Back Benches
May 15th, 2008 at 12:53 pm by David FarrarWent with a couple of mates to Back Benches again last night. Three of the MPs had been on before – Jacqui Dean, Hone Harawira, Sue Bradford and newcomer Doug Woolerton.
Spent quite a bit of time talking about P. Jacqui and Doug pushing a hard line approach on P and gangs. Hone made the point to some applause neither of them would know a gang if one bit them in the arse. I did think Sue Bradford misjudged things by saying that P was a distraction and people should be more concerned about peak oil and global warming. I think that shows a certain disconnect from society.
Very amusing was discussion of Mt Eden prison and Sue and Hone talking about their stays there, or as Hone put it – his bed and breakfast visit.
I did some minor heckling but nothing in comparison to a certain other blogger who really was loud when he wanted to be! I did like (if I can say so) my suggestion that the solution to P should be to set up a P emissions trading scheme for it 
The funniest part of the night for me was when chatting to one of the other regulars, who can only be described as a stunningly attractive blond. I introduced her to my friend (Hunting Man), and it was only when he mentioned his job that she pointed out they had actually met a short while ago at a business meeting. Much ribbing followed of Hunting Man for managing to forget such an, umm, unforgettable person.
The show is still good fun. A few people have mentioned though that it tries to fit too much in and the debates get cut a bit short. I think this is a valid criticism, and if I was looking to change things I would consider getting rid of the pre-recorded segment where they look in an MPs office. The novelty is starting to wear off!
Tags: Back Benches, Doug Woolerton, DPF, Hone Harawira, Jacqui Dean, Sue Bradford
May 15th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Sounds good fun. Although of course anyone with Sky is not going to know b/c of the daft decision not to code-share (for want of a better term) the free to air channels on the two digital networks.
Vote:May 15th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
So Bradford considers making it illegal to smack a disobedient child on the back side is more important than peak oil and global warming. That was the real distraction.
Vote:May 15th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Bradford only considers P to be a “distraction”?…what a fucking insult, this woman is a disgrace.
Vote:May 15th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
a distraction????
Dime runs in many circles… and one of them could be described as seedy lol
anyway, i have seen many lives ruined by P. why do lefties feel the need to play down the effect of all drugs? dope – fine, shit happens, dont really care… but P is evil!
if we got rid of P and all of the associated costs… we could afford their dodgy kyoto crap
Vote:May 15th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
oh yeah, almost forgot..
who can be assed with freeview? im not running 2 set top boxes so i can get public access tv
[DPF: I agree. I go in person as cheaper than buying a second box!]
Vote:May 15th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I’ve said it time and time again, but P only exists as a direct result of prohibition.
We had speed before, and similar substances, but intense enforcement of the law prohibiting it changed the incentives. The incentives were to find a highly addicitive product that could be heavily concentrated due tot he risk of getting caught and made from relatively cheap precursers.. oh and quality control goes out the window.
Funnily enough its the same way that moonshine came about during the prohibition era, and exactly the same thing with crack cocaine.
“The Iron Law of Prohibition is a term coined by Richard Cowan which states that “the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes.” This is based on the premise that when drugs or alcohol are prohibited, they will be produced only in black markets in their most concentrated and powerful forms. If all alcohol beverages are prohibited, a bootlegger will be more profitable if he smuggles highly distilled liquors than if he smuggles the same volume of small beer. In addition, the black-market goods are more likely to be adulterated with unknown or dangerous substances. The government cannot regulate and inspect the production process, and harmed consumers have no recourse in law.”
Of course we have only intensified the P problem with the BZP ban. Good job national and labour, banning the one thing that was helping people I know get off the horrible substance and back into some level of normality.
P is a scourge on our society, but our prohibitionist approach to drug laws is intensifying the problem, not reducing it.
The minute we start treating drugs as a health problem rather than a criminal problem and we might start to actually see some progress, otherwise we are only going to increase the harm that dangerous drugs cause in New Zealand.
Vote:May 15th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Bloody Green Party – drugs are the only thing they don’t seem to want banned! But for one of the few times in her life, Sue Bradford is right – P is just a distraction for Outraged of St Heliers and the ZB set. It’s yet another barrow for obnoxious right wing MPs to push in a bid to seem like they are doing something.
Vote:May 15th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
“The minute we start treating drugs as a health problem rather than a criminal problem and we might start to actually see some progress, otherwise we are only going to increase the harm that dangerous drugs cause in New Zealand.”
In that case why aren’t the restrictions surrounding alcohol removed?
Why not around smoking?
They’re health problems if only blah blah blah
Liberal crap. Some things must be fought, even if the war has no end. It’s called will, something users have no knowledge of.
“The Iron Law of Prohibition is a term coined by Richard Cowan which states that “the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes.” This is based on the premise that when drugs or alcohol are prohibited, they will be produced only in black markets in their most concentrated and powerful forms.
and hopefully kill the user. Conveniently, the users often turn out to be the gang members selling the drug. Two birds with one stone.
I never met a person who upheld the argument that drug laws should be freed up that wasn’t a drug user. Hiding under the faux liberal label, it’s all self interest. They aren’t social liberals by choice, it’s becasue it’s the only ideology that will let them stagnate in their lives.
Vote:May 15th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
“and hopefully kill the user.”
Nice.
That pretty much sum’s up your post.
And the Conservative (on the left and right) approach to drugs. They’d rather a situation where users of substances died, than had a safe experiance. That *is* ideological.
Me on the other hand, I have had family members who were addicts. I’ve seen first hand the harm that drugs can and will do, I’ve also seen how the system is a complete and utter failiure for a) preventing addiction and b) allowing an addict to sort themselves out. And the above comment shows… general public isn’t interested in reducing drug harm – they’d rather see it increase, so they can perpetuate the idea that any substance use (except for the socially acceptable ones of course) is dangerous – rather than protecting their kids, they’d rather see them killed.
Kinda reminds me of the Muslims (and extremist christians) who would rather kill their daughters for having premarital sex, than have them do it safely.
GoodGod, if you had a family member who touched drugs, would you rather them do it safely, or would you prefer them to die for their sins?
Vote:May 15th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Want to prevent addiction?
Don’t ingest the stuff.
Your hysterics prove nothing.
Why are we treating smoking as a health issue and yet still slowly banning it? Because of the thinking that someone might inhale your second hand smoke, get cancer and die. Who is pushing this view? The Social Liberals who want to free up drug laws. Bit contradictory isn’t it?
So let’s see here: P as a health issue, huh? So when some twit strung out on P stabs you in a cafe one morning that’s not a problem? They’re the victim of society?
arse.
Just like second hand smoke, but P users can be far more immediately dangerous. But the social libs don’t apply their sketchy logic to that. Nope. Because the only thing better than self induced emotional pain for a social liberal is fawning over soeone else’s self induced pain. Projection writ large. And everyone else pays.
If any of your family come at me after ingesting drugs, Mike E, they’ll get no sympathy whatsoever. And if they happen to be murderously strung out, I’ll roll through them without blinking an eye.
Seems your family grew up without any mental discipline and now it’s society’s fault, so you want to drag everyone down to your level – using legislation if necessary. Get over your self indulgence and become an adult.
Vote:May 15th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
“Why are we treating smoking as a health issue and yet still slowly banning it? Because of the thinking that someone might inhale your second hand smoke, get cancer and die. Who is pushing this view? The Social Liberals who want to free up drug laws. Bit contradictory isn’t it?”
Yes it is, and they are complete morons for it.
“So let’s see here: P as a health issue, huh? So when some twit strung out on P stabs you in a cafe one morning that’s not a problem? They’re the victim of society?”
I believe that stabbing someone is a crime, regardless of whether you are on P or not.
“If any of your family come at me after ingesting drugs, Mike E, they’ll get no sympathy whatsoever. And if they happen to be murderously strung out, I’ll roll through them without blinking an eye.”
And that would be fair enough, you’d be acting in self defense. Its not reason to want them to die if they aren’t murderously strung out, which is what you were suggesting earlier.
You seem to be under the impression that every drug user is Antonie Dixon or something… which is far from the case..
“Seems your family grew up without any mental discipline and now it’s society’s fault, so you want to drag everyone down to your level – using legislation if necessary. Get over your self indulgence and become an adult.”
Nope, just one member, but it isn’t societies fault its hers. That doesn’t mean I think she deserves a death sentance for her shitty decisions, just that she shouldbe able to take responsibility for her choices and sort her self out. Right now, that means being treated as a criminal for a “crime” that has hurt noone but herself.
The fact of the matter is that current legislation promotes drug harm rather than reduces it. And conservatives like yourself would rather this continues, than face the facts that Adults should own their own bodies, and providing they are nto harming others they should not be treated as criminals. As opposed to wanting people “to die” if they so much as consume a substance (expect when its alcohol or ciggarettes, then its socially acceptable).
I’m asking for the same consistancy that you want when you refer to second hand smoke.
Vote:May 15th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I dunno… at one point Hamilton seemed over-run with down-on-their luck failed used car salesmen. Maybe they just wouldn’t let Woollerton join
Vote:May 15th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
“The fact of the matter is that current legislation promotes drug harm rather than reduces it. ”
Not in Singapore, …or a lot of other countries with strictly enforced laws and effective punishments.
Vote:May 15th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Rex
Normally I would not rush to the defense of vehicle salespeople but given the choice of mixing with a “failed used vehicle salesmen” or Winston or Clark the choice would be easy, I might be blinded by the white shoes but I would guarantee they told less lies than Winne and dear corrupt leader.
Vote:May 15th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
“# Redbaiter (2723) Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says:
May 15th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
“The fact of the matter is that current legislation promotes drug harm rather than reduces it. ”
Not in Singapore, …or a lot of other countries with strictly enforced laws and effective punishments.”
Bahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahhaahah
You’ve obviously never been to South East Asia.
Ever heard of Yabba, speedballs, or any of the other local specialties. Hard Drug use is alive and well int he countries that have the death penalty (Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore etc) and does bugger all to prevent it. All it does is increase the incentives to push dangerous, more addictive, concentrated substances to make the risk of manufacture and sale more worthwhile financially for the dealers, and increases the incentives for corruption in the police force.
And ever considered that by KILLING people, as is done when they are caught trafficking, or in some cases consuming that you are increasing the harm done by substances to them.
Most conservatives tend to neglect this fact.
Vote:May 15th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
“You’ve obviously never been to South East Asia.”
I’ve talking about to Singapore, where I’ve lived for some time, and I used the words strictly enforced laws and effective punishments, and if you’d had any kind of education you wouldn’t have overlooked those particular points. A country where drug use is minimal compared to NZ, and this gives the lie to your claim that legislation “promotes” drug use. As usual, dick wacking Libertarians use fantasy as a substitute for reality, and then wonder why nobody buys into their viewpoint. Laff your head off over that you braying donkey.
Vote:May 15th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Mr Farrar i hope you enjoyed your evening, i like drinking there or the thistle,but then im not a suit, ,um whats a skilled tradesman these days , sorry Mr Farrar some of the people you see are skilled but who wants nice clothes ruined, so could look tacky, i might see you one day, will not approach you as im a sweaty worker ,not a non sweaty suit, and i dont have a phd etc etc. but a gold pride in print and my trade certs
Vote:May 15th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Interesting to note that Bradford has enjoyed a taxpayer funded holiday, I wonder how many of her reputed 70+ criminal convictions involved violence or jail time?
Vote:May 15th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
No one else seems to have asked – did either of you take the Blonde home?
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 9:06 am
freethinker said: Interesting to note that Bradford has enjoyed a taxpayer funded holiday
I don’t think she’s ever been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. What I recall is that she was remanded in custody at one stage while awaiting trial (for something relatively trivial like refusing to move off a roadway when asked to by the Police) because she refused to agree to onerous bail conditions that would have prevented her from participating in any public protest activity at all. I can’t recall the exact sequence of events, but I think her bail conditions were modified to something less onerous on appeal to the High Court, and she then agreed to be bailed and was released from prison.
Vote:May 16th, 2008 at 11:43 am
MikeE,
Cheers for the info about the Iron Law of Prohibition, most interesting.
People just don’t get it. Prohibition doesn’t work, it didn’t work for the US in the 1920′s (in fact it pretty much single-handedly cemented the power base of the American Mafia) and it wont work now. If we got rid of prohibition the Mongrel Mob and Black Power would go bankrupt.
for the record I don’t drink, smoke or take any illegal drugs (I dont even drink coffee) but even I can see that prohibition is stupid.
Vote: