Sunday, July 06, 2003
Nador said
Saturday, July 05, 2003
Going Potty
Prohibition of cannabis does not work. If it is actually doing any harm to children, prohibition keeps it a secret. If there are any harmful effects of long term cannabis use, prohibition has not countered these. Prohibiting alcohol use causes those who will take the risk of drinking to indulge in greater risk drinking. Those arrested for risking lives by drinking while driving are acting in a dangerous and psychotic manner. Risking the death of another is insane.
It is hard to say how many schoolchildren in New Zealand already smoke cannibis. It is clear that regulation of low-THC hemp alternatives will make it harder for kids who naturally seek to fit in with their peers and yet not engage in possible long term health risks attributed to the overuse of cannabis. Low-THC cannabis may be less harmful than tobacco. How many young mothers smoke tobacco?
Low-THC alternatives enable a reduction of THC intake thus diluting possible psychosis while acting like a psychological nicotine patch. If indeed the BMA do not change their mind once again, and declare cannabis safer than alcohol or tobacco.
If there is harm being done to our children, it is being hidden by the way the law promotes a thriving black market that is making those who would put it in the hands of school children empowered. If cannabis use were decriminalised a cannabis culture may exist, but it would not be promoted by the greed of criminals.
If it were to be treated along the same path as alcohol, moderate use could be harmlessly enjoyed by those old enough for it not to matter, and school children would benefit by the tax dollars invested in an education system that is convinced it must favour the wealthy to survive.
Friday, July 04, 2003
EMail Interception
New laws have been passed in NZ giving Police the right to intercept EMail and Faxes. Previously the Police were limited to intercepting telephone calls, but now evidence from email may be used.
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
Incidents of violence against teachers are "on the rise" due to the availability of the drug P in schools. Police bust meta-amphetamine labs but this report of alleged availability in all Auckland North Shore schools may indicate new markets are sought out by those who make a profit selling psychosis and death. Is demand for a drug that can cause insane behaviour lowered as its users damage their brains and can no longer function adequately? Are pushers really entering schools to find new customers, or is demand driven by kids getting hooked?
In our opinion, the facts have not been discovered yet. Generalized statements do not pinpoint causes, and perhaps that the old adage "Speed Kills" is a reason that fresh meat is required by a black market that will endanger children and corrode the eduction system with pure problems.
Risk taking is part of growing up. Speed is compact, easily concealed and hard to detect. P (Pure speed) is highly addictive.
Hemp products were seized by NZ Customs upon importation by 'the hemp store aotearoa'.
The Hemp Store are contesting the Customs action in court with regard to the legality of the seizure. The products in question only contain trace amounts of psychoactive product, lower than the allowed level of 0.35%. Customs identified the Hemp products as "containing cannibis". A smoking mixture called "Knaster" and hemp tea tested in Germany as well below the threshold.
Sunday, June 29, 2003
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
In the news NZ's most wanted man
A very dangerous criminal is on the loose possibly in South Auckland. His history of shooting first may seems like a bad movie to most of us, except his victims. Fine defaulters South Island fine defaulters have been asked to pay up in a "name and shame" campaign. So, if you are very desperate to want to get your name in the paper, the courts may oblige.
Child care There is some discussion in the Government about child care that seeks to define a "father" as not necessarily being male. Peter Dunne, the unlikely partner to the Labour coalition, with his "Christian values" opposes same sex couples. It could be argued that his approach to parliament is more feminine than his coalition partner, Helen Clark, who has "fathered" one of the most successful Governemnt in NZ history.
Saturday, June 14, 2003
A law expert believes that the right of representing self at trial is costly and dangerous. That may be true, but perhaps there are other lessons in NZ's recent 7 week extended self defence conducted by John Burrett.
The nature of Mr Burrett's conduct that "extended the trial" is seen as a costly result of self indulgence by a man seeking to prove that he indeed was prepared to waste the time of others. Mr Burrett would have done well to have hired himself a lawyer. Compare his potential for incarceration to that of the Dog Bite Bust.
These fine Gents had a nightmare incident with their dog attacking a child that they initially tried to distance themselves from, and then one admitted to; and the other was found guilty and now is doing two months in Mt Eden jail, only to be injured, possibly seriously, by other prisoners.
These fine Gents have representation. They now carry a certain notoriety beyond their contribution to society. Yet, the hand of justice, having smote each may be seen to have cured them of their idiocy, if not their irresponsibility.
They can feed stories to the buttocks of the media and from that, recover payments they can then very pubilcally give to charity. And bask in the cafe's of Ponsonby.
Whereas Burrett, now having proven his value to the world by defending himself with the side society may rightfully wish to segregate itself from, may be seen to have invented the entire rationale for being charged in the first place.
Afterall, the police prevented them from actually committing the crime they were observed planning. With the sentencing now imminent, no public sympathy can support Mr Burrett.
That is not to say that an appeal in Burrett's case may become necessary, and Burrett may consider, for goodness sake, getting a good lawyer.
One could of course argue that there may be a place for idiots defending themselves in the court room. When a jury is picked from everyday people, it seems natural enough that an individual may defend themselves.
One only has to recall the genuine mess Bill Clinton made of his presidency to see the folly. Representing oneself may be a sure fire way to lose a case, and perhaps that is why it should remain a right.
We have added a link so we can more actively monitor NZ Law stories. Fodder for comment.