Late night Twitter

27 comments on “Late night Twitter ”

• Comments are now closed

1. karol 1

   14 December 2012 at 4:21 pm

   As a non-alcohol drinker, I have become aware of the way many work and other official social occasions are defined by the presence of alcohol.

   Some people I used to work with, were uncomfortable that I wasn’t drinking alcohol at work social events.  I came to realise that more most people, alcohol can signal a shift from work mode to relaxation and socialising mode.  And it’s indicated as such in the way the events are promoted – “After work drinks”.

   But then that raises the question as to why alcohol has become such a marker?  Conversely, socialising with illegal recreational drugs is seen by some as liberating, and others as a marker of anti-social behaviour.   The health case for and against each form of drug is intertwined with their social meanings.
   • mike 1.1

     14 December 2012 at 7:36 pm

     “The health case for and against each form of drug is intertwined with their social meanings.”
     Exactly, in fact I’d say it’s almost totally dependant. Professor David Nutt got sacked as the British Home Secretary’s chief drug advisor for pointing to evidence that LSD, ecstasy and cannabis were safer than alcohol. “The government has interfered with the scientific processes of the [drug advisory] panel for several years and it has caused significant resentment,” he said. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/02/david-nutt-alan-johnson-drugs
     Anyone who looks at the evidence can see that cannibis should at least be decriminalized (legalization is a different argument), and that there are a number of very promising medicinal properties to be examined. People who are suffering could be helped.
     No maintream political party wants to lose votes by going there, so the just trot out the same old “it’s about protecting our kids” arguments. Drug policy is a good example of how people are sheep who swallow what they are told to swallow by their ‘government’ who refelcts thier own fears, ignorance, and prejudices back at them. Me no like drugs, drugs = bad, decriminalize he says? he likes drugs, show uz yer bong then, no to drugs I say no.
     Gordon Brown:
     “”We have to take a broader view in the round that was more than just the scientific advice. It’s about the effects on young people that drugs are harmful and not acceptable.”
     He said Nutt’s “consistent disagreement” of opinion undermined the government’s message on drugs.”
     http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/03/brown-johnson-nutt-drugs?intcmp=239
2. BM 2

   14 December 2012 at 4:46 pm

   Jesus, what a complete wanker that KappuMuTheta is.
   Despise people like him, narrow minded bore.
   • higherstandard 2.1

     14 December 2012 at 5:37 pm

     Indeed the phrase ‘sanctimonious cock’ comes to mind….. and surprisingly not in relation to Peter Dunn.
     • the pigman 2.1.1

       14 December 2012 at 8:30 pm

       You are missing the point, deliberately or not. It is a sad (but ruefully humorous) day when pointing to rank hypocrisy gets cut down as “sanctimonious” and “narrow-minded”. Tall poppy syndrome is alive and well in NZ.
       • higherstandard 2.1.1.1

         15 December 2012 at 7:10 am

         How is Dunne being a hypocrite with this tweet.

         Ps I think politicians or anyone tweeting is a fucking dick.
         • Rich 2.1.1.1.1

           17 December 2012 at 2:55 pm

           I’m all for a few beers and whines and Xmas, but I think it would be better if Dunne:
           a. Didn’t confine his largesse to senior management
           b. provided coke, weed and MDMA as alternatives. The former in particular could be useful for anyone having to deal with Dunne on a regular basis, given its known bullshitogenic properties
3. Adele 3

   14 December 2012 at 5:44 pm

   BM

   I applaud KappuMuTheta for exposing the hypocrisy under which Dunne operates.

   The only person that is being a sanctimonious and narrow minded bore is Dunne himself. His vendetta against the legal high industry in this country should also be targeted towards the consumption of alcohol.

   Alcohol is a drug with known adverse affects easily evidenced by the harm it bestows on individuals, families and communities. Alcohol can bash you in the streets, on the roads, and in your own home.

   I do not support prohibition whatsoever. However, I also do not support the inequitable treatment being meted out to those that prefer another type of drug.
   • tc 3.1

     14 December 2012 at 5:52 pm

     +1 with Dunnyman it’s often all about the grandstanding to keep in the limelight.

     What do you expect from the man who’s helping Shonkey and the Hollowmen sell off NZ.

     Twitter: where ADHD/Stalking/Narcissism are passed off as ‘social networking’
4. Matthew 4

   14 December 2012 at 8:55 pm

   I had a similar exchange with Dunne on twitter & he blocked me from his account
   Despite what some people think, he really is a hypocritical asshole when it comes to alcohol & weed & his treatment of both.
5. Draco T Bastard 5

   14 December 2012 at 11:03 pm

   Scoring drugs

   Alcohol is the most harmful drug in Britain, scoring 72 out of a possible 100, far more damaging than heroin (55) or crack cocaine (54). It is the most harmful to others by a wide margin, and is ranked fourth behind heroin, crack, and methamphetamine (crystal meth) for harm to the individual. The authors point out that the model’s weightings, though based on judgment, were analysed and found to be stable as large changes would be needed to change the overall rankings.
6. infused 6

   14 December 2012 at 11:12 pm

   Drinking now if that helps.

   Tweet is retarded.
   • Matthew Whitehead 6.1

     14 December 2012 at 11:58 pm

     Which one? I just got back home from after-work drinks, and I sincerely hope you mean Dunne’s, because in term of how prevalent it is and how it’s used, alcohol is by far the most harmful drug in New Zealand. (and, as usual, Peter Dunne needs rectal head-removal surgery)
7. mike 7

   15 December 2012 at 3:07 am

   Just had a listen to a Guardian interview with Professor David Nutt who I mentioned above. If anyone is interested he discusses drugs from a rational scientific viewpoint, concluding with something I figured out for myself a while back:

   “I feel quite passionately, I hope it comes across, the way we deal with drugs is one of the great mistakes of the last century. We whole concept of prohibition, the war on drugs, the irrational polemic about drugs, I think has done a huge disservice to society.”

   He also speaks about how as chief drugs advisor his superiors were not interested in evidence that countered the status quo rhetoric of fear and hysteria around drugs, and how potentially revelatory scientific work has not happened because of irrational politics.

   We are fearful little children being lead with a safety rope down the garden path by people desperate to keep their jobs. When someone tries to wriggle free to see what might be off the path, we throw them in jail.
8. Descendant Of Sssmith 8

   15 December 2012 at 7:31 am

   The legal high shit was causing harm to people so some wanker could make millions of dollars in profit. Let’s not try and pretend it was some social good.

   We don”t need more products disturbing the minds of vulnerable people and disturbing their minds it was.

   That being said we should not be throwing people in jail for personal cannabis use even though it is harmful to some people any more than we should throweople in jail for smoking cigarettes.
   • Twonice 8.1

     15 December 2012 at 10:27 am

     Prohibition of drugs in the first case is what made the market for legal highs viable and all the bad press that legal drugs recieve only serves to make it even more lucrative to sell unknown, untested research chemicals. The problem is not the legal highs it is the illegal ones being still illegal and no government having the sack to challenge the legitimacy of the international war on ‘drugs’
   • Matthew Whitehead 8.2

     15 December 2012 at 11:06 am

     Yes, commercialisation of drugs is also bad, but it’s not as bad as criminal commercialisation. (or “dealing”, if you prefer)
     There’s a number of ways to make legal drugs even safer than when they were prohibited. For instance, we can trust the scientific evidence on how drugs should be used, which drugs are reasonably safe for consumption, and have a rational drug policy that focuses on safety for those who choose to use recreational drugs. I would rather know that a few more people are using drugs safely with knowledge of the side-effects and how to go about using them, than have less people use black-market drugs that have no safety checks, (and so could be cut with practically anything, making them more dangerous) with an intimidation barrier to seeking medical help for complications or addiction, and with highly inflated cost.
     In comparison to the black market, the legal high industry is like having a pretty-pink bubble bath.
     That’s not to say commercialisation is an ideal solution, (I’d much rather we had amateurs held to the same safety standard making drugs to use themselves or give out for free) but I think it is the only one that’s likely to result in the necessary pressure on Parliament to reform drug laws.
     • Twonice 8.2.1

       15 December 2012 at 2:49 pm

       Commercialisation of drugs = Alcohol and tobacco sales for ages, even modern pharmaceuticals being designed with the focus being on treatment/dependence instead of cure/independence while marijuana based products could likely replace most of the rubbish that pharmac shores up. Legal drugs have propensity to be far more dangerous than the illegal ones, at least I can go to a library and find at least a handful of books with factually based information on LSD, Heroin, MDMA. These drugs are historically well documented in terms of their effects on human physiology in long term, the same cannot be said for 4MEC, MDPV, PMA, plus a myrad of mystery chemicals which have only been used in recreational drug in recent decades. Kids straight out of high school play russian roulette popping ‘ecstasy’ pills and the only information they’re given in school is outdated or disputable. Dealers are always going to make assurances but unless they’re big fish they don’t even know what it is they’re selling, but it sells. Prohibition has never worked, my uncle was a slygrogger in the 1930’s, it only serves to empower political types grandstanding with their bullshit, the likes of Peter Dunne, while endangering those among us who embrace their individual sovereignty and the right to do what one would like in respect to ones own body and mind.
       • Matthew Whitehead 8.2.1.1

         15 December 2012 at 4:09 pm

         That is why I said we should have a drug policy based around the science of how drugs are used and how that compares with safe usage. Of course that includes alcohol and tobacco, which overall are the biggest causers of harm in our current society.
         That’s not caused by their legal status, it’s caused by the lack of effective regulation now that they are legal. Few advocates of legalisation of recreational drugs want them to be unmonitored and unregulated. (and most of those few are hardcore libertarians who think nothing should be regulated…)
9. Descendant Of Sssmith 9

   15 December 2012 at 7:34 am

   Ps hope Dunne paid for those drinks out of his own pocket. I thought public servants were not allowed to spend money on alcohol.
   • Frank Macskasy 9.1

     15 December 2012 at 8:43 am

     @ Sssmith; indeed.

     Especially when the Minister of Health is denying life-saving medication for those who need it… https://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/terminal-disease-sufferer-appeals-to-john-key-update-more-questions/

     These booze-ups don’t come cheap, in case anyone thinks it’s only a few thousand taxdollars involved; http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/7550010/Govt-spent-500-000-on-boozy-functions?

     At a time when Dear Leader sez we are “fiscally constrained”, wasting money on piss ups seems an odd way to shown “prudent fiscal responsibility”.
10. ropata 10

    15 December 2012 at 10:29 am

    HSBC gets slapped with a wet bus ticket for laundering drug money. No bankers go to jail.
    Ordinary citizens routinely jailed and lives detroyed for possessing drugs.

    Apparently the law doesn’t apply to the rich and powerful
    • Fortran 10.1

      15 December 2012 at 1:03 pm

      ropata

      I think you will find that all the top executives responsible for the money laundering, of HKSB USA got fired, from CEO, CFO down.
      They will have very great difficulty in getting another job, as they are well known, being publically outed.
      • mike 10.1.1

        15 December 2012 at 3:17 pm

        I think you will find that Ropata was talking about these people not going to jail for such serious crimes.

        Of course they got fired, the companies has to cough up some scapegoats. Trouble getting another job? Poor old CEOs, I guess they will just have to be happy with the millions they’ve accumulated.
11. Tiresias 11

    15 December 2012 at 11:47 am

    I’ve no doubt that 20-years ago Dunne would also have made cigarettes, filtered and unfiltered, available to his ‘guests’ in pleasing little displays amid the canapes and thought nothing of most of them puffing away in corners to add to the haze of blue smoke hanging under the ceiling – and had anyone complained of his not only making cancer-causing agents freely available but inflicting it on non-smokers would have accused them of drivel and sanctimoneous humbug.

    Dunne doesn’t have an original thought in his head nor a shred of conviction about anything in his body. He’s the ultimate political prostitute, willing to be anything to anyone and totally inert with regard to anything that his master-of-the-moment hasn’t given him a script for.

    Mind you, I’ve always considered Twitter is for twits, and avoid it like a plague.
12. djp 12

    15 December 2012 at 2:38 pm

    nailed him. hypocritical, meddling sad excuse for a hair piece
13. Roy 13

    16 December 2012 at 1:03 pm

    In terms of the number of people it kills and injures, directly or indirectly, throughout the world each year, ethanol is arguably the biggest poison problem the human race has. There are those who say it comes second to nicotine, but of course nicotine is not the principal toxic or carcinogenic element in cigarettes, although it is the principal addictive element. KappaMuTheta has his/her science correct, whatever you may think of his/her delivery.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS