Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Just to say that (as noted previously) I was toying with the idea of voting for TOP or National (I'd never vote Labour) but now I'm firm on voting Green, provided Mets is still leader at the election, just out of solidarity with her for staunching it out.
-
Hard News: That escalated quickly ..., in reply to Rob Stowell,
More notably, urban professionals are increasingly voting for traditionally left wing parties. In the Eisenhower era, an engineer, banker or accountant would more often than not (region, family and considered ideology notwithstanding) be a Republican, and that continued through Reagan. Nowadays, such people would tend to be Democrats.
Similarly in the last UK election, the biggest swings to Labour were in the most prosperous electorates.
-
Hard News: That escalated quickly ..., in reply to BenWilson,
I'm not sure where Winston himself sits, but his support is, IMHO, mostly on the Left (if we define position by political opinion and how the population differs
I'd say we're seeing a realignment globally (certainly US and UK) from left/right to rational/irrational.
You traditionally had poorer people supporting left wing parties and richer people right-wing ones. But now, in the US, the wealthier middle classes are Democrats and Trump draws his support from rust belt blue collar workers. Same in the UK with Brexit (and increasingly party politics - Labour winning Kensington, which is one of the richest constituencies in the country).
On this scale, the Greens and TOP are the rational end, Peters is the shit-thick end and Labour and National are in the middle.
-
If Jacinda loses and (as is conventional) resigns the next day, she'll take the record for the shortest term of a Labour leader. Maybe Grant's being smart and keeping well clear - he'll be able to draw a whole 3 years salary if he's next.
-
Hard News: Synthetics: Maybe this mess…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Well, I recall a moral panic, fed by social and regular media, about how OTC synthetics were destroying communities, causing homelessness, turning people into zombies, etc.
This (like most things in the media) was at odds with the experiences of People I Met. The products resulted in a state anywhere between giggly and completely fucked up - pretty much doing what it says on the tin.
And, as noted, negative effects of all drugs disproportionately apply to the "homeless and itinerant". Middle class people with jobs to go to on Tuesday have an outstanding capacity to hoover up anything that doesn't actually kill you and remain functional. It's the "oh shit, better lay off" rather than the "oh shit, let's have more" reaction.
Fixing the underlying problems would help more people deal with the substances they'll inevitably obtain. But it's easier for government (of any stripe) to blame the Evil Drug Dealers than to go down that path.
-
Hard News: This is bad – very bad, in reply to Chris Peel,
Maybe they could help by not having their fraudulent managers taking up the scarce resources of the justice system.
-
Maybe a reasonable compromise would be for a doctor to certify that (a) the patient has a named condition and (b) they have no known factors that would contra-indicate the use of cannabis*
That allows the government to keep up the pretence of prohibition whilst not involving a doctor in providing an unethical treatment.
* A bit like a medical for diving. The doctor isn't saying that pressurising your body and taking it underwater is a good idea, merely that you are no more likely than average to damage yourself in such an ill-advised activity...
-
What amazing magic process are they going to use in some tightly controlled medical cannabis plantation?
Well, if you wanted to do evidence-based medicine, you'd start by taking your crop, maybe making cannabis oil using the usual process, then assay it for active ingredients and then standardise it by dilution or concentration so you had a known dose.
Then (assuming you'd pre-decided that the drug was generally safe and effective) you'd prescribe it to each patient, perhaps starting with a small dose and increasing to see the effect on their symptoms. You'd record this and report any adverse effects, as well as conducting formal follow up studies on safety and efficacy (informed by the way you are using a standardised product).
If you don't do that, it isn't evidence based medicine and isn't what doctors are supposed to do.
If people want to take weed, either because they consider it helps them medically or they just like being stoned, then to me, that's fine. The government should provide clear and accurate information on the health effects and leave them to make up their own mind.
But trying to introduce into medicine the idea of "prescribing" random plant material is a big step backwards.
-
What would *you* change?
Allow party leaders to replace MPs at will - so that all the MPs were in office at the leaders favour?
Allow the Speaker to remove MPs at will - similarly, especially as the Speaker is nominated by the ruling party?
An MP can get tried and prosecuted and lose their seat when convicted of a serious offence - that's what we have now. -
Captchas. Noisy images generated in the reverse direction, human input required to go forward.
Ideally mined by large numbers of slaves in developing countries.