Talisker is from Skye not Islay. But I agree Speyside single malts are better.

The Talisker was a gift. I don’t look a gift whiskey in the mouth, no matter where it comes from.

You may call it pragmatism. But it’s a sad day when lefties put up propositions inimical to fundamental principles of free speech and / or private enterprise, and all National Party opinion leaders (like yourself!) can do is nibble around the edges of this pathetic micro-management of our lives.

Please use your skills and your communication channel to challenge the blue side that, without sound principles, so-called governance has no valid purpose. This alcohol / tobacco charade has gone on forever, achieving little other than providing greater justification for politicians to tax selected, legal consumer products excessively.

If politicians have the courage of their convictions, let then prohibit both alcohol and tobacco from production, sale or use in NZ society. That will fix all the perceived ills that they are said to generate (Yeah, right!). But at least we would see the rare sight of Parliament acting on principle for a change.

Prohibit television advertising of alcohol before 9pm.

DPF: “Sounds reasonable.”

Say what?!

No it doesn’t! Get this – kids know alcohol exists. They may have even seen their parents with it. Seeing an ad for a wine sale when you’re stuck watching the 6pm news does not turn kids into alcoholics.

Is there some sort of “Biggest Killjoy” competition going on in parliament at the moment? Are Peter Dunne and Lees-Galloway vying to take the title away from Jim Anderton?

How about we get a special designation on our drivers licences that states whether want to be immune from the government’s nannying. Those who want the government to take responsibility for their lives can have an “L” on their licence – this means they pay an additional tax at the liquor store and are not able purchase alcohol at a supermarket – then everyone’s happy.

I also agree that responsible drinkers of all ages should be left completely alone. Any change must affect only those individuals who harm others or whose drinking creates health or ACC costs.

I wish all those control freak wowsers would fuck off and die.

Very well said.
Change from Islay to Speyside and your sentence is even truer!

Disclosure: I am drinking a glass of Talisker.

Hence the existence of”State assets”……assets to those who comprise the state….liabilities to those taxed to support them.

Gauleiter Lees-Galloway says he knows what is best for you better than you know yourself.

The state must censor what you see and read for your own good. And this fucker Lees-Galloway says he is the man to decide what you are allowed to see.

The ego of this disgusting little worm is exceeded only by the contempt he displays for the rest of us.

Your spot on with this big bruv – they’re atheists – just like you!

Drink & drive – lose your licence & car on the second offence.
Alcohol caused health issues – pay for your own medical expenses
Benefits by voucher – redeemable on food only.
etc
etc

Or maybe that should be 1. and scrap the rest.

There. That might fix the problem.

Weihana – do you think an unproven drugs should be able to be freely sold in New Zealand? Whether the contents are known or not?

Honestly, no I think all psychoactive substances should be regulated to some extent. My problem is not that Dunne has turned people away from synthetic cannabis and back to the real stuff. My problem is that Dunne is motivated by the same prohibitionist ideology that created the problem in the first instance. The “legal highs” are trying to mirror the effects of illegal highs. Instead of trying to stomp on something that is a direct consequence of prohibitionist idiocy, the government needs to address the reality of the failed war on drugs and the harm prohibition causes.

And, ironically, Dunne gets criticised most for NOT restricting alcohol sales more.

Fair enough in my view. It’s his hypocrisy that is most annoying. It’s ridiculous being sanctimonious about “legal highs” whilst exempting alcohol which does far more harm than any legal high. It’s also hypocrisy to criminalize medical marijuana (or marijuana in general) when he has used it himself and is only in the position he is because he escaped criminal penalty thus enabling his political career. The same goes for Obama. I’m sick of these hypocrite politicians who do something, get away with it, then preach about how it should still be a crime.

Weihana: can we have a subsidy on alcohol to cover the benefits of alcohol?

Sounds fair enough to me though I’m not sure whether they are significant compared to the costs. But on the other hand, alcohol is a vice singled out for taxation whilst many other vices go unnoticed. Do we tax overeating? Do we tax laziness? Do we tax sleeping around with strangers and getting HIV?

Perhaps instead of giving the money to an ever-expanding government we could leave the money in the hands of the consumer.

Recreational drugs were the most uncontrolled substances that could be sold, which was ridiculous.

And, ironically, Dunne gets criticised most for NOT restricting alcohol sales more.

As opposed to Peter Dunne controlling our lives?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7284599/New-law-Drugs-must-be-proved-safe-for-sale

This is all politicians do. They have to continuously come up with idiotic ideas to justify their existence.

It’s been reported that National will have a conscience vote on the purchase age only. Labour will have a conscience vote on all. Greens will tell their MPs how to vote on all. Maori Party are pro much tighter restrictions, they have their own SOPs on the bill.

The purchase age could go any way. But I can’t see Dunne voting for the draconian advertising restrictions, so that should deal with that (presuming National will bloc vote with him) – as long as John Banks or any of NZ First (uncommitted so far as far as I know) or any Labour MPs vote against the advertising changes..