads. The amount of dickery when travelling at high speeds is just unconscionable. I mean, I *do* live in west Auckland, but someone looking daggers at me for 'only' travelling 5kms above the legal speed limit? Is nuts.
As a proud West Aucklander, may I add ...
A couple of weeks ago I was getting daggers in Vancouver (also regarded as a relatively laid-back place in various ways) for only travelling 20 kms above the legal speed limit. That's right, doing 70 in a 50 zone and getting in the way of all those wanting to do 80+.
-
Frankly, I think both Duff and Carter over-reacted...
Heh, I originally read that as "Frankly, I think both Duff and Carter are over-rated..." - which had me nodding in approval, and wanting to complement the author for his straight talking.
Slightly more seriously, I've noticed the media can be all over Labour about "cutting out the dead wood" ... even providing long lists of MPs it thinks are past their use by date (if indeed they were ever any use at all) ... but FFS look at some of the time-servers on the National bench, starting with Hone here.