Post 4:20 Part 1: "We're on the Greenest Greens, Call us Vegetarian!"

Yesterday, a journalist decided to ambush Metiria Turei with a question about the Greens' cannabis policy ... during what was supposed to be a big unveiling of their education policy. Now, quite apart from noting that the correct response should have been "What's that got to do with encouraging low decile educational achievement?", I thought it would be interesting to peer behind the smokescreen and examine just what, if anything, cannabis decriminalization Greens style actually means in practice for the Land of the Long White Cloud. 

First up, let's take a look at their website.

The Greens' "Drug Law Reform" policy-set divides the actions they intend to take to alter how our society interacts with a particular Schedule C substance (and, assumedly, preparations that fall into Schedule B) from the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 into three flavours: "Immediate Steps", "Medium Term Steps", and "Long Term Steps".

Let's start with the "Immediate" ones. This is what we may assume Turei is talking about when she claims to be dedicated to "pushing" the issue should her party occupy the Treasury Benches with Labour come later this year, as it's what they've told us they want to do first. Her own previous Private Member's Bill on the subject is quite clearly geared up to facilitate the accomplishment of their "enable doctors to prescribe cannabis products for severely ill patients" policy point; which would suggest, given that it's the same proposer and the same policy being advanced, that Turei's bill represents a good guide to how The Greens will attempt to approach fairly swift medical decriminalization with a minimum of legal fuss.

Now Turei's bill is, obviously, a medicinal decriminalization proposal, which means it differs rather substantially and substantively in content and intent from Nandor Tanczoc's previous efforts in this area. (which, incidentally, was sufficiently concerned with societal acceptance to have originally included penalties if you were sparking up within 100m of a school or kindergarten)

Turei's bill sets out a new regulatory regime for cannabis, under which persons suffering from a range of disorders, impairments and illnesses enumerated in Schedule 1 of her bill are able to apply with support from their medical practitioner or specialist to the Medical Health Officer for a Medicinal Cannabis Identification Card under s9B of the draft legislation.

So far, so conventional. And nothing to seriously object to if you're somebody who believes medicinal cannabis is a worthwhile medicine.

However, the Devil is in the Distribution.

The first thing that jumps out at you when you read Turei's bill is the lack of dispensaries. Given the emphasis upon central approval for medicinal cannabis use via the Medical Health Officer, you'd assume that there would also be a substantial degree of central control over the sale and distribution of marijuana to persons needing it for medicinal use.

Not so, it would appear. Instead, Turei's bill puts the provision of medicines squarely in the hands of the end-user.

In her vision, the Card Holder gets given seeds and is expected to either be able to grow the plant themselves (s9A), or to be able to find somebody who's got the requisite horticultural (herbicultural?) skills to do so on their behalf as a Designated Agent (s9C).

So no Colorado-style or Californian-style Dispensaries under this scheme, and you'd better have a green thumb to go with your green lung and your green card. Or a mate with the requisite equip and expertise. I also can't wait to see how Card Holders will go about renumerating their Designated Agents for growing on their behalf.

However, the most amusing bit of Turei's bill is where the cannabis seedlings and other material *actually comes from in the first place* so as to supply the Card Holders and their Designated Agents.

Are you ready?

s11(1) of Turei's bill sets out that the New Zealand Police are the organ of state charged with dispensing cannabis material to Card Holders. s11(2) of said bill tells you where the Police get the material to hand out ... "supplied from stock seized during the course of law enforcement activities".

Effectively, this means Turei's entire medical decriminalization scheme relies upon an on-going crackdown on private and personal cannabis use to actually continue to be able to provide medicinal users with supply ... a situation that may be less charitably described as "robbing (and possibly incarcerting) Peter to supply Paul for his glaucoma".

A moment's consideration will reveal why the average stoner or hobbyist-cultivator will not find Turei's legislative solution all that compelling as a result.

Oh, also ... if you're looking to set up a Cafe, then the Greens are probably not your best destination for a Party Vote at the moment. Their enthusiasm for the 2003 Smokefree Environments Act amendment, which rendered all indoor workplaces 100% smokefree assumedly means that the same regulations which prohibit recreational smoking of cigarettes in cafes and bars ... will probably prevent smoking anything else inside a Cafe or Canna-Bar.

And, if you're a spliff smoker, the Greens' policy of stamping out tobacco use in Aotearoa by 2025 may also be highly relevant. Perhaps you should start "growing your own". It's certainly what they're advocating for the medicinal smokers :P  

#Renationalize Your Vote

Alright. So over the last few days, I've seen a slew of "If you want x, then vote y" posts. Mostly along the lines of "If you want to change the government ..." or "If you want to change the government and believe our questionable commitment to doing something about deep sea oil drilling ..." 

Well, I can't promise anything about whether a vote for NZ First is a vote to change the government. But what I can promise is that a vote for NZ First represents a vote for a fundamental change in direction from either National OR Labour.

A #Vote for NZ First is a vote to restore privatized assets to Kiwi state ownership. A vote for NZ First is a vote to ensure *our* generation gets to retire at 65, with a potent sovereign wealth fund a la Norway to ensure sustainability. And a vote for NZ First is a vote to ensure that *all* our people have their needs addressed, particularly as applies economic deprivation, through a universalist framework that renders assistance whatever sort of Kiwi you are.

So this year, think about your vote not just in terms of whether it changes the government or re-arranges the Ministerial deck-chairs ... think about it in terms of whether it changes what the government *does*. And how you can influence it to deliver the change *you* want.

Oh, and I can promise you one other thing. I'll be fighting mad hard to *ensure* those bottom lines get actioned.

#RenationalizeYourVote

A Sickness Beneficiary On The Roof, and managing Police Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Last night on 3News, a story was screened covering the recent discovery that a whole bunch of police officers over in New York had been apparently fraudulently claiming pensions and other financial assistance they weren't entitled to, after having comprehensively faked (or, depending upon whom you believe, exaggerated) serious mental disorders, chiefly as a result of (according to hte forms) PTSD brought about by 9/11. 

Now, clearly, I'm not going to sit here and type up something exculpating potentially crooked cops for claiming to be mentally ill; and especially not until we've got some rather more comprehensive facts. 

But what I am going to note, is that while, yes, there is an element of bathos inherent in accompanying a story about police officers who're claiming to have been too depressed to head outside, lead normal lives etc. with photos of said police officers outside, on jet-skis, going fishing etc. ... it does occur that people with mental issues *also* can enjoy outdoor recreational pursuits, potentially as a rare respite from one's condition, and that this is basically another example of the same sketch presentation of persons with different capacities as that contained in David Shearer's now-famous "Sickness Beneficiary On The Roof" story.
 
Now, some elucidation may be required as to what I meant by "and that this is basically another example of the same sketch presentation of persons with different capacities as that contained in David Shearer's now-famous "Sickness Beneficiary On The Roof" story."

Well, let me put it this way. Once upon a time, there was a Labour politician called David Shearer, who decided that the best possible thing he could do as leader of a nominally compassionate, left wing party that basically built large chunks of our modern wellfare state ... was to go soft-bene-bashing in a questionable bid to win over the mythical Middle New Zealand voter, who apparently cares mostly about tax-cuts and boat races. 

Mr Shearer therefore made a speech which made use of an example supposedly drawn from his own constituency - of an ordinary, salt-of-the-earth, gainfully employed Kiwi raising a complaint with the then-Leader of the Opposition about a situation of manifest injustice. Namely, that the State seemed powerless to help HIM (the able-bodied worker with a job), but could nevertheless afford to fork out a sickness benefit for a dude who was apparently visible up on the roof of his house, painting it. 

Now, we'll leave aside the bit about it later turning out said Sickness Beneficiary On The Roof (yah-dah-dah-dah-dah dada-dada-daaa da-dada-daa-da-daaaaaaaaaaa [that's supposed to be me humming Fiddler on the Roof, in case you can't tell]) didn't actually exist, and just focus on two things here:

First up, sickness benefits get allocated for an incredibly broad array of conditions, including mental health ones, specific impairments, non-visual impairments ... and, generally, a whole lot of conditions that, while they prevent the sufferer from actually holding down a regular 40-hour-a-week-job, may not actually prevent them from heading up on the roof of their house to carry out some essential maintenance. 

So, by implying that sickness beneficiaries had no place on roofs unless they were rorting the system, Mr Shearer very unfairly stigmatized an activity which may be quite vital to the upkeep and maintenance of a home - quite literally keeping a roof over one's head. I suppose it's possible to write it off as a mere rhetorical flourish ... but there was a very real sense that if you were a known sickness beneficiary who was carrying out repairs to his or her home, you might attract some level of opprobium for it. 

So ye. Labour wound up further demarcating the "acceptable" behaviors of sickness beneficiaries. 

Now, I feel that the analogy with "photos-of-cops-having-fun-in-the-outdoors" is pretty self-evident ... but just in case it isn't, I'm vibing that displaying pictures of people who are theoretically depressed etc. having outdoorsy fun and implying "THIS IS NOT TYPICAL, NOR NORMAL! SCAM AFOOT!" sorta again demarcates what is and isn't acceptable behavior for somebody experiencing that mental state.

Which, when your mind's imposing enough limits on you at the time, does not need additional help manufacturing manacles through the media.

Well, let me put it this way. Once upon a time, there was a Labour politician called David Shearer, who decided that the best possible thing he could do as leader of a nominally compassionate, left wing party that basically built large chunks of our modern wellfare state ... was to go soft-bene-bashing in a questionable bid to win over the mythical Middle New Zealand voter, who apparently cares mostly about tax-cuts and boat races. 

Mr Shearer therefore made a speech which made use of an example supposedly drawn from his own constituency - of an ordinary, salt-of-the-earth, gainfully employed Kiwi raising a complaint with the then-Leader of the Opposition about a situation of manifest injustice. Namely, that the State seemed powerless to help HIM (the able-bodied worker with a job), but could nevertheless afford to fork out a sickness benefit for a dude who was apparently visible up on the roof of his house, painting it. 

Now, we'll leave aside the bit about it later turning out said Sickness Beneficiary On The Roof (yah-dah-dah-dah-dah dada-dada-daaa da-dada-daa-da-daaaaaaaaaaa [that's supposed to be me humming Fiddler on the Roof, in case you can't tell]) didn't actually exist, and just focus on two things here:

First up, sickness benefits get allocated for an incredibly broad array of conditions, including mental health ones, specific impairments, non-visual impairments ... and, generally, a whole lot of conditions that, while they prevent the sufferer from actually holding down a regular 40-hour-a-week-job, may not actually prevent them from heading up on the roof of their house to carry out some essential maintenance. 

So, by implying that sickness beneficiaries had no place on roofs unless they were rorting the system, Mr Shearer very unfairly stigmatized an activity which may be quite vital to the upkeep and maintenance of a home - quite literally keeping a roof over one's head. I suppose it's possible to write it off as a mere rhetorical flourish ... but there was a very real sense that if you were a known sickness beneficiary who was carrying out repairs to his or her home, you might attract some level of opprobium for it. 

So ye. Labour wound up further demarcating the "acceptable" behaviors of sickness beneficiaries. 

Now, I feel that the analogy with "photos-of-cops-having-fun-in-the-outdoors" is pretty self-evident ... but just in case it isn't, I'm vibing that displaying pictures of people who are theoretically depressed etc. having outdoorsy fun and implying "THIS IS NOT TYPICAL, NOR NORMAL! SCAM AFOOT!" sorta again demarcates what is and isn't acceptable behavior for somebody experiencing that mental state.

Which, when your mind's imposing enough limits on you at the time, does not need additional help manufacturing manacles through the media.
[Elements of this post originally appeared on my fb on Thursday 9th January]

Mothers, don't let your kids grow up to be Politicians

"A career in Politics basicallly consists of a career in attempting to get other people fired. 

If you're an MP, then you are trying to get other MPs fired. If you are not an MP, but are a candidate, then you are trying to get MPs fired so that you may become one. If you're in Opposition, you want Ministers fired. If you're a Nat Minister, then you want your workforce fired. (c.f MFaT restructuring) If you're in ACT, you want most of the state sector AND your predecessor as Leader fired. 

And if you're in a political party (just about *any* political party), you will be spending considerable and capacious amounts of time attempting to get your own comrades, workmates, underlings and overlings fired. 

So, in sum ... Parents, if you want your offspring to grow up happy, healthy, of sound mind and secure prospects ... don't let them get into politics.

But if you want them to grow up to be bad wo/men, dangerous men , sad men, paranoid men, and vituperative, vindictive, and vexatious men ... men who are, in short, entirely unbothered by playing merry hell with the lives of others for points of personal, political, or principle ... then tell them to become Politicians. 

And proud." - Curwen.

[Ed.Note: this is resyndicated material from my Fb, and originally appeared on the 8th of January] 

"Back in Black"

"Back in Black - I hit the sack
I been too long, I'm glad to be back
Yes I'm let loose
From the noose
That's kept me hanging about..." 

There's been a bit of an interregnum in postings to this blog over the last few months; as truth be told, certain well-publicized (and less well publicized) official runctions and imbroglio have conspired to keep me well off publicly available social media and the blogosphere.

But noting i) the fact I'm still producing blog-length material of insight and observation elsewhere; and ii) that this is an Election Year (wherein news, views, and attitude is pretty prime within the arsenal of any political grouping), it seemed high time to reactivate this apparatus. Initially, with some resyndicated material that's not otherwise seen the non-blue light of day.

So, in the words of a pop-cultural icon rather more prominent than myself ...

"Hell, It's About Time."