The Disappearance Convention petition has been presented to Parliament.


Showing posts with label Jim Anderton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jim Anderton. Show all posts

Friday, July 18, 2008



Election08 interviews Jim Anderton

Over on Election08, Scoop's Gordon Campbell interviews Progressive leader Jim Anderton. It's a pretty interesting interview, about Anderton's history with the Labour party and the future of the Progressives (he doesn't think it has one. Progressive Party members may be annoyed about that), but for me there were two highly interesting bits: firstly, that despite it being contrary to all their values, and despite Matt Robson having campaigned strongly in defence of Ahmed Zaoui, Anderton doesn't see any problems with the Immigration Bill. And secondly, Anderton gives a window into the current state of negotiations on the ETS, hinting at an earlier entry for fertiliser. This is important because it is key to getting the Greens on board - they want something tangible for their support, rather than just being treated as a doormat again - but the sticking point is getting it past Anderton, NZ First, and of course the farm lobby, who are still trapped in deep denial. It almost makes you wish for an EU border tax, just to kick the farmers onto the right side of the argument...

Wednesday, December 20, 2006



A hypocritical approach

So, the government wants to ban party pills on the basis of their health effects. But while the government's expert committee found that a number of studies had showed "potential for serious harm in some individuals" due to side effects, they also noted that

there have been no recorded deaths attributed solely to the use of BZP

Meanwhile, according to a study commissioned by ALAC, alcohol directly kills over a thousand people a year [PDF]. By any reasonable standard, we're banning the wrong drug.

Before anyone gets the wrong end of the stick, I do not want to see alcohol prohibition. Rather, I want to see some consistency. If we're happy for people to drink booze at such an enormous cost in human life, then we should be happy for them to take party pills at a far lower cost. And if we're concerned about medical costs or use by children, we should adopt the same approach of excise taxes and age limits. If we think adults are free to fuck up their own lives with the odd drink, then we have to also grant them the right to fuck up their own lives with the odd party pill. Anything else is pure hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, "pure hypocrisy" describes the government's approach to a T - a fact which is unlikely to go unnoticed by party pill poppers. And rather than engendering respect for the law, it is likely to result in their concluding that it, and Anderton, is an ass.