Posts by chris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The events detailed in that article are shocking from every angle. I doubt very much that this the original intention of the misuse of drugs act was to enable police to ambush people in their homes while letting flagged psychiatric patients run free.
There's absolutely no indication of any sincerity in the adage "Safer communities together Kaupapa whai oranga mo te iti me te rahi"
-
Concerns: What happened to the psychiatric patient? Why did the aroma of cannabis smoke take precedence? How hard is it for the police to conclusively verify the calibre of a firearm? Are search warrants still required in New Zealand?
Mitchel Alatalo, 39, was shot in the thigh while trying to escape through a window.
focusing on the task at hand could have prevented a lot of bloodshed.
-
Some of the most professionally inept people I've met have been teetotalers.
-
Apologies for the reminder Stephen, not the brand of insanity I was edging towards. I had my eye on the likelihood of a statistic like 41% of our MPs had residual THC in their systems and it's time to take another look at decriminalization.
he thought he'd be able to do this without having to venture on something that the whole damn town knew about, that's pretty naive.
Certainly, in this day and age. Everyone knows Drugs raise double the eyebrow quotient of a DUI conviction, or almost any number of past misdemeanors. I do like that this little storm in a tea cup has come to pass, there's been very little mention of previous drug use in NZ electoral campaigns, and ultimately who are we fooling.
-
I don't think he stands a shit-show anyway.
Yeah I picked it as a preemptive cocktail party defensive excuse for losing. In terms of an opinion on the issue I'm also partial to Ben's;
I would ever let an issue of character that did not manifest in any known problems (like violent outbursts or insane behavior) take precedence over policy.
I'd be impressed if Prast were prepared to put his money where his mouth is and undergo a P test to prove he's beaten the Jones, that would show a degree of willpower a large number of our representatives couldn't muster. In that vein, to contextualise it'd be quite nice if all candidates were willing to be voluntarily drug tested, more relevantly it'd be great if all elected representatives were required midway through their terms to undergo drug testing, not necessarily to be acted upon/ prosecuted, nor to make rash conclusions that it inhibits their ability to do their job, merely to get a real perspective around some of the legislation that comes out of the hallowed offices.
In a democracy, surely MPs should be the most useful subjects for examination of illegal behaviour, merely to keep the laws in step with the reality of the demographics.
I'm not convinced the specifics of this or that drug, whether it be P or pot or liquor bare much relevance here, and this insistence on contrasting the relative stereotypical effects shows a mind prone to the propaganda. I've met a couple of 'One Can Charlies' in my time, whose physiological reaction to alcohol make it look as bad as PCP.
-
If Obama had said he'd had a wee crack habit before deciding to run, I think we'd probably be looking at the first Female President of the USA.
I was under the impression admission of hard drug use no longer engendered the mandatory sex change in the U.S.
-
Yeah, but....shouldn't we be demanding *more* of them?
Hell yes.
Sounds good Craig. -
Strangely apt though in terms of the original protagonists of this debacle....I'd definitely resigned myself to doberman status from a fairly young age. Good on you for getting your hands dirty there Russell, these people need to be flogged senseful.
-
1986, and yes.
-
I confess, I nicked it, but I can't remember where or who from.
My immediate thought was Hot Tub Time Machine, while pinned under a chair being inspected as to whether his arm is still attached Crispin Glover (God bless his soul) asks;
"Are you rapin'?"
For some reason the unfamiliarity of removing the direct object from that verb with the present participle sounds quite funny. I think the humourous value is mainly derived from the removal of the object as it seems to possess a certain je ne sais quois in the other forms too;
"Do you rape?"
"I'd recently raped when I met the store clerk."
"He was understandably famished having just raped."