The bizarre world of sensible sentencing

20 comments on “The bizarre world of sensible sentencing ”

• Comments are now closed

1. toad 1

   9 October 2009 at 10:21 am

   Looks like Key is on a loser big-time with the pseudoephedrine ban. The righties are up in arms about it too. Whale, Farrar, MacDoctor…
2. John Dalley 2

   9 October 2009 at 10:31 am

   Anyone feel a “Nanny State” moment coming on?
   • Tigger 2.1

     9 October 2009 at 10:33 am

     Nanny McKey indeed.
3. felix 3

   9 October 2009 at 10:33 am

   They really need to be shamed out of using that name.

   I suggest starting a parallel lobby group and calling it something like “The Lynching Trust” or the “Medieval Torture Trust” to put out similar press releases and support or oppose exactly the same policies as the SST.
   • Maynard J 3.1

     9 October 2009 at 3:00 pm

     HST, Hysterical Sentencing Trust.
4. LawGeek 4

   9 October 2009 at 10:39 am

   Worst headline ever from stuff:

   “P substitute not as good”

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2946355/P-substitute-not-as-good

   Really? I wasn’t aware that phenylephedrine was a substitute for P. Guess I don’t have to worry about going to dodgy drug dealers and smoking P out of a broken lightbulb any more, I can just by some effing lemsip in the supermarket and get high off that.
5. Reggie 5

   9 October 2009 at 10:45 am

   Even if a total retail ban is effective in reducing P manufacture (it wont be) and even if the other products available are “just as good’ (which they aren’t) the thing that astounds me the most is Key’s hypocrisy on this issue compared to, say, a ban on tobacco displays in shops (to which Key shrugs his shoulders and says “I’m relaxed about it, no evidence yet blah blah’).

   Think about it he has decided to ban and remove from sale several ENTIRE lines of retail product for extremely dubious reasons, but refuses to make dairy owners put packs of smokes under the counter. Prick.

   Anti-spam “Freedoms”. Freedoms my arse…
6. Herodotus 6

   9 October 2009 at 10:47 am

   This will achieve at least as much as banning smacking or Jim Anderton taxing drinks to stop binge drinking 4+ years ago.
   We are well served by politicians?
   No one wants to cure the root cause
   The same as politicians scamming benefits from the tax payer
   • Pascal's bookie 6.1

     9 October 2009 at 11:08 am

     “No one wants to cure the root cause”

     Normally I’d be wiley enough to leave that well alone. But ok.

     What’s the root cause ‘dotus, and how might we cure it?
7. Herodotus 7

   9 October 2009 at 11:41 am

   Perhaps to solve the “P” problem, a real effort in tracking down manufacturers & suppliers i.e. Gangs. Any organisation to profit that any assets that there is no proof were acquired from legit means is confiscated. Not for the Govt to give proof that the assets WERE acquired from illeg activity. Put the onus on the perpetrator. That the assets were acquired by legal income.
   From a user.
   – Stop initial contact/use (Educate NOT to use drugs none of this mim harm crap)
   – Make if difficult to obtain, cut assessability (Cut supply)
   – Support to break addiction with clinics and 3rd party support e.g. Sallys
   I cannot see any of this being adequately resourced.
   • Pascal's bookie 7.1

     9 October 2009 at 11:56 am

     That’s just more of the same though isn’t it?

     I wonder if the easiest way to lower the amount of P being produced and used in NZ would be to legalise ecstacy and BZP.
     • Noko 7.1.1

       9 October 2009 at 12:48 pm

       Or even cannabis, which would (providing it’s legal to distribute and sell) completely rip the market out from the hands of the gangs, and remove much of their bottom line.
8. Herodotus 8

   9 October 2009 at 12:14 pm

   Not from what I have read.
   How long does it take from a lab being identified to conviction and punishment?
   What real support is there for adicts?
   What quantities of P are produced and what plans do the police have to reduce the volumnes producted/ do they have a plan?
   • Pascal's bookie 8.1

     9 October 2009 at 12:31 pm

     All those questions look to me like they are aimed at the symptoms though. And yes, it’s just more of the same, (in that you think we should be doing the same type of things we are doing now, but faster, harder and more of it).

     What do you think the ‘root cause’ is? Hate to be a wanker about it like this, but you brought it up.
9. Lanthanide 9

   9 October 2009 at 12:41 pm

   There was an interview with a lecturer in pharmaceutical medicine from Otago university on National radio this morning. She said some very interesting things:

   1. Most of the off-the-shelf pills that are being used by p-labs in NZ are stolen, not bought. After hours break-ins and ram-raids into pharmacies where the cold & flu medicine shelves are emptied.

   2. By making this prescription only, instead of the drug being provided in combination over-the-counter drugs that include other things like paracetamol, which forces the p-cooks to go through an extraction process, they will now have access to dispensing bottles of a much purer form of the drug that will take less processing. So any of the drug that is bought through prescription will be much easier to process than the current ones, and any that is stolen will also be much purer to begin with.

   3. She said that some pharmacies chose not to stock the over-the-counter medicines because they didn’t want to have to deal with the issue, or the risk of break-in. With this now being a prescription drug, they will be forced to carry it.

   4. She said that with this change there is likely to be an increase in the number of GPs giving prescriptions without actually seeing the patient, as well as standover tactics by people demanding a prescription from their GP for it.
10. Herodotus 10

    9 October 2009 at 12:45 pm

    I am no psychologist but here are some ideas why we hit drugs
    Poor self esteem
    Escapism
    The “pleasure” obtained from the high.
    To name a few but I think that it all comes with dissatisfaction with what the real world has to offer (be it real or portrayed) and there is no foreseen way to escape the blandness. There needs to be something to aspire to or get something out of living (Some reason to wake up)
11. Pascal's bookie 11

    9 October 2009 at 1:07 pm

    “To name a few but I think that it all comes with dissatisfaction with what the real world has to offer (be it real or portrayed) and there is no foreseen way to escape the blandness. There needs to be something to aspire to or get something out of living (Some reason to wake up)”

    Yes and no I think. Yes, in that it is a desire to change perception of reality. No, in that I don’t think it’s necessarily to ‘escape blandness’ or cure low self esteem or what have you.

    People buy things or do things because they want the change. That doesn’t imply low self esteem or anything else. Same with drugs. People take them because they want to. It’s not necessarily an escape. Drugs don’t offer an escape from reality, but an alternate view of reality.

    Some drug users no doubt are self medicating for what they percieve as their otherwise horrible lives, but I don’t think it’s a majority, (and it’s really, really hard to research drug use because drugs are illegal and the samples set of ‘drug users’ that we have is ‘drug users that are having problems’) Many drug users use because they love the new aspects of reality that become available.
    • Herodotus 11.1

      9 October 2009 at 4:23 pm

      Scare Tissue autobio from Anthong Kedis was interesting for some insight from a R&R point of view bit easier to read than Motley Crew or Slash . And within this A.Kedis gave some insight from why he did it, motivation for rehab and returning back to drug use followed by rehab again. It did not gloryify in an overthe top fashion but still gave the “good” with the “bad”. I am sure it was tamed down as opposed to the glorification of drug use is all great as has been portrayed by others in the pop & movie business.
12. Dianne Woodward 12

    17 October 2009 at 10:56 am

    I agree with PM John Key antismackers run a very ferocious campaign. A nonviolent positive parenting type minority fuelled by Barnardoes truly believe a stinging smack is violence,venomous voices screeched Child Basher at me during all my Prosmacking protests in Feilding plus after I appeared on TV3s Campbell Live 2nd April 2007 alongside Simon Barnett and Christine Rankin I got a real SURPRISE home phonecalls emails guaranteeing gutless caller anonymity how sad no name insults to me personally. Agreeing with me are a majority 90% of Kiwi Mums Dads and grandparents who know a sharp smack works instantly for safety or to correct bad behaviour and will not bruise or maime our precious babies. Thanks Larry Baldock for listening to 9 in 10 of us. PROTECT OR CORRECT ONLY REASON TO SMACK. Smack or a brat ask Bradford that?.

    [lprent: Do not paste the same comment across multiple posts. In conjunction with the stupid grammer, lack of paragraphs, obnoxious capitalisation, and moronic slogan-ridden content – it nearly got booted as spam troll content. Instead I decided to add a note to express my displeasure.

    The key to blog commenting is discussion. It is not simply shoving some stupid assertions down peoples throats. Spamming a blog site just shows you to be the type of obnoxious jerkoff that convinced me to move from opposing the repeal of S59a to a supporter. I came to the conclusion that a lot of the noisiest ‘smacking’ supporters were people I’d hate to raise children. Your attitude is a case in point. ]
13. Armchair Critic 13

    17 October 2009 at 11:29 am

    DW – Would you like some full stops to go with that little rant? I will leave them under your bridge for you. Once you have worked out how to use them I can introduce you to commas and maybe even basic punctuation. Even then, I doubt you will have a convincing argument.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS