Ok, so this might be difficult for people with the reasoning power of a powerful AI. I'll try to speak slowly.
If I want to take heroin, I'm concerned about the effect. I know the actual experience of jabbing the needle in bit is going to be unpleasantly painful.
I'm only interested in the purity of the drug.
If I decide I'd like a glass of the Chateau Musar, it's about $200 a 70cl bottle. That works out at about $2380 a litre of alcohol, of which about $29 is tax.
If I was, as with the smack, purely in there for the buzz, I could drink industrial ethanol at around $30/litre (almost entirely tax - industrial ethanol is about 40c a litre). Obviously there are some very irrational drug users out there.
alcohol as a drug
So, why bother with craft beer and vineyards and maturing single malt whiskies for 20 years? It's just a drug, why don't we just inject pure industrial ethanol into our eyeballs for a quick and cheap hit?
It seems to me that it's not so much National doing their job of putting a spoke in the wheels of government as that Labour didn't really bother for much of the last nine years. Did they ever question whether National were entitled to rely on Todd Barclay's vote when he was away on "leave", just as a for instance?
involuntary manslaughter/criminally negligent homicide
No such crimes exist in NZ law: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/128.0/DLM329302.html
[we do not live in the USA, or the movies]
Also, why is the best way to deal with a tragedy to create others?
And drug taking is a voluntary act. In many years of hanging out with dodgy people, nobody has ever "pushed" me to buy their drugs (and I think you'll struggle to find a court case where this was proved as an aggravating circumstance against a dealer).
It comes down to a vote, right? 2/3 majority in the Senate, which has never happened, and probably won't, unless a substantial group of Republican senators decide to ditch Trump.
US civil service, I thought. They have a set system of pay grades like military ranks.
(as opposed to agreeing with the SSC that because their department has a similar number of employees to Google, they should be paid accordingly).
It does seem odd to have a referendum. Shouldn't a decision on the best way to deal with drugs be evidence based, within a framework of political philosophy (such as whether people's bodies are their own, or chattels of the state? You could have a referendum on that.)
We don't have referenda on the speed limit, or the base interest rate?
They conflated refugees with net migrants. They also know fuck all about NZ, it's population or its immigration policies.
We aren't perfect by any means, but compared to most other countries, and especially the US, we are one of the most migrant friendly places:
- our primary migration pathways are neutral as to the country of origin
- we select on an empirical points system based in theory on ability to successfully settle (and we work on improving settlement outcomes)
- we grant qualified migrants permanent residence at an early stage
- migrants are able to vote after 12 months permanent residence
- migrants have a clear path to citizenship
My view, and this applies to all healthcare, but it could be piloted on mental health, is that we should apply the ACC model, which generally works, to non-accidental health issues.
People would be able to present to any accredited mental health provider, or their GP, the provider would file a claim and they'd get treated. Resources expand to meet demand (like there are usually an adequate number of physios around to get an appointment quickly).
You'd have a "Healthcare Commission" that would pay the providers and set levies to cover their costs across a range of tax types (as ACC levies income, vehicles, and employers based on risk).
Then, having removed funding from the political sphere, you can look at the most effective modes of provision.
Seems to me a job that needs doing is to require that TVNZ ensure that presenters of, or reporters on, news programmes or programmes about current affairs, are seen to be impartial.
Here, I found you a code of practice you can cut and paste. Shouldn't take too long for whoever's Broadcasting Minister?