Open mike 30/12/2014

Written By: - Date published: 7:45 am, December 30th, 2014 - 223 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeThe Authors of the Standard are now in holiday mode. Posting will be less regular and dependant on individual author enthusiasm. Open mike will continue every day and prepare yourself for some year in review posts and some recycling of old stuff. And as R0b has said be nice to each other.

Open mike is your post.

The Standard is not a conspiracy – just a welcome outlet for the expression of views. Leaders that command respect will not be undermined by this.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

223 comments on “Open mike 30/12/2014”

  1. North 1

    What a lovely…….garden. Jokes aside…….Best Wishes to them !http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11380118

  2. Pete George 2

    In his latest column (emailed and printed in ODT)) Colin James writes of “the 2015 challenge” – how do we deal with “inequalities of wealth, income and opportunity”?

    We drag with us into 2015 a quarter-century of now-ingrained wide inequalities of wealth, income and opportunity, which divide and undermine us and debilitate our economy.

    In the 1890s, as Tom Brooking’s compendious new biography of Dick Seddon expounds, just such a division was fazing dreams of a new, freer society.

    Seddon, William Pember Reeves and Jock McKenzie sanded off the patrician patina shipped in from Britain. New Zealanders (except Maori and Chinese, one must note) were to have a fair go to make the best of themselves.

    That held for 90 years till the mid-1980s. Now many kids don’t get a fair go and we all lose.

    Seddon and Co’s fair-go drive demonstrated that a small, open society can more flexibly imagine ways of doing things than a big, established one.

    That is the 2015 challenge.

    Rapid technological change is recasting production, value chains and sales channels, redefining education and ways of keeping and restoring health, sowing and vacuuming information, connecting people and things and destroying privacy.

    That revolution plus global economic and political disorder have torn up political-economy texts.

    The next texts will mostly be written elsewhere. But New Zealand has shown itself — in the 1890s, 1930s and 1980s — to be a place where new ideas can be tested in practice and enhanced. We can be flexible, open and quick-acting. We can innovate, as in our bicultural accommodation. And we have some fine minds.

    Standing upright, we could make this a place the compilers of the new texts come to for a sparky idea or two.

    That is one of many opportunities a disordered world opens for us in this safe, spacious, well-endowed place.

    Can we in New Zealand be “flexible, open and quick-acting” in addressing inequalities of wealth, income and opportunity”?

    Is this best done by dragging the top down, lifting the bottom, or a mix of both?

    I think raising the bottom to keep up with the rest would be the best point of focus but it’s not easy, nor cheap.

    But it may be more expensive in the long run not to.

    • North 2.1

      Trademark measured Colin James. Rarely if ever in my recollection seduced (as are the many Cafe Society mugs we call commentators) into gushingly screeding-up ‘the story about the story’……..the latest doings at The Temple Of TheGodKey and other cheap shit.

      • tc 2.1.1

        Trademark PG, someone elses material, more questions posed whilst taking no position so he can then wibble with others who take his bait.

        raising the bottom eh petey…..sigh.

        • John Shears 2.1.1.1

          Did you actually read the article?

        • Pete George 2.1.1.2

          Don’t be pathetic tc. Posts frequently use “someone elses material” to raise points of discussion. And it’s pretty normal to “take bait” and discuss it. And you’re wrong, I did indicate a position.

          Maybe you should look at who’s dredging the bottom tc.

          • batweka 2.1.1.2.1

            Yes, your position is that fixing poverty is hard to do, but we should do it for economical reasons.

            🙄

            • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.2.1.1

              Fixing poverty is really easy of course and can be done in approx 18-24 months. A UBI, a youth jobs guarantee, public works projects and raising the minimum wage would all do it.

              A capital and land tax, FTT, cheap public housing (including co-operative housing) drawing people and businesses out of the main centres, as well as a 49% income tax rate on everything over 10x the median wage, completes the package.

              • batweka

                yep. But you have all those muddle NZers like PG to convince 😉 Or maybe just the ones in the Labour party.

              • Skinny

                Spot on CV! Of course these practical solutions you propose would send Pete spinning out of his comfort zone.

              • Lanthanide

                I think a UBI would take 4 years from conception to implementation, not 18-24 months (especially with all those other things going on at the same time).

                • Draco T Bastard

                  1. Shift all present beneficiaries onto the UBI. WINZ already have all their details so that would take a week
                  2. Shift everyone else onto it over the course of a year

                  • TheContrarian

                    So the policy wonks going over it, the bills being drafted, debated, the select committee submission, the voting and implementation is only going to take a week?

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      If you say so but I didn’t mention the time line for that.

                    • TheContrarian

                      Well given you responded to Lanth I figured you were responding directly to Lanth’s suggestion it would take 4 years with:
                      “Na, a week to a year”.

                      Were you not responding to Lanth?

                    • Lanthanide

                      @ TC – yip, all you have to do is snap your fingers and magically all the computers systems do exactly what you want without errors…

                      The Big Kahuna as proposed by Gareth Morgan is much more than just paying benefits; it’s a complete restructure of the taxation system to include land taxes. I think even 4 years is being pretty ambitious.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      We already have a UBI, for the 65 plus age group. It’s called NZ Super.

                      So it’s not like we haven’t already done this before.

              • Pete George

                CV

                a) It’s very unlikely to work anywhere near that easily.

                b) There would be a high risk of stuffing the economy and clocking up huge debt.

                Have you costed it out, even approximately?

                Where else in the world has anything like this been done successfully?

                c) There is not sign of any political will for this to happen. Why do you think Green support has hit a Green ceiling and Mana are out of Parliament?

                • Draco T Bastard

                  Where else in the world has anything like this been done successfully?

                  Typical RWNJ line when trying something new is suggested. But, just for you (which has been linked to for you before) we have Mincome. Indications are that it was highly successful.

                  There is not sign of any political will for this to happen.

                  Except for the Greens, the Alliance, Mana, IP, Andrew Little…

                • Sacha

                  “There would be a high risk of stuffing the economy and clocking up huge debt” – citation needed.

                  • David H

                    Hang on Sacha. Isn’t there already high debt, and a stuffed Economy? So as usual PG has his tips all in a tangle.

                  • Pete George

                    Citation needed for CV’s claims. He’s making radical suggestions. He must have some idea what it might cost and where it has worked.

                    • RedLogix

                      All done for you in detail here:

                      http://www.bigkahuna.org.nz/

                    • Sacha

                      When you say *High* risk, I presume you have a basis for that claim? Some risk is inevitable with any policy changes.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      You’ve asked these questions before. They’ve been answered several times.

                      Why do you keep asking them especially when the answer is just two comments up and two hours before?

                    • mikesh

                      Logically, there must be some payout per week (x), combined with some rate of tax (y) which will work, though of course we don’t know the exact values of x and y. So to say it can’t work is obviously nonsense.

                • Skinny

                  Typical Pete G dribble starts out with a positive thought provoking post only to return with a negative chicken little reply. Have a look at Norway and some of the socialist policies they have jerk off.

                • “.. There would be a high risk of stuffing the economy ..”

                  complete and utter bullshit..

                  ..the best way to stimulate/grow an economy…

                  ..is to increase the incomes of the worst-off..

                  ..for the simple reason that all of that increase is churned straight back into the economy..

                  ..thru the tills of retailers/service-providers..

                  ..this is economics 101…

                  • Pete George

                    Short term, yes, for the worst off who have paid employment. The effect on longer term business development and employment is a potential problem as employers justify more automation and less people.

                    For those not in paid employment the ongoing cost is an issue.

                    If you encourage and create more employment then more people have wages therefore more money. And the number of beneficiaries drops which makes increasing what they get more sustainable.

                    • Skinny

                      Speaking of more employment, combating the likes of zero hours being pushed by greedy corporations, many of whom pay a pittance in real tax demands a shift in the way we do things, it’s all currently geared in their favour. Then we look at the leeching Foreign Banks, they are extracting obscene amounts of money out of our economy.

                      So we need to balance the ledger by squaring up the wrongs that capitalism is dishing out, ‘you know the inequality’ Pete.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      We could easily make what the beneficiaries are paid sustainable by the simple act of putting in place a maximum income of $100k. John Key’s PM salary could hire another 3 or 4 people at the average wage.

                      It’s not that we can’t afford things but that we’re giving all our money to the wrong people via large salaries and corporate welfare.

                    • TheContrarian

                      Draco, you sound like just another RWNJ trying to take power away from the many by telling them that they’re paying too much for their representatives.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      No I don’t. I’m pretty sure that a vote for the PM salary would result in him being paid less and that would apply across the board.

                      What I’m saying is that we, as the employers, take back our power of determining how much our representatives are paid rather than leaving it to an unelected and unaccountable commission.

                      On top of that, I also think we should put in place a maximum income. This is also taking our power back as it leaves us in control of how much people are paid rather than in the hands of unelected, unaccountable and selfish capitalists. That money represents our resources and we should have a say in how they’re used.

                    • TheContrarian

                      Let me refer you back to here:

                      Too many hedgehogs

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      And I still didn’t say anything there about ministerial pay.

                      You’re obviously still too stupid to work out what’s wrong with the RWNJ attacking unions paying people where the people paying actually have a say and MPs being paid where the people have no say and the RWNJs saying that they need to be paid that much to attract them to the position.

                      You’re also too stupid to be able to read – I said a maximum income across the board. Nothing about representatives there.

                      Now fuck off troll.

                    • TheContrarian

                      Pls refer to the comment where you specifically refer to representatives – which the entire previously linked comments were directly related too.

                      Colin Craig wants help with his legal costs …

                      (BTW – pointing out your inconsistencies does not a tr00ll make. Though you using the tr00ll label to avoid answering questions is noted)

            • tracey 2.1.1.2.1.2

              i am confused, do we or dont we have poverty in NZ. My observatiobs and experiences say yes but my leaders say no..

        • North 2.1.1.3

          To be fair TC, PG did actually take a position. He plumps for the raised “bottom”. Not personally of course but you know what I mean……

          PG’s to be congratulated for offering at least a crumb of care. A slight advance on his recently expressed asprayshun that we all work to make our democracy “a little bit better”.

          Algud ! It’s just that I can’t share PG’s ever-advertised confidence that the rapacious “top” is capable of voluntarily ceasing to abuse that position, same old same old.

          • tc 2.1.1.3.1

            Same old same old indeed, the issue is one of distribution and getting more tax from the top end, CGT , higher top rates and tightening up corporate/trust evasion.

            Plenty to go around which petey coveniently ignores.

    • Tautoko Mangō Mata 2.2

      How can the bottom be raised when the top is being advantaged by low tax rates, lack of financial transaction taxes, inflated salaries and bonuses (which are not truly representative of the actual contribution of the individual). The top executives have the ability to minimise the tax paid by methods unavailable to the waged worker who by paying the same flat rate of GST ends up often paying a higher percentage tax overall than the super-wealthy?
      Are CEOs prepared to limit their own salaries in order to pay their workers a living wage?
      Headlines like “Mighty River Power director fees up 73pc” (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8508445/Mighty-River-Power-director-fees-up-73pc) illustrate what is so wrong about our current system. There appears to be no natural limit on greed and self entitlement for some people and therefore systems need to be designed to impose limits. People who cook our hospital meals are just as essential to our society as the CEO of an energy company. CEO’s never seem to be asked to make the financial sacrifices forced on the workers at the coal face who actually do the work and produce the goods and services.
      Our hospitals are struggling to make ends meet because the top tax rate was lowered by the government. More of the tax burden was shunted onto the lower paid worker by the rise in GST and now it is hospital kitchen workers who are suffering job losses and uncertainty while the well- off are even more able to pay for their private health insurance. So you can’t help the bottom unless you put a some type of lid on the top.

    • Draco T Bastard 2.3

      Is this best done by dragging the top down, lifting the bottom, or a mix of both?

      We get rid of the top because we can’t afford them.

      I think raising the bottom to keep up with the rest would be the best point of focus but it’s not easy, nor cheap.

      And is, in fact, physically impossible.

      That’s been the major problem with our economy from the word go. We keep trying to do the physically impossible and it only ever works out for a few and then the whole lot collapses.

    • Andrea 2.4

      “Is this best done by dragging the top down” : given that there’s a large slice of rent seekers at the top, adding very little of value to society at large, a dampening of their ardour for advancing unfairly at the cost of too many is long overdue.

      And I wonder about the size of the ‘rest’ compared with ‘the bottom’. Before anyone tries to keep up with ‘the rest’ – is it worth it? Or are they as hag-ridden and debt-infested as ‘the bottom’, with a smidgeon more income to make it look a little better?

      Too, that “flexible, open and quick-acting” is perilously like the snake oil peddled by Roger Douglas and Co.

      Not quite out for a duck, yet the piece does need the luxury of additional thought.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1

      Thanks Sacha. It’s pretty anodyne stuff, though I can imagine its appeal in certain quarters.

      The problem (of a rising GINI) has been tackled (with varying degrees of success) in so many ways by so many countries, it’s pretty clear that anyone still wailing “what can we do?” isn’t really going to be involved in the solution.

    • karol 3.2

      hmmm… interesting how James begins with swipes against the Hobbit industry.

      Here on Middle Earth what does 2015 hold? That we will still be hobbits at its end? Or that we will stand upright?

      No wonder Australians sneer: Sir Peter Jackson, Air New Zealand (in its “safety” videos), Wellington airport (scrawled across its front), Wellington’s mayor, the Tourism Minister and many others sanctify the quaint Tolkien imagery of the stunted.

      They each have reason. Sir Peter rolls in Hobbit film riches. Air New Zealand stacks planes with tourists, some even to Wellington where they quickly learn about weather.

      Tourists spend and we in turn can spend on smartphones, cars and machines. Sir Peter’s enterprise sucks in top digital talent from around the globe.

      New Hobbitland is thereby made richer.

      So even a belittling fiction can have an upside — as the disingenuous “100 per cent pure” tourist enticement fiction did.

      And we can draw a positive analogy from deep within that vexing fiction: hobbits could be enterprising, resourceful and courageous when pressed. They were peaceable.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 3.2.1

        Taking swipes at tourist attractions is a global pastime, and why not? Is it really the national pantomime James describes? They’re just movies – give or take the source material’s dodgy racist subtext – made to be entertaining, not profound.

        James takes his swipes, fairly gentle ones at that (no mention of employment law for sale), then concludes with a positive analogy.

        • batweka 3.2.1.1

          I have a NZ road map book that has places of Middle Earth marked on it alongside actual places in NZ. I think it’s fair to say we’re now a pastiche of Jackson’s fantasy.

  3. North 4

    Anodyne perhaps OAB but advisedly so I would think. Understated is how James rolls. Can you imagine him other than retching chokingly over TheGodKey’s fucking golf handicap and other similar nonsense framed-up and sold as national imperatives ? As a mark of “us” ? The man is at least not Billy Boy Ralston, Hosking or Gower.

    James’ delivery of Hobbits-Wipes as identified by Karol is actually very cleverly pointed.

    “So even a belittling fiction…….the disingenuous……..that vexing fiction……..hobbits……..enterprising, resourceful and courageous…….when pressed.”

    James is obviously no believer in TheGodKey’s “Brighter Future”. Good that he says so. Without being found on the ramparts.

  4. Penny Bright 5

    Does YOUR Council need to be asked THESE questions folks?

    30 December 2014

    Auckland Council CEO
    Stephen Town

    ‘Open Letter’ / OIA request to Auckland Council CEO Stephen Town :
    Please provide the information which proves how Auckland Council checks Rates Assessment notices and Rates Invoices for statutory compliance before they are sent to ratepayers.

    Dear Stephen,

    1) Please provide the information which proves how, on an annual basis since the Auckland Council was established on 1 November 2010, Auckland Council Rates Assessment notices were checked, before they were sent out to ratepayers, for statutory compliance with section 45 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/…/2002/0006/l…/DLM132294.html by:

    a) Auckland Council staff
    b) Auckland Council Mayor and elected Councillors

    2) Please include a copy, for each ‘rating year’, since the Auckland Council was established on 1 November 2010, a copy of the Auckland Council ‘procedure’/ ‘protocol’ / ‘organisational flow chart’ – which covered how the ‘draft’ Rates Assessment notice for each year was ‘drawn up’, and the ‘processes’ it went through before being ‘signed off’ and sent out to ratepayers, and the designated Council staff / departments (or the like) responsible for each step of this process, particularly the ‘signing off’ of the ‘final’ Rates Assessment notice.

    3) Please provide the information which proves how, on an annual basis since the Auckland Council was established on 1 November 2010, Auckland Council Rates Invoices were checked before they were sent out to ratepayers, for statutory compliance with section 46 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002,
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/…/2002/0006/l…/DLM132297.html by:
    a) Auckland Council staff
    b) Auckland Council Mayor and elected Councillors

    4) Please include a copy, for each ‘rating year’, since the Auckland Council was established on 1 November 2010, a copy of the Auckland Council ‘procedure’ / ‘process’ /’protocol’ / ‘organisational flow chart’ which covered how the ‘draft’ Rates Invoice for each year was ‘drawn up’, and the ‘processes’ it went through before being ‘signed off’ and sent out to ratepayers, and the designated Council staff / departments (or the like) responsible for each step of this process, particularly the ‘signing off’ of the ‘final’ Rates Invoice.

    5) Please provide the information, on an annual basis since the Auckland Council was established on 1 November 2010, which proves that the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) provided a ‘statutory third party’ audit check that Auckland Council itself had in place satisfactory ‘internal systems’ which ensured Auckland Council Rates Assessment notices were checked, before they were sent out to ratepayers, for statutory compliance with section 45 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

    6) Please provide the information, on an annual basis since the Auckland Council was established on 1 November 2010, which proves that the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) provided a ‘statutory third party’ audit check that Auckland Council itself had in place satisfactory ‘internal systems’ which ensured Auckland Council Rates Invoices were checked, before they were sent out to ratepayers, for statutory compliance with section 46 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

    7) Please provide the information, on an annual basis since the Auckland Council was established on 1 November 2010, which proves that the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) requested a final ‘draft’ copy of the Auckland Council Rates Assessment notice, in order to provide a ‘statutory third party double-check’, before they were sent out to ratepayers, for statutory compliance with section 45 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

    8) Please provide the information, on an annual basis since the Auckland Council was established on 1 November 2010, which proves that the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) requested a final ‘draft’ copy of the Auckland Council Rates Invoice, in order to provide a ‘statutory third party double-check’, before they were sent out to ratepayers, for statutory compliance with section 46 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

    Yours sincerely,
    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption whistle-blower’

  5. tracey 6

    fascinating interview with julia gillard this morning on rnz. fascinating enough to make me consider buying her book.

    she is incredibly self aware and her use of language at times is almost lyrical

    “siren songs whispering at the back of your mind”

    it made me ponder how shipley was treated as a female PM? sure she had children, who she chose to send to boarding school… but was her gender used as a point of attack the way it was with gillard and clark? if not, this would suggest it was a tactic of a paryicular political ideology rather than all men. or had crosby texter just not been engaged by the left in NZ?

    • batweka 6.1

      Shipley played the boys’ game better so got less shit. Plus the left are never going to engage in that degree of sexist politics.

      But I do think that Australia, and Australian politics in particular is more overtly sexist than NZ.

      There’s been some critism of Gillard on twitter this morning, re the idea that she is great when it comes to feminism for her own class, but once she steps outside that she’s pretty shit, eg ethnicity/racism and sexual identity.

      • tracey 6.1.1

        i certainly wasnt suggesting she was perfect…

        let me ask this, who do key and abbott champion well??

        • weka 6.1.1.1

          Yes, I was just curious how you might see those things with respect to Gillard (I haven’t listened to the audio).

          • tracey 6.1.1.1.1

            i didnt hear all of it so will read her book.

          • tracey 6.1.1.1.2

            i am going to see if my library has this

            The Stalking of Julia Gillard: How the Media and Team Rudd Brought Down the Prime Minister by a journalist for daily telegraph of 25 year

            • Skinny 6.1.1.1.2.1

              It was a shameful episode the Labor Party dropping her. She was heads and shoulders above Rudd. The Australian’s are paying a high price electing the Tories over there. However speedo wearing Abbott is going to go down in history as a one trick (term) pony. The same should have happened here, alas our Unions are piss weak and never bandied together to rid us of the current clown running our circus.

      • Murray Rawshark 6.1.2

        Australia hits you between the eyes at times with its sexism. It can be brutal, as can the racism and xenophobia, but I do believe FJK is genuine in wanting Aotearoa to catch up to Oz.

        I like to characterise Gillard as the most fundamentalist christian atheist on the planet. She gives interviews now that show her in a flattering light, but as with Clinton, this is mainly by comparison with what came after.

  6. What James does is re-spin the liberal mythology of NZs history for New Year resolution consumption.
    We’ve been around that track many times.

    Pember Reeves was the first to spin the Fabian myth that the liberals turned NZ into a state socialist society with the Liberals land and labour policies. (State Experiments in Australia and NZ)
    Lenin’s admittedly sketchy view critiqued this https://convincingreasons.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/a-country-of-inveterate-backwoods-thick-headed-egotistical-philistines/
    Note that the advance of ‘settler socialism’ was onto Maori land in a bigger land grab than during the Land Wars.

    The second wave of socialist myth spinning arose in the Great Depression and First Labour Government and the foundation of the ‘welfare state’.
    W.B Sutch was the most prolific Fabian populariser of Keynesian economic nationalism as the basis for national building, both as an economist in the service of the Labour Party and also in his books (including Poverty and Progress). http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/5s54/sutch-william-ball

    Sutch fought to defend NZ’s economic sovereignty from the ’50s to his death in 1975. He never broke with his view that a small capitalist country could resist foreign control. (Takeover NZ)

    There was no communist critique of NZ economic nationalism during this period as the tiny Communist Party (part of Stalin’s Third International) was allied to ‘friendly’ capitalist governments fighting fascism in defence of the Soviet Union. Of course the Dulles driven Nats of the time saw this as ‘reds under the bed’ which tragically contributed to Sutch’s early death.

    The Vietnam war against the ‘reds’ and the end of the post-war boom in the late 1960s sparked a Marxist ‘left opposition’ to Stalinism in NZ and with it a critique of Fabian socialism. The Fabian socialist experiment based on economic nationalism was critiqued theoretically and exposed practically. Muldoon’s caricature of a ‘think big’ Keynes sealed its coffin.

    The Fourth Labour Government buried it.

    To cut a longer story short, the projection of this Fabian mythology into a future utopia of a topless, bottomup, Piketty-like fiddling with the national accounts is in denial of the open, globalised, crisis stricken capitalist world economy.

    If NZ workers want to rescue their country from ‘foreign control’ they need to renounce illusions in boss-ruled nationalism, and join forces with workers in every country as an international movement to defeat international capital. A socialist federation of the Asia Pacific would replace reactionary nationalisms with open borders and yet allow for the full expression of historic national, ethnic, religious and cultural rights.

    • Draco T Bastard 7.1

      A socialist federation of the Asia Pacific would replace reactionary nationalisms with open borders and yet allow for the full expression of historic national, ethnic, religious and cultural rights.

      That would very rapidly bury any NZ culture as, IMO. ~100m people would immigrate as they decide here looks better than there. Open borders would work if we still had ~500m people in the world. 7 billion means that it’s out of the question.

      We really do have limited physical resources.

      • dave brown 7.1.1

        I agree that ‘open borders’ can only express a principle to be aimed at.
        In reality, revolution will be uneven and start in some countries and then spread to others.
        As this process happens, during the conversion from capitalist to socialist production, the revolution will have to limit the movement of surplus populations otherwise the wider revolution will fail.
        That would include preventing them from flooding smaller countries.
        Small countries could not have open borders at this point.
        The success of any revolution will depend upon being able to harness nature to produce for our needs without destroying it.
        Threatened ecological collapse would impose drastic changes in how we produce.
        A fully formed federation would mark the end rather than the beginning of this process.
        Then it should be possible to control population movements by planned production for the needs of all.
        Each country would have its carrying capacity worked out and that would include cultural and other needs.
        This process is quite feasible given that our survival under capitalism is impossible.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1

          Each country would have its carrying capacity worked out and that would include cultural and other needs.

          This is something that needs to be done first because, IMO, it is the general lack of knowledge of what resource use is sustainable that is allowing capitalism to destroy the ecosystem of the Earth. It allows all the political parties to say that people can have more, more, more through more growth and higher wages when it should be obvious to everyone that they just can’t. There are limits and we in the developed nations already well past them. Many of the newly developing nations are also passing them.

  7. Ffloyd 8

    Andrew Little on NatRad soon. Enjoying his fb. Roll on 2017.

  8. (reason number 53 to be vegan..a scientific-reason/confirmation..

    ..and..i didn’t know that..!..)

    “..Too much red meat causes cancer – as the body rejects ‘foreign invader’..

    ..Red meat has been linked to cancer for decades –

    – with research suggesting that eating large amounts of beef – lamb – or pork – raises the risk of deadly tumours.

    But for the first time scientists think they know what is causing the effect.

    The body it seems – views red meat as a foreign invader – prompting a toxic immune response.

    Researchers have always been puzzled about how other mammals could eat a diet high in red meat –

    – without any adverse health consequences.

    Now they have discovered that pork – beef – and lamb –

    – all contain a sugar that is naturally produced by other carnivores but not humans.

    When humans eat red meat – the body generates an immune response to the foreign sugar –

    – producing antibodies that cause inflammation –

    – and eventually cancer..”

    (cont..)

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11380304

    ..so there you have it..the definitive proof…

    ..going vegan in ’15..?

    ..here is all the info/recipies etc. u will need..

    http://whoar.co.nz/category/vegan-stuff/

    • tracey 9.1

      everyone who eats red mear dies of cancer??!?

      • phillip ure 9.1.1

        r u saying that..?

        • phillip ure 9.1.1.1

          and what percentage-number between none and everyone wd you still be comfortable with..?

          • McFlock 9.1.1.1.1

            I’d probably take a 30% risk, easy. Given that the flipside is dying of something like alzheimers.

            • phillip ure 9.1.1.1.1.1

              so..you’d be relaxed about 30% of meat-eaters getting cancer from it..?

              ..and i know quite a few older longterm vegans..

              ..not one of them has alzheimers..

              ..where did you pluck that one from..?

              • McFlock

                everyone’s gotta die of something.

                But my personal feeling is that if there’s a 30% chance of me getting cancer from eating meat (and there’s a fuckload of things ahead in the queue for me, but what the hey), I’d prefer a life with steak than maybe a longer life with tofu and lentils.

                • TheContrarian

                  “..and i know quite a few older longterm vegans..

                  ..not one of them has alzheimers..”

                  I know quite a few long term meat eaters, not one of them has cancer. Check mate.

          • phillip ure 9.1.1.1.2

            how about answering that question..?

        • Tracey 9.1.1.2

          you said that in the deliberate choice of quotes from the article… leaving out the bit about having a long way to go in proving it in humans… funny that…

          you arranged the following words to suggest the experiment on mice, which would usually lead to you busting a forehead vein, was definitive proof of red meat eaters getting cancer

          ” When humans eat red meat – the body generates an immune response to the foreign sugar –

          – producing antibodies that cause inflammation –

          – and eventually cancer..”

          now, imagine if you answered every question you are asked here, you would be less like… pete george

    • tracey 9.2

      “definitive proof” says PU

      “… “The final proof in humans will be much harder to come by..”

      says article PU quoted from and linked to.

      • phillip ure 9.2.1

        i’ll see yr selective-quote..and raise you..(this sentence follows yr one..)

        “..This work may also help explain potential connections of red meat consumption to other diseases exacerbated by chronic inflammation –

        – such as atherosclerosis and type 2 diabetes..”

        so it’s not just cancer..is it..?

        • phillip ure 9.2.1.1

          and make of these two complimentary-facts what you will..

          ..we have world-beating rates of those cancers increasingly linked to meat/dairy..

          …and we have world-beating rates of consumption of meat/dairy..

          ..doh..?..

          • phillip ure 9.2.1.1.1

            and gee..!..i wonder what that meat-pimp northshoredoc wd say to this new ‘news’..?

            ..doctors advocating eating meat are the modern equivalent of the blood-letters of yore..

            ..both mired in their own ignorance and arrogance..

            ..and their patients the ultimate victims of that ignorance/arrogance..

            ..both then and now..

            (and we are still waiting for him to define/name those ‘preventible-diseases’ he claimed pot-smokers are presenting with..eh..?

            ..just one will do..doc..?..

            ..now..you weren’t bullshitting us..were you..?…)

            • The Al1en 9.2.1.1.1.1

              Humans have been eating meat since before they were even human, just like chimps do now. Our bodies have developed for us to be omnivores.
              Life expectancy is still upwardly trending.

              Nothing to worry about the scare cancers in your sausages and steaks.
              And I note it’s only a theory, not like the horror of cannabis which contains known carcinogens.
              I’ve told you before, you’d be best off looking at the additives they put in meat, not the meat itself.

              Motto, go smoke a ham, if you want to live longer.

            • northshoredoc 9.2.1.1.1.2

              Hi Phil

              You appear to be particularly feral this evening.

              I’m not sure where you get the idea that I advocate a meat predominate diet over a vegan diet ?

              Like most in the medical profession I would strongly recommend a diet that veers towards having a far higher percentage of veges and fruit and going easy on the meat and processed foods.

              Regarding the preventable diseases that occur in marijuana users as you may or may not know it will depend on the method of use smoking/ingesting and how often much they use.

              • apologies for apportioning attitudes where there were none..re meat..

                ..and yes..some ways of pot-consumption are healthier than others..

                ..but what are these ‘preventible-diseases’ u refer to..?

                • northshoredoc

                  For those who choose to smoke marijuana chronic bronchitis symptoms and large airway inflammation are possible consequences along with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer and bullous lung disease as with tobacco increasing risk is linked to increasing usage. These risks are probably lower than with tobacco.

                  Mental health issues are also linked to usage of cannabis once again there is now sufficient evidence to show that those who use cannabis particularly at a younger age have a higher than average risk of developing a psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
                  These studies also show that the risk is dose-related.

                  Whether this is self selecting is probably open for debate although a study following 1600 Australian school-children, aged 14 to 15 for seven years, found that while children who use cannabis regularly have a significantly higher risk of depression, the opposite was not the case – children who already suffered from depression were not more likely than anyone else to use cannabis…. adolescents who used cannabis daily were five times more likely to develop depression and anxiety in later life.

                  • f.y.i..after a life of smoking heroic amounts of cannabis/hashish etc..

                    ..i had a medical check up last yr..

                    ..and my lungs were tested..

                    ..i was told i had the lungs of a young man..

                    ..and once again..i know lots of people..who have smoked for lots of yrs..

                    ..none of them have bronchitis etc..

                    ..i have had about one cold in the last five yrs..

                    ..and for my age..am in pretty good nick..pretty fit..

                    ..why have i seen none of what you claim..either in myself..or the many people i know..?

                    ..many of whom have smoked pot for as long as i have..

                    ..or longer in some cases..

                    ..i use no alcohol..

                    • McFlock

                      .. such a shame that your brain seems to be completely fucked..

                    • The Al1en

                      “Mental health issues are also linked to usage of cannabis once again there is now sufficient evidence to show that those who use cannabis particularly at a younger age have a higher than average risk of developing a psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
                      These studies also show that the risk is dose-related.”

                    • flock..u r a rightwing idiot..

                      ..everything you say is meaningless-noise..

                    • McFlock

                      if everything I say is meaningless, what grounds do you have for calling me right wing?

                    • i’ll leave you to work that one out..

                      ..and/but if yr head starts to hurt..stop..!

                    • McFlock

                      Well, in this very thread people found you unintelligible. Does that make you right wing, too?

                    • northshoredoc

                      “..why have i seen none of what you claim..either in myself..or the many people i know..?”

                      Phil for the same reason that we see no liver damage in certain people who drink to excess and not all chronic habitual smokers will go on to Lung cancer.

                      Statistically speaking of course there is a far higher chance of liver damage in long term alcohol use and of lung cancer in long term tobacco use – that doesn’t mean each and every person who partakes will end up in that situation.

                  • weka

                    Mental health issues are also linked to usage of cannabis once again there is now sufficient evidence to show that those who use cannabis particularly at a younger age have a higher than average risk of developing a psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
                    These studies also show that the risk is dose-related.

                    What are you meaning by dose there? one joint vs two, or is strength of joint being taken into account too?

                    Is anyone looking at the increasing strength of cannabis strains in relation to mental health issues? eg strength now compared to say 30 years ago?

                    • the ‘strength’-argument is a bullshit one..

                      ..aside from court records showing/proving little differences between thc-levels in court-tested pot from the 70’s until now..

                      ..(good pot has always been good pot..)

                      ..the fact of the matter is..if the pot is stronger..you need/use less..

                      ..the ‘danger will smith!..stronger pot!’ argument is a total nonsense..

                    • The Al1en

                      I think anybody reading these exchanges will conclude you know pretty much fuck all about your chosen subject, appearing to be not much more than an habitual user with an attitude problem predisposed to throwing your toys out of the pram when challenged by superior intellect or fact.

                    • weka

                      It’s a pretty obvious statement of fact that if you grow two different plants in different places at different times you will get different levels of constituents (that’s any plant, not just cannabis).

                      Then there is the issue of whether in the last 30 years no cannabis growers have ever tried to develop stronger strains by breeding. It stretches credulity to suggest that no-one has done this, or succeeded.

                      btw, I wasn’t talking about danger, I was talking about risk assessment (two different things for the purposes of this conversation which should be perfectly bloody obvious to anyone experienced in the politics of drug use). Further, northshoredoc was talking about dose used in studies, and I’m curious whether that was actual dose (scientifically measured) or whether it was perceived dose (how much the use thought they used). I’m assuming the latter given we’re talking about mental health.

                    • northshoredoc

                      @weka not sure, I believe the studies in question were merely looking at volume and longevity of usage rather than strength of product.

                    • weka

                      Which is a problem. Because strength is a critical issue (and dose) when it comes to mental health reactions to cannabis. Also the person’s mental health.

                      I think studies showed links as dose related is stretching it a bit, if they didn’t actually measure dose. Amount of use and dose aren’t the same thing at all.

        • Tracey 9.2.1.2

          but not the definitive proof that red meat eaters get cancer, as you claimed. by now i see you have convinced yourself you never said that.

          • phillip ure 9.2.1.2.1

            read the fucken link..!

            .the sugar our bodies don’t recognise ..

            ..what the fuck about that did you not ‘get..?

            …and you are channelling p.g..again/still…

            .pick..pick..pick..pick…

            ..and then keep on denying..

            .your choice..

            ..and my fucken bad…!

            ..i should have said defining..

            ..tho’ to me it is ‘definitve’..’cos it is the actual evidence i have been waiting for..

            ..an actual reason..

            ..but why don’t you just go and chew on some pig…eh..?

            …no worries..!

            • Tracey 9.2.1.2.1.1

              i read the herald article and you said it was definitive proof. the researchers didnt say they had definitive proof, as i quoted back at you.

              your vegan/cannabis obsession becomes very dull when you resort to making up things to support your view . the sort of thing our govt does to avoid the truth or avoid an admission they guilded the lily. change it from definitive proof to defining proof it it helps you feel better. either word is a false presentation of the mouse experiments.

              “The final proof in humans will be much harder to come by”
              your passive aggressive spiel is very passe.

              • and yr channeling of p.g is getting really fucken annoying..

                ..u never answer challenges or what u r asked..

                ..u just try to find the next p.g.-angle..doncha..?

                ..pick..pick..pick..(what’s that..?..that’s the sound of the tracey..)

                (and i’ll betchsa i’m not the first to note that about you..eh..?..that’s been said to/about you before..hasn’t it..)

                ..so much so..the ‘annoying’..u can go back on the ignore list.. with the village-idiot..

                ..eh..?..

                ..go and find someone else to p.g. all over..

                ..i’m done..!

    • David H 9.3

      Phillip. I am a red, white and pink meat eater, and the bloodier a steak the better. So todays post of dangers of red meat get a “So fucking what, and who fucking cares” from me. Bring on the next steak!

      You are almost becoming the PG of food. Here have some Lentils

      • phillip ure 9.3.1

        you just go on laughing defiantly into the face of fate..eh..?

        ..’scientific-facts..?..i spit on yr ‘scientific-facts!’…

        ..echoing the early denialism of tobacco-smokers..aren’t ya..?

        • The Al1en 9.3.1.1

          🙄 😆

          That’s just bizarre

          • The Al1en 9.3.1.1.1

            Spitting on scientific facts yet relying on them to make his own point.
            Bizarre and hypocritical.

            Then trying to link several millennia of meat eating to tobacco smoking.
            Bizarre and illogical.

            We’ve had Dr’s and now scientist’s facts ridiculed as bunkum, next up I want a gymnast to come on so pu can tell them only he knows how to do a backwards roll, factcheck… And I don’t mean the spliff 😉

            • phillip ure 9.3.1.1.1.1

              don’t you worry..

              ..others will have ‘got it’..

              ..you don’t need to…

              • The Al1en

                There you go again, lording a higher level intelligence you clearly don’t posses given them clashing humdingers in 9.3.1
                Simple fact is, if you were that smart, and certainly as smart as you believe you are, you wouldn’t need to rub someone’s lack of brain power in their face.
                Another one of your contradictions 😉

                keep ’em coming.

                • if someone else cares to explain it to you..they are welcome..

                  ..i can’t be bothered with yr bullshit.

                  • The Al1en

                    Yeah, much more important stuff to do, like altering someone’s posting name because they disagree with you. Quality, right there.
                    You da quick fire quip man in da hood 😆

                    Biggest joke is like you give a damn about meat eaters getting cancer anyway. Nothing I’ve seen from you would support the theory you do. Plenty of evidence to suggest that you really want to say ‘….serves…them….right……..animal murderers…..’

                    And to think, I didn’t even pull you up the other day for promoting a pro pot piece which relied on animal testing for it’s conclusions.

                    Your clash of conscience or marriage of convenience? You decide. 🙂

        • phillip ure 9.3.1.2

          defiantly-chewing..as you are…

        • Psycho Milt 9.3.1.3

          ..echoing the early denialism of tobacco-smokers..aren’t ya..?

          For a bit of perspective, bear this in mind the next time you’re reading some journo blather in which researchers, after months of diligent effort, have managed to torture the results into revealing relative risk increases of 20-30% for some particular activity: smoking increases your relative risk of lung cancer by well upwards of 1000%. Now, that’s a conclusive result.

    • (reason number 53 to be vegan..a scientific-reason/confirmation..

      Phil, there’s a difference between “science” and “social science”. One involves the scientific method, the other involves lies, damned lies and statistics.

      Diet-based epidemiological studies are most definitely social science, not science. None of them should be read without checking the authors’ conflicts of interest (eg, are they working for companies that have a vested interest in studies showing this result) and possible agendas (eg, one can’t imagine you publishing a study finding that red meat is one of the most nutritious foods in existence, despite that being true).

      Also, none should be taken at face value. No academic admits to their funding body that their study found fuck-all worth publishing, so the results are messed with until something worth reporting can be teased out of them. The results of such studies are the research equivalent of white noise.

      Finally, and most importantly, always dismantle the numbers. There’s a reason why these weasels always couch their findings in terms of “probably” or “could” or “might” – in many cases it’s because the numbers are at the boundaries of statistical significance. If people have a 2-in-1000 chance of getting cancer in the next five years and a study shows big red-meat eaters had a 2.2-in-1000 chance of getting cancer, the authors will cheerfully announce red meat increases your chances of getting cancer by 10% – even though the actual amount it increased, if the results are replicable, was 0.2-in1000, and even though the actual numbers involved might have amounted to one additional person in the red-meat group getting cancer. It’s usually meaningless and the news media should be ashamed of themselves for reporting it.

      • phillip ure 9.4.1

        look at that..!

        ..psycho milk has completely ignored the alien-sugar evidence..

        ..(which was the ‘point’ of the piece..after all..)

        ..well he would..wouldn’t he..?

        .being psycho milk..

        • Psycho Milt 9.4.1.1

          ..psycho milk has completely ignored the alien-sugar evidence..

          The comment was intended to encourage a healthy skepticism when dealing with this kind of pseudo-science journalism, but since you want me to deal with that specific point: It’s just a mechanism they’ve postulated to account for their theory about red meat causing cancer. Problems:

          1. My points above re the theory. The claim that red meat causes cancer is wishful thinking by vegetarians.

          2. Their mechanism is evidenced by the finding “…that mice which were genetically engineered so they did not produce Neu5Gc naturally developed tumours when they were fed the sugar.” However, when it comes to humans, we know that humans do not “naturally develop tumours when fed this sugar” because problem 1 above – there’s no real evidence for a higher rate of such tumours in red meat eaters. If it was making us develop tumours, we’d be seeing genuinely statistically-significant higher tumour rates for red meat eaters. But we’re not. At best, it’s proof that genetically-engineered mice shouldn’t eat red meat. It’s an interesting theory, but they sure as hell aren’t kidding when they say proof of it in humans will be “harder to come by.” Try “impossible to come by.”

    • b waghorn 9.5

      “To much red meat causes cancer” that would implie that somes fine.

    • Murray Rawshark 9.6

      Wow. A sugar found in meat was isolated and fed to genetically engineered mice, in quantities which are not reported. They got cancer. What a surprise. Therefore humans should be vegans. And smoke dope. Hmmmm.

  9. Grim Shark 10

    Fix it at the root.
    Tax (government income) should be the basis of introducing money into the system, a measure of productivity, and productivity a positive to the economy.

    If a worker or business makes $1 then introduce 10cents into the monetary system via government services, therefore no taxation, increase in currency supply to match productivity(gdp) government services increase with increase of economy, a positive feedback system.

    Government services should be a reflection of a healthy economy and a reward, not a negative.

    At present increase in money supple is implemented via the fractal reserve banking system, and creates a debt based system, this is fundamentally wrong.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1

      Tax (government income) should be the basis of introducing money into the system, a measure of productivity, and productivity a positive to the economy.

      Nope. The government doesn’t actually need income per se.

      What actually needs to happen is that the government creates the nations money and spends it into the economy in such a way so as to ensure that everyone living in the country has all they need. It then taxes that money back out to prevent excessive money in the economy pushing up inflation.

      As the money that the government creates circulates through the system it supports a minor private sector. The collapse of the private sector, which happens from time to time, wouldn’t cause any real hardship as happens in the present system.

      Government services should be a reflection of a healthy economy and a reward, not a negative.

      Nope, can’t say I know WTF you’re getting at there. Government services are what should be the insoluble base of the entire economy.

      At present increase in money supple is implemented via the fractal reserve banking system, and creates a debt based system, this is fundamentally wrong.

      That I agree with.

      • Grim Shark 10.1.1

        Sorry problem with only having a very limited time to write/think.
        My line of thought is very similar to yours just badly expressed.

        present situation:

        As the economy expands, government through the treasury introduced money into the system.
        How they do that is by lending it at OCR (official cash rate) to banks.
        Then banks through fractal reserve banking introduce it into the economy.

        It is a 2 step process, expansion of currency supply, and how to introduce the new supply into the economy, 2 separate mechanisms.

        1) expanding money supply is to allow goods to be traded,

        All new work done and resources accessed has to be matched by an increase in currency supply or it can’t be traded using fiat currency.

        The increase in supply is necessary to maintain a stable dollar value, the main problem is how we currently introduce this new supply into the economy.

        2) Government(treasury) introduce currency as debt even before it enters the fractal reserve system, this is wrong and creates inflation/tax/debt.

        The present means to introduce currency is via debt, this creates a negative feedback loop,

        Anything sold or provided on the local market results in a debt, the current emphasis on exports is no longer applicable (the old if we export it then it’s someone else’s debt) due to trade agreements- balance of trade etc.

        Government does require a means of introducing currency supply into the system, and requires currency to pay workers and acquire resources within the current fiat system.

        Government can’t just create money as required, it must be based on an increase in assets, as a representation of assets or work done, this is already measured to assess tax, very simple to increase currency supply based on the same measurements we presently use to tax wages and profits,

        In a nutshell
        1)base increase in currency supply on the same basis we base taxes
        2)remove all taxes, completely
        3) introduce currency supply via creating and maintaining infrastructure, services and all basic needs of the country.

        Taxes are no longer required, money supply is based on a measurable indicator, and government has the ability to make fine adjustment via supply instead of a reactionary tax process.

        As population expands so does funding for infrastructure, the above should provide a positive feedback loop.

        This also allows government to increase it’s workforce building infrastructure which in turn creates more funding for infrastructure etc etc. ( a subtle method of arriving at the same goal without sound overtly socialist)

        So what have we done?

        1) introduce new currency without debt,
        2)base currency expansion on work done, asset creation (instead of profit only)
        3)set in place a system that creates prosperity, profit from investment, it is logical.

  10. Odysseus 11

    Possibly definitive for rats PU, did you read the article?

  11. f.y.i..

    ..andrew little is on nat-rad..now..spinning some/his favourite tunes…

    (he says he’s been told he needs a zeitgeist-adviser…)

  12. Odysseus 13

    AL has great taste currently spinning JL Hooker….not Katy Perry…

  13. Maui 14

    Documentary – “Hot Air: The politics of climate change in Aotearoa”
    On Maori TV tonight at 8.30pm, brilliant doco, not sure when it will be on free to air tv again…
    http://www.maoritelevision.com/tv/featured

  14. Shane Le Brun 15

    So whats everyone’s stance here on Medical Cannabis?
    There is steady progress on the topic in Australia, 3 trials announced, and the police have orders to not touch medical users with a barge pole in the meantime.
    Meanwhile our Health Minister, with the clinical experience of a mere GP, a worker bee at the bottom of the chain when it comes to medical/scientific discovery and progress (aka the big picture) reaffirms NZ stance against allow medical Cannabis.
    Th National party response is we have Sativex, gee thanks, Methadone costs 18c per 5mg tablet, while Sativex costs 10-30k per anum……………………………

    • it’s kinda strange/beyond-irony how a reactionary/fuck-arse govt like abbots can make our lot look even more reactionary/fuck-arsed than they are..

      ..on this issue..

      ..and jonothan ‘cigar-boy’ coleman..

      ..is a total fucktard ..on this issue..

      ..that’s my initial ‘stance’..

    • Draco T Bastard 15.2

      I think, from the previous discussions around this topic, that you’ll find the majority of people here support medical cannabis and even full legalisation of recreational cannabis.

      • TheContrarian 15.2.1

        The difference that is lost on Phil, and a lot of pot advocates, is there is a difference between research being done on cannabis to find active compounds which can treat disease and smoking pot, because medicine!

        • phillip ure 15.2.1.1

          ok..so it’s ok to give medical-pot..

          ..but recreational users should still be busted..?

          ..is this the half-arsed culsterfuck you recommend..?

          ..and fact..smoking pot relieves the side-efects of chemo for cancer-suffers..

          ..what the fuck about that do you not ‘get’..?

          ..(contrarian as reactionary..eh..?..)

          • Tracey 15.2.1.1.1

            what are the stats for ordinary users being arrested for having a couple of joints in the last five years?

          • The Al1en 15.2.1.1.2

            “ok..so it’s ok to give medical-pot….but recreational users should still be busted..?”

            Just like other prohibited drugs that have a dual medicinal/recreational usage? Yep, just like that. At least until the majority get the numbers to change the law.
            Using cancer sufferers and sick kids to push your cause is, in my opinion, a hindrance not a trump card.

            “..and fact..smoking pot relieves the side-efects of chemo for cancer-suffers..”

            For some receiving chemo, for some. But smoking pot also contains many of the same toxins and chemicals that cause cancer, so by ‘pushing’ that as a reason for medicinal cannabis, you are sentencing many users to that same fate. Nice, just cause you want to smoke or claim credit for being an activist.

            “..what the fuck about that do you not ‘get’..?”

            Exactly.

            • Shane Le Brun 15.2.1.1.2.1

              Vaporizing removes 95% of the particulate matter that COULD be carcinogenic, but more likely just clogs up the lungs..
              In medical use, smoking should never be allowed, as Vaporising works the same with 1/20th of the negatives.

              For most people it is a good Anti Nausea weight loss treatment, though I firmly believe in escalating from the least risky drugs, many pro MMJ folks dont, as they failed for them.
              Regular Anti Emetics should always be tried first, such as Metaclopromide and Ondansetron, but in severe cancer, its multi purpose effects on Nausea and chronic pain, enhancing the effects of morphine and the temporary mood boost makes it an awesome candidate for use.

              Its not really about isolating compounds for many, its about ratios of the chemicals, for example for hypersenstivity to pain (allodynia), the latest studies suggest a ratio of 24:1 CBD:THC, so a straight CBD pill wont be as effective, and neither is NZs only MMJ Sativex, which has a ration of 1:1.

          • TheContrarian 15.2.1.1.3

            “..and fact..smoking pot relieves the side-efects of chemo for cancer-suffers..”

            If I had cancer smoking pot may well relieve the side effects of chemo but I find the psychoactive effects decidedly unpleasant. Which is why people are actively researching non-psychoactive applications of cannabis.
            The goal is to find a non-psychoactive treatment utilising cannabiods and the active ingredients.

            A point lost on you… It’s not about “let’s just all smoke pot for whatever ails ya”

            • phillip ure 15.2.1.1.3.1

              so you don’t like pot..

              ..so therefor nobody else should have it..

              ..(reactionary posing as ‘contrarian’..)

              ..and irrational with it..

              .and f.y.i..where pot is legal..you can buy strains that are not psychoactive..

              ..in fact you can use them to instantly bring you down from being ‘too high’…

              ..so that ‘point’ is not ‘lost on me’..is it..

              • TheContrarian

                I totally support relaxing on the drug laws.

                But again – you miss, purposely or otherwise, the point. The goal is to find a non-psychoactive treatment utilising cannabiods and the active ingredients because many people find the psychoactive effects decidedly unpleasant and have their own side effects.

                That you can’t make a distinction between what represents recreational use and medicinal goal of researching cannabis is very odd to me.

                • Shane Le Brun

                  Psychoactive is a bit of a catch all term..
                  from the pain side,
                  My wife has tried
                  temazpam
                  diazepam, including suppository,
                  lorazepam
                  clonozepam
                  codeine
                  tramadol,
                  morphine
                  oxycontin
                  fentanyl
                  methadone
                  ketamine
                  quetiapine
                  Gabapenting
                  Amatryptylene
                  Nortyptylene..

                  All are Psychoactive, there is a whole year of her life she cant remember due to combinations of the above drugs……

                  If MMJ was to be recommended by GP, then approved by specialist, eg oncologist, aneasthetist, then we could avoid green cards sold commercially like Venice beach California, avoid people shopping for pro MMJ doctors, and ensure that those who truly require it, see a specialist who is aware of all the options on the table……

                • northshoredoc

                  Phil which side effects are you thinking of – we have very effective medications now to relieve the major side effects of chemo in most people.

                  • there is too much anecdotal from cancer sufferers to ignore of the benefits..

                    ..and even if it only makes them ‘feel better’..if it is only a salve..

                    ..surely that is enough..?

                    ..and..feeling nauseous from chemo..?

                    ..smoke some pot..?..or take yet another pill..?

                    ..you are veering into patch-protection territory again..

                    • northshoredoc

                      🙄

                      Phil you really are full of so very much drivel.

                      Patients who are undergoing emotogenic chemotherapy are given a 5HT3 antagonist to prevent or minimise/prevent nausea failing this substance P antagonists will usually work for those in who 5HTS medications don’t work.

                      .. your smoke some pot…. in a cancer ward or in outpatients you really are are thought free zone at times.

                      Patch protection 🙄

                    • so..take more of yr pills..

                      ..instead of the proven efficacies of cannabis..

                      ..as i said..’patch-protection’..

                      ..or ..being charitable..ignorance..

                      ..certainly s.f.a. logic..

                    • northshoredoc

                      Proven 🙄 ………

                      …Can you give me just one well designed study comparing cannabis to any of the repeatedly proven and validated medications we use on a daily basis for nausea.

                      Please explain how I am patch protecting ?

                      Are you suggesting that i and all those who treat those suffering from cancer are withholding the best treatments due to patch protection ?

                      How so..

                      Oh and by the way what scientific background do you have……eh ?

                    • still pushing yr pills over pot..eh..?

                      ..and the ‘patch-protection’ of yr ‘authority’..

                      ..and only you can have any authority/valid opinion on this..’cos ysr a doctor..?

                      ..i’m sorry..i don’t share yr faith in doctors..

                      ..i have met too many incompetent-idiots wearing that badge..

                      ..and the history of doctors seriously fucking up their patients by blindly following the dictums of the day..

                      ..from thaidomide..

                      ..to now how you as a profession have got so many people hooked on yr vile fucken anti-depressants..

                      (‘didn’t like those..?..try these..wot’s that..?..’pot’..?..no..no..don’t take that..!..that cd be bad for you..!..here..!..take my nice pills instead…!..)

                      ..when..once again..a joint wd probably do a better job of it..

                      ..but you are opposed to this mild intoxicant..

                      ..and you sit at yr desk..feeding peoples addictions to this big-parma addictive head-fucking suite of drugs..

                      ..’healing’ them..are you..?

                      ,.sorry..!..you are a fucken ‘bad’-drug-pusher…

                      ..a pusher of ‘bad’ drugs..

                      ..you are a tool/vassal of big-pharma..

                      ..and a willing one at that..

                    • The Al1en

                      “..and you sit at yr desk..feeding peoples addictions to this big-parma addictive head-fucking suite of drugs..

                      ..’healing’ them..are you..?

                      ,.sorry..!..you are a fucken ‘bad’-drug-pusher…

                      ..a pusher of ‘bad’ drugs..

                      ..you are a tool/vassal of big-pharma..

                      ..and a willing one at that..”

                      That’s piss poor, pu.
                      Best go to bed, bruv, and sleep it off.

                  • Shane Le Brun

                    @NorthshoreDoc, I Cant respond to your sub posts on Anti Emetics, I don’t have much knowledge in that area, and its hard to point to recent or good studies when its schedule 1 in the USA, but this link refers to a few, I know full well from Aids patients that it hoses in compared with Metaclopromide and Ondansetron, and the associated weight gain was a bonus to…..

                    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page5#_40_toc

                    If it was Neuropathic pain you wanted sources for, I could slam dunk all over that, I consider myself an Amatuer Aneasthetist now, if I was 18 again i’d be down to med school in a flash!

                • contrarian..are u as thick as a fucken brick..?

                  ..i detailed how there is already non-psychoactive..and yr response is we need to find some non-psychoactive..(!)

                  ..what he fuck is wrong with yr brain..?

      • The Al1en 15.2.2

        “I think, from the previous discussions around this topic, that you’ll find the majority of people here support medical cannabis and even full legalisation of recreational cannabis.”

        That’s about the way I see it too.

        • Tracey 15.2.2.1

          me too.

        • northshoredoc 15.2.2.2

          I certainly would not support the full legalisation of recreational cannabis as a large portion of the NZ public have proven again and again that they are hopeless at moderating their behaviour when it comes to recreational substances.

          • The Al1en 15.2.2.2.1

            I don’t believe full legalisation will come to NZ. I think the best recreational pot users can hope for is decriminalisation for personal amounts.

            I do think you are correct that some, like myself when I smoked, have little or no self control and make poor choices as a consequence.

            Thanks for the considered opinion, Doc.

            • phillip ure 15.2.2.2.1.1

              “..I do think you are correct that some, like myself when I smoked, have little or no self control and make poor choices as a consequence…”

              so yr a screw-up who can’t handle pot..

              ..that is the basis of yr opposition..

              ..yr as deep as a fucken petrie-dish..!

              • The Al1en

                Sorry pu, I’m agreeing from personal experience, with a Doctor, about a point he makes about people hopeless at moderating their behaviour. Nothing in there about screw ups who can’t handle pot, basis of opposition, nor especially shallow at that.

                What is interesting is that you will write of people whose drug of choice was/is pot, like me, as collateral damage worth sacrificing for the sake of satisfying your uncontrollable urge to imbibe.
                That’s some selfish shit right there my friend.

                But thanks for belittling me in public for posting an honest comment about drugs. I promise, should you ever write something honest about anything, I won’t ever do the same to you 😉

                Now off you go and have some of that mellowing, less violence inducing than alcohol substance you promote.
                Don’t know if you need more or less, but certainly it’s one of the two 😉

          • phillip ure 15.2.2.2.2

            now i’m calling bullshit..!

            ..cannabis is the safest of all the intoxicants..

            ..and legalisation will see a drop in alcohol use..(one of the most dangerous intoxicants..)

            ..you..as a medical-professional..can’t see that..?

            ..and can’t see how that wd be beneficial..?

            ..overall..?

            ..and you are setting yrslf up as some doctor/god/dictator..?

            ..telling adults what they can and can’t do..?

            ..what is entirely their business..and not yrs..!

          • Sacha 15.2.2.2.3

            “a large portion of the NZ public have proven again and again that they are hopeless at moderating their behaviour when it comes to recreational substances”

            – so on that basis, you are in favour of banning alcohol, right?

            • northshoredoc 15.2.2.2.3.1

              I am sure if alcohol was in the legal situation that cannabis was at the moment many of us would certainly not be recommending it was open slather.

              Nice straw man though.

              • no..u already used the strawman of saying alcohol is already bad..

                ..so adults shouldn’t be allowed to have pot..

                ..how is that not fact-free/bullshit/strawman..?

              • Sacha

                how is it possibly a strawman? either ‘moderating their behaviour’ applies to all drugs or only the few you find convenient. #pffft

                • weka

                  It’s easier to keep cannabis illegal than to make alcohol illegal.

                  • Tracey

                    yup. The lobby groups for alcohol are well entrenched at the 9th floor, of any NZ government, alongside tobacco.

                    It is irrelevant that all the arguments for keeping dope illegal are apparent in alcohol and tobacco

                    health risks
                    anti social behaviour including domestic violence
                    black market if illegal so let’s collect the taxes
                    all 3 are shown to damage some developing brains (and many of those brains aren’t fully developed until early to mid 20’s.

              • Murray Rawshark

                I don’t see Sacha’s question as a straw man at all.

                I have never seen cannabis cause the problems that alcohol does. People have far less success at moderating their behaviour when affected by alcohol than by cannabis. Using the present illogical legal situation of cannabis, and ascribing that situation to alcohol to give a hypothetical answer is a copout. Laws are made by people, and can be changed by people. Sometimes they are made for bad reasons and should be changed.

                • Tracey

                  I have changed my stance over the years from make cannabis legal to make them all illegal… whatever we do, as long as we are hypocritical the new users and young use “hypocrite” as the extent of their critical thinking on them all.

          • Shane Le Brun 15.2.2.2.4

            Long term anything with a better safety profile than alcohol should be allowed, that is rational and just. But we certainly have a few hurdles of the Binge Drinking culture to surpass before injecting more intoxicants in the mix.

            • greywarshark 15.2.2.2.4.2

              @ ShanelB
              But we certainly have a few hurdles of the Binge Drinking culture to surpass before injecting more intoxicants in the mix.

              Cannabis is already in the mix. It’s not a situation that can be packed in a box for action later. Some rational thinking needs to be applied. Problem solving approach is required not repeating old arguments or medical studies that show bad effects to some. That doesn’t advance the discussion.

          • Ad 15.2.2.2.5

            Great to hear your sane voice.
            You were terrific on the immunisation debates.

    • Murray Rawshark 15.3

      What relevance does the price of methadone have here?

      My stance is that recreational drugs should be legal. That means that they would be freely available for medicinal use as well.

      • Shane Le Brun 15.3.1

        @Murray, Methadone is an effective nerve pain killer, as is Sativex, 18cents a pill versus 300+ a vial, A govt saying here have Sativex, yet it gets prescribed perhaps a dozen times a year, most prescriptions never filled due to price is a cop out. I see Sativex as a get out of jail free card with the police, no sane judge would convict someone with a prescription for the active ingredients of cannabis…..

        • phillip ure 15.3.1.1

          shane..methadone is more addictive than heroin..

          ..that is just one example of how doctors have got it so fucked up/upside-down..

          ..heroin should be prescribed for pain..

          ..so what if someone gets a habit..?’

          ..in that situation..heroin-dependence wd be the least of their worries..

          ..you’d think..?

          • Shane Le Brun 15.3.1.1.1

            Methadone is an excellent and appropriate pain killer far less open to abuse than Heroin, Heroin has unique properties at crossing the blood brain barrier which makes it awesome to get you high. My rational argument is if Methadone, a Class B opiate is suitable, with its associated risks, why not a Class C plant, with significantly less risks, for similar effect?

            • Murray Rawshark 15.3.1.1.1.1

              Why do you think methadone is less open to abuse than heroin? In my experience, they’re not much different. Both get you stoned off your tits. There might be some advantage with methadone in maintenance therapy, since in oral form it only needs to be taken once a day. Once someone is stabilised on a maintenance dose though, they are not getting stoned and they aren’t benefitting from any analgesic effects.

              • Shane Le Brun

                They most certainly are getting Analgesic effects!!!!!!!!!!!! the only con is its the safest long term for not having to escalate dose, but its the worst to withdraw from.

                • Murray Rawshark

                  I don’t think so. After a year or two on a steady dose of methadone, it no longer has any analgesic effects. In fact it can make people more susceptible to pain since the natural production of endorphins shuts down.

                  I also don’t think methadone is the worst to withdraw from. The withdrawals last longer than for heroin or morphine, but are not as severe.

        • Murray Rawshark 15.3.1.2

          I know methadone is an excellent painkiller for most types of pain. Heroin is even better, and morphine is entirely reasonable. Morphine costs me $34.95 for 2 gm in solution, or 8.7c per 5 mg. At the moment, it costs me about $9 each month. Sativex would apparently cost $500 per month. I have no idea what cannabis would cost, but I assume it would be more than the morphine. I also have no idea why I’d want to take it. Morphine killed my pain adequately and tapering the dose off isn’t giving me any problems.

          Even though I don’t want it, I don’t see why the odd smoke should be denied to others, whatever they want to use it for.

          • Shane Le Brun 15.3.1.2.1

            I’m talking chronic pain, years on opiates, escalating doses etc, i personally believe they need to be more aggressive in switching pain patients to methadone, as the wife needed to double her morphine every 3 months, and it wasnt as effective as Methadone or Cannabis, anyway, Morhpine is a midrang pain killer really. Fentanyl patches are even faster for tolerance build up. Cannabis enhances analgesia of opiates without increasing opiate levels in the blood, so it cant overdose you, and it is effective for nerve pain in its own right, a win win for people who have been battling failed back surgeries, car crashes and the like.

            • Murray Rawshark 15.3.1.2.1.1

              A lot of patients refuse treatment with methadone because “that’s what junkies take.” A lot of rubbish opioids like oxycodone are also prescribed on the basis that they’re not morphine. Inadequate treatment can result from a mixture of silly patients, prejudiced doctors, and oppressive legal regimes. I hope we get over it one day.

              • greywarshark

                This is a really interesting discussion from people who are informed about it. Thanks for coming forward and commenting and I hope you have learned useful stuff from each other. Have a better 2015, I hope if you still have things to put up with.

  15. the evil that jenny shipley did..on the environment..eh..?

    ..one of the major historical-villains of the piece…

    • i’m watching the barry doco on the sad/sorry record of/on protecting the environment..

      ..it is a telling indictment of what pieces of self-serving shit the rightwing/farmers/business are..

      ..fucken traitors..all of them..

      ..cynically working against the best interests of the rest of us..and the planet..

      ..gloating at/over their fucken victories against any meaningful change..

      • phillip ure 16.1.1

        that was an excellent piece of documentary-making..

        ..mr alister barry is due the highest praise for this ‘good’ work…

        ..the right/farmers/business deserve the vilification of all..

        ..and barry has made an historical-record/account/indictment of the evil those cynical bastards have done..

        ..and continue to do..

  16. greywarshark 17

    Goss of the day Jane Clifton and Trevor Mallard have married. Heard, but could be wrong.

  17. North 18

    “I thought I might not take it……..”

    More glib bullshit from Toryana Torya !

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11380534

    • The Al1en 18.1

      “In the first instance I thought I might not take it but they [her whanau] said it’s not really for me, it’s for our whanau, hapu and iwi – for all the people I have worked alongside,”

      So it’s not a reward for keeping the national party in government for 6 years then? Okay 🙄

  18. TheContrarian 19

    Wow, after reading the above Open Mike in full it would seem Phil is far more distracting and douchey than Pete George.

    • Tracey 19.1

      they are very similar…

      • greywarshark 19.1.1

        But phil produces and initiates interesting discussion – a lot – whereas Pete George pontificates on others thoughts and comments and channels trite conservative pap – a lot. Phil also is honest, any agenda he has is on show, apparently anyway. If there are infiltrators, disrupters of threads and attempts at joined-up rational discussion, I don’t think phil is one.

        Except perhaps when he and The Allen carry on a long, tiresome, free argument. Perhaps they are working towards a reversal of the Monty Python argument which you pay for. Here perhaps they keep on till they are paid to go away. as in Tom Lehrer
        In Old Mexico.
        The mariachis would serenade,
        And they would not shut up till they were paid.

  19. greywarshark 20

    One for the peasants. Rousing us for the year ahead! (Those that know we are peasants, and proud of it.) Monty Python and Dennis the anarchic Peasant from an Anarcho-syndicalist Commune.)

    Wikipedia on – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

Recent Comments

Recent Posts