Anderton annoyed at ACT on Campus

March 20th, 2008 at 3:15 pm by David Farrar

Heh heh. NZPA reports:

Wellington, March 20 NZPA – Moves by young ACT supporters to boost membership by selling cut-price are “grossly irresponsible”, Associate Health Minister says.

The group sold the pills last month for $1 each to Auckland University students who joined their organisation.

Party pills will be illegal from April 1, after legislation classifying them as a class C1 drug was passed this month. ACT, the Green and Maori parties voted against the legislation.

But ACT on Campus Auckland president Ben Smith said the pills were still legal and there was nothing wrong with the successful promotion, which had signed up 500 people.

But Mr Anderton, who is the minister in charge of the Government’s drugs policy, told NZPA the promotion was grossly irresponsible and ACT needed to rein in its youth wing.

Very innovative thinking by ACT on Campus.

Tags: , ,

147 Responses to “Anderton annoyed at ACT on Campus”

  1. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Innovative? Hardly.

    Mindless and vacuous perhaps, and certainly all-about-me.

    How does the use of these pills help us address our problems which, after all, is what a political party tries to convince us it can do?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    kiwitoffee, go suck a lemon you humourless twit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Sushi Goblin (419 comments) says:

    I’m not a fan of Jim Anderton, but he might have a point. Even if its legal, it’s counterproductive for ANY political party to go around selling discounted party pills for memberships, especially when they will soon be illegal. Score it an own goal in bad taste more than anything else.

    On a daily tactical level, it’s even more unhelpful to have the public reminded that despite the policy and Roger Douglas bonhomie coming from the previous week, the ACT Party is dominated by young libertarians.

    Besides, doesn’t discounted inducements to the public constitute “treating”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Kimble:

    Please try to focus on the issue, thanks.

    If you can keep the abuse to yourself, then I’d be interested in a response to the question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. MikeE (555 comments) says:

    Or in the words of Jacqui Dean “take a chill pill”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Mike S (229 comments) says:

    As I’ve noted before, Anderton is the wrong person to have anything to do with this topic. His tragic family history gives him a completely unconsidered reaction to any part of this debate except for banning things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    Brilliant own goal by ACT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Ross Miller:

    Yes. Nicely put. It couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of party-goers.

    I imagine Mr Hide is, er, hopping mad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Mike Collins (166 comments) says:

    ACT on Campus is not the same as the ACT party itself. As far as youth wings go AoC probably has more autonomy than that of any other political youth group in the country. This is very important. AoC doesn’t exist purely to waive the ACT party flag and be its cheerleaders. AoC agitate for what they want to see achieved and independence of the party is critical to this.

    Please remember the event in question occured a while back. Some people may like to say it was in bad taste and not appropriate. To those people ask yourselves this: What was AoC trying to achieve and were they successful? In my opinion AoC were trying to raise the issue amongst young people that Parliament wanted to curb their freedoms by hitting them with the ban stick, as well as raise awareness of the liberal nature of ACT on Campus. By signing up 500 members to AoC I would posit that they more than achieved their aims.

    Mind you older generations would probably just agree with Banderton that it was not moral. Well sir it is not moral for you to tell people what to do with their bodies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    ACT voted against making party pills illegal. Why would they be against their own youth wing selling them?

    Thank God we have some politicians at least who are not prepared to join the wowser bandwagon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Mike Collins (166 comments) says:

    Oh and as I understand it the pills needed to be sold rather than given away as a protest as to comply with the current law. At $1.00 they were a bargain if you’re into that sort of thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Getting 500 signatures is quite an achievement and I agree in doing so they probably did ‘achieve their aims’.

    I just have my doubts about what the ultimate aim is. If it is to encourage or facilitate the use of drugs (even ‘party’ drugs), then I’m against that because, amongst other reasons, we already have enough problems with alcohol and P.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Mike Collins (166 comments) says:

    kiwitoffee,

    It is easy for someone to sit on the sidelines and cast aspersions on the intentions of others (“I just have my doubts about what the ultimate aim is”). How about taking the guys for their word? It does seem to be a little paranoid to harbour the view that this was AoC’s cunning plan to reduce the young of New Zealand to drug crazed zombies. I can assure you that AoC would not have been urging people to be drug takers, rather they would have been highlighting the issue of moral interference by out of touch politicians. While everyone decries drug abuse (and so they should), one must bear in mind the consequences of this ban. A large percentage of young people use these party drugs with relatively minor side effects. What Parliament and zealots like Jim Anderton and Jacqui Dean are doing is removing this option for young people and thereby encouraging them to try something else. This something else is likely to be a heck of a lot more dangerous than BZP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    Drugs, from caffeine, to kava, to cannabis, to vodka, to heroin, are simply another wonderful way humans can enjoy themselves and find pleasure in life. Like all ways of enjoying oneself and finding pleasure there is a measure of danger in overindulgence or misuse. Personally I trust the vast majority of adults to be able to exercise their own judgement in this regard, and take the consequences.

    I like fun. I want to encourage fun in our society. God knows we need it. And God knows there are enough politicians and wowsers out there trying to stop it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    John Key wants nothing to do with the “right wing Act party.”

    Edit ; Stephen Franks, go figure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. James W (271 comments) says:

    Does Jim have a youth wing?

    And if so, what are they called?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Mike Collins (166 comments) says:

    “Does Jim have a youth wing?”

    Yes it involves Matt Robson, Botox and a hippy wig.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    People will indeed find ways of getting their drug(s) of choice whether they are legally available or not. I agree. I’ve done it myself.

    But when a political party, with pretensions to govern or influence government, thinks drug use is an individual choice alone with consequences only for the individual, then that to me borders on the criminally irresponsible. Clearly, there is much more involved than the individual and his or her interests.

    We should be discouraging drug use even if it means passing laws to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. MikeE (555 comments) says:

    I don’t think that Anderton has any supporters under the age of 70.

    Hence why he wants them all in Jail.

    The irony is we have photos of Jim Anderton drinking what appears to Alcohol, a drug that kills 3% of Kiwi males a year – yet he wants to send us to jail for consuming BZP. A substance where 26 million doses have been sold without ANY fatalities. And andertons definition of harm includes hangovers, headaches and wait for it…. insomnia. Ridiculous considering the aim of BZP is to keep you awake!

    AOC’s interest was in drug harm minimisation. Here is a case where the harm of imprisonment is worse than the harm of consuming the substance (staying awake and at worst nasuea). Unfortunately althought NZ’s stated policy is drug harm minimisation – it doesnt’ actually achieve this.

    As we all know.. the minute BZP isn’t sold will be the time the industry is controlled by gangs, or worse, substituted for P.

    April 1 2008 will go down in history as the day Jim Anderton and his supporters in the National and Labour parties reignited the pure methamphetamine trade in New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. MikeE (555 comments) says:

    “We should be discouraging drug use even if it means passing laws to do so.”

    Would you advocate banning alcohol then? It is NZ’s most harmful drug.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    Kiwitoffee – there are no bad drugs, only bad people

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Ok you lot – if you haven’t sat through a lecture from Douglas telling us why we should sell, sell, sell and why we should give all the profits and inherent value to overseas shareholders then youll not undertsand why one would need party pills.

    You need something to up the spirits when you hear him spouting that sort of drivel – and party pills will help – although one would go far – youll need a hand ful of them……………

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    Why do you think the government should own a bank, a television station or an airline barry?

    Why don’t you just buy shares in a bank or an airline if you want to receive profits from those industries?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    No, I wouldn’t ban alcohol. It’s been tried elsewhere and it failed. It’s not likely to work in NZ.

    Yet the use of alcohol is linked to many serious problems, as MikeE suggests. So, why not, say, stop the advertising and glamourising of alcohol?

    Like many NZers, I enjoy a drink. I don’t need to be encouraged to have one and why our public space is awash in alcohol advertising is beyond me.

    This has nothing to do with what we do about other drugs. The ‘alcohol-is-a-drug-so-let’s-have-other-drugs’ argument is just plain daft. It’s adding petrol (if you can afford it) to the fire.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. duncan_bayne (52 comments) says:

    Maybe ACT does have a chance, if only they’d roll Hide & Douglas in favour of some young blood with balls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    act..pushing ‘rubbish’..

    typical..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. James (1,338 comments) says:

    Well done ACT on Campus…..and go fuck yourself Anderton you piece of socialist shit, freedom hating bitch….and all those tut tut National wanking gutless scum who claim to be for freedom but shit all over it like the “me too!” molested bitches you are!

    And that flip flopping Helen munching fag hag Key recoiling from the idae of Douglas being in his cabinet…..read the National partys principles for being you sell out to the left, smarmy, bitch slapped waste of space!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Sean (301 comments) says:

    kiwitoffee Says:

    “Mindless and vacuous perhaps, and certainly all-about-me.

    How does the use of these pills help us address our problems which, after all, is what a political party tries to convince us it can do?”

    What do you mean, “our problems”? Who is the “us” you refer to. If you have a problem, that’s not a reason to affect my life – ironic that you mention “all-about-me” when it seems like its all about you and other interfering busybodys that can’t run their own lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Southern Raider (1,830 comments) says:

    Well done James. National was limp wristed to support this bill.

    Next Anderton will be complaining about the rapid rise of P use after the 1st April.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    @kiwitoffee: If AoC gave away $1 jugs of beer with every member who signed up would that be irresponsible?

    Also, have you even tried party pills?

    I’m tired of people saying party pills are bad because they’re “drugs”. Caffiene is a drug, should we ban no-doze? It’s the very rehetoric of “drugs are bad, mmmkay?” that causes young people to go “wow, my mentors lied to me when they said drugs are bad, in fact this is awesome!” the first time they try them.

    We should tell kids the truth; that drugs and drinking are fun (why the hell else would so many people take them) and then teach them about the dangers of abuse. Then, and only then, educated people can make informed decisions (like choosing to go skydiving). They don’t need hypocrites telling them what to do. The sooner we realise this the better.

    France’s youth is more responsible with alcohol then kiwi youth and Dutch youth are more responsible with drugs then kiwi youth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    OMG… I have to apologise for all those years I was luring impressionable students into a life of sin by offering jelly beans on the Young Nats table at clubs day. Don’t anyone tell Jim that Auckland students also drink and fuck. Poor petal might have a stroke.

    And that flip flopping Helen munching fag hag Key

    Wow, nice to see all those lovely ACT-ivists showing their social liberalism. James, you’re all class — after dropping the first two letters, of course. I suspect the only pill that would ever get you laid is a date rape drug.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    james..!

    are you d4js’ bastard son..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. dog_eat_dog (781 comments) says:

    These guys weren’t making much of a secret about it, they got up at an SRC and proclaimed they were selling them. The students then voted on a motion to condemn Jim Anderton’s party pill ban, which was then changed into a motion just condemning Jim Anderton. They passed it, too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    are you d4js’ bastard son..?

    You fuckwit coward . Want a go ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Good to see people joining ACT for the right reason…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Mike Collins (166 comments) says:

    AFAIK they didn’t join the party but rather AoC Auckland. And Stephen what reason would be the right one? There are many reasons for someone to join ACT or AoC. This is but one of them. Here’s an idea – congratulate AoC on tapping into an issue that encouraged 500 people to join? That’s no mean feat. I guess you’re just unhappy that 500 people didn’t join your party for an issue you feel strongly about huh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Mike Collins:

    Matt Robson, Botox and a hippy wig.

    *snort* Good grief for a moment there you caused a mental image to form which had nothing whatsoever to do with youth politics and everything to do with a scene from “Five Go Mad in Dorset” where they stumble upon a 44 gallon drum of vaseline.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    “are you d4js’ bastard son..? ‘

    Shall I start talking about your son you weirdo creep. No I wouldn’t stoop to your level you pus ball !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Sushi Goblin (419 comments) says:

    thank you James, for confirming beyond a shadow of a doubt why act’s supporters have fled the party in the last 3 years. With people like you foul mouthing in public, act deserves its polling at 1%

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Simeon (142 comments) says:

    Why is it that the media have made it out that ACT and act on campus are the same entity’s?. They are not.

    http://nzdebate.blogspot.com/2008/03/innovative-thinking-from-act-on-campus.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Sushi Goblin (419 comments) says:

    Mike, I note on one news Tonight some people gave false names. And you can’t blame them since the cops would no doubt love a list of potential illegal drug users.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. big bruv (13,901 comments) says:

    I’m not so sure that this is the own goal many in the media portray it to be.

    Act have had (until this week) a real problem getting anybody to listen to them and on the basis of that they have to accept that any publicity is good publicity, the events of this week and Andertons reaction only ensures that ACT remain top of mind.

    Had GOD (aka Sir Roger) not agreed to re join the ACT party Anderton would not have even bothered mentioning it, you can be sure that the return of Sir Roger will be putting the wind up pollies like Anderton, like it or not when the public think of ACT they think of Douglas first and Rodney second.

    Anderton and the rest of the hard left loonies are worried about the return of Sir Roger, with him at number four on the party list they will definitely make the 5% threshold, Anderton and co know that spells the end of Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Want a go ?..”

    (as in trying to make a bastard son..?..)

    i didn’t know you cared..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    act..not so much a political party..

    more a joke..

    (and how about that wodger (failed pig concentration camp commandant) douglas..?..eh..?

    “when i am a cabinet minister again..”

    (heh-heh..!

    well..you did let the genie out of the bottle..eh..?

    a bad idea..eh..?..to think you could ‘control’ him..

    to put it bluntly..he’s a delusional/self-deluded ‘barker’..

    but it is going to be fun to have him to use as a whipping boy/to kick around..

    ..’till the election..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Sean

    ‘Us’ is you and I. Family, community and society are real things too. They are other forms of us.

    So, your neighbour drunk or stoned, bashing his or her kids, crashing his or her car into your’s and killing or maiming you or others, affects us to a greater or lesser extent. It happens almost every day and anyone who reads the NZ Herald might think its happening all the time. In any event, it’s our problem. Trying to solve it is down to ‘us’. So, that’s why I refer to ‘us’.

    I’m suggesting that making it harder – not easier – to obtain and use drugs, including alcohol, is going to help solve some of these problems.

    Just one other thing. I can, most of the time, make a decent go of running my life, thanks. It’s even fun. Like this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Gooner (995 comments) says:

    Thank you big bruv for returning to the debate some analysis and sensible comment.

    AoC is a conglomerate of university clubs across Aotearoa. It has a President I understand and some form of structure, but apart from that is basically students engaging in political debate in the same manner as Labour’s Princes Street branch and the Young Nats.

    The Party has no control over what its members do in the same way as Federated Farmers cannot control what farmers in the South Island do or say. To link the actions of AoC to the Party is fatuous.

    Finally, I have to refer to a comment made over @ the Standard by someone called Ruth who claims to be a social worker of some description:

    “My daughter was offered party pills at intermediate school – when she was 11 years old. The school sent home a notice about it. And there is not one family I know of in this decile 10 area that has not been affected by drugs.

    When you can keep these substances away from kids and teens then you have my support for legalisation – until then you don’t.”

    AND

    “Yes the less of this stuff available the better HS.

    I do voluntary work with ‘at risk’ youth – in fact I have a few ‘camping out’ on my property this weekend. I am not convinced that party pills do not lead to weed, then P, and so on – judging by the families of some of these boys. And most of them are not from beneficiary families like the far right would tell you. We have a huge P problem with families in Howick here in Auckland – a wealthy suburb.

    Lowering the drinking age was a terrible mistake, too.

    Victimless crimes my ass.”

    I just think it’s extremely unfortunate that people like Ruth think banning party pills will now mean they won’t be available to kids: the truth is they will not now be offered by rich kids at school but rather by the Black Power outside it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Gooner (995 comments) says:

    Phil, if ACT promoted legalising cannabis would you be as ‘hysterical’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. checkthefacts (29 comments) says:

    No doubt if they sold beer some people wouldn’t mind. If they wanted to attract Labour supporters they could sell pie-in-the-sky.

    They made two points in one and both needed to be made. The law is a bad law and will be counter productive. It is morally wrong, won’t work, etc. Of course had AOC waited until after the law went into effect they could have sold the pills at a much, much higher price. Anyone know if the illegal dealers in drugs were pushing for this windfall-profit legislation?

    So Anderton handed the gangs millions more in illegal revenues. He turned young party goers into criminals thus inspiring a respect for law in them as well as encouraging them to go violence prone dealers in the future their supplies. Of course once illegal the quality of the pills will vary widely increasing health risk.

    Yep, good move all around. Government is excellent for taking any problem and making it worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    Forget the Black Power outside I can take you to two Christchurch East primary schools where you get anything from the kids inside the school, they start them young and these kids always wear the colours bro. Power to the gangs – choice eh bro !!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    gooner..i don’t think i’m ‘hysterical’..

    more (disbelieving) chuckles..

    gooner..

    did you support bringing douglas back from the dead..?

    if so..whoar..!

    if not..whoar..!..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    For some reason, I’m reminded of the Monty Python sketch in which where there’s a pompous young-ish Tory (the one, I think, who asks ‘Who can honestly say they’ve never burnt down some great public building? I know I have’) going on about ‘The only way to bring the crime rate down…is to reduce the number of crimes’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    Speaking of Monty Python wouldn’t they have a field day with these retard New Zealand politicians who all seem to be born on probation and cousins of the notorious piranha brothers and philu is explained by spiny norman habits.

    Edit – The piranha brothers and kiwi pollies are very similar, “They were found too mentally unbalanced even for National Service, and became extortionists, running a protection racket after several false starts.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Paul W (266 comments) says:

    Jasus Farrar, you’re such a hack! This is farking stupid. If, for example, NZUSA adopted the same tactic you’d be up-in-arms; and rightfully so. This is stupid, stupid, stupid and inside 48 hours you’ll have wished you said likewise. Even if it improves membership, it’ll alienate far more voters who’ll (rightly or wrongly) equate it with pushing drugs (and being self-indulgent, ego-centric, lazy, unproductive blah blah blah – Gen Y in summary).

    Are the two ACT initiatives related I wonder. Douglas back in the fold and party pills – the only way life will be bearable under Douglas is if you’re off-your-nut (and I say this as someone who, in my younger days, did my fair share of experimentation)?

    [DPF: Calm down Paul. First of all how is me applauding Act on Campus being a hack. Secondly I thing youth wings should push the barriers. I've actually got a history of over ten years of encouraging Young Nats to do stuff the senior Party wouldn't necessarily agree with. Even when I worked in the PMs Office I regularly encouraged Young Nats to shake things up. The idea of encouraging independence must be alien to you I know. ACT are on 1% - at that level you don't really have to worry about alienating voters (like the major parties). I think the AOC stunt will do wonders for their on campus profile and image. And it highlights the stupidity of the recent ban.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Gooner (995 comments) says:

    Phil, I had nothing to do with it; I am not *that* powerful :-).

    But I think it’s a masterstroke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. DMS (54 comments) says:

    Heh, heh. Innovative thinking.
    Yeh …right. I can see the headlines now if Clark or Cullen had offered young Labour potentials party pills to join Labour. The righteous right would have held it against Labour for the next twenty years, would have dragged out “Helen supports drugs” at regular intervals.
    You guys are such sanctimonious hypocrites who deserve to be confined to History now that brother Roger has joined your ranks.
    Lovely news interview tonight as English and Key faced the obvious of a coalition with an emboldened Act. National don’t like the Left and they don’t like the Right, and they don’t really appeal to the middle because all their policies are “me too!” just like Labour.
    50% heading for 33.3%.
    Sorry guys. Get your ticket for Australia now. $230 to Melbourne, and you only want one way!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    The Greens should hand out joints
    NZF should hand out Tui
    United Future should hand out soy milk decaffinated lattes
    National should hand out prozac
    and Labour should hand out pinot noir.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    John Key and National are wimps and Labour are liars and all the other MMP creeps are leeches. Here I come Australia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Gooner (995 comments) says:

    D4J – I’ll chip in to assist with funds for the airfare.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. John Dalley (394 comments) says:

    D4J – Send address donation towards airfares to follow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    Thank you Gooner and Dully doh for the kind gestures, however I have travel arrangements already organized as I intend on becoming a stowaway on the next available Chinese Warship.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Paul W (266 comments) says:

    Yeah David, you’re such a radical. That’s what they say about you when your back’s turned. They say; you know he might love Ronnie and Margie but he’s a free thinker and totally on the edge. Don’t mistake the fact that you hang out with tweenies and teenagers for being hip David (and I doubt very much you know bugger all about the risks of party pills or related substances…) Either way, this is precisely the kind of things that youff-wings do that cost party’s votes… but they’re oh-so-cool for the wannabees.

    [DPF: And that's 20 demerits for an inability to be civil. You really need to chill out]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    Paul W your attack on David is sickening you nasty creep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Paul (1,315 comments) says:

    ” Douglas back in the fold and party pills – the only way life will be bearable under Douglas is if you’re off-your-nut”

    Where is this wrong? This is true and on the mark

    Inviting a 70 year old has been who was undeniably defeated by the electorate time and time again back into the fold with ideas that are quite frankly unpalatable to the public once again “vouchers and privatisation”

    I could imagine that the only way AoC can even imagine the idea that their great granddad is back in the fold is to take as many soon-to-be illegal drugs and grin and bear it. How to appeal to the public that you have your finger on the pules with an ex-Mp who admits he hates MMP and wants to roll back the policy like – um how does the song go , “like it’s 1999″.

    But the sad news of the day of course is that Dad is off to the Great Southern Land. Donations kindly accepted at all National Bank Branches.

    Key had better distance itself from ACT or you will be handing the nanny state another three years of having the tit out for folk to suck on baby!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. kiki (425 comments) says:

    Paul W I would suggest some prozac or perhaps viagra

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Paul (1,315 comments) says:

    ACT on 1% is kind. The kind of support they have at the moment amounts to someone in a pub yelling hands up who wants “Rodney around”, when all of the drunk buggers over the din of the duke box thought someone was offering a free “round” {or Party pill, or joint or add your own drug de-jour, and putting their hands up.

    I could imagine that AoC actually has more signed up drug heads than there are actual ACT voters nationwide.

    But of course as pointed out, if any other party was to be this silly (regardless of the so called ‘independence’ of the youth wing [sounds very Hitler Youth don't ya think]), then you all would be jumping down the throats of those proposing such an idea and bemoaning the state of the nation and what have we become, blah blah blah.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..But I think it’s a masterstroke..”

    so do i..so do i..!

    he’s more laughs than a barrel full of monkeys..eh..?

    and d4j(erk-off) is going to raise the average intelligence on both sides of the tasman..eh..?

    that’s good news..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Paul (1,315 comments) says:

    Dad

    “Power to the gangs – choice eh bro !!!!” So add to the pseudo homoerotic fantasies of the bigoted Dad – racism.

    You toss pot. My dealers are all white middle class and very well spoken, yours obviously aren’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    Paul W , Paul and philu – goodnight cowardly creeps .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Paul (1,315 comments) says:

    Kiwitoffee [please change the pseudonym -it's the peoples club, a working class club, one of the poorest neighborhoods in all of the UK - get it].

    “No, I wouldn’t ban alcohol. It’s been tried elsewhere and it failed. It’s not likely to work in NZ”

    How’s – No, I wouldn’t ban drugs. It’s been tried elsewhere and it failed. It’s not likely to work in NZ.

    “Like many NZers, I enjoy a drink.”

    How’s – Like many NZers, I enjoy a doobie.

    Very simple word changing and yet the meaning all gets muddled up in puritanical religious beliefs of what is right and wrong with social drugs. Tobacco kills 5000 kiwis, a great many who are freaking INNOCENT victims, yet we moan about 350+ road kill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    i reckon aussie wd be good for d4j..

    the warmer climes over there are full of ‘barkers; like him..

    he’ll feel quite at home..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Paul (1,315 comments) says:

    Dad –

    sweet dreams, the ACT pills assist dreams I hear. Some sort of nightmare with the protagonists an aging zimmer framed wielding time lord who just can’t seem to shake off his past (if he could only remember that past due to the old age and the party pills), and there’s something in there about a man in a hybrid and dancing shoes and a band of supporters all of whom could fit in the mini hybrid with the now very svelte (drugs cause weight loss?) dancing leader.

    A sort of Dystopian Pricilla meets John Wayne meets Jack Torrance in which someone keeps screaming from the back “Toto, I’ve got a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore” as the world has moved on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. peteremcc (344 comments) says:

    For clarification:

    ACT on Campus signed up 500 people, not ACT.

    ACT on Campus is completely seperate from ACT.

    The party pills are still legal until 1st April.

    The young nats regularly give out free alcohol to people who sign up.

    ACT on Campus Canterbury gave out free sausages (fatty foods aren’t allowed at school!).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. illuminatedtiger (51 comments) says:

    As a university student I thought I should be clear on this:

    Among people on campus there are 2 groups who never get invited to parties. The first group is the christians and the second is those from Young ACT so it certainly looks like the losers will be choking down the party pills alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Paul

    I’m not quite sure where your asking me to change my blog name fits into this discussion. It sounds pretty intolerant to me. Puritanical even. And I’m not going to. It’s a little bit of drug-free fun.

    So, if you’re happy to return to the point…Tobacco, you say, kills thousands of NZers each year, many of whom are innocent (capitals not required). Agreed on the first part and not so sure on the second but let’s leave that for now.

    If I understand what you are saying, you then seem to be suggesting that it’s therefore OK that we have ‘350+ road kill’. Sorry, can’t agree.

    As far as I can recall, nobody has said make tobacco illegal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Paul W (266 comments) says:

    [DPF: And that’s 20 demerits for an inability to be civil. You really need to chill out]

    Ah really, wow; this is almost as bad as the day the teacher wrote my name in the book. But don’t let that stop you defending party pills David, keep on keeping on the kids love you for it!

    [DPF: I also defended the drinking age of 18, and helped co-ordinate all the party's youth sections with that campaign. I don't recall you having a problem with that]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Sean (301 comments) says:

    # kiwitoffee Says:

    “‘Us’ is you and I. Family, community and society are real things too. They are other forms of us.

    So, your neighbour drunk or stoned, bashing his or her kids, crashing his or her car into your’s and killing or maiming you or others, affects us to a greater or lesser extent. It happens almost every day and anyone who reads the NZ Herald might think its happening all the time. In any event, it’s our problem. Trying to solve it is down to ‘us’. So, that’s why I refer to ‘us’.”

    My neighbour drunk or stoned is their choice; as it is my choice when I feel like it. People bashing one another or someone crashing into my car or someone I might know happens – and it happens whether the party responsible is drunk, stoned or otherwise.

    Carelessness and lack of accountability kill (so, by the way, do pious zealots, who think they know what some divine being or higher moral truth is telling them to do). There are already adequate criminal sanctions for the irresponsible use of force or devices that can cause harm.

    “I’m suggesting that making it harder – not easier – to obtain and use drugs, including alcohol, is going to help solve some of these problems.

    Just one other thing. I can, most of the time, make a decent go of running my life, thanks. It’s even fun. Like this.”

    Good to hear you can have fun – I’m all for people being allowed to enjoy themselves; but why do you not credit other people with the ability to make choices about how to enjoy their own lives without harming others? Sit on a spike or flagellate yourself if you want to – it doesn’t worry me. Nor, if someone who does so injures themselves will I insist it all must stop.

    You’ve already indicated that you yourself have the ability to consume alcohol responsibly. Why wouldn’t you credit someone else with the ability to do so with the drug of their choice?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. big bruv (13,901 comments) says:

    Go easy on PaulW guys, he is obviously under immense stress at the moment. There is nothing more stressful for a socialist to deal with than the impending loss of power.

    The incoming National govt will have to be aware of this when they come to power, a careful campaign of benefit cuts, personal responsibility and the removal of govt from their life’s should in time cure Paul and his corrupt pals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,069 comments) says:

    ACT on Campus is completely seperate from ACT.

    Maybe I’m a little slow this morning, but isn’t ‘ACT on Campus’ the ACT party . . . on campus?

    [DPF: Oh Danyl you literalist :-)]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Sushi Goblin (419 comments) says:

    According to the ACT website, ACT on Campus is an “associate group”. The ACT on Campus blog says they are the “Youth Branch of the ACT Party”. It is utter bullshit to say they are “completely separate”. That argument might hold water if they called themselves “The Drug Pushers for Freedom Network”. But they don’t. They are ACT – a branch of the party.

    http://www.act.org.nz/contact/act_board
    http://actoncampus.blogspot.com/

    Time for for personal responsibility, eh boys?

    To now run around and say “it’s nothing to do with ACT” is simply stupidity, and keeps the story going. Frankly, I hope Hide, Roy and Douglas kicked the arses of those idiots in Auckland very hard for the damage they did to their policy launch programme in Wellington.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..We have a huge P problem with families in Howick here in Auckland..”

    who knew..?

    behind that sea of net-curtains..

    howickites are ‘p’ing oout..in a big way..!

    whoar..!

    is it true that if you are very quiet at certain times of day and night..in howick..

    you can hear the sounds of those ‘massed-pipes’..?

    and howick families are ‘p’ing together..you say..?

    wot..?..mum dad..and the rellies..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    the question has been asked at frogblog..

    “did those pills have the authorising agents residential address on them..?”

    (if not..?..surely in breach of the act..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    [DPF: Depends if they were inducing people to vote ACT or join ACT]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. dog_eat_dog (781 comments) says:

    When the drinking age amendment was being voted on, ACT on Campus had a keg party. They’re hardly being original.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..[DPF: Depends if they were inducing people to vote ACT or join ACT]..”

    so..therefor..

    all you need to do..is to gear your whole election campaign around getting people to ‘join’ your party..?

    ie..not ‘vote for the greens’!’

    but..”join the green party!..make a difference..!”

    (the voting for is implicit/left unsaid/unwritten..)

    eh..?

    eh..?

    have i ‘cracked it’ here..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    [DPF: Phil indeed you have. It will be fun seeing the loopholes exploited]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Chris Diack (741 comments) says:

    A bit of a storm in a tea cup. Young adults will be young adults at University.

    Anderton is the wrong person to be handling recreational drug use policy – he is living proof that it’s not the village that raises the brood. Public policy should not be used to pay for the sins of the Father.

    More interesting see his authoritarianism on display last night to the effect that: “they say the’re adults…. well this is the legislature… we make the laws….. they must obey.”

    Paul:

    “Inviting a 70 year old has been who was undeniably defeated by the electorate time and time”

    Mmmmmm is there a leftwing decree that 1987 was a non year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    ACT voted against the pills being illegal. ACT on Campus highlighted the issue and ACT’s stance on it.

    I assume that everyone criticising party pills has tried them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    ryan..

    even the most amatuer drug fiend will tell you they are absolute crap/low-rent..

    sorta the ‘thunderdird valley red-ripple’ of psycho-active drugs..

    in that..yes..some of them move you into ‘another room’..

    but they aren’t very nice rooms to visit..

    and they sorta give (better) drugs ‘a bad name’..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    Speaking about pills phoool, do you want some Warfarin as you sure need them

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Chris Diack (741 comments) says:

    Phil

    On drug use – you’re the Oracle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    ‘an oracle’..’an oracle’..

    i mean..sheesh..!..

    if you can’t talk about what you know about..?

    eh..?

    (i did a (practical) thesis..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz

    btw diack..you are building quite a rep as a ‘master’ of the garbled/incomprehensible sentence..

    they are scattered through most of your efforts..

    are you an ‘oracle’ in that field of endeavour..?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    Anderton is the wrong person to be handling recreational drug use policy – he is living proof that it’s not the village that raises the brood. Public policy should not be used to pay for the sins of the Father.

    Ouch… that’s a bit harsh (yes, I really did say that! :) ) But I don’t think you’ve got to be some pimpin’ drug dealer, to think Anderton does have a rather unpleasant habit of cherry-picking research that backs his POV, and ignoring evidence to the contrary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Chris Diack (741 comments) says:

    Phil

    If you can find a sentence of mine you cannot understand please quote it and I explain it.

    But you will have to play your part: I will require your full attention (like when Ossie is searching for the car keys) and you will have to put the bong down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Paul W (266 comments) says:

    [DPF: I also defended the drinking age of 18, and helped co-ordinate all the party’s youth sections with that campaign. I don’t recall you having a problem with that],

    Had Act on Campus wandered about giving away booze for memberships would you have been so sanguine? If it was an organisation you didn’t support doing the same, would you not point out the obvious irresponsibility? AoC weren’t campaigning for legislative amendments, they were on a membership drive. I don’t see how your example relates.

    I don’t, in fact, have a clear view about the availability of party pills, other than that they should be regulated in the same way we regulate booze or ciggies. Nor do I expect the youth wing’s of parties to always differentiate between fun and innovative and just plain stupid. I do however, suspect that if the same idiotic strategy were applied by the likes of NZUSA you’d have been critical.

    [DPF: Hell I was a member of a group at Otago which did give out free booze as membership entitlement. NZUSA is a bit different as they are funded largely by compulsory fees through their member associations, so they have responsibilities that go with that. If Young Labour had done it, I would have no problems]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    Had Act on Campus wandered about giving away booze for memberships would you have been so sanguine?

    As long as it wasn’t being served to under-aged punters, and conformed with the regulations and licensing requirements of the relevant campus, yes – speaking for myself, naturally. Don’t see the difference between ACT on Campus or Labour Yoof on that score.

    Perhaps the whole universe doesn’t revolve around Jim Anderton’s chronic sense of outraged self-importance and election year media whoring.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Chris Diack (741 comments) says:

    Craig:

    One is an absolute tragedy. Two is a trend. Three is a habit. Its not the village.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Paul W (266 comments) says:

    Go easy on PaulW guys, he is obviously under immense stress at the moment. There is nothing more stressful for a socialist to deal with than the impending loss of power.

    A socialist? Good grief, is that the best you can come up with? My great-grandfather was a socialist, in the literal sense, but the rest of the family have all been pretty committed to the capitalist ideal even if they also happily pay taxes. And as wary as I am of the prospect of a Key government, I don’t think the sun will stop shinning. I do wonder if it won’t disappoint it’s supporters however.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. big bruv (13,901 comments) says:

    Paul W

    “A socialist? Good grief, is that the best you can come up with?”

    If you thought that I was attempting to insult you then you are more of a socialist than I thought.

    I understand that you may not be familiar with rational debate but really you should give it a crack some time, it is quite stimulating.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Chris Diack (741 comments) says:

    Paul W

    “I do however, suspect that if the same idiotic strategy were applied by the likes of NZUSA you’d have been critical”

    What a fossil.

    When I was at University they did yardies and a truck loaded with kegs would arrive – it wasn’t like a Cistercian monastery.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    But Paul W, kiwi socialism has been hijacked by people with secular liberal ideologies.

    A kiwi conservative scratches his head as his country is on the road to nowhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Paul W (266 comments) says:

    Chris, I might well be a little older than the average kiwiblogger and I certainly remember those days, and fondly in many respects, however perhaps we might stick to the point which was that AoC’s tactics may well earn them props with the kids but will also alienate voters. I note that the Medical Association have criticised the campaign and Hide’s been less than enthusiastic. Still, it doesn’t bother me one bit if this is the approach AoC take, I generally think their wingnuts and this serves only to consolidate that view in others’ minds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. James (1,338 comments) says:

    No apologies for ealier outburst…..Im pissed and saying so. This socialist/authoritarian bullshit has gone too far and Im fighting back….lemon sucking sad killjoys like Anderton are a danger to us all and especially kids with his fact evading follys and bitter dogma…..fuck him and all who sail with him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Paul W (266 comments) says:

    Craig said

    As long as it wasn’t being served to under-aged punters, and conformed with the regulations and licensing requirements of the relevant campus, yes – speaking for myself, naturally. Don’t see the difference between ACT on Campus or Labour Yoof on that score.

    Perhaps so Craig, but I suspect Farrar would have – I would have frankly. The risks of taking unregulated ‘medicines’ are not insignificant and although the manufacture of party pills is less haphazard compared with the manufacture of illicit substances, it’d be naive to ignore the documented health risks. I guess on this score, although I’ve not been a saint in my younger days, I take the view that campaigns should avoid inducements that were likely to have adverse health effects.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    How convenient for ACT’s denigrators that just as the return of Douglas was generating interest, this historical event is ressurected and becomes the main focus. How very, very convenient.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Paul W (266 comments) says:

    Reid, or simply stupid hey? Stupid of AoC to not think about the obvious implications… I thought Roger left the party because it was full of stunts rather than a party of principle?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Paul, I agree with you, it was incredibly stupid to not think through the obvious implications.

    But the point I was making above is not related to that facet. Are you trying to dissemble?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Paul W (266 comments) says:

    Not in the slightest. The point you are making, however, is not clear; not to me at least.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Simply Paul that it’s a manipulated distraction, just as the Air NZ story is from the HBDHB story, and just as, internationally, the Spitzer story is from the Fallon resignation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    I take the view that campaigns should avoid inducements that were likely to have adverse health effects.

    You know something, Paul, I wonder if Mr Anderton has ever been to a political event where the food on offer wouldn’t exactly get a dietician’s seal of approval? I just call it as I see it, and this stinks of Anderton trying to ride him hobby horse into the media. And it worked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Paul W (266 comments) says:

    …if Mr Anderton has ever been to a political event where the food on offer wouldn’t exactly get a dietician’s seal of approval? I just call it as I see it, and this stinks of Anderton trying to ride him hobby horse into the media. And it worked.

    A fat-laden snag is a little different from BZP in my opinion. Sure Anderton’s playing easy politics but that’s kinda my point. By offering discounted party drugs, AoC are making themselves the easiest of targets – which is why I find David’s endorsement so odd. There’s a thin line between creative and just plain dumb.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    It only seems dumb to so many people because so many people think it’s patently obvious that BZP is bad and that people should not decide for themselves whether or not to take it. AoC’s point was challenging this exact perspective, and clearly they have succeeded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Mike Collins (166 comments) says:

    “A fat-laden snag is a little different from BZP in my opinion”

    Why? Is it because hundreds die from obesity related illnesses each year while no one to date has died from BZP? I mean both have had the ban stick applied to them by do-gooders in Parliament right so this must be the difference you’re referring to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    no..all that aoc (it sounds like a type of foot fungus..eh..?..’how’s your aoc..?..did the cream help..?..)..has proven..

    is that (young) rabid rightwingers..’aocs’..(ew!)..

    ..have crap taste in recreational drugs..

    eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Anthony (796 comments) says:

    I’m betting Act will be up in the next polls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Paul W (266 comments) says:

    Mike, I agree that fatty snags are anything but good for us – “sometimes-food” I think is the current description – and that harmful effects of BZP are not entirely understood however let’s not get distracted by the chemistry of the issue; it’s the politics that I think are most interesting.

    If AoC can’t see the risks associated with this approach, then they’re more idiotic than I’d otherwise thought. Also, any bounce in membership and polls will likely come from the Douglas announcement and be at the expense of otherwise National voters. AoC and Act don’t strengthen the right vote, they splinter it…. so back to the point I made originally; boosting memberships by providing cheap recreational drugs will serve to reduce to increase Act’s appeal even if it shifts some votes from National.

    I have to agree with philu too – when I was the age of this bunch, I wasn’t mucking about with BZP…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. burt (8,271 comments) says:

    Paul W

    When I was the age of this bunch I was mucking about with LSD. I guess this bunch will be doing the same again anytime soon. Quick ban LSD …. That will stop it being used by young people!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    Paul W, BZP in milk shakes makes them horses go faster. 100/100 each way No 9 thank you sir.

    Edit – Burt, clearlight acid was no good for the horses. Dam it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    i want act to get up to 4%..

    ..and the prospect of the return of the failed pig concentration camp commandant..douglas..

    (we call him f.p.c.c.c.)

    ..to our lives..

    waving fists full of ‘education-vouchers’..

    and scaring everyone rigid..

    with his ‘gimlet-eyes’/’gimlet’-ideas….

    so that act don’t make 5%..

    rodney dosen’t ‘make’ epsom..

    and the centre-left is swept back into power..

    (anyone else read that any different..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. burt (8,271 comments) says:

    Jolly Jim is a loose cannon. He should be locked up for his own safety. I don’t agree with giving away party pills as an incentive to join a political party, but hey if the legalise cannabis party want to sell $1 tinnies for party membership then perhaps Jolly Jim will have something real to get uptight about.

    I think Jolly Jim needs to get laid more often.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. burt (8,271 comments) says:

    Oh, we also need to ban chocolate. It’s one of the first substances containing euphoric chemicals that most people ever encounter and as such is the primary gate way to hard drug abuse. All shops that sell chocolate must be closed immediately – especially over easter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. big bruv (13,901 comments) says:

    Phul

    In the highly unlikely event that things pan out the way you want them can you tell me what you personally would want from the next center left govt?
    Oh and please spare us all the usual crap about legal dope, nobody is EVER going to legalise it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. burt (8,271 comments) says:

    big bruv

    Nobody is EVER going to legalise it….

    I think you are probably correct. Imagine the backlash from the gangs if dope was made legal, their revenue would be slashed and their power diminished. 10%-15% of police and court resources would be redundant and the resulting unemployment would be bad publicity in an election year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. burt (8,271 comments) says:

    big bruv

    Also there would be enough space in the prisons to accomodate law breaking minsiters… So I think you are onto it – the law makers fear for their own safety if the police have time to investigate their deeds, the courts have time to hear the charges and the prisons have somewhere to put them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. James W (271 comments) says:

    Phil,

    What evidence do you have that Rodney is not going to win Epsom? All the indications I have seen are that he is a popular local MP, and with Richard Worth running again the Nats are taking it far easier on him than in 2008 (even if Labour do decide to endorse Worth again!!)

    Oh hang on, unless you think Kate Sutton is going to take the seat? After all, Labour did get close to taking the seat once before.

    But um, that was 1987 :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Paul W (266 comments) says:

    Oh so AoC are advocating no regulation of BZP… that’s their strategy? Excellent. ACT pushing vouchers, full-cost health services and drugs. This gets better and better all the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    i don’t know if andertons right hand knows what his left hand is doing..

    cos’..along with banning bzp..

    he has also set up a group of ‘experts to re-evaluate govt policies on all drugs..

    with a focus on harm minimisation..

    and what makes this one ‘different’..is..as i understand it..

    ‘they have been given aclear brief by anderton..to ignore all previous laws/prohibitions/attitues..w.h.y..

    and to start with a clear slate..and that harm minimisation imperative..

    and as many of the ‘chosen’ for this exercise are vocal in their desires for drug policies to be taken away from justice..and moved to health..

    that is one result i would expect..

    i would also expect..given that harm minimisation dicate..a lessening of the prohibitions arund cannabis..and at the very least..

    the allowing of the prescribing of ‘medical-marijuana’..(for reasons too many to cover here..)

    and a de-facto legalisation..(an aussie-model..i’m picking..)

    would also expect a tightening of the access to alcohol..and a re-raising of the ‘legal drinking age’..and much stronger warnings about the effects of alcohol..included in the packaging/labelling of booze.(.a ..la .ciggies..)

    and what would i want as the election reult..?

    i want a diminished labour..and a strengthened green party..and maori party..coalescing..

    and the strengthened maori party would be a ‘given..you’d think..?

    and the greens are holding up..and should crack 10%..

    i’m picking some of the ‘soft-right’ natty votrs will tick the greens for their party vote..

    mainly cos’ the green message is so much more ‘mainstream..and urgent..now..

    (and i wouldn’t underestimate the power/attraction of the safe-food message sue kedgley delivers so ably/eloquently..)

    so..all in all..i don’t see my ‘wish’ as being that ‘out of reach’..

    and as for you lot..?.

    clark/cullen will show to the public what viewers of questiontime in parliament already know..

    that c & c regularly ‘wipe the floor’ with k & e..

    act will just cannabilise yr support

    and..

    that’s about it..!..really..

    (depressing for you..!..i know..!

    i can feel/understand yr pain..)

    ‘three more years..!’..

    chins-up now..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    Paul,

    What ACT is advocating is individual choice in matters that don’t directly harm others. Not “pushing drugs”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Yes James that’s also my reading. I lived in Epsom last election and voted for Rodney and gave my party vote to National, because I calculated he was going to win and my vote wouldn’t therefore be wasted.

    The fact most of the media thought otherwise and were proven wrong just shows how little they do know, fuck they’re dumb – it was absolutely obvious.

    Despite the fact I don’t live there anymore, and Rodney’s seems to have been off doing other things for most of the last term, I understand he’s a very good electorate MP and that counts for a great deal in a highly educated electorate where people tend to network and discuss politics much more than say they would in Manukau.

    I don’t have a lot of time for Richard Worth, he’s a bit too pompous for me. OTOH, I thought and think the same thing of Doug Graham and he turned out to be extremely effective in Bolger’s govt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Paul W (266 comments) says:

    Ryan, best of luck with that approach in this situation. As I’ve clearly said, it is of no consequence to me if AoC want to make their fight for their civil liberties about recreational drugs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    philu:

    and i wouldn’t underestimate the power/attraction of the safe-food message sue kedgley delivers so ably/eloquently

    You mean something like this phil?

    And as for your comments about ACT cannabilising the Nats, the depth of your misunderstanding is a marvel to behold, (were it not so easily explained – stay off the Vaporiser phil). Do you not get it? The ONLY thing Liarbore had in its kit was the economy. Now that it’s tanking, the reef fish will flit anywhere except to Liarbore. Liabore can and will offer anything, and do anything, and nothing will work, because people will become increasingly fearful. And when that happens, you move away from the source of the pain/fear and toward the best chance of security.

    Now d’ya REALLY think that the reef fish are going to flit toward the Greens? It’s the economy, stupid, not the environment, in this election anyway.

    Regarding your comments about the drug situation, that’s an interesting approach from Anderton. As I said a few weeks ago, anything that takes the market away from organised crime is a good thing. However on balance, I don’t see society benefiting from decriminalising marijuana, although if we could only get over our stupid aversion to hemp products, we would be in a much better situation, both economically and environmentally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    you asked what i would want from this ‘new’ govt..?

    i would expect an urgency paid to the needed re-jigging..and cleaning-up of our economy/environment..

    i would like taxation to move from the personal to the pollutors..

    and for big carrots..and big sticks..to be used against the ‘industrial’ wreckers of our land/world..

    i would like/expect a new multi-level focus on relieving the miseries of the poorest..

    (many of whom are maori..)

    as far as the topic of the previous comment..drugs..

    i would support decriminalisation/taxation of cannabis..

    i would shift all the poor/unfortunate souls saddled with the governments ‘addiction of choice’..methadone..

    and on to morphine-maintenance..and then weaned off..(and given/prescribed cannabis as an aid to those ends.).

    methadone is vile/destructive/brain destroying muck..and is far worse..than that it purports to cure..

    ..and that this govt actively ‘pushes’ people into these chains..does my little brain in..

    is that enough to be getting on with..?..bb..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    “..does my little brain in..” Yes phul, I understand even a microscope cannot detect a brain cell in your head :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. James W (271 comments) says:

    Cannabilising the Nats? You mean kind of like what they did to Act in 2005?

    I don’t buy into that. Votes belong to the voter, not a party. Besides, most of my mates would vote Labour or the Greens if not for Act. They can’t stand tories.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    reid..it is outside forces doing this..to the economy..

    (and it will be (lots) worse come election time..)

    so that throws your whole ‘blame’-thesis out the window..eh..?

    and do you really think new zealand will turn to key..?

    who in/from his ‘profession’..

    is one of the architects of our current miseries..?

    (i don’t think so..!..leroy..!..)

    (that’s how he made his millions..

    ‘milking’the system..

    well..the ‘greedy’ ones have over-milked..

    and the cash-cow is now dry..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    So you have mates then James? Well, well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Uh phil, I know probably better than you what’s causing the meltdown, that doesn’t mean the reef fish have the same understanding in terms of the external factors. They blame it on the gummint when things go wrong, or haven’t you noticed that?

    And those reef fish with 3-digit IQs will recognise Liarbore has squandered the best opportunity in our lifetime of positioning the economy for the upcoming dynamics, in favour of implementing costly self-interested policies designed only for one thing: their own re-election.

    Regarding Key’s former life, I know it’s hard to believe, but not everyone thinks that successful capitalists are the personification of evil. It’s a common lefty mistake to imagine that everyone thinks as they do, but (newsflash) it’s not actually the case (/newsflash).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    don’t be simplistic reid..

    it’s not that he’s a ‘capitalist’..

    if he’d made his squillions making/selling widgets..? good on him..!

    but no..he was one of the barracuda with gold toothpicks..

    making money out of ‘nothing’..

    just ‘milking’ the system..

    and as that ‘system’ disintergrates around us..

    (brought down by greed..)

    that won’t be a ‘good look’..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    People won’t care phil, guarantee it. If they did they wouldn’t be showing the support for him in the current polls. If the image you’re painting had any traction in the focus groups then Liarbore would be hammering it but they’re not are they? Instead they’re busily imprinting “slippery John” onto the reef fish.

    But that’s not going to work either, although it’s a very good move. John Ansell, where are you, you might need to work for two parties this election….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Ryan Sproull (7,153 comments) says:

    ACT “cannabilising” National? What, you mean convincing people who agree with ACT’s policies to vote for ACT?

    The more parties, the better (if they represent people’s views). Every loss of a minority party in Parliament is a step towards a one-party government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    um..!..reid..

    the penny is just dropping out there…as to the seriousness of the situation…

    (hardly reflected in the pollling..yet..eh..?

    so..once again..

    yr argument is proven to be fatuous..

    (you seem to be making a habit of this..eh..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Golly phil, I really have to connect the dots with you don’t I? (Refer to 4:09 re: vaporiser)

    I agree the penny is just starting to drop. That means (a) the reef fish look to the govt for answers and (b) blame the govt for their precarious and parlous financial position.

    We both know the govt doesn’t have any answers and can’t help. It also can’t deflect blame because blaming it on a previous administration won’t work after nine years and blaming it on “international bankers” just makes them sound crazy.

    So as the reef fish live through these (to them) surprising circumstances, what d’ya think the reef fish are going to do next, in big numbers?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    go green…

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Yeh I imagine the reef fish will really put a lot of cred into the Green’s economic perspicacity ala Jeanette Fitzsimmons and Sue Bradford phil. They’re real heavy hitters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    Ryan: “The more parties, the better (if they represent people’s views)”

    MMP was designed for post-war Germany to ensure a party like the Nazi Party could never again rise to power, legally.

    It is a mechanism for perpetual compromise, which is fine, except for such times as in 1984 when you needed to implement radical changes to correct the damage wrought worldwide by Keynesian economics.

    MMP would not allow such radical policies to ever be implemented again. I think personally that’s a bad thing, your mileage may differ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    no reid..wrong once again..

    the ‘green message’/imperatives will bring them..

    they will look to cullen for ‘safe economic hands’..

    certainly not to (untried)..’flash-john’..eh..?

    and how about that douglas..?..eh..?

    (shall we all pause for a good hearty belly-laugh..?..)

    y’know..this whole rise of key in the polls has reflected an ennui/boredom with the status quo..

    and as minds are forced to focus on these new/outside driven crises/problems..

    they will come back to the experienced hands of clark..but esp cullen..

    (they may love to hate him..but they don’t doubt his overall ‘nous’..)

    and this will not be the times to ‘try something new/untried..’

    chins-up..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    phil you say the reef fish “don’t doubt his [Cullen's] overall ‘nous’”

    phil, the reef fish don’t assess the ability of any politician, that’s why they’re reef fish.

    All they know politically is based on what directly happens to them, today.

    They thought “things were going well” and now they find, well, no they’re not actually. “Hey Marge, I just got fired. The blokes tell me it’s the gummint’s fault.” “Bloody gummint” says Marge.” And so forth amongst thousands and thousands of households across all socio-economic groupings (there are some very intelligent high income reef fish, not many, but a few).

    The point is phil that they don’t make anticipatory political calculations the way everyone on this blog does, the reef fish are interested in other things and don’t have any time for “boring politics.”

    That’s why all successful political and other advertising is heavily based on the subliminal level. That’s why the billboard campaign was so successful. It was simple and used humour to get attention and transmitted the alternatives subliminally via the contrasting photos and the consistent look and feel and positioning of the colours. The messages in the caption were placeholders, and by constant repetition of the “two legs good, four legs bad” theme, it sunk into the reef fish’s subconscious so that, by Pavlovian association, the blue became good and the red became bad. It was so effective Liarbore couldn’t afford it again hence the EFA which was not at all about the EB.

    Again phil, with the reef fish it is not an intellectual argument as it would be if you and I were debating the best party over a vaporiser. With the reef fish the only political argument is an emotional one – that’s why interest-free student loans was such a killer policy announced as it was late in the campaign, as it appealed emotionally to parents and to grandparents as well as to the future financial security of the direct recipients of the taxpayer’s largesse.

    Now fear and loss of security is the strongest possible emotion apart from physical pain. And people react violently and quickly and strongly to avoid it. In normal times, political contests are usually a fairly dry affair to everyone except we politicos who are really the only ones who get excited. This time, everyone is going to be very excited and very focused and I think it’s going to get quite emotional and heated during this campaign in particular. I can’t wait.

    But if the conservatives can’t this time succeed in exposing the useless lefties as the incompetent lying corrupt cancerous and corrosive scum that they actually in fact are, in a way that appeals to the already emotionally charged and receptive reef fish, then in my view I’ll be glad if they lose, because they will have thereby proven they’re not fit to manage our small but great nation. And then it truly is: God defend NZ, because the lefties have sure as heck proven that they can’t, haven’t and won’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Now fear and loss of security is the strongest possible emotion apart from physical pain..”

    agreed..

    and there’ll be buckets of ‘fear and loss of security’ around by then..

    which only strengthens my case/arguments..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. reid (16,467 comments) says:

    I await the final outcome with interest phil.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. clintheine (1,571 comments) says:

    Damn, that is a good idea. I wish I came up with it when I was the President :)

    No surprises that the usual limp wristed people are crying foul. Tsk tsk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote