Random Politics

[Ab]

Hands up who's looking forward to the Brownlee-Davis deputies debate? If Kelvin turns up, I mean.

[Nich]

John Bolton pay to play on camera
https://twitter.com/trusttheplan_/st...667287042?s=21

annnnd this comment on who might be lining his pocket
https://twitter.com/18goodsoldier1/s...546921472?s=21

I might be wrong, but the guy giving Bolton something from his pocket looks like this guy Moufaz. If so, that spices up the interaction.

spicy indeed. al-qaeda / ISIS "freedom fighter" connections.

[Lightspeed]

The ruling that lays bare the gross injustice of the three strikes law

Hopefully Labour wins sufficiently they can sort out this broken law without a drama.

[pxpx]

Yeah, 3 strikes is dumb, why's it 3? Why not 4 or 5?

Let's just hope they do something to address recidivists, that isn't equivalent giving them a strong talking to and a cuddle.

[Cyberbob]

Anyone want to discuss the referendums that are up this year?

End of Life Choice referendum
In this referendum, you can vote on whether the End of Life Choice Act 2019 should come into force.

The referendum question is:

• Do you support the End of Life Choice Act 2019 coming into force?

You can choose 1 of these 2 answers:

1. Yes, I support the End of Life Choice Act 2019 coming into force.
2. No, I do not support the End of Life Choice Act 2019 coming into force.

Cannabis legalisation and control referendum
In this referendum, you can vote on whether the recreational use of cannabis should become legal.

The referendum question is:

• Do you support the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill?

You can choose 1 of these 2 answers:

1. Yes, I support the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill.
2. No, I do not support the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill.

[Ab]

Support for both here.

[pxpx]

The issue i have is the word "proposed"

Can the proposal evolve or change as it goes through legislative stages? or will it go through as-is.

[pxpx]

Actually, I wasn't aware that it would allow people to grow their own.

If they took out that bit, I'd vote for it. But with it in, nope.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by pxpx

The issue i have is the word "proposed"

Can the proposal evolve or change as it goes through legislative stages? or will it go through as-is.

My understanding is that the EoL bill is done (it's the End of Life Choice Act 2019), and it's case of whether or not it's implemented.

The Cannabis one is a proposal, the act isn't done and will evolve. This is in the 'nice idea' phase, and is using the referendum to judge public opinion before too much effort is put into it.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by pxpx

Yeah, 3 strikes is dumb, why's it 3? Why not 4 or 5?

Let's just hope they do something to address recidivists, that isn't equivalent giving them a strong talking to and a cuddle.

What if a cuddle is what gets them to behave?

In the choice between cuddles for rapists and more rape we choose more rape. We're so fucking smart, eh? Politically, it's much more palatable to punish than to heal, even if it's ultimately ourselves we're punishing.

[Lightspeed]

.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Ab

Support for both here.

Ditto

[fixed_truth]

Same here.

I can understand people voting no to both but I don't get people who vote yes for one and no for the other. I'm guessing it's to do with some incorrect beliefs coming from false information.

I think these two referendums are about rights of individuals to make decisions for themselves and affirming this in one instance & denying it with the other is moralistically & unduly interfering with people's lives.

[blynk]

I will vote for them, but I slightly disagree.

Euthanasia is totally about the rights of the individual, and as long as there are safety nets in place to stop malicious behaviour from others, then perfect.
This falls into the same category as abortion, or sexual orientation etc etc.

Marijuana, while it will be voted based on peoples (potentially skewed*) morals, it more a society impact. Health, Social, Economy.
There is the potential of societal impacts due to this. So it will be deciding if the good outweigh the negative enough.

*skewed due to people thinking DRUGS = BAD while drinking their beer.

[fixed_truth]

If anyone is concerned with any negative societal impacts of marijuana use then they should be [i]for[/] regulation including getting it off the black market and making abuse a health rather than criminal issue.

[pxpx]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Same here.

I can understand people voting no to both but I don't get people who vote yes for one and no for the other. I'm guessing it's to do with some incorrect beliefs coming from false information.

I think these two referendums are about rights of individuals to make decisions for themselves and affirming this in one instance & denying it with the other is moralistically & unduly interfering with people's lives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separability_problem

[fixed_truth]

Separability has to do with whether a voters preferences on one or more questions in a referendum may depend on the known predicted outcomes of the other questions in the election.

Like so someone would vote for euthanasia if they knew for sure that marijuana would be legal so the could get stoned to death?

[crocos]

Frankly the only thing I dislike about weed is the smell - but still prefer that smell over that of tobacco, and pretty much can't escape that.

To clarify: It's just a dislike, not a I HATE THAT SMELL or anything fanatical.

I know people that benefit from using cannabis, so I'm voting yes.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by blynk

Health, Social, Economy.
There is the potential of societal impacts due to this. So it will be deciding if the good outweigh the negative enough.

Cannabis laws are the result of the use of the same political tools that sparked two world wars. The public doesn't go around deciding the balance of all the different things that have both positive and negative consequences. We'd be up to our neck in referendums, not that we'd be able to undertake them, given the absence of a functioning society we'd wind up with.

Cannabis was the boogeyman that a powerful politician decided upon, far away, a long time ago. That's it.

[Lightspeed]

So, this whole refugee fulla business is government MPs in Australia talking to opposition MPs in New Zealand? Some mutually beneficial shit stirring?

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Like so someone would vote for euthanasia if they knew for sure that marijuana would be legal so the could get stoned to death?

Biblical.

[DrTiTus]

Originally Posted by pxpx

Actually, I wasn't aware that it would allow people to grow their own.

If they took out that bit, I'd vote for it. But with it in, nope.

Two plants per adult, max four plants in a household.

What's wrong with this part, out of curiosity?

[blynk]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Cannabis laws are the result of the use of the same political tools that sparked two world wars. The public doesn't go around deciding the balance of all the different things that have both positive and negative consequences. We'd be up to our neck in referendums, not that we'd be able to undertake them, given the absence of a functioning society we'd wind up with.

Cannabis was the boogeyman that a powerful politician decided upon, far away, a long time ago. That's it.

Oh I agree that the only reason it's illegal today is because of some stupid hit in the past,
But that doesn't mean it should be legal now.
But if its not legal now, then there should be a serious look at alcohol. But that of course would never happen.

and by societal impacts, I wasnt just meaning negative. There will be huge benefits as well,

[xor]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

If anyone is concerned with any negative societal impacts of marijuana use then they should be [i]for[/] regulation including getting it off the black market and making abuse a health rather than criminal issue.

Organised crime will just move into other products to sell. Get more punters smoking meth or maybe they'll get into extortion and start dropping some sweet ransomwares? Business is good.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by xor

Organised crime will just move into other products to sell. Get more punters smoking meth or maybe they'll get into extortion and start dropping some sweet ransomwares? Business is good.

None of that is a reason to not legalize cannabis.

[pxpx]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

Two plants per adult, max four plants in a household.

What's wrong with this part, out of curiosity?

Hmm I've thought about this more since that post. Potency limits and quality standards for 'retail' producers, to protect consumers from harm. But then allowing plants at home analogous to home brew alcohol isnt it?

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I think these two referendums are about rights of individuals to make decisions for themselves and affirming this in one instance & denying it with the other is moralistically & unduly interfering with people's lives.

Right now, I'm yes to the Cannabis legalisation and control referendum, but I'm a no for the End of Life Choice referendum.

To clarify, I'm for individual choice. I'm against the End of Life Choice Act 2019, as I currently understand it.

I'm against the concept of it being a viable treatment option that a doctor could put on the table along with other treatments currently available.

I'm concerned about vulnerable demographics. "We can treat you for $20k a year for the rest of your life, or end your life for free, but it's your decision to make with your family." Doctors already have to give patients every option, and this option will now be included in that list. That's a hell of a lot of pressure, regardless of whether it's direct or just back of the mind, 'dark cloud day' sort of thoughts.
If it comes out in ten years that low income, or Maori populations, or those with depression related mental illness diagnoses, are choosing voluntary euthanasia at a statistically significant & higher rate than other demographics, what's the gameplan there?

I'm concerned about certainty. My mum was paid out her life insurance when she was diagnosed with late stage cancer. That was close to 12 years ago, and she's doing fantastic. She would have been offered ending her life as a viable treatment option. You don't have to go far for cases of people living far longer lives than they thought they would.

I'm concerned about the message it's sending to a population with crazy high young people suicides that wanting to end your own life if things get too hard is OK without first thinking about the messaging we do want to send.

There's too many risks and dangers that I don't think have been well thought out, and not enough clear communication. You can't play "Let's see how this goes" with peoples lives the same way you can with drugs & alcohol.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by pxpx

But then allowing plants at home analogous to home brew alcohol isnt it?

But with less restrictions and less controls, as there's nothing to regulate growing conditions (not that I've seen yet) or strains... and less effort required (in terms of human activity rather than time to grow)

Home brew takes time - washing & sterilizing, making the wort, back to pitch hops (potentially several times depending on the recipe), cleaning bottles and bottling.

Also the supplies - excepting the seeds/seedlings - are far easier to get at pretty much any Warehouse, hardware store or garden supplies, vs going to home brewing stores and some bulk-food places.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

She would have been offered ending her life as a viable treatment option. You don't have to go far for cases of people living far longer lives than they thought they would.

https://www.referendums.govt.nz/endo...ice/index.html

A health practitioner is not allowed to suggest that a person consider assisted dying when providing a health service to them.

I have similar concerns, about how the law could be used. Then again, we tend not to let laws get in the way of atrocities. They're more for little people like us.

[blynk]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

I'm concerned about vulnerable demographics. "We can treat you for $20k a year for the rest of your life, or end your life for free, but it's your decision to make with your family." Doctors already have to give patients every option, and this option will now be included in that list. That's a hell of a lot of pressure, regardless of whether it's direct or just back of the mind, 'dark cloud day' sort of thoughts.

Out of interest. What is that family meant to do right now? The have $20k+ medical bills, where they can't even make things meet?
So they go untreated and the family get to watch them suffer.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

I'm concerned about certainty. My mum was paid out her life insurance when she was diagnosed with late stage cancer. That was close to 12 years ago, and she's doing fantastic. She would have been offered ending her life as a viable treatment option. You don't have to go far for cases of people living far longer lives than they thought they would.

Yeah the people making the diagnosis need follow the guidelines precisely.

To be able to ask for assisted dying, a person must meet ALL the following criteria. They must:

be aged 18 years or over
be a citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand
suffer from a terminal illness that's likely to end their life within 6 months
have significant and ongoing decline in physical capability
experience unbearable suffering that cannot be eased
be able to make an informed decision about assisted dying.

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

I'm concerned about the message it's sending to a population with crazy high young people suicides that wanting to end your own life if things get too hard is OK without first thinking about the messaging we do want to send.

Yeah the message would have to match the real contrast between people suffering & facing imminent death wanting to die versus people suffering and not facing imminent death but wanting to die.

[xor]

Originally Posted by crocos

None of that is a reason to not legalize cannabis.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[ePi]

Originally Posted by blynk

Marijuana, while it will be voted based on peoples (potentially skewed*) morals, it more a society impact. Health, Social, Economy.
There is the potential of societal impacts due to this. So it will be deciding if the good outweigh the negative enough.

I talked to a few people about the marijuana vote, and they were voting no. Asked why, one guy said he'd recently had to fire a bunch of people when they tested for weed, and said if it became legal he'd have to fire more people and it would be a hassle for employment contracts. Telling them they can't smoke whilst employed is too hard apparently. Another said they were not-informed about weed but were going to vote no. They said this despite saying they recently bought weed for a friend as relief from medical treatment.

Unreal. I doubt most people are going to weigh all the societal impacts of health social and economy. They're just going to vote based on how it affects them personally.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by xor

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

You're not wrong, you're just an asshole.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by blynk

Out of interest. What is that family meant to do right now? The have $20k+ medical bills, where they can't even make things meet?
So they go untreated and the family get to watch them suffer.

ummm has something changed while I've been away from home? do kiwis pay for their healthcare now?

[Delphinus]

Voting yes for both.
I support giving people choice.

I've also experienced a relative go through HORRIFIC pain for weeks on end with cancer, and absolutely nothing the doctors could do. You would have thought these days pain meds can at least help stuff like that, but even fully dosed up she was in obvious pain and suffering. You wouldn't treat an animal like that.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

ummm has something changed while I've been away from home? do kiwis pay for their healthcare now?

For some healthcare options, yes. What Pharmac funds is a bit of a political football.

[Ab]

yeah, but surely it's not "PAY $20K OR DIE NOW"?

[Lightspeed]

I think it kinda is?

Pharmac back-tracks on plan to fund lung cancer drug Keytruda

There's this that the Greens are copping right now:

States Chair of Patient Voice Aotearoa, Malcolm Mulholland, “I don’t think the Green’s thought too much ahead before contradicting their own policy. To uphold the PHARMAC model is to deny the 35 children who could be protected from a cruel motor neuron disease if Spinraza was funded. It would appear that the Greens are reneging on their policies from the previous two elections which promised equity in medicine access, especially for those with rare diseases. The Greens also seem not to have been following the Lamotrigine drug switch scandal that is currently unfolding before the public and has potentially cost the lives of seven epilepsy patients.

But I dunno the real significance, of course people wanting healthcare are going to insist they deserve whatever treatment they think is best.

[Ab]

thanks jacinda