Posts by FletcherB
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I guess if "they" have only just recently discovered better than BZP alternatives.... I can see why they would hold off with new regulations coming in soon....
But if they have known about these better alternatives for some time, why have they not been selling them already?
Invent a better mouse-trap and people will buy it, etc.
-
Surely the fact that Matt Bowden was trying to find something better and bring it to market suggests that.... well... that people were trying to find something better? (and legal)
Ben- I agree that it was definitely a marketing success, and maybe "cool factor" was more in effect than actual psychotropic effects...
But unless you think the BZP sellers were intentionally selling something weaker than they had available, for the "good of society"... it doesnt follow that something better had to be available just because BZP was so poor.There are other good reasons my suspicions could be incorrect.... development costs could be too high for the total market to justifty?
Something better, but too costly to produce might exist?I just think it stands to reason that when you main selling feature is that its legal.... when that gets removed, you have to resort to the next best legal thing, and by definition, next-best is not as good as the thing that preceded it.
Now, with the change in regulations of what you can bring onto the market in the future.... that will change the economics considerably. Maybe it will become too expensive/difficult to prove anything safe? And the market will die off completely. Or maybe the market is big enough to justify huge expenditure to find a replacement that does indeed turn out to be better than BZP, (when such expenditure couldnt be justified with BZP in the market).
Alcohol is my drug of choice so its all moot to me.... I was just thinking out loud.
-
Russell,
That doesnt disprove my point..... if methylone was better as you say, but turned out to be legal, do you doubt it would have started outselling BZP?Yes, the new regulations will change things... but as things stood up until now, if a better legal high was already available, we'd already know about it. We dont. Ergo what will replace BZP will likely be less desirable than BZP. (and if something better and legal was available, maybe it and not BZP would be the target of new legislation?)
-
Do you have any scoop on what form the post-BZP products will take?
Is there any real reason to hope they will exceed the performance of the soon-to-be-banned pills and still manage to hurt less the next day?
I have no inside info, and in fact no actual interest.... but logic suggests whatever replaces BZP has to be not as good.... if something better was available, it would have already been put on the market.
"A legal high thats better than BZP" would be quite the selling point wouldnt it?
What-ever replaces BZP is bound to be not quite as good.... whether thats less effective (as in desired effects) or worse undesired effects, I dont know.... but if something better was available it would already be the best selling....
Its for this exact reason there wont be much of a black-market for BZP.... because legal was its only selling point.... once you are prepared to buy off the black market, better products are available.
-
But does anyone think Tamihere would actually make a good mayor in west Auckland? I think he'd be a disaster.
Hard to say.... he could be a disaster? But he also did quite well with the Waiparera Trust for many years (before spectacular falling out), and thats a sort-of-local-body-type operation isnt it?
He's certainly got good name recognition, and in local body politics I cant help but feel thats even more important than in national level elections? (where the party you are standing for will help even if no-one knows you)
I mean, Hubbard was definitely voted in on the anyone-but-banks vote.... but he had name recognition that Swney could only dream of.
The fact Banks is doing so well in the polls can only be due to large numbers of "not-hubbard" voters forgetting why they voted him in in the first place? Its name recognition being more important than WHY you recognise it. (he did so well last time- NOT). Does anyone who doesnt actively follow local politics even know who Swney (or any of the other candidates than Steve Crow is?)Like I said... glad I dont have to choose.
Tamihere/Harvey- I'll have to do more research before I decide.
-
Russell... thanks for the Salon sub-prime primer... its cleared things up substantially for me...
As to the local election coverage...
I've recently just moved outside of Auckland City to Waitakere City (by moving 2km to the adjacent suburb). Even though it does have a large effect on greater Auckland, I'm glad I dont have to choose between Hubbard, Banks, et al. But who do I have to choose from? The only thing I've seen in the media regarding the upcoming local body elections thats NOT auckland city is that Barry Curtiss is stepping down in Manakau.
Whether my own mayor is standing un-contested, or if there alternative candidates, I have no idea. I dont even know if C&R and CV compete in the west at all, of if there are other organizations based upon similar lines.
I guess it gives me a glimpse of what it must feel like in the provinces with your nightly news dominated by Auck/Well centred TV news?
-
Getting around step-parent hood is oh-so-easy.
Lets just devise humans that dont fall out of love from previously perfectly good relationships... And also devise ones that dont get horny and go having rampant sex with people they have no intention of forming a long term relationship with in the first place.
Good luck with that.
-
Thought experiment: let's double the DPB. What do people think would happen to child abuse rates? Increase, decrease, stay the same?
well, I suspect it would have absolutely no affect on the numbers of people who think its acceptable (or at least defensible) to use violence when they are under stress....
It may well reduce the number of people who are under stress (due to financial matters)...
-
In response to Ian McKay's
There is a solution that seems so simple that it would be ridiculed. Keep saying "We don't hit people." or "People are not for hitting." This in any setting: home, school, church, street, Parliament or everywhere. This is such a simple message and if it is said often and is demonstrably true, by modeling that it is true, actually works. It does not need long explanations, nor does need debate or the handing out punishments. It is the way we live! We don't hit people!
I said
But how do you "sell" it in a country devoted to rugby?
Then HamishM said
The rugby players are at least bashing those of roughly equal physical development. It would have to be made clear that it stayed on the field and while still unacceptable was at least contained. I mean let's get it sorted so that everyone understands that violence in the home is unacceptable.
But thats my point..... not that rugby is evil, but that NZ as a society largely finds that in some situations at some times, some people ARE allowed to hit people.
It makes the whole "not to anybody at any time anywhere" message a little bit more complicated, and its probably not going to wash in the same society that frequently idolizes the participants, if its going to have any integrity
. -
There is a solution that seems so simple that it would be ridiculed. Keep saying "We don't hit people." or "People are not for hitting." This in any setting: home, school, church, street, Parliament or everywhere. This is such a simple message and if it is said often and is demonstrably true, by modeling that it is true, actually works. It does not need long explanations, nor does need debate or the handing out punishments. It is the way we live! We don't hit people!
I'm sure, over time, this could indeed help....
But how do you "sell" it in a country devoted to rugby?