If Hypocrisy Was Capital

Image via WikipediaIf the hypocrisy that underpins our ‘all drugs’ policy was capital we would be in surplus.


No adjustment to alcohol ‘regulation’ can be made effective while the double standards that apply to cannabis (NZ most popular other drug) exist. Ramping up youth targeted partial prohibition of alcohol will serve ony to drive that demograph to illicit alternatives with contingent downsides, just as prohibition of the SAFER cannabis drives people to drink.

Related articles by Zemanta

• It's time to end the propaganda. Prohibition simply doesn't work | The big issue (guardian.co.uk)
• Alochol, Knighthood, Cannabis, Jail (mildgreens.blogspot.com)
• Cannabis and Depression Study Proves Need for Drug Law Reform... (peter-petterson.blogspot.com)
• The Guardian talks legalization (drugwarrant.com)

Third Wheel or Third Rail Issues?

Wanted: Better Stories about a Policemen and their Dogs.

If ANY of the candidates running for mayor were given 1/10th of the exposure the Jim/Bob show has been given they might have had half a chance. Passing muster at the Media 'approval' gateway seems to be the greatest hurdle to getting ANY traction on issues largely defined by Media.  (SEE Press Online :  Do we need a third wheel? )

This fellow has contested elections against BOTH Jim and Bob, whereas no one else has.

This fellow has been acknowledged as one of the most well known activists around the hustings for social ecology and out classes ANY of the remaining mayoral others in contributing to debate around best practice administration. 

And, laughably even when reporting the "Grey Power" meeting the Press still couldn't get it right in suggesting I was somehow anti-drug, when I pointed out it was Hon. Jim Anderton who "legally regulated psychoactive recreational soft drug use, sale, storage, manufacture, advertising, premises, labelling and age of consent R18" and ASKING BEFORE THE AUDIENCE if cannabis had been put into those regulations would Gage the Police Dog be Alive or Dead today?.... or for that matter Napier Officer Len Snee (Bob Parker declared it a central gvmt issue at the Long Term District Plan hearings when I was submitting that such rules would make the street SAFER - it was the day Len Snee was buried. I said it would happen here and a year later it did!)

Now if Councils are to determine the process and approval for liquor licencing purportedly to protect the public health, and the rules above were passed by the Associate Minister of Health and administered under the Ministry of Health, one could reasonably expect that MIGHT BE a reasoned debate since it IMPLICATES both candidates. 

The PRESS dumbed down and thus endangered the next Policeman and his Dog.

The rules are there. They were made by the contesting candidate to manage BZP (A Christchurch problem and focus of previous Mayoral issues) and as CANNABIS is clearly and indisputably a soft drug, if these rules cannot be applied in Christchurch under the stewardship of their very author (and LABOUR party ) then where....?

Think about it, any other policy on the council agenda that "kills Policemen and their Dogs" ?

Why would media want to shut that debate down?

Or is such collateral damage OK to send messages to children, in a PEACE CITY.

-- http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/blogs/campaign-chatter/3965799/Do-we-need-a-third-wheel?comment_msg=posted#post_comment

 Blair Anderson  ‹(•¿•)›

Social Ecologist 'at large'

http://mildgreens.blogspot.com/

http://blairformayor.blogspot.com/

http://efsdp.org/

ph nz  (643) 389 4065   nz cell 027 265 7219

Related articles by Zemanta

• Just Say... Why Not Now. (mildgreens.blogspot.com)

"Smart City, Clever People"

 As seen on PRESS.CO.NZ   "A Day With Bob"

The election, as portrayed by the fourth estate has become a farce, efforts to establish a rapport with the community by earnest candidates where all voices are at the table and fresh thinking 'tested' is regarded quite cynically by notably, younger voters in particular. If increasing participation in the election is considered fundamental, then the media driven "Jim/Bob" show as it stands has little to offer.

Public, especially those whom under current standards may feel they are being feed a 'Hobson's choice' decision are urged to express this shortcoming to regional media AND make the public meetings as few as there are, dynamic.

 

Ask tough questions of your ALSO RUNNING. And for gawd's sake, lets gets some earnest heckling back into the audience. Live politics is better than reality TV. It's your city. Be the media. You ask the questions... create a new ecology of mind. Network, tweet and talk up, adopt even, your favourite 'also ran' and get the contest of ideas you deserve.

Blair Anderson  -  "Smart City, Clever People"

Social Ecologist 'at large'
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com
http://blairformayor.blogspot.com
http://blair4mayor.com
http://efsdp.org

ph nz  (643) 389 4065   nz cell 027 265 7219

As seen on Yardly's Blog

Mark Ross

A question for your two candidates tomorrow on the yardstick

Just a simple question for the two of you from a former Christchurch Mayoralty Candidate. Personalities have become the essence for elections over the past decade, so Bob, Why shoul...d I not vote for Jim, and Jim, Why should I not vote for Bob.

Mark RossSee More

15 hours ago ·

Blair Anderson

Bob will make the Jim mistake and vote for Anderson instead

Given the bile (see Hansard) Anderton spat over my name vs his name post 2002 (Having, according to Anderton purportedly deliberately confused his voters and thus stolen 500 of his votes) I cannot be sure Jim didn't vote for me then! He banned me from his office, hit over the head with a wet parliamentary letterhead. Crikey, he might even Vote for me in error again.

Mark Ross Don't want to get i trouble but i heard a few years ago that he is the dumbest MP in parliament.

13 hours ago ·

Meg Henry Mmmm the truth WILL out..and you only said "he"..

• 
  
  Blair Anderson

Hardheaded yes....Logroller, yes. Strategist, yes. But does being a logroller make for good mayoral stock? The notion that Anderton was cajoled into standing to be rid of Bob is frankly laughable.

The previous mayoral aspirant from that ...side of the fence was part of the strategy. If I was a logroller, this is just what I would do.

Christchurch could be governed by leader of 'the PROGRESSIVE COALITION PARTY' [PCP] and here we are complaining about the Government eating ECAN (IMHO).  The JIM/BOB show suits who the most?

Lots of Candidates running. But only one who has stood against Garry, Bob, and Jim. [One didn't even know he was going to do it until two hours before.] How many more fresh faces like him?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Mayoral pair play name games (nzherald.co.nz)
• Sex, Drugs and Moral Goals. (mildgreens.blogspot.com)
• Poll gives Anderton lead in Christchurch (nzherald.co.nz)

Search & Surveillance Bill 'fundamentally flawed'

Image by Infrogmation via Flickr

Revised Search and Surveillance Bill still fundamentally flawed [link]

"There will be an urgent public meeting on Monday 30 August at 7pm at St Joseph's Church (Basin Reserve) in Wellington to address the just returned Search and Surveillance Bill. An interim report on the Search and Surveillance Bill was issued by the Justice and Electoral Select Committee last week. The report is an admission that the bill will confer enormous new powers onto approximately 70 government agencies," said Campaign Spokesperson Batch Hales.

"The report confirms that police will get a load of new powers: video surveillance where police trespass onto private property will be made legal; the circumstances in which audio bugging will be legal will be dramatically increased from what it is at present. The threshold for warrantless searches is being lowered, as are the circumstances for setting up roadblocks."

"Speakers at the public meeting will be Michael Bott from the Council for Civil Liberties speaking against the bill next to Select Committee chairman Chester Burrows, government MP for Whanganui, who will be there to try and justify the vast expansion of state power. At the meeting, the Campaign group will be urging people to make submissions and get involved in political action on the streets to stop the bill."

"Despite the modifications to the bill, the fundamental issues remain. It makes on-going 24-hour-a- day surveillance equivalent to a one-off search. Secondly, the bill makes video and audio surveillance the first and primary means of law enforcement and crime solving. The current law says that audio surveillance can be utilized effectively as a last resort when other methods have not worked or are not available. The privacy implications for ordinary people from video and audio surveillance are profound.

Thirdly, the bill makes no differentiation between video and audio surveillance. Again, most people would not agree with that conclusion. The old adage, 'A picture speaks a thousand words' illustrates well why video surveillance is indeed a far greater invasion of privacy than audio surveillance. It is without hyperbole to say that legalising police trespass to install video surveillance would be ushering 'Big Brother' into people's living rooms."

ENDS

For more information, check out our website http://www.stopthebillnow.blogspot.com/ or email us at stopthebillnow@gmail.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Changes to spy bill still draw criticism (nzherald.co.nz)
• IMS Research - Video Surveillance Market Forecast to Recover in 2010 (eon.businesswire.com)
• No place to hide: New 360 degree video surveillance system uses image stitching technology (physorg.com)
• NYT: Pervasive surveillance is a serious threat -- in China (salon.com)

St Mary's Mayoral Debate

The media, despite advice to the contrary`, has by omission of fact been playing the "Blair Anderson" is not standing for Mayor

Complicity of media and those with a vested stake hold in who gets mindshare is assured by perpetuation of the Jim/Bob show - one could be forgiven for believing Socialism versus Elitism is the only debate in town.

In keeping with the tenor of óffsettingbehaviour there was only one candidate at today's (08/08/10) debate at St Mary's (N. Brighton) prepared to call in resolved drug policy (ie: Class D) as key to improved public safety, STV to improved governance and contraction and convergence for better frameworks to manage climate mitigation and protection.

That said, Anderton did agree that water fluoridation had not improved Australian Rugby, whereas Blair Anderson said evidence showed it had not improved dental caries in Hong Kong, rather it had markedly degraded.
--
 Blair Anderson  ‹(•¿•)›

Social Ecologist 'at large'
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com/
http://blairformayor.blogspot.com/
http://blair4mayor.com/
http://efsdp.org/

ph nz  (643) 389 4065   nz cell 027 265 7219

Put Jim Anderton in Jail for his Crimes Against Humanity.

Image via Wikipedia On Sunday last I was speaking at St Mary's Catholic Church Hall in New Brighton launching informally my third Christchurch City Mayoral campaign... just as the UK's Guardian/Observer was publishing an opinion piece that cited LEAP colleagues of mine.  [retired judge Maria Lucia Karam]

Amongst other things of high import to the October postal election I argued that Hon Jim Anderton has no place being rewarded with the Mayoralty of my home town for the legacy of failure that he had both responsibility for (assoc Min of Health)  and under his watch saw the ramping up of drug prohibition. (like banning BZP despite 'best practice' recommendations to put it in Class D)

I was applauded for having the courage to postulate, were cannabis put under Anderton's "restricted substances regulations" [cf: Class D], would the Police dog "Gage" be alive or dead today?  If the answer is ALIVE, then you cannot vote for and thus reward failure.

An excerpt: 

Related articles by Zemanta

• "The People's Mayor" and related posts (keepingstock.blogspot.com)
• Jim Anderton: Wrong and stupid (norightturn.blogspot.com)
• Sex, Drugs and Moral Goals. (mildgreens.blogspot.com)
• It's time to end the propaganda. Prohibition simply doesn't work | The big issue (guardian.co.uk)
• A unique chance to rethink drugs policy (guardian.co.uk)
• Alochol, Knighthood, Cannabis, Jail (mildgreens.blogspot.com)

Class D for Christchurch 'Brilliant'

NZ Regulated "Soft" Drugs?

Image via Wikipedia

This civic minded fellow didn't notice any of the 'other' mayoral candidates at Professor Nutt's lecture held at the Otago School of Medicine this evening... although some curious fellow asked David Nutt if he supported SAFER communities using Anderton's Class D for the regulation of cannabis?

Nutt thought regulating psychoactive recreational drugs "Brilliant" and an idea so clever that he wished he had thought of "Class D" himself. [After acknowledging that he talks about it often and was surprised to learn media (or other commentators) haven't discussed its potential.]

Despite its homegrown origins, its a 'world class' idea more recognised outside of New Zealand than within, it seems.

Well that Anderton guy has something to live up to 'these elections' - lets see if he has electoral integrity or is just Mere talk.

And since Bob Parker's boy-racer "youth justice" intersects with drug policy, (and as both he and Jim probably get a briefing on whats going down on "Canterbury Public Issues Forum") they might note the quote below from a Social Justice paper another Professor I like, another peer of mine.. Prof David Goldson.

If there is a lesson from Professor Nutt it must be that no amount of campaign investment in media and merchandising of image can overcome sheer bloodyminded and populist stupidity.

"At the root of such activity lies a core tension between measured reason and punitive emotion; between an expressed commitment to ‘evidence-based policy’ and a populist rhetoric of ‘tough’ correctionalism."  -  see http://crj.sagepub.com/content/10/2/155.abstract

"...this article advances an argument that the trajectory of policy has ultimately moved in a diametrically opposed direction to the route signalled by research-based knowledge and practice-based evidence. Moreover, such knowledge—policy rupture has produced a youth justice system that ultimately comprises a conduit of social harm. All of this raises serious questions of
knowledge/evidence—policy relations and, more fundamentally, of democracy, power and accountability. "

- Professor Barry Goldson, University of Liverpool, UK

You should have listened when you had the opportunity JimBob!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Independent expert advice must be respected, says David Willetts (timesonline.co.uk)
• British Medical Journal endorses regulating, not criminalizing, drug use (drugwarrant.com)
• Ignoring science in government policy is bad for all of us (liberalconspiracy.org)
• Professor David Nutt: Police conjecture boosted mephedrone hysteria (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
• Controlling and Regulating Drugs: An Issues Paper on the Review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (drugfoundation.org.nz)
• Poll shows 70% of people in the UK think cannabis should be legalised (leftfootforward.org)
• Mephedrone did not kill youths, tests reveal (independent.co.uk)
• Banned mephedrone cleared of blame for two deaths (guardian.co.uk)
• Call for drug users to face civil penalties (independent.co.uk)
• Unthinkable? Repeal drugs laws (guardian.co.uk)
• Mark Easton (bbc.co.uk)