Comments on: Nanny State

By: ralphcarlsonblog.com » Nanny State Update for Today

ralphcarlsonblog.com » Nanny State Update for Today — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:47:04 +0000

[...] Nanny State [...]

By: Quoth the Raven

Quoth the Raven — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:53:06 +0000

Bill – I’ve never once used these drugs for a cold. I hardly ever get colds. But if people wish to use them and can attest to their efficacy in relieving their symptoms then they should be able to without having to pay another $40-50 for a GP visit which they probably wouldn’t be able to get in time anyway and which just needlessly takes up the time of our Doctors.

By: Pete

Pete — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:54:32 +0000

Hi mike,

I’m one of the idiots.

I had never taken pseudoephedrine until recently when I had to deliver a government mandate (ie a new series of services for clients of the Ministry I used to work for) in a week and a half, and in the same week interview for a new job because me and my expertise were being restructured out of the picture.

I don’t recall my colleagues getting sick, as I make sure I look after myself (clean hands, use tissues etc), but I can understand if that’s too hard for some.

Anyway, without the help provided by the pseudoephedrine I may not have the job I am in today, and the services I helped developed would not have been delivered on time. Though it was the first time I had resorted to using it, I am pleased I did. And having to wait to see a GP and pay for the privilege of seeing them to sign a prescription (including the time off required – or more to pay to go to an after hours joint) was a luxury I didn’t have. There’s more to it than what you see on face-value, so your comments don’t help – and I’d say that this is certainly in the same league as any ‘nanny-state’ proposal that was so decried in the last couple of years, though without the proven effect the government are seeking. Cross your fingers and hope is not a good way to go IMHO.

By: Tigger

Tigger — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:23:47 +0000

It’s okay Steve, that’s that whole plan, more criminals = more bodies for our private prisons…

By: felix

felix — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:10:49 +0000

Good points but I think your 99.9% guesstimate is way too high.

By: aj

aj — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:40:33 +0000

There are interesting political outcomes possible here.
For 99.9% of kiwi’s P is something that grabs headlines as users perform some very nasty things while spaced out. But that’s as close as they get to it.
Meanwhile alcohol creates much more havoc on our roads streets and home in a week than P would in a whole year, but doesn’t get the banner headlines.
With this move National certainly will get kudos from some quarters as a move against crime even if the outcomes suggested are completely disconnected with reality.
And suddenly many kiwi’s are going to find the price of trying to get over a headcold has suddenly shot through the roof.
First cell phones in cars, although ipods and GPS are ok. Now a doctors visit is required to get a medicant for the common cold….

By: gitmo

gitmo — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:32:14 +0000

Craig

From what I understand more customs officers and stronger surveillance and enforcement is part of the plan – I also think this part of the plan will be more effective than moving pseudoephidrine from Pharmacy only to Rx medicine status

By: Craig Glen Eden

Craig Glen Eden — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:26:24 +0000

I think there is another option, that would be to employ a lot more custom officers and search the containers properly.But hey National wouldn’t want to employ public servants because as we all know they are the real scourge on NZ society.

While I want to see this evil (and it is a true evil) drug out of or country I dont believe that the purchase of cold remedies across the pharmacy counter is the main supply of the pseudoephedrine for P labs.

Its just populist politicking again by Key if only there was enough celebrities in the world for him to shake hands with (24/7) we might all be spared this type of knee jerk reaction policy of the populist approach.

By: Steve Withers

Steve Withers — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:17:22 +0000

It seems to be the way of things that the BIG problems are ignored and the minor ones get attention out of all proportion to the problem. Take terrorism: None here in the NZ of any note, but we all have to submit to costly and inconvenient security when travelling by air. Meanwhile, thousands die of smoking-related cancers every year….and we don’t ban cigarettes because stupidity on that scale can’t be stopped by mere laws.

By: Steve Withers

Steve Withers — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:12:41 +0000

Swampy: I’m betting this move will cause some P-seekers to steal or otherwise criminally obtain what they have until now been cunningly buying. We could well see drug-related crime go up…..not down. P users aren’t known for their good judgement or patience.

By: Steve Withers

Steve Withers — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:07:44 +0000

Last year, I had a rash on my leg that I picked up from one of the cats. I went to the doctor. $80 for the consult and $17 for a tiny tube of ointment. That was $97 for a rash I diagnosed myself and just needed to get the ointment.

Key’s move on pseudo-ephedrine could be seen a perk for poor, downtrodden doctors. A needy group if ever there was one. Maybe it will slow down P, but I have a feeling it may also increase crime as some P-seekers will take by stealth or force what they can’t buy.

By: felix

felix — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:46:51 +0000

You forgot about

3. Make pseudoephedrine prescription-only and pay the cost of that action AND pay the cost of P as part of our collective lives anyway.

You might as well include that on your list of options because that’s the one the govt seems to have chosen.

By: BLiP

BLiP — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:05:44 +0000

Tough on crime?

Its the opposite. This latest example of the “do nothing” National Ltd government actually creates more victims. How is making pensioners go to the doctor and then to the chemist because of a bunch of druggies might get some of their ingredients from the pharmacy tough on crime? What a stupid thing to say.

If National Ltd, or any government for that matter, wanted to get tough on crime it would make all drugs legal and address the reasons why people use drugs. That would be the “market solution” because it would hit the crims right where it hurts, the bottom line.

Remember Howard Scott’s definition of a criminal: a person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.

By: gingercrush

gingercrush — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:57:53 +0000

I can’t say I agree with this particular area of this new policy around P. Of course its the thing that gets the headlines. But the other areas are much more interesting and more important. For instance more placements for P addiction and a police taskforce are good things. Of course they don’t get the headlines.

By: RedLogix

RedLogix — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:52:52 +0000

So we get to pick a lane here.

1. Do nothing and pay the cost of P as part of our collective lives.

2. Do something and pay the cost of that action.

There are no other choices.

So all you collective genius’s, which lane do you want to pick? If Option 1. then how about being honest and just saying so.

If Option 2. then what’s it going to be? And what price are you prepared to pay? (And why should the left refrain from yelling ‘nanny state’ if you do?)