Gutless backdown will cost money and lives

63 comments on “Gutless backdown will cost money and lives ”

• Comments are now closed

1. tsmithfield 1

   27 July 2010 at 9:49 am

   According to Guyan Espinar this morning on “Breakfast” Labour also balked at reducing the general blood alcohol limit. Probably for similar reasons.
   • comedy 1.1

     27 July 2010 at 9:59 am

     “Labour also balked at reducing the general blood alcohol limit. Probably for similar reasons.”

     I don’t think ‘they are fuckwits too nah ne nah ne nah’ is very helpful.
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 1.2

     27 July 2010 at 12:57 pm

     Fairly safe to say given they were in for nine years and did nothing as well. Its pretty damning of our polticians that they won’t put their own interests ahead of public safety.
     • prism 1.2.1

       27 July 2010 at 1:16 pm

       ZB I think I know what you mean or are you being ironic?
       “It’s pretty damning of our politicians that they won’t put their own interests ahead of public safety.”
       Oh if only that were true!
   • the pinkpostman 1.3

     27 July 2010 at 3:34 pm

     I will be the first to admitt that the Labour Party failed to adress the drink drive problem. However it shows which way Espinar thinks when he has to point out that Labour did not lower the limit .
     What has that got to do with situation now.
   • the pinkpostman 1.4

     27 July 2010 at 3:45 pm

     Well it proves that Espinar means to defend National and to denigrate Labour whatever the debate. I would agree that Labour did not limit the alcohol limit but that is in the past . The overwhelming evidence is that drinking and driving kills!
     The answer is zero alcohol for drivers. Is it too much to ask for there to be a non drinker in a group party people . Sweden has zero limit and its common for the host of a party to ask who is the driver and then supply them with non-alcoholic drinks.
2. prism 2

   27 July 2010 at 9:57 am

   And anyway, what’s with National’s sudden fetish for evidence-based law-making: double bunking, anyone? National standards? 90-day legislation? Truth is, Steven Joyce knows that if the drink driving net is widened, lots more people will find themselves in court. Some of those people will look a bit like him. And that won’t win him, or his Party, votes.
   Good point. Joyce found no joy for him when trawling through the suggestions to make a practical difference to the drinking and driving habits of NZs. The excess of alcohol that spoils lives with a loss of future achievement of that individual. Then there is the disaster on the roads and heightened police presence and surveillance of us all.

   So Joyce has picked out something to do so it appears that he is willing to tackle the problem whereas he is shelving it for later. Gutless Joyce and NACT – lazy useless politicians picking their favourite flavours from the chocolate box – leaving the ones not to their taste. Labour didn’t do anything about it, NACT was going to be so much better. Right!

   And now we find that for yonks a great number of recidivist drivers have received no assessment, assistance and retraining etc. before they had their licences handed back. What a pathetic country we are – she’ll be right, don’t fuss, can’t have a nanny state (that is an organised community setting reasonable standards on behaviour). We either don’t bother with laws and training for competence and understanding, or we bring in stupid arbitrary ones as in Auckland and fining people who don’t cross a bus lane at the exact (I believe, unmarked) dot on the road.
   • comedy 2.1

     27 July 2010 at 10:02 am

     It is undeniable that the pollies are fuckwits
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 2.2

     27 July 2010 at 1:27 pm

     Same with Collins and gun control. They’ll legislate knives, gang patches and noisy boy racers out of existence (well in theory) but when it comes to stopping unimportant stuff like fire arms they pander to the masses.
3. jcuknz 3

   27 July 2010 at 10:06 am

   The more rules you have the tougher they have to be because there are fewer lives to save?
   It is no laws that make a society a safe sane place but self discipline of its members. Perhaps and I guess most likely alchoholism is a sickness and simply connot be controlled by more laws.
   The proposed law changes seem most sensible to me but then I am a relatively sane sensible person rather than a political animal trying to make hay out of nothing.
4. tsmithfield 4

   27 July 2010 at 10:08 am

   This is the problem with democracy. Politicians make policies to get them voted in next time rather than what is actually the best. What we really need is a beneficial dictatorship. 🙂
   • Richard 4.1

     27 July 2010 at 10:22 am

     What we need is a competent media to clearly communicate and critic the effects of government policies. And an educated, informed population that pays attention.
     • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1

       27 July 2010 at 12:43 pm

       Exactly and we haven’t had one of those since the 1980s when the MSM in this country followed the US ideal for news – infotainment. It tells you nothing and makes you happy to hear it.
       • E. Campbell 4.1.1.1

         27 July 2010 at 3:35 pm

         Indeed, a questioning and critical media is now largely absent from New Zealand’s political discourse. A thorough examination of this decision, or rather lack of a decision, would be nice but we’re sadly probably not going to get it from the MSM.
   • Craig Glen Eden 4.2

     27 July 2010 at 12:46 pm

     I am available to fill this role on Fridays I might need a little assistance on the other days of the week.

     PS I don’t need a credit card nor do my assistants.

     PPS mind you I am very important now so maybe the odd sandwhich and flowers on the tax payer aye.

     PPPS I come from a average middle class background I am educated and I am very aspirational.
5. Andrew 5

   27 July 2010 at 10:24 am

   i would like to how many people have been killed, or have serious accidents with a blood alcohol level between 50 and 80mg / 100ml, and if dropping the limit from 80 to 50mg would actually make much of a difference or would just end up with loads more people being prosecuted for no real gain.

   i would have thought that targeting those that were 2, 3, or even 4 times the limit would be a better use of resources, as those are the drivers that are ticking time bombs.
   • Lanthanide 5.1

     27 July 2010 at 10:38 am

     The person on NatRad this morning said that reducing it to 50mg/100ml would save 15-33 lives per year, 200-300 injuries and $100m in social harm.

     The AA spokesperson said that when you’re double the legal limit you are 200 times more likely to crash, and it is those people that they should be going after.
     • felix 5.1.1

       27 July 2010 at 10:45 am

       The AA spokesperson you say?
       • uroskin 5.1.1.1

         27 July 2010 at 2:40 pm

         When AA meets AA a collision is inevitable?
   • jbanks 5.2

     27 July 2010 at 10:56 am

     Evidence based policy is overrated around here. It’s all about the emotive headlines.
   • Puddleglum 5.3

     27 July 2010 at 10:15 pm

     “i would like to how many people have been killed, or have serious accidents with a blood alcohol level between 50 and 80mg / 100ml, and if dropping the limit from 80 to 50mg would actually make much of a difference or would just end up with loads more people being prosecuted for no real gain”

     Andrew, I’m not sure there’s much merit in trying to split hairs the way Joyce appears to be suggesting. It would make as much sense to say we should research how many accidents are ’caused’ by the difference between 80 and 100mg with an aim to increasing it if that 20mg proved to have an insignificant or very minor effect. The fact is, this isn’t about the research, it’s about the politics.

     Also, have a look at your sentence above, Andrew, and instead of thinking about road accidents think about the same blood alcohol limit applied to any occupation: airline pilots, checkout operators, forklift drivers, assembly line workers, nurses, doctors, teachers, lawyers in court, etc.. Are you happy for anyone in those occupations to be performing them, habitually, with 80 mg levels of alcohol?

     There probably hasn’t been any New Zealand specific research showing the effects of 80 mg in such settings. Does that therefore mean – and it’s really a question for Joyce – that we should allow those blood alcohol levels in all occupations and perhaps make it illegal for employers to enforce or require ‘no alcohol’ (in terms of blood alcohol levels) in workplace settings on health and safety grounds? After all, on Joyce’s logic it would be an irrational prejudice without evidence to support it and so, presumably, employers would have to wait for a couple of years before the New Zealand specific research was done for their particular kind of workplace before enforcing any type of ban on employees’ blood alcohol levels.

     It’s only because it’s personal driving behaviour that we’re talking about that there’s this curious debate about how much alcohol should be allowed. Yet cars are just as risky as any of the work environments I’ve mentioned – in fact usually much riskier.

     We know everything we need to know about the effects of alcohol on the nervous system. It’s an anaesthetic (euphemistically called a ‘relaxant’). It progressively shuts down more and more of the nervous system right from the ‘get go’. The social relaxation/disinhibition – which is one of the main reasons people give for drinking – is one of the first signs of its effect. It’s related to a more ‘carefree’ attitude to risk (e.g., the ‘risk’ of speaking socially). Loss of our automatic motor control (controlled by the cerebellum) deteriorates just as fast, which is why the old tests of touching your nose with your finger or walking a straight line were used before the bag. Why would we want anyone driving whose nervous system and behaviour is being modified because of a freely chosen behaviour?

     It’s probably impossible to eliminate all contributors to driving risks. But those we can disallow should be disallowed (remember, we’re not talking about banning alcohol in society).

     In the bigger picture, this is just another social pathology that results from the way we organise ourselves. How many of us live within walking distance of our work, our friends, places where people gather for socialising? More and more we have to drive. Why? It didn’t used to be like that. My home town in England still (just) has pubs within easy reach of everyone (by foot) – though pubs are closing down at a great rate even in England with fewer, bigger outlets further from people. I don’t want to harp on, but all roads lead back to the same old rotten Rome, I’m afraid.
6. prism 6

   27 July 2010 at 10:24 am

   For goodness sake we wouldn’t have laws and rules if they weren’t needed because in their absence the self-centred and powerful will dominate others and society becomes chaotic. Personal discipline cannot be relied on completely as you mention jcuknz.

   Laws made to prohibit and force behaviour or denial, that constantly impede us in petty or large ways and that are not accepted by the general population are the ones that become an imposition. Even then sometimes the greater good must prevail. (So I have to give up my wood burner for the sake of cleaner air and climate change, for a more expensive better one if I’m lucky, or have an expensive electric heat exchange that sucks up money along with the air.)
7. randal 7

   27 July 2010 at 10:45 am

   the gubmint is backing down on everything.
   what we have now is gubmint lite.
   as hooton pointed out yesterday on 9-noon ,the gubmint is being run by a pack of juveniles out of kweewee’s office and they haven’t really got a clue about anything.
8. Herodotus 8

   27 July 2010 at 10:47 am

   What is stoppiong some so called community minded polly from placing a private members bill. We have them for abortion changes, S59.”Truth is, Steven Joyce knows that if the drink driving net is widened, lots more people will find themselves in court. Some of those people will look a bit like him. And that won’t win him, or his Party, votes” would not the same be applied to any party (except The Greens). So if that is the case perhaps a better question should be “When is it acceptable to promote and pass laws that upset the voting public at large” We already have had Nanny State, now we are getting in every increasing frequency something similar associated with Nat.
   Or is there some other reason for this posting say attack Nat irrespective of how the MP’s on the left feel.
   This site is for me progressively trending away from what matters to the left to blind support towards Lab. The 2 are not totally compatible, and all this will do is present a weakened Lab and a greater weakening of the Left as the two become ever increasingly associated by many as beingthe same.
   “There seems to be no good reason not to lower the breath-alcohol level,” I thought you answered this, because of the political damage, otherwise get some private members bill that Lab endorses by wipping the crew of Mp’s, thus displaying where Lab stand in solidarity!!
9. Clarke 9

   27 July 2010 at 11:02 am

   Translation of the National government’s policy statements on drink driving into English

   There will be no tolerance for drivers under 20, who will have a zero alcohol limit
   Translation: We have proven research that people under 20 do not vote, so it’s an obvious political win to give the kids a kicking – again. This policy will also result in additional support for National from the knee-jerk rednecks who constitute our rural support base, who regard the yoof as an existential threat to their way of life. We have concluded that there is no political downside to putting the boot in.

   More research is needed before the adult limit is reduced to 0.05
   Translation: Our current research indicates that state of the National Party’s coffers may be adversely affected by a policy that results in people drinking less, as the alcohol merchants will contribute fewer funds for the next election. In addition, a lower drink-drive limit may adversely affect the profitability of the Rugby World Cup for the hospitality sector, which will potentially have a negative impact on their donations to our party. We regard the additional deaths and injuries that will result from this policy a satisfactory social price to pay for our re-election – from a political standpoint, these are an acceptable level of casualties.

   Sentences for deaths and injuries caused by drink drivers will be increased
   Translation: Research indicates that our imprisonment rate is only the second highest in the western world, and our aspirations are larger than that. This policy will further increase the number of people in jail – a stated aim of this government – and will contribute to a higher level of profitability for the private prison sector. We think there are possible flow-on benefits that may result from prison companies making higher contributions to our funds for next year’s election.
   • prism 9.1

     27 July 2010 at 12:27 pm

     Very funny and I fear right Clarke, and I think we should fear the right, what next??
   • Dan 9.2

     27 July 2010 at 9:10 pm

     Right on the button!
10. Bill 10

    27 July 2010 at 11:03 am

    Not defending drink driving in any way, shape or form. But drink driving is symptomatic of larger problems.

    Not so long ago it was possible and normal for people to transport themselves to pubs, or wherever, and back without the use of cars.

    But with the car came ever increasing distances between people and utilities alongside fewer and fewer public transport options. (The supermarket is usually a drive away as opposed to the short walk away that the local shops used to be. And there will often not be a bus option.)

    Meanwhile, as greater distance has become the norm, local facilities and activities have shut down. Including, but not limited to pubs.

    So we live in a social culture that to a large extent and for better or worse, revolves around alcohol consumption and yet our access to alcohol (and so, to some degree, society) has become increasingly problematic.

    Where I lived, it used to be common to walk for up to an hour or even more to get to the pub and walk the same distance back home. (Taxis were a very rarely used option) Not any more. We are convinced the streets are unsafe…and they kind of are because we don’t populate them any more. And our sense of normality has shifted so that anybody walking for an hour to meet up at the pub would we considered a peculiar individual.

    So I wonder if we are destined to shut ourselves behind the walls of our total entertainment centre homes and contribute even more to the break down of our society?
    • js 10.1

      27 July 2010 at 11:14 am

      This is where the “wowsers” arguments come from.

      “Someone is stopping me getting to a beer easily, so instead of getting off my fat, lazy, surround-sound ass, it is they who are wowsers trying to reduce my quality of life.”
11. js 11

    27 July 2010 at 11:10 am

    One thing is certain: When pushed, Kiwis will risk death, theirs or someone else, in exchange for being able to drive home after a couple of beers. Someone mentioned juveniles.
12. randal 12

    27 July 2010 at 11:18 am

    right on bill.
    you got it in one but what matters most is how much money you spend and if it goes to the justice industry then so be it.
13. Bill 13

    27 July 2010 at 11:19 am

    How many glasses of wine translates to 80mg/100ml and how many to 50mg/100ml and what impact would the difference make to the sales and profit margins of the wine industry?

    Any figures on how many glasses of wine are sold at on-licences…particularly restaurants?

    Would those sales be roughly cut in half with an approximate halving of alcohol/blood levels?

    Hmm, I take it that Johnny Boy took absolutely nothing to do with this cabinet decision given his interest in (forgetitsname) winery and the potential big hit on its profit margins were blood/alcohol levels to be reduced?
14. aj 14

    27 July 2010 at 12:16 pm

    Look for Key to get shares in Taxi Companys. It will mean he’s about to reduce the limit to zero
15. Pat 15

    27 July 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Think how many lives could have been saved:

    “Lower drink-drive limits abandoned
    Published: 6:31PM Tuesday December 16, 2003”

    “An attempt to lower legal blood alcohol levels for drivers and introduce hidden speed cameras has been abandoned after Transport Minister Paul Swain failed to get enough support for the move.

    Swain had hoped to cut the legal blood alcohol level from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood – a move that he claimed would save 14 lives each year.

    But on Tuesday, facing opposition from cabinet colleagues and the public, he admitted defeat.

    “It is clear from work that’s been done, that there is not widespread support in the community for this measure,” Swain said.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/content/243441/423466/article.html
16. Rex Widerstrom 16

    27 July 2010 at 1:57 pm

    Because drink driving is the common man’s crime one that, among well-to-do middle class people, looms larger than most other criminal offences. This is why Steven Joyce has decided to stall legislative change

    As opposed to doing 10km/h an hour over the limit? I know anecdotes don’t equal evidence but the vast majority of the people I speak to on law ‘n’ order issues (more than most people, I suspect) fume and rail against petty speed enforcement and have been caught by it themselves. They have not, however, driven drunk and support efforts to reduce it.

    I suggest that if you asked any group of people gathered anywhere but around the table of some “road safety” lobby group you’d get a similar response.

    So if it’s all driven by a fear of offending the “common man” can we expect an order to go out to the plods to set the margins on their speed cameras to a reasonable level, and to hand out warnings on the first one or two occasions rather than reflexively reaching for the ticket book?

    Because if we can, bloody good job, I say.
    • felix 16.1

      27 July 2010 at 5:57 pm

      I’d like to see the plods set the margins on their cameras to sensible levels too.

      I propose 50kmph around town and 100kmph on the open road in accordance with the speed limit.
      • Mac1 16.1.1

        27 July 2010 at 6:39 pm

        Amen, Felix. The limit is the limit. I have students who come into my classes and ask when they are late. They of course are wanting to know when the guillotine descends. I tell ’em. The bell is the bell. After that you’re late. Few are late. They just want to know where the boundaries actually lie..

        Speeders are the same. Tell ’em the limit is the limit. It’s not hard to fathom.

        I think de facto speed limits set by speed cameras are stupid. And they deny basic human instincts to push the boundaries. “But I was just over…..”
      • Draco T Bastard 16.1.2

        27 July 2010 at 6:53 pm

        Actually, the reason the cameras aren’t set to that already is because of limits on the devices. They’re not 100% accurate. Back when the +10km/h was set they were considered to be accurate to +- 7km/h. I assume that they’ve gotten better since which is the real driver for dropping the margin from 10km/h to 5km/h.

        Average car speedometers have also improved as the older vehicles disappear from the roads.
        • Mac1 16.1.2.1

          27 July 2010 at 7:02 pm

          Thanks, Draco, for the explanation. Could a speedometer be checked and even recalibrated in the WOF process for a more accurate reading, I wonder?
          • jcuknz 16.1.2.1.1

            27 July 2010 at 8:58 pm

            Oh NO not another ‘little’ thing added to the WOF test. Actually I know that my speedo is reading slightly under becuase of the trailer speed cameras which read back at 48k when my speedo reads 50k. Only problem is will it be similar at 100k? Is that a sufficiently good excuse? 🙂 My bathroom scales are set at 11kg to read the same weight as my doctor’s scales at 90kg. I think only specialised garages have speedo testing gear, I’ve see it on TV but not at any garage I’ve frequented.
            When I was in Colorado a few years back I found they didn’t have WOF tests like us but rather emmission testing, for cars built after 1992. For once I thought they had their priorities right.
            I had to take the car to a building much like testing stations here and they put fans up against the radiator to avoid over heating as they ran the engine and we the public where confined to a waiting room. They thought that cars built pre-1992 were too few and too far gone to bother about.
        • Armchair Critic 16.1.2.2

          27 July 2010 at 7:37 pm

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedometer#Error
          There will always be some error. GPS provides a good second opinion and by staying below the posted limits on both the car speedo and the GPS I’ve been pretty successful at avoiding a third opinion from the law.
          • Herodotus 16.1.2.2.1

            27 July 2010 at 7:58 pm

            When towing on the open road the speed limit is 90km (light & heavy vehicle) the current form of policing does not recogise theis in operation, as speed cameras do not differentiate the vehicle approaching if it is towing or not. So we see in practice another example of the transport industry “getting away” without complying to the rules. Many truck and trailer units I have had difficulty in keeping up with them in my Toyota copy of a Ferrari just over the 100km mark on the Desert Rd. S is there a rule for them and another for us?
            http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadcode/about-limits/speed-limits.html
            • jcuknz 16.1.2.2.1.1

              27 July 2010 at 9:05 pm

              Once I overtook a articulated petrol tanker, obviously returning empty to base, and had a real problem getting past. Now I might pass them when there are two lanes going up a hill but really they have far more grunt than what I have and I ease over so they can overtake me when they catch up with me again.
      • burt 16.1.3

        27 July 2010 at 9:37 pm

        felix

        Why not just ticket directly from the vehicle management system once every second for every second over the limit? Hell man you want draconian and you are relying on a physically limited number of sampling points, off ya game toning, have you been drinking?
        • loota 16.1.3.1

          27 July 2010 at 9:50 pm

          I’m pretty sure every city council in NZ will be rolling out computer recognition parking meter systems, where your movements and number plate is automatically recorded, if you stay in a P30 one minute over time an automated fine will be issued against your registration (no more parking wardens on mopeds needed), if you stay in a metered spot and your time runs out by more than a minute, an automated fine will be issued against your registration…and of course Council staffers will be able to record and track your movements around the city centre any time of day or night.

          Fun and games.
        • felix 16.1.3.2

          28 July 2010 at 1:37 am

          Gidday burt,

          If that’s possible, then why not? I’m so sick of people complaining that they get ticketed for being “just a few ks over” which usually turns out to be a few ks over 110.

          Call me old fashioned but 100k is not supposed to be an average, or a target, or a guideline. You shouldn’t be driving at 100k, you should always be under 100k.
17. tc 17

    27 July 2010 at 2:31 pm

    I find it intruiging that this NACT gov’t always grasps at opportunities to get tough on crime, road issues (banning phones) and other areas like welfare, industrial relations etc etc

    But issues around alchohol, be it raising excise or in this case discouraging consumption are pushed back, against all international evidence, as ‘needing further research’.

    Methinks that further research involves evaluating the impact on their investments and their backers agendas…….sod the great unwashed we may upset our backers appears a better motive.

    Love that selective choice of issues that require ‘more debate’…..mining/ACC/3 strikes etc didn’t need it did they to name a few. Joyce’s just the bloke to front this sham he loves it.
18. Reality Check 18

    27 July 2010 at 4:11 pm

    “So, National has failed to act on drink driving.”

    And in 8 years in government Labour did what to reduce the drink driving? a lot LESS then what national is doing.

    Before we go claiming that the Nats have failed, lets look in our own camp and see where we failed?
    • jbanks 18.1

      27 July 2010 at 4:32 pm

      “It’s a bit rich for a government…that didn’t even bother commissioning the report, to be arguing we should be doing something.”
19. Sarge 19

    27 July 2010 at 6:26 pm

    I’ve got a good question. Can anyone tell me the number of crashes caused annually by drivers with a BAC between 0.5 and 0.8, ie. is there any evidence that this law will make the blindest bit of difference?? Cause I don’t know about you, but I like to base law making on facts and figures.
    • lprent 19.1

      27 July 2010 at 6:53 pm

      At present the police don’t collect that data. In fact they’re prohibited by law from acquiring it. The only good aspect of this proposed legislation is that they will start collecting that data now.

      However there is quite a lot of clinical evidence from both here and overseas that shows peoples reaction times decreasing with almost any amount of alcohol in their system. Almost any other factors (like tiredness, age etc) that also slow reaction times are accentuated by almost any amount of booze in their systems.

      In the countries where the permissible BAC has been lowered, there have also been drops in crashes, and particularly in fatal crashes.

      Seems like a bit of a no-brainer to me (and I haven’t been drinking)….
      • Herodotus 19.1.1

        27 July 2010 at 7:32 pm

        “In the countries where the permissible BAC has been lowered, there have also been drops in crashes, and particularly in fatal crashes.” IPRENT could this also be part attributable to the efforts car makers have made in protecting the driver and passangers, e.g.seatbelts from the 1980’s, side intrusion bars, air bags and the increased effort and skill in our medical field, the magic hour, helicopters and all that. As we all know the same stats can support both sides of an arguement !!!!
        What gets me is some of the underlying stats 1% of our pop get convicted from drink offense. Also wonder what the nos are of 2,3,4,5 … times people receive convictions. We cannot even cope with the 80 level, policing and the court system. What additional costs and resources are required to adequately police the current law?
      • jcuknz 19.1.2

        27 July 2010 at 9:21 pm

        I was interested to hear the Aussie AA man on NatRad tonight, where some are agitating for the 5 be reduced to 2, being pretty non-commital over the benefits of reducing 8>5. I guess it depends on what you believe and what you read.
        The other comment I read was that many of us who are careful to make sure we don’t go over the 8 limit would be under the 5 if it was adopted. It is just the uncertainty of this that makes me against any change.
        The uncertainty as I mix a Gin and It by eye, how much wine and how much gin, topped up with tonic to make a long drink … sorry I don’t want to risk my licence. Even though I know it usually has less effect on me than a stubbie. I know that’s personal and not scientific but its how I feel.
20. coolas 20

    27 July 2010 at 8:03 pm

    Close Up poll tonight had 68% of 17.000 supporting reduction

    U turn by lunchtime?
    • Bill 20.1

      27 July 2010 at 8:44 pm

      Yes, a U-Turn.

      Except it ain’t really a U-Turn. It’s just a bullshit game of manufactured perceptions.

      We know they wanted to mine. They tried to sell non-mining (at least on S4) back to us as them being responsive to our concerns….a pragmatic, caring and listening government.

      We know they are in bed with (or are the bed of) the alcohol industry. And they know they have no option but to lower limits. But first they don’t….. and then they do….because they listened (apparently).

      So you see how they propose impossible bad shit but back down (apparently) due to popular demand? And you see how that makes them responsive…a listening government to someone who isn’t paying close attention?

      And you see how that gives them a punt at a second term which gives the mandate to roll?

      Cunning little…
    • jcuknz 20.2

      27 July 2010 at 9:25 pm

      Obviously the workers are overpaid, wasting their money on Television polls, and will moan when the bill arives at the end of the month.
    • jbanks 20.3

      28 July 2010 at 9:52 am

      So a ‘close up poll’ is a legitimate alternative to research as a means to justify a policy change?

      You’re doing it wrong.
21. Bill 21

    27 July 2010 at 9:29 pm

    What’s the limit for dak?

    Or methadone…which many people drive to the chemist to get and consume…. and drive back home or to work on?

    Or speed?

    Or coke?

    Or whatever other drug?

    Any legality/illegality argument cannot hold water when methadone is taken into consideration.

    And tendency of drug to incapacitate would seem unsustainable given that alcohol is one of the most irredeemably incapacitating drugs around…maybe with the exception of some downers.
22. Rharn 22

    27 July 2010 at 10:49 pm

    Key’s back down is nothing more than a sop to the liquor industry. The two year gap for bringing the public ‘along’ has more to do with allowing the industry to restructure the price of liquor so as to minimise the loss in profit that the reforms will cause to the bottomline.
    • jcuknz 22.1

      28 July 2010 at 8:07 am

      Yeah! Go the conspiracy theorists!
      • Tigger 22.1.1

        28 July 2010 at 9:18 am

        Willing to put money on the fact that the liquor industry is not driving National policy? I’ve got $100 that says they are…
    • jbanks 22.2

      28 July 2010 at 9:55 am

      Clearly Lizard-People are running the country.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 26 July 2010 at 9:31 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS