This “red tape” is all about the battle to develop. Ask yourself who funds National Act (and Labour)?

polluted waterways, leaking buildings, to name a few.But that was the past, everyone is really honest and thoughtful now

I think you will have found rodney has said prohibtion is a failiure many times, and ACT would hopefully vote inf avor of reform of cannabis laws providing the put responsibility onto the user and not the state. Heck his book “my year of living dangerously” even comments on this.

The problem is the Nats and UF would never support it.

Remember, ACT voted against the silly party pill legislation, Nats and Labour voted for it.

see:

http://www.act.org.nz/blog/rodney-hide/prohibition

“Posted on 21 Feb 2006

The Maori Party is at least consistent: they want to ban tobacco smoking because it’s addictive and kills.

The PM and the anti-smoking lobby are against the ban: they say it won’t work.

And the prohbition on P and cannabis does?”

and on medical pot

“Turei said that while it is “unusual’ for a bill to sit for so long “because most MPs will let their bills fail,’ she does not want the Bill to simply fail the first time it is read out. “We relied on chance to get the Bill in, and it finally got picked So the plan is just to keep it on the order paper so it doesn’t die, because if I let it get voted down then I’d have to do another members bill, and who knows when it would come up again.’ Only Act have pledged to vote with the Greens during the Bill’s first reading. Turei says that many MPs believe medicinal marijuana is “the ‘thin end of the wedge’ for recreational use’ because they “don’t understand that it does have a proven scientific use.’ Act’s Health Spokesperson Heather Roy says the Bill is “absolutely the right thing to do’ but is not surprised other parties have simply not looked at the evidence in support of marijuana’s medicinal benefits.”

http://www.salient.org.nz/features/medicinal-marijuana

This concept seems to work pretty well in the used car market. We don’t expect the council to inspect cars!

Never happened. Surprise.

Quoth makes a very good point. So where exactly do you stop treating expenditure as ‘waste’? I think if a country were to follow the Hide/Douglas philosophy to it’s logical conclusion, all government expenditure would cease because it is wasteful, the market works better, etc etc.

Then of course all the ACT supporters have a problem because they have no roads to drive big european SUV’s or sports cars on, and no services to get them to a hospital when they crash.

The problem at present is the person purchasing the property relies on the inspection by the councils and the workmanship of the builders. Most of the problems are hidden during building – eg pipes etc. To deregulate in this area will require that the potential liabilities are covered. That means that the producers (councils and builders) need to pay up front for covering that liability. Based on past performance and what has been going through the courts, that won’t happen. At present the purchaser is the one who gets squeezed with the litigation costs etc.

I favour more regulation – give the council an ability and responsibility to license and check the builders. They are the authorizing agent for buildings in their area and are responsible for the safety of the buildings for 60 years or so after building. Put a absolute liability on the councils.

Why doesn’t Wodney mention the wugby world cup?

Wascally wabbit.

Scribe, your link was to an instance of driving while under the influence of cannabis. I don’t support anyone driving under the influence of any drug that impairs their ability to drive. Your logic would suggest we should ban alcohol because people drive under its influence too. It is not the drug that is the issue, it is what people may do when under the influence of it that should be the subject of the criminal law.

As for the bestiality bit, I am an animal lover – and not in the perverted sense that you imply. I might have been a bit lax with my wording “no harm to anyone” – should have been “no harm to anyone or anything”. The sexual violation of an animal is very obviously harmful [to the animal], as is the desecration of ecosystems to all species.

These things should all be subject to the criminal law. Smoking dak, as long as you behave in a manner that does not potentially harm anyone or anything while under the influence, should not.

I have a friend in Ngaio, Wellington, screened from any sight of the sea by a large set of hills. They are having to use ss for their deck bolts, because we obviously have decks collapsing all over Wellington through rusty bolts. Insane. We are overcompensating for the minutest of risks.

I’ve been told to build a second storey on my place I would have to build a massive steel subframe – extra piling would not be acceptable, even if the walls could cope.

Lynn

That’s the kind of thing I was thinking of, but you are probably right about opposition to it. Ultimately the consumer will pay no matter what was decided.

The highlight was this:

?For example: should a ratepayer organisation be involved in any way in the financial arrangements for a visit by a US football team??

Standing alone in the article…

Caused me to do a double take too. It just sort of sits there, anchored to nothing that comes before or after. It might however be the result of some very shoddy subbing at the Herald… having had many a well-crafted argument murdered in the name of filling the exact space between one ad and another.

Of course we could tell if, having gone to the bother of writing it, they bothered adding it to the Ministerial website [NSFWL*] but clearly the government’s advisors haven’t caught up with such basic functions as yet. *rolls eyes*

*Not Safe For Weak Lefties, as it has a picture of Rodney on the page

However as this would be a lot more than they currently pay the councils, I suspect that neither the the builders or the councils would be in favour of it.