Why BZP ?

Mind-altering drugs: does legal mean safe? - drugs-alcohol - 29 September 2006 - New Scientist - New Zealander Matt Bowden solved his dependence on hard drugs by using BZP - and started marketing the legal high to New Zealand as "harm reduction". Now, six years later shrill calls to ban it regularly hit the media. But it may be stopping P from becoming more wide spread. Imagine how much more money would flow into the drug mafia if P were as popular as BZP.

Drug Harm Scale

Check this graph - what are the relative harm factors of various drugs and alcohol? New scientist reveals how alcohol is more harmful than LSD, tobacco is more harmful than cannabis or ecstacy. Even Ritalin is more harmful than Ecstasy.

Website threats to MP

Police called over website threats against smacking bill MP - 21 Feb 2007 - Political News - New Zealand Herald It is evident that those parents who want to avoid prosecution under th crimes act for abusing children with violence are perhaps a little out of control when they start making threats to assinate an MP. The infamous CYFSWATCH blog was shut down by Google and although we are against censorship, hate speech is worse. Threatening our democracy with terrorism is not the answer. Parents who want to retain the right to hit their children are actively manufacturing criminals and future parents who can only control their children with threats of violence. The threat to assinate an MP is evidence that there is a concerted lobby to maintain a status quo that is not reasonable and is also very harmful. CYFS has its faults but it is better to have it than throw 14 year olds into jail for crimes like tagging and minor offenses. We need our jails to house violent criminals, and if that includes parents that beat their kids up, then at least they will not go out hunting MPs.

Anti Smacking Bill

How your MP voted

FOR 70

Labour (49): Rick Barker, Tim Barnett, David Benson-Pope, Mark Burton, Chris Carter, Steve Chadwick, Charles Chauvel, Ashraf Choudhary, Helen Clark, Clayton Cosgrove, Michael Cullen, David Cunliffe, Lianne Dalziel, Harry Duynhoven, Ruth Dyson, Russell Fairbrother, Darien Fenton, Martin Gallagher, Phil Goff, Mark Gosche, Ann Hartley, George Hawkins, Dave Hereora, Marian Hobbs, Pete Hodgson, Parekura Horomia, Darren Hughes, Annette King, Shane Jones, Luamanuvao Winnie Laban, Moana Mackey, Steve Maharey, Nanaia Mahuta, Trevor Mallard, Sue Moroney, Damien O'Connor, Mahara Okeroa, David Parker, Jill Pettis, Lynne Pillay, Mita Ririnui, Ross Robertson, Dover Samuels, Lesley Soper, Maryan Street, Paul Swain, Judith Tizard, Margaret Wilson, Dianne Yates.

Greens (6): Sue Bradford, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Sue Kedgley, Keith Locke, Nandor Tanczos, Metiria Turei.

National (6): Paula Bennett, Jackie Blue, Chester Borrows, Paul Hutchison, Simon Power, Katherine Rich.

Maori Party (4): Te Ururoa Flavell, Hone Harawira, Pita Sharples, Tariana Turei.

New Zealand First (3): Doug Woolerton, Brian Donnelly, Barbara Stewart.

Progressives (1): Jim Anderton.

United Future (1): Peter Dunne.

AGAINST 51

National (42): Shane Ardern, Chris Auchinvole, David Bennett, Mark Blumsky, Gerry Brownlee, David Carter, John Carter, Bob Clarkson, Jonathan Coleman, Judith Collins, Brian Connell, Jacqui Dean, Bill English, Christopher Finlayson, Craig Foss, Jo Goodhew, Sandra Goudie, Tim Groser, Nathan Guy, John Hayes, Phil Heatley, Tau Henare, John Key, Colin King, Wayne Mapp, Murray McCully, Allan Peachey, Eric Roy, Tony Ryall, Katrina Shanks, Clem Simich, Lockwood Smith, Nick Smith, Georgina te Heuheu, Lindsay Tisch, Anne Tolley, Chris Tremain, Nicky Wagner, Kate Wilkinson, Maurice Williamson, Pansy Wong, Richard Worth.

ACT (2): Rodney Hide, Heather Roy.

New Zealand First (4): Peter Brown, Ron Mark, Pita Paraone, Winston Peters.

United Future (2): Gordon Copeland, Judy Turner.

Independent (1): Taito Phillip Field.

Have you been stung by exorbitant bank charges? | | Guardian Unlimited Business

Have you been stung by exorbitant bank charges? | | Guardian Unlimited Business

In Fraud Case, 7 Years in Jail for Contempt - New York Times

In Fraud Case, 7 Years in Jail for Contempt - New York Times - no justice is bad justice. This man has been imprisoned for his crime, even if he is not found guilty of charges other than conspiracy that he has given in a plea bargain. What kind of representation results in that kind of result? Justice is not served by a judiciary that allow de facto punishment.

The Age of Accountability

Twelve-year-olds should be accountable - top youth judge - 16 Feb 2007 - National - with the age of consent at 16, driving at 15, and alcohol at 18 - a judge proposes the lowering of the bar for the age of criminal responsibility from 14 year to 12 years. P use in lower socioeconomic families and exposure of children to P manufacture and distrubution enterprises by criminal families certainly make this seem like a good idea. The CYFS (Child Youth and Family) system acts as a buffer between troubled families and the justice system. Some say it does not operate all that well. Some say that it does.

The problem with CYFS and youth justice is that there is no handbook that tells you how to deal with a criminal 12 year old. "Its the parents!" you hear that one on talkback all the time. It is not always the parents - sometimes it is the child acting out criminality based on cultural norms expected by their contemporaries and drug use amoungst teenagers is a case in point. There is much right wing uproar about moral issues - but it is the formation of stable families that promote traditional values that is the task these moralists fail to address - it is all great to criticise those who are behind in the wealth stakes - but what about criminal children who are wealthy? Should they get the same protection from the law as 12 and 13 year old taggers, vandals and miscreants?

This is the start of a very dangerous trend. 12 year olds are afforded education. 17 year olds are afforded justice. If by the age of 17 the education does not work, then personal responsibility can be enforced upon the young adult. But at 12 years old, there is no hope that the child can gain in adult responsibility, even if they are playing with guns and drugs.

The CYFS system is not perfect but it is better than jailing 12 year olds. The judiciary could make CYFS into a political football, but a clear coherent policy that gradually improves the situation for our young people may do better. CYFS is a good idea. It is a large organisation and does have a variety of strengths and weaknesses.

But it is corrective in nature. We should also examine schools to see why they are not equiping children with the tools of a good education so they do not turn to drugs or crime as source of sustenance when they grow up.

Smacking Children

Smacking Children

A culture of threat and violence harms children, and parents definition of "light" may vary when justifying an actual crime. Our children should not be political punchbags. The law should never condone "light smacks", but it does need to outlaw violence and foster a culture of non-violence.

Of course light smacks are relatively harmless to the child, but parental light smacks may condition the child that it is quite okay to hit their children. That appears to be the problem, now.

Experimentation on Prisoners

... see also

Human Rights vs Efficiency?

Being human is a basic right and the Law may not remove that right.

"Legal adventures" that stretch or challenge the Law as it is so may establish precidents that allows more erosion of the power of the word decreed by Government. Once nobody follows Law it becomes irrelevant and unenforceable. It may still exist to dumbfound future lawyers, but for the present a law seems rendered ineffective if it is constantly broken.

That may be a misapprehension. It takes the bringing of action to bring the law to the attention of the courts. Citizens have a right to protest, this can also be an effective way to bring about law changes, though requiring the intervention of an afflicted or converted politician. We can withdraw our labour and change things.

But who is going to go on strike or protest for the human rights of those behind bars who willingly enter a medical experiment? Considering the case of a New Zealander (not a prisoner, but the next best thing, a tourist) in London who was paid about five thousand dollars to try out a new drug that nearly killed him and has left him with cancer.

Would it have been less difficult for us to digest if that were a prisoner who was also being paid to be experimented upon?

Of course, if medical testing were always that dramatic, there would be no drugs. Most of the time, the test may not have a life threatening aspect to it. The prisoner is as (un)safe as any volunteer.