Category Archives: Regulation

Good Cop Bad Cop.

I have just started a New Facebook page with the above title.
Law and order are subjects I am very passionate about, esp because I have suffered from the injustices of Bad Laws enforced by unscrupulous Police… and so I know first hand how Bad Laws wrongfully enforced corrodes an individuals faith in society… causes a hate for society, and mass produces Criminals and Outlaws.
It was a near thing for me yet by the grace of God, he taught me the dynamics of these things, and why I ought to refrain from going down that dark ally… and instead ‘Keep the faith’ in Justice, and work for a more just and enlightened society.

As a Libertarian, not an Anarchist I believe in Just Government, Just Laws, and the Just enforcement of just laws.
Good Government, and Good Police respect the inalienable rights and liberties of Individuals, and their just and limited powers are delegated to them by the people (as Individuals) as an extension of the individuals right to provide for their own defense (Self defense) … yet that is as far as their legitimate function goes.
Good Cops… like Good Government are a boon to society… a Good Cop ought to be a Pillar of Ethics… a person motivated by Compassion and who sees virtue in serving the people… and this is something quite different from a Paid goon who enjoys wielding power under the pretense and pseudo-legitimacy of enforcing the Law… irrespective of *what* the nature of the law is.

If This page pours scorn, ridicule, or outrage upon events and the actions of an officer, department, or Court Ruling, please remember that this page is *Not about Hate*… It is about Justice and reform.

Good Police should be as outraged as I am, when bad police get away with injustice.

A Good cop is a person of the highest Scruple and integrity… He/ she is not in it for the money… or the power.
They will put the rights and liberties of the people they seek to serve ahead of tyrannical Party political agendas… and a Just society ought to have a constitution that embodies these ‘Higher principles’ that trumps Parliamentary whims, and has the authority to Deem The Evil ambitions of Politicians to be corrupt… and therefore void…. and therefore Criminal … and a code of Ethical conduct by which Good Cops can repair in defense of their refusal to enforce Bad laws and Evil Orders.

A Bad cop is a person who has no problems enforcing Evil laws that encroach upon the rights and liberties of the people.
Just as Satan appears as an Angel of Light, Evil Political agendas… and Bad cops always disguise themselves under the garb of Expedience, emergency, or some supposed Lofty Social and ‘Politically Correct’ Ideal.
Bad Cops even use Just Laws as pretense to commit gratuitous violence and oppression… and frame the innocent.
It is a characteristic of Evil to be able to pervert and twist good things to evil ends… and Bad cops do this all the ding dong day!
“He Resisted arrest”… “He went for my Gun”… so I shot him dead…… They know, and even have been trained how to work the system so that they can commit violence and crimes with impunity.

When the Cops are Corrupt… the wheels of society are truly falling off the wagon, and there are few things more destructive to Civil order… few Evils that generate Criminals than when people loose respect for the Law… because the powers that be… and esp the Police are corrupt and oppressive.

A society that does not vigorously expose, and prosecute Dirty Bad cops is on the road to Ruin…

Power Tends to attract the worst personality types, and it corrupts those of weak moral stature, which is a fundamental reason why Legal Powers of Force need to be very very limited, and The Government and Police need to be under constant scrutiny… and held to the highest standards of principle.

Sadly for most of the world the things I have written above are ignored, and so The Reputation of the Police is that of Oppressors… of a violent Criminal Gang within a corrupt system that protects them.

My Page is all about addressing these issues… about pointing out instances of Great police work, and contrasting them against instances when the Police commit crimes against the people.

My ambition for this page is not to propagate lawlessness and contempt for the institution of the Police but the very opposite… to promote Good Laws, To encourage reforms where needed, and be a place where people can discuss these issues… so please Like, Post and share here.
All are welcome.

So Enjoy ‘Good Cop Bad Cop’

Tim Wikliriwhi
Christian Libertarian.

P.S. END THE WAR ON DRUGS!

More from Tim…

Legalised Force attracts Thugs and Bullies like flies to…

To the US Libertarian Party: Muzzle your Hounds! Gary Johnson appears to be writing his own rules.

14046005_1030888987032386_657474486335775967_n

As a New Zealand Libertarian and foreign observer of the US elections, the activities of The US Libertarian Party have been of the greatest personal interest… much more so than the insane rantings of Clinton and Trump.

I watched many of the Libertarian debates between the hopeful candidates, and was a little disappointed… yet not surprised, when Gary Johnson was Victorious.
Though my preferences would have been John Mcaffe, or Austin Peterson because of their superior adherence to Libertarian philosophy (Gary absolutely blew it for me when he said a Jewish Baker should be forced to bake Nazi Cakes)… none the less *On the whole* Gary Still appeared to stand head and shoulders above the competition he faces from the two major party candidates, Trump and Clinton.

0cba0163111dc22c5ccebe5c713a8a4b

Yet as time passes…and the election gets closer… the high ground is eroding from under his feet…
Most of us already understood that Gary is a seasoned Election strategist… as opposed to an adroit man of principle… and it is chiefly for this reason that he was chosen by the moderate elements to represent the party… while the more principled elements were shaking their heads… some vowing not to endorse the Party choice.
Others like myself were willing to swallow our disappointment… and wash down the unpleasant aftertaste with several stiff drinks… and determine to get in behind Johnson…. for the sake of the Party… and America. (See my post script about how the internet allows foreigners to participate in such elections)

14067829_1024388817682403_3819039421985544205_o

Yet as time passes… we suffer reflux.

What is *almost treachery* is Gary Johnson and side kick William Weld have been busy declaring *More Statist positions*, than he did during the selection process…*And that’s dishonest*.

A fundamental issue appears to be getting out of hand.
It is very different for a candidate and Party Representative to *hold personal opinions* about issues… like the legitimacy of Global warming…. quite another to unilaterally *make party policy*…. that contradicts their/our fundamental principles… as Gary has done.
… And I’m not sure why the Libertarians Party has not called him in to lay down a few limits to his Autocratic attitudes.
One would think that being *The Libertarian Party candidate for President* that he would be coming up with *Free market ideas* that people could embrace to satisfy their fears about global warming (whether it is true or not)…. yet he appears to be devoid of such innovative thoughts that embody our fundamental beliefs… that good ideas dont need compulsion… instead he is repairing to the *same Anti-liberty* type ideas as *Carbon taxes*… yet with not very clever sophistry… re-branded this Statist Tax … as a ‘Fee’.

Weld has come out stating he would support certain new Gun Restrictions.

So I am calling out The US Libertraians Party Executive and asking why they have not called in Johnson and Weld and laid down a few basic Limits to their Policy commitments and promises.
They ought to be free to express their personal views, yet make it clear that they are such… not party policy, and when suggesting *Any solutions* to problems, they must fall within the scope of *Libertarian principle*… or be considered void… and dishonest by the party.
Johnson and Weld should be expected to make *Retractions* on their remarks about *Carbon Fees*, forced Vaccinations, and *Gun restrictions*… and other statements they have made that are not in conformity with Libertarian fundamentals.

The sooner this is done… the better.
The way things are going a lot of Libertarians are in danger of Vomiting.
Johnson and Weld are beginning to morph into a grotesque Republican/ Democratic party mutation…
It is with concern, yet also a desire to minimize destructive schism that I make this Blog post, and appeal.

14063799_10154407627128764_7589919981888043283_n

Standing up at Public Rallys Day after day…. and trying not to sound like a stuck record… answering lots of tricky questions… it’s easy to put your foot in your mouth…. and very hard to pull it back out again later.
Maybe this pressure has caused Gary to make the odd statement that upon reflection, he regrets?
He should Man up about it.
Plus The Libertarian party must not break down due to in fighting… Gary Needs Full support, yet He must do his part to show himself worthy.
He must not recklessly put Votes ahead of Principle.
He must think smarter… win the support of the people… by smarter, innovative ideas that will work towards the desired end… yet via means that are righteous… in accord with Libertarian Ideals.

Gary!
That you are the Best successful party candidate for president this election is without debate.
You are standing against Two of the most Unfit individuals in History.

You Beat two very worthy principled Men… John Mcaffe, and Austin Peterson.
Dont blow the trust your Libertarian Countrymen have placed in you by continuing to make Policy statements that you know violate Party principles.
*You dont have a mandate to make your personal opinions party policy*
Stop acting like a Dictator.
Start proving you will respect the principles upon which the constitution is founded.
You are Scary Dude… and making a mockery of our cherished ideals.

Tim Wikiriwhi

Christian Libertarian.
New Zealand.

Post script:

It’s interesting to me that though I am on the opposite side of the world, and cannot vote in the US elections, that none-the-less via the Internet, I can still play a small part in it all… by critiquing the happenings… and being active in promoting the Libertarian candidate.
This is a relatively new phenomena … a consequence of the world wide web… and you can see why ‘The Political powers that be would dearly love to slap censorship onto the net so that they could better manipulate what information is being spread about the elections.
The same may be said of *Legal proceedings*… esp in cases involving *The Government* criminalizing and jailing Citizens for ‘Political crimes’… such as is happening *right now* with regards to the Bundy Ranchers, and the Kangaroo court case proceedings with regards to the Oregon stand off.
Not only is the Judge loading the Bases with regards to the Jury, but is also *Banning the court case from being Live streamed*… like some Third-world tyranny… the Evil powers that be seek to *avoid transparency* …. so that they can crucify/ crush their Political adversaries… whom actually have the Law of the land (The constitution) on their side.
The activities of such principled Americans as Gavin Siems appears to be falling on Deaf ears.
The people of America and the Media slumber while the evil powers that be are busy Treading the constitution and the rights, and due process of their greatest Sons…. underfoot.
It appears that “White Christian Cowboys lives dont matter… to America…. because they stand ‘outside the Politically correct demographics’ that the Liberals have given a monopoly of victimization by the State.
Ie they are not Gay, Not Black, Not Woman,Not Clinton supporters,….
What is happening in Oregon ought to be High on the Libertarian Party candidates list of topics to discuss at every opportunity… at election meetings and in interviews… doing their bit to bust wide open the Dirty dealings that are being done in the dark.

Thus Political criminality will always seek to limit what the world gets to observe… and thereby limit Global criticism and condemnation… so they can more easily feign Legitimacy.
With this in mind I make a conscious effort to broadcast injustices I see happening ‘out there’ in foreign lands…. for the sake of the Righteous oppressed ‘Enemies of the State’… hoping to stir up Global outrage and protest… and make it harder for the Oppressive regimes to hide their evil political activities.
So it seems to me that to the degree that we have access of valid information from Independent sources, The Internet acts the part of ‘International observers’ … as has become normal in many countries in which fear that democratic processes will be subverted for the sake of Rigging election results, etc.
We outsiders cant vote… but we can use reason and persuasion to support the factions we believe are worthy.

As such some US Libertarians may be asking “Why should we bother to listen to someone who is, not a US citizen, and so far removed from the consequences of US Elections?
Is it not Impertinence of the highest order for outsiders to meddle in American affairs?

I answer that *Only for good reason*… ie If My arguments are sound…then it is *reason itself* that you are acknowledging… and that stands on its own merit… irrespective of it’s origin.

And I would also hope that my arguments above on the whole show that having an open Global forum works in favour Freedom of information… against the ability of powerful Political interests to control and manipulate information to the voting public and the world.

12985581_10206119488368187_5966209565386287292_n

2. with regards to Gary Johnson’s phobia about Religious liberty… calling it ‘a black hole’.. and then saying he would force a Jewish baker to bake Nazi Cakes….

This pains me. Religious liberty is the fundamental Right… all the rest are corollaries…. Nor is it ‘a black hole’, the defining limits is *Equality of Liberty*… ie your religious liberty cannot impinge upon the religious liberty of others.
Thus Private property is *The space* for you to Build your temples, schools, and homes to raise your children in your faith…. and free speech is your right to express your values, make apology for your beliefs, and to worship, and propagate your beliefs.
The right to Self defense is your right to defend yourself from Evils… esp from others whom seek to persecute you for your faith, and the right to overthrow the government is your right to resist tyrannical government that impinges upon your peaceful religious liberty to live, sand worship God according to your own conscience.

It is astounding that Gary appears to be oblivious to how his suggestion of Legal compulsion upon the Jewish baker to bake someone a cake against his will is tantamount to slavery… and an absolute violation of *voluntary agreement* that underpins *Free trade*!
It is Repugnant!
It’s interesting to me that all this is actually a demonstration of Johnson’s *personal* aversion to *Christian values* … He is prepared to make such outrageous statements as compelling Jews to bake Nazi Cakes… so that he may do what *he really wants to do*… force Christians to bake Gay wedding cakes.

Yet while such statements as this were made during the Party Candidate selection process, and were sufficient for many of us to prefer McAffe and Peterson to represent Libertarianism in the Elections… none the less Johnson was successful in winning the Candidacy.
Maybe it is true that Debates and Election meeting play little part in the ultimate choices people make when selecting candidates.
Maybe most people are quick to decide whether or not they like someone, and after that… the rest of the process is of little weight?

What a Libertarian actually sounds like….

Xmas Commercialism and the Police. Profiteering from Death and Mayhem.

speedy 3

Beware my friends, It’s that time of year when shysters seek to relieve you of your hard earned cash… and I’m not talking about the marketing Gurus of the Warehouse or Briscoes.
You think the Santa parade is a good show?
Well the Police also enjoy performing their own Pantomimes… yet they are not that entertaining.
We all suffer the anguish of Xmas commercialism and the Police arn’t shy of cashing in too.

Out of the goodness of their hearts, the Police have already implemented their 4km in-tolerance for the months of December and January.
They have already started writing themselves cheques at our expense, and acting out the charade that they are doing their bit to keep us safe on the roads by pinging us at every opportunity they get… Funny Buggers… the joke is on us… because as we are all painfully aware… this strategy is Bogus!

They are making millions… This is Tax gathering disguised as Law and order… they are literally using the carnage and Mayhem on our roads to justify their extortion racket!
Yet still…. like so many other weekends and holidays that this Rapine has been imposed, our Roads are just as drenched in blood and guts … maybe even worse!
7 people died in traffic accidents this weekend. Read about it > Weekend road deaths ‘heartbreaking’

In a recent article … Motorong editor rubbishes campaign
The police’s reduced speed tolerance will be of little benefit to road safety over December and January, say Clive Matthew-Wilson, editor of the car review website dogandlemon.com.

“However much the government tries to massage the figures, the reality is that about 80% of fatalities occur at speeds below the legal limit. Therefore, to claim that ticketing mildly speeding drivers will substantially lower the road toll is simply nonsense,” Mr Matthew-Wilson says.

santa busted

Think about this:
Some people believe *Principles* are important, irrespective of what negative consequence may arise as a result of them.
They say it is best for society to remain true to these ideals… in spite of any chaos that ensues because they believe that justice is absolutely above everything else… and ultimately also expedient.
*That there is no valid contradiction between Just policy, and the best outcome.*
In Law, a prohibition which the people do not find legitimate, will never work but cause the Law to stink.

Some people dont believe in principles, instead they are pragmatists who believe almost any means is justifiable… if it gets a desired result.
They like to think of themselves ‘as Realists’.
A realist ought to think twice when they begin to see their experiments have failed.

Then you get the complete idiots.
They dont bother with principles either, yet they dont even take into consideration pragmatic realities, but death-grip onto any absurd notion even after it has proven to be worse than useless.
They are hell bent on persevering with failed ideas out of a sheer incapacity to think.
They cannot fathom any possible alternatives… esp if the alternatives require a complete about face and the courage to try a new direction.

Now ask yourself in respect to this ongoing failed and heavy handed strategy regarding stricter Speed-limits…. are you one of these complete Idiots… or are you one of the other two types of thinking people?

If you claim you are not a member of the Idiots, then I ask why so many of you are not spitting the Dummy over the travesty of 4km intolerance on Speed on our roads, given that it has proven to be a complete farce?

Why do you allow yourselves to be molested at times of celebration by an army of parasites, who hide in the shaddows like Villains ready to pounce?
Why do you allow your wallets to be emptied… and your pleasant travels to be rudely interfered with by Bullies and robbers with badges?

If in the light of all the evidence you still insist this predatory extortion racket is for the public good…. well then I say you are an Idiot…because and I repeat…the facts are indisputable…. all the heavy handed fines and impositions (such as the lower drinking limits) are not reducing the carnage on the road one iota!

You are like the Police (and government)… bereft of New and better strategies… and too scared to tell them to back off, and quit their harassment.

red blue

The whole roading safety strategy needs a rethink, and a change in focus.
I’m not advocating anarchy, but smarter approaches… using the tools available.
Such as more No overtaking lines where obviously there is limited visibility for a distance, yet also having more overtaking lanes, and slow vertical lanes so that people can safely get past on stretches where crossing the white line is hazardous.
Not only does this present obvious safety advantages, but less obvious if combined with the police *not being so Fascist about speed, and the government passing reforms that allow even greater speeds on the best sections of highway, this will generate *more respect* from users, and a safer culture of driving to the conditions… understanding the logic that a Smarter road strategy allows people to go faster where appropriate, and reduces the stretches where slow moving vehicles can provoke rash maneuvers by people anxious to get past.
Make the best roads faster and you will get less speeders on the country back roads.
Get away from the ‘Cops are your enemy’ mindset that heavy handed ticketing is all about.
*Bust REAL dangerous drivers only*.
People who do dangerous/ reckless maneuvers, leaving others traveling at speed in obviously ideal conditions alone.

ticket-quotas-exposed-across-the-nation1

These are just a few ideas that could be an alternative to the current rapacious bully tactics of the police that is not only a failure, but as a result generates a severe disrespect for them and the law.
We should be brave enough to try!

The definition of folly is doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results.

Dont you think it’s kinda ridiculous to even believe the idea that the Police *can bring down the road toll*???
Where did that nutty idea even come from?
Did they themselves assume this roll like superman?
This whole business was nothing more than a ruse from the start… to wrangle more power for themselves.
It’s a gimmick to fool the dopey into accepting being being hounded and fleeced like sheep.

It simply cannot be the Polices job to ‘End the carnage on the road’… and it certainly is not their job to treat us like cash cows… remember they work for us and we have the right to enjoy the use our roads free of molestation.
The police need a serious attitude adjustment.
And realistically we must accept that accidents will happen.
No amount of social engineering can eliminate the human factor.

Speedie.

If we really want things to change, then we must start voicing our demands at every opportunity… create/ join lobby groups that protest against the Status quo.

Write to AA, Write to your Mp’s, demanding they put a stop to this mickey mouse behavior of the police.
Demand they show us all more respect.
Demand a Culture change within the Police force, and stop voting for Nanny Statists whom have no fresh ideas… but love flogging that dead horse… of Less freedoms, Heavier fines…
Spend time thinking up ways to bring in reforms rather than more mutton fisted misery.

I must add some balance.
I am sure many police sincerely believe their activities are just, after all… they are following what their bosses say is supposed to help keep us safe.
I’m sure that some are well aware that this strategy is a failure… yet they are expected to dish out their quota of infringements.
All this exposes the systemic problems.
Any caring police officers should be working within the system for reforms, and should not support further impositions upon the people they serve.

It was never the lower drinking limits that were the problem.
It was never the people doing 120 along the motorway either.

speedy 2

I hope my blog at least stimulates some dialogue and debate.
I personally have had a guts full of the current extortion and Pig headed attitude we get from Parliament on down to those we employ to catch Robbers and rapists.
This Xmas Commercialism must end.
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Christian Libertarian.
New Zealand Biker.

More From Tim…

Tim Wikiriwhi’s submission to New Zealand ACC re: Motorcycle levies.

Nat’s Orwellian Budget. Bikers pay the price for stupid Laws in more ways than $$$

Other World…The Right to Opt out. Biker Credos.

I’m Hunter S. Thompson’s Latest Fan. Kingdom of Fear.

Machine Gun Preacher.

Standing on the Edge of the Abyss? Jesus Saves!

New Zealand Christian Motorcyclists Association.

Update: 25-12-15

‘Road chaos mars the start of holidays with more than 120 crashes since Christmas Eve’

Driver ‘in-attention’ …. falling asleep from boredom…. inattention from looking at your speedo all day instead of the road.

Read more>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/75456369/road-chaos-mars-the-start-of-holidays-with-more-than-120-crashes-since-christmas-eve

Back to basics

drugs-life-police-officer-267837

This meme has been doing the rounds of drug law reform social networks. Regular readers may have seen it once or twice already.

In this post I want to consider the message that this meme is sending to young people. And what this meme means for drug law reformers in general and for libertarians in particular.

Drugs can ruin your life

For sure. Drugs can, and do, harm people. Drug harms can be measured. See, for example, the Nutt scale. And drug harms can be prevented.

so if I catch you with them I’m sending you to jail and ruining your life.

One way to prevent drug harms is to prevent people from taking drugs. One way to prevent people from taking drugs is to send them to jail. But being sent to jail ruins your life.

The harms caused by criminalising drug use can also be measured and it turns out that the cure is worse than the disease. Prohibition doesn’t work. The War on Drugs™ is an expensive, epic failure. The harms caused by criminalising drugs outweigh and/or add to and exacerbate the harms caused by the drugs themselves.

So say the majority of drug law reformers. In the interests of harm minimisation, we must abandon the failed policy of prohibition and try a new approach to preventing drug harms. The three pillars of harm minimisation are demand reduction, supply control and problem limitation. So we must educate (to reduce demand), regulate (to control supply) and treat (to limit problems).

But wait! Who’s being forced to pay for all this harm minimisation? Asks the libertarian. Since when was harm minimisation a proper role of government? The proper role of government is to uphold our rights, not to save us from ourselves.

Drugs can ruin your life

The stock libertarian response is, if you’re worried that drugs can ruin your life, don’t take them. In other words, so what?

so if I catch you with them I’m sending you to jail and ruining your life.

It’s the bottom bit of the message that ought to make libertarians sit up and take notice. The proper role of government is to uphold our rights, not to save us from ourselves, and certainly not to violate our rights by sending us to jail! Governments can and do catch people with drugs, send them to jail and ruin their lives. Governments harm people by doing that. Governments shouldn’t harm people. So it turns out that harm minimisation is a proper role of government, after all.

I briefly looked at the types of harms governments should try to minimise in a previous post.

The overarching goal of the [New Zealand government’s National Drug] Policy, to prevent and reduce the harms that are linked to drug use, is a noble one. However, we must distinguish between three main kinds of drug-related harms

1. Harms which individuals inflict upon themselves, or inflict upon others with their consent
2. Harms which individuals inflict upon others without their consent
3. Harms which governments inflict upon their citizens

Libertarianz says that the government should not seek to save people from themselves, and most certainly should not harm its own citizens. The government should seek to bring to justice those who commit thefts, assaults, rapes and murders, whether such criminal acts are drug-fuelled or not.

It’s by focussing on this third category that I believe we can, as libertarians, make a contribution to National Drug Policy while maintaining our philosophical integrity.

Harm minimisation is a proper role of government, but only the minimisation of certain harms and not others. Minimising the harms we inflict upon ourselves is not the legitimate business of the state. Minimising the harms the state inflicts on its own citizens is very much the legitimate business of the state. Governments ought to be forced to take the Hippocratic Oath! Above all, do no harm.

do_no_harm

Last year, the New Zealand government did what seemed to be a very libertarian thing. It stood back and let us get on with the business of harming ourselves by smoking untested, unsafe, novel synthetic cannabinoids. This month, the New Zealand government apparently reverted to its authoritarian ways and banned the sale and use of all synthetic cannabinoids until further notice.

All is not as it seems. By allowing us to harm ourselves, the government was inflicting harm on us!

How so? What I just said is bound to sound paradoxical, or even duplicitous, unless you stand back and get the bigger picture. In my previous post, syndicated from Life Behind The IRon Drape, Mark Hubbard stands back and gets the bigger picture.

This is what the 119 that I declared a philosophical war upon, have done. They legalised a line of hardcore addictive drugs in the league of P or heroin, nothing similar to the non-toxic, non-addictive, medicinal cannabis that many other countries are sensibly legalising, and then by keeping cannabis criminalised they successfully addicted possibly thousands of mainly young Kiwis to the equivalent of heroin, because by taking the legal heroin they would not face the force of the law, or lose their jobs, unlike smoking cannabis for which they would be convicted in the government war on drugs. So government policy addicted them to heroin, and I’ll keep making this point …

Context is important. He who would trade safely implemented and lasting drug law reform for some temporary liberty, deserves neither. Sometimes, a little freedom is a dangerous thing.

Anthony_DiPonzios

I’m given to understand that this revised meme is what most of my fellow drug law reform activists are fighting for. Well, being sent to rehab is better than being sent to jail, isn’t it? I suppose so.

Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Libertopia any more.

Footnote.

The police officer in the picture is Anthony DiPonzio of the Rochester Police Department in New York. DiPonzios is both a perpetrator and a victim in the War on Drugs™. In 2009

DiPonzio, 23, was shot in the back of the head on a city street after questioning a few people about alleged drug activity on Saturday, Jan. 31. Tyquan Rivera, 14, of 65 Dayton St., Rochester, turned himself in to Rochester police Tuesday, Feb. 3. He will be tried as a juvenile and could face up to 10 years in prison if convicted.

“We are pleased to share that officer DiPonzio continues to make significant progress in recovering from his serious wound. He is speaking this morning, and we are very pleased with his notably improving condition, which is far ahead of where we expected him to be at this point.”

“He has made such significant progress that – based on his current condition – we anticipate he will be able to transfer from Rochester General Hospital to Unity Health System’s Brain Injury Rehabilitation Unit early next week.”

ENLARGE_01diponzioRGH

NEED A PERMIT TO HELP THE POOR? Nazi Hamilton Council Bastards!

Feeding-The-Hungry

Waikato Times reports…. “A group feeding Hamilton’s needy say the council is forcing them out of Garden Place to stop more homeless people coming to the area. But the council says while they have received complaints about the group feeding the homeless, their primary concern is the fact that those involved don’t have the appropriate permit to operate in a public.”
Read on here..

df-where

Of course it’s not just the council… Hamilton CBD seems to be infested with Mean spirited whinney Bitches who complain about everything.
They bleated on about ‘Rif Raff’ frequenting the Legal high outlets etc etc…. making all sorts of wild allegations… etc Ad Nauseam… and the Council was more than willing to use this as a pretext to write even more unjust laws… and generate even more prohibitions.
They tried to stop the Casino being built.

whiney
What good is having a public domain if only the Wealthy can use it?
Socialism cares for the weak? YEAH RIGHT!

And you wonder why nobody’s doing business in Town?
Me thinks it has more to do with the Blamers and Ban-ers rather than those they oppress.
The Pompous arses spend all day kicking people out of the city and then wonder why they are going broke?
Morons blame others for their own Nastiness and stupidity.

The reality is none of these activities ought to be criminalised, I almost hope a giant sink hole would open up and swallow the whole CBD…. esp Council HQ.
What a hole it has become.
When benevolent Citizens show compassion for their fellow man the Socialist infested Council makes it illegal!
If I was Mayor I would tell all these small minded fascists to ether shut their traps… or shut their shops and Bugger off somewhere else! And allow more tolerant others to use the city.

Hamilton CBD needs more freedom, less Government.

Submission to the PSRA

PIGMAN Submission Eat Me

To: psychoactives@moh.govt.nz
Subject: Regulations Consultation

The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party exists to legalise cannabis for recreational, spiritual, medicinal and industrial purposes; to empower people to work together for peace and true justice; and to institute a proper and just balance between the power of the state and the rights and dignity of the individual.

Psychoactive substances regulations exists to give government some measure of control over what substances people use, how they use them, and who uses them.

Cannabis is not regulated. It is prohibited. Paradoxically, in the case of cannabis, prohibition means that cannabis is almost entirely uncontrolled. Nearly everyone who wants to use cannabis does so, including minors. For minors, cannabis is as readily available as alcohol.

Ostensibly, the purpose of cannabis prohibition is harm reduction. The three pillars of harm reduction are supply control, demand reduction and problem limitation. Under prohibition, there is no control of supply of, no reduction in demand for, and no limitation of problems caused by, cannabis.

Government must regulate cannabis if it is to gain any measure of control over who uses cannabis. Regulation is de facto legalisation. For the government and for the cannabis law reform movement, a regulated, taxable market in cannabis is win-win.

Various parties, including the Associate Minister of Health himself, have suggested that substances currently controlled (or not, in the case of cannabis) under the Misuse of Drugs Act might, in future, be controlled under the Psychoactive Substances Act. A simple legislative amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act removing cannabis from its schedules would immediately bring cannabis under the Psychoactive Substances Act, where its risk of harm could then be assessed against the same standards as will apply to any other psychoactive substance.

There is more than one way to skin a dead cat, and this is not the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party’s preferred pathway to cannabis law reform. However, the Party makes the present submission on the assumption that the future pathway to legal cannabis will be as has just been suggested.

Cannabis is not a substance, nor is it a product. It is a plant, a plant that anyone with a green thumb can grow. Therefore, many of the consultation questions in the supplied consultation document are inapplicable to cannabis. Since we do not have to answer all the questions, we answer only those questions we deem to be relevant.

Our main concerns are “truth in labelling” and appropriate measures to minimise access to cannabis by minors. Hence, the questions we answer below are mainly those concerning labelling and packaging (in Chapter 4 of the consultation document), and place of sale and advertising (in Chapter 5).

14. Are the proposed requirements and restrictions on labelling sufficient?

Yes.

15. Are the proposed requirements relating to health warnings sufficient?

Yes.

16. Are the proposed packaging requirements and restrictions sufficient?

Yes.

17. Do you agree with the proposal to restrict a packet to one dose? Please give reasons for your answer.

No. There is no need to restrict the size of a packet of cannabis. Because no one has ever overdosed on cannabis in all of human history. If there must be restriction, the size of a packet of cannabis should be restricted to 1 oz. There is no need for decimalisation.

18. Do you agree with the proposal that a dose, in whatever form the product takes, is split wherever possible?

No. Consumers can do this themselves with scissors or grinders.

19. Do you think there should be restrictions on the form products can take? If so, what forms do you think should and shouldn’t be allowed?

No. Cannabis should be allowed in smokeable, vaporisable, topical and edible forms.

20. Do you think there should be restrictions or requirements on the storage of psychoactive substances? If so, what should the restrictions or requirements be?

See below. (As previously noted, cannabis is neither a substance nor a product. It is a plant, but can be made into a value-added product.

21. Do you think restrictions or requirements should be set for the storage of approved products? If so, what should they be?

Yes. For security purposes, to prevent cannabis from falling into the hands of minors or of thieves who might on-sell to minors, cannabis retailers should store cannabis products under lock and key when not physically present on the retail premises.

22. Do you think restrictions or requirements should be set regarding the display of approved products? If so, what should they be?

Yes. We suggest that such restrictions or set requirements be in line with those applicable to other psychoactive products. Additionally open discussion around public health best practices such as plain packaging must occur, in the context of whatever is publicly acceptable for tobacco and alcohol should also be acceptable for cannabis.

23. Do you think restrictions or requirements should be set regarding the disposal of approved products? If so, what should they be?

Up in smoke. Persons disposing of cannabis must ensure that there are no minors or non-consenting adults downwind of the conflagration.

24. Do you think there should be signage requirements in the regulations? If so, please give specific suggestions.

There should be no signage requirements, but we recommend a stylised cannabis leaf.

25. Do you think the regulations should specify further places where approved products may not be sold? If so, please provide specific suggestions.

We have no special objections to regulations preventing the sale of cannabis near schools or other places where minors might otherwise tend to congregate.

26. Do you think the regulations should prescribe restrictions or requirements for advertisements of approved products? If so, please provide specific suggestions.

We have no special objections to the regulations that currently apply to advertisements for synthetic cannabinoid products also applying to advertisements for cannabis.

27. Do you think the regulations should prescribe restrictions or requirements on internet sales of approved products? If so, please provide specific suggestions.

We have no special objections to the restrictions and requirements that currently apply to Internet sales of synthetic cannabinoid products also applying to Internet sales of cannabis.

28. Do you think the regulations should prescribe restrictions or requirements on the advertising of approved products? If so, please provide specific suggestions.

We have no special objections to the restrictions and requirements that currently apply to the on-site advertising of cannabinoid products also applying to the on-site advertising of cannabis.

In closing, a few words about the fees and levies proposed (in Chapter 6 of the consultation document) and also on determining the risk of harm posed by cannabis.

The ALCP envisages that many commercial suppliers of legal cannabis will be small scale suppliers. The suggested fees and levies in the consultation document would be harshly punitive in the context of “cottage industry” cannabis. They would provide a major disincentive to comply with the regulations, and drive the cultivation and supply of cannabis underground, where it now is, uncontrolled by the government. We suggest that the PSRA sets the fees or levies payable by homegrown commercial cannabis suppliers commensurate with those set by authorities in the State of Colorado.

Cannabis has been tried and tested over several millennia. Risk of harm has already been determined. We know that cannabis poses no more than a very low risk of harm to those who choose to use it.

This submission was completed by Dr. Richard Goode, Vice President of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, on its behalf.

pigmanneversubmit1copy

A modest proposal

3a7fe68874a321b711daef95b38f4075814f19e995d5624f8aed48950f024590

The Ministry of Health is asking for help to shape the National Drug Policy, which sets out the Government’s approach for tobacco, alcohol, illegal and other drugs.

NORML has provided a handy guide to people and organisations make submissions.

Submissions close 28 February 2014.

Quick off the blocks is Billy McKee of GreenCross with a proposal for a licensing system as a method of removing drug use from the justice system and placing it in the health system with appropriate measures for assistance where there is abuse or misuse.

In brief, the Submission proposes a licensing system for all drug use, including the most commonly used drugs in NZ being alcohol, nicotine, cannabis, methamphetamines, opiates, LSD, MDMA and crack/cocaine. The licensing system seeks to educate any person wishing to use a drug and then, following certain criteria being met (as detailed in the Submission) a license will be issued to that person in respect of that particular drug. The license will work similarly to a Subway card upon each purchase which will be centrally recorded and subject to the Privacy Act. Any unusual or suspected misuse by any person which arouses the attention of special health and social services allocated for this purpose, will result in the relevant service seeking to assist the person should there turn out to be drug abuse/misuse and a drug problem.

It’s an interesting idea that might even work. The licensing of medical cannabis users (by way of a a prescription or letter from a licensed health practitioner) is, of course, commonplace in more enlightened parts of the world. Drinking permits have been tried in India and Tonga with some success.

Readers are invited to download and read the submission and send an endorsement.

The idea of needing a permit to use one’s own body is anathema to a libertarian, so no takers here.

Comparisons are odious

20101106_WOC504_0

We shouldn’t diss other people’s drugs. 🙁

But we should compare other people’s drugs with our own. 🙂

The bar chart above is from the paper Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis which was first published in The Lancet in 2010. The paper’s lead author, Professor David Nutt was formerly the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), which is the British government’s equivalent of New Zealand’s Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs (EACD).

As ACMD chairman Nutt repeatedly clashed with government ministers over issues of drug harm and classification. In January 2009 he published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology an editorial (‘Equasy – An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms‘) in which the risks associated with horse riding (1 serious adverse event every ~350 exposures) were compared to those of taking ecstasy (1 serious adverse event every ~10,000 exposures). In February 2009 he was criticised by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith for stating in the paper that the drug ecstasy was statistically no more dangerous than an addiction to horse-riding. Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, Nutt said that the point was “to get people to understand that drug harm can be equal to harms in other parts of life”. Jacqui Smith claimed to be “surprised and profoundly disappointed” by the remarks, and added: “I’m sure most people would simply not accept the link that he makes up in his article between horse riding and illegal drug taking”. She also insisted that he apologise for his comments, and asked him to apologise also to ‘the families of the victims of ecstasy’.

Nutt’s persistence in his heretical view that illicit drugs should be classified according to the actual evidence of the harm they cause eventually lead to his dismissal from his post by the Home Secretary Alan Johnson. Nutt’s dismissal became a political scandal. There was a slew of resignations of high profile government scientists in its wake. The government’s Science Minister Lord Drayson was quoted as being “pretty appalled” by Johnson’s “big mistake” in dismissing Nutt without consultation.

Nutt went on to fame and fortune.

Fortune enough to start his own independent drug research body called the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs (ISCD) which was launched in January 2010. In November 2010, the ISCD published the aforementioned paper Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis. (Read a summary of the paper here or read the full paper here.)

Fame enough for Nutt to be invited by the New Zealand Drug Foundation to give a talk in Wellington late last year. I was lucky enough to get to go along and hear what he had to say. (I’d mostly heard it before, of course. Nutt rates a mention in the Libertarianz Party’s Transitional Drug Policy, which is to legalise all drugs safer than alcohol. 🙂 )

Here’s a challenge to my readers. (Especially those with a conservative perspective.)

Listen to Nutt’s talk and then tell me that the War on Drugs™ is not evil and stupid.

No takers? Didn’t think so.

R(1)8

This is the video documentary that, in the past 48 hours, has been viewed by 1 in 10 New Zealanders.

Won’t somebody please think of the children? That’s the question I’m asking. Because somebody needs to do something. But that somebody is not the government, and that something is not making legislative provision for tighter regulations, harsher penalties and harder-hitting advertising campaigns. Not at all.

“Only in fucking Fairfield.”

Not only in the suburbs of Hamilton, unfortunately. As the YouTube uploader says, “Time to reveal one of the BIGGEST issues in New Zealand, under-aged drinking.”

“He’s allowed.”

How did we get to this? For the answer to that, I suggest that readers take a while to follow some of the incisive and insightful social commentary at blogs such as Brendan McNeill‘s and Lindsay Mitchell‘s. Do so, and the root causes of New Zealand’s problems with drinking, drug use and delinquency ought quickly to become all too glaringly apparent.

“Bro, yous got a problem, bro? … He’s Maori, bro, he’s different. … Bro, he’s Maori. He’s a Maori, bro. Bro, we drink at any time, bro.” (“It could kill him.”) “It doesn’t matter, bro. … I been drinking since the age of 9.”

As ever: what is to be done?

Somehow, we need to return to Christian family values (commitment and fidelity—the child is from a broken home) and repair to parental responsibility (neither parent knew where he was, and an aunt, allegedly, had provided the alcohol – “He’s allowed”). Long-term, we need to bring about a cultural sea change.

In the short-term, the NZ Police are trying to have the clip removed from the Internet. Good luck with that.

4815b5388346_sf_5

“Fuck drinking, smoke weed.”

It’s good advice, but not to a 9 year old.

“I do smoke weed.”

This is where I say a few words about our drug laws.

A common objection to cannabis legalisation is that society already has enough problems with alcohol. We don’t want to add another mind-altering drug to the mix. We already have 9 year olds turning up drunk to skate parks. We don’t want them turning up drunk and stoned.

Well, guess what? At the bottom end of society, neither regulation nor prohibition can stop New Zealand’s two favourite drugs, alcohol and cannabis, from falling into the hands of minors. Over the rest of us, regulation can provide government with some measure of control. But to regulate is to legalise.

The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party‘s policy is for the sale and use of cannabis to be strictly R18.

There’s one factual error in the documentary.

“You can’t ride a scooter when you’re drunk and 9 years old.”

The video evidence says otherwise.

To conclude, in the words of the YouTube uploader, “You may think this video is funny, but there’s a point where it becomes serious as alcohol intake can cause serious impalement and damaging to the brain.”

A question of harm and government’s duty

A common argument for Marijuana being illegal is as follows :-

P1. Government has a duty to protect people from harm.
P2. Marijuana is harmful.
C. Therefore, Government has a duty to protect people from marijuana.

At a Libertarianz conference Dakta Green spoke against this argument’s conclusion – he argued for the legalisation of cannabis. Dakta’s speech was aimed at convincing the audience that P2 was false (i.e. that cannabis was not harmful).

His seat was near mine so after he had finished speaking I asked him if he thought P should be illegal. He was quite insistent that P should be illegal because it was harmful.

Dakta’s argument for criminalising P was the same form :-

P1. Government has a duty to protect people from harm.
P2. Methamphetamine is harmful.
C. Therefore, Government has a duty to protect people from methamphetamine.

According to Dakta’s own reasoning cannabis should be illegal if it is harmful. Dakta was incorrect about cannabis not being harmful. But he was correct that cannabis should not be illegal. The false premise is P1 – i.e. government does not have a duty to protect people from harm.

Consider the following :-

P1. If government has a duty to protect us from harm then government should protect us from alcohol.
P2. Government shouldn’t protect us from alcohol.
C. Therefore, government does not have a duty to protect us from harm.

The belief that Government has a duty to protect people from harm is the basis of Nanny Statism.

Do you believe that government has a duty to protect you from harm?