All posts tagged alcohol

Bizarre attack by Standard drug pushers

A post at The Standard that’s bizarre even by their standards appeared yesterday – Late night Twitter. It may have been more of a late night post – except it wasn’t very late anyway, the original post was at 7.20 pm and the responses and reply were just before and after 9 pm.

It appears to be an attempt to diss Peter Dunne but it’s more of an own goal by what appears to be a pothead attacking alcohol, even though the reference to ‘end of year drinks’ would be normally be expected to include non-alcoholic options plus food.

One comment, by ‘higherstandard’:

Indeed the phrase ‘sanctimonious cock’ comes to mind….. and surprisingly not in relation to Peter Dunne

It hasn’t been attributed to an author so must have been contributed, but a site author or administrator must have accepted and posted it. One author, ‘karol’, commented on it soon after it was posted which may suggest a connection.

The screen shot was taken immediately after the last tweet (2 minutes after) which suggests the post was initiated by the person tweeting Dunne. The whole thing may have been a setup.

Late night twitter

There’s some other odd and interesting things about this post. The screen shot image of the Twitter exchange has been altered to deliberately remove the name and Twitter ID of the person attacking Dunne. But the ID has been left in Dunne’s reply – @KappaMuTheta.

That would have been easily found by searching anyway.@KappaMuTheta – calling themselves Mu – follows one and has five followers. They have only tweeted twice before, both in May this year, and with one follow up tweet has a total of five. So it’s a virtually inactive account. To have seen Dunne’s tweet they must have been following him using another Twitter account.

This is a very odd and weak attempt at an attack by The Standard.

Alcohol is involved in many problems but it is most often harmless – and end of year drinks for a few ministry officials is hardly the biggest story of the year.

UPDATE: there were two virtually unused Twitter accounts attacking Dunne – one of these accounts had a link to a site promoting the use of drugs – legal highs and party pills. So the motives are obvious.

Another person joined in the Twitter attack:

Kemikal @TripMe ‏@kemdotcom

@PeterDunneMP You as a Health Minister happily parade “end of year drinks”. Mr Dunne, how can you expect to be taken seriously?

It’s easy to not take this one seriously too. @TripMe more than hints at the motives, this Twitter account has only one other tweet, also yesterday, which links to a party pill and legal high site Trip Me. Included on this site are ‘reviews’ of party pills that link to sales.

Party Pill Review: Hypnotic

Written by Drael

Okay, this is my first time on a pill with Glaucine. Glaucine is a yellow horned poppy extract said to be very mildly psychedelic and quite sedative. I dropped two of these hypnotics (which is the recommended dose for a bigger person).

Starts off more relaxed, with some stimulation. Little urge to do anything. As it first starts, I’m thinking, this is nice, smooth relaxed, and have high hopes this is smoother feeling.

As it kicks in more fully, I feel kinda spacey, waves of relaxation and stimulation, quite strong and light headed….Kinda giddy relaxed feeling hit me like a wall, couldn’t keep writing the reveiw for a bit, mangled, spacey, sedated & had to just sit! So the come up is very quick…

Click Here to Buy Online or …

Almost cant be bothered with doing things, even with the stimulated feeling, although some energy picks up later in the peice, its still very lethargic in waves. Seems to tail off even slower than some other pills. Did perhaps notice slight colour or perceptual differences, but nothing concrete.

Definately different, far more sedative, which makes some parts of the relaxed stimulation of dmaa feel quite nice, though not really more euphoric, just more at ease. But also made me yawn a lot, and I didn’t really know where to put myself, relaxing or moving or what?

Would be useless for a rave, not enough energy for dancing, not really ideal at home either, I think. Maybe a concert or similar? Party? Interesting pill, but I’m not sure if id have much use for it. Perhaps with a little less glaucine, and more stimulants it would be better. Before the relaxation became super strong, it did feel smoother.

You can Buy Hypnotic Party Pill Online from our Sponsor

Reviews that have multiple links to sponsors selling the products are not impartial reviews.

by Pete George on December 15, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on December 15, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/12/15/bizarre-attempt-at-standard-diss/

Prime obligation for kids in poverty lies with parents

A very very good editorial from Dom Post on ‘poverty’ and who is responsible.

Poverty is harmful to children. No-one will dispute the central tenet of the child poverty report released this week by Children’s Commissioner Russell Wills.

Kids who go to school hungry struggle to learn. Kids who live in damp, cold, crowded homes get sick. Kids who grow up poor are more likely to struggle as adults.

Where readers may be inclined to part company with the commissioner’s expert advisory group is over how to tackle the problem.

However, when it comes to the pointy end of the exercise they have a lot to say to the Government and nothing to say to parents. The report contains 78 recommendations. Seventy-eight of those are directed at the Government; none are directed at parents.

The state can help, but definitely the  prime obligation lies with parents.

One of the prime obligations of our government should be to ensure parents understand and exercise their obligation to care for their children as best they can, and not to just rely on the Government.

What has become labeled ‘poverty’ is a very complex issue with no easy or quick solutions, even if they were affordable.

The ‘poverty’ label itself has negative conotations, it is yet another stigma to attach to the poor and the beneficiaries.

The state cannot be a surrogate parent. It cannot provide love, it cannot offer encouragement and  it cannot set boundaries.

What it does do is offer help in times of difficulty and provide free education,  subsidised healthcare and a range of other social services.

Whether that assistance is sufficient  is debatable. The expert group thinks not. It wants the Government to spend an extra $2 billion or so a year on benefits, rental accommodation, state housing and 24-hour-a-day free health care for children up to the age of 5.

However, its recommendations ignore the reality that it is parents who have the most impact on children’s lives. Money is important but it is not the most important thing.

Apart from better parenting there’s also factors like better housing, better healthcare, better education, but counter issues also need to be addressed too, like to much violence, too much alcohol and drugs and tobacco.

Taking smoking as an example, there was a post on Kiwiblog yesterday about the latest statistics.

  • 600,000 smokers
  • 5,000 (average) cigarettes per year
  • $3,000 cost per year each, at $15 per pack
  • $1.8 billion total approximately per year

I don’t know how many of the supposed 270,000 children in poverty have one or two smoking parents. If one smoking parent quit they would have an extra $60 per week to spend on providing for their kids (and they would all live in healthier homes). That’s about the same amount the Green party want to give to beneficiary families in an extension of ‘Working for Families’.

Many poor people don’t smoke or drink, but many do. For example…

Also ironically, those who can least afford to smoke, are more likely to smoke. Those in the bottom quintile for deprivation were 2.7 times more likely to smoke than the top quintile.

If you also factor in alcohol and cannabis there is a massive amount of poor people’s money being spent on products that have very negative imptacts on the health and wellbeing of both parents and children.

I doubt amongst the 78 recommendations there was none that suggested Government should ban alcohol, tobacco and recreational (wreckreational) drugs for anyone whose children aren’t sufficiently cared for.

by Pete George on December 13, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on December 13, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/12/13/prime-obligation-for-kids-in-poverty-are-their-parents/

Alcohol reform – it’s up to all of us

The alcohol purchase age vote has supported the status quo, but there’s quite a bit to be done yet as the Alcohol Reform Bill continues to be debated by MPs through parliament.

It the meantime, here on the outside, we should be taking some responsibility for rampant alcohol abuse.

We can’t expect parliament nor MPs to fix society’s problems. They can legislate and coerce and police. But the fundamental change we need has to come from the cities, the suburbs, the regions, the countryside, countrywide.

We, that’s us generally, as individuals and families and commmunities, need to change some piss poor attititudes to getting pissed. When we accept that responsibility and speak up about it and show by example how to drink reasonably and responsibly.

It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t get pissed still. But many of us can get less pissed, and get pissed less often. And if we do get pissed and make fools of ourselves then we need to look on ourselves as stupid pissheads.

Our piss poor culture will only change if we look at it differently and if we act differently. At least now we can’t fall back on punishing 18 and 19 year olds for the problems that many of us are a part of.

When many of us change the problems will be addressed.

by Pete George on August 31, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues
Tagged ,

Posted by Pete George on August 31, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/08/31/alcohol-reform-its-up-to-all-of-us/

Booze – our problems need our solutions

The Dominion Post has an editorial on alcohol law reform.

Bill won’t change our booze culture

The Alcohol Reform Bill is a tiny step towards addressing New Zealand’s binge-drinking problem. It will not end the disturbing attitude too many Kiwis have towards booze.

And they close with:

The reality is that while politicians can determine the law on where, when and by whom alcohol can be legally purchased and consumed, they cannot influence the most important issue – how. What is needed for that to occur is a culture change, something no legislation can provide.

I think they’re right.

We have a booze problem. Too many parts of our society, often our friends and family, have a booze problem. And we don’t do enough to address it.

Waiting for politicians to fix all our problems will fix little or nothing.

A culture change requires people within that culture to change, and to speak up for change.

 

by Pete George on August 21, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on August 21, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/08/21/booze-our-problems-need-our-solutions/

United Future donation scandal

The Standard has raised the issue of donations to Peter Dunne and United Future:

Dunne clears the competition for his backers

A cynic might ask if Peter Dunne is out to eliminate the competition of his mates and (it is widely thought) donors in the alcohol and cigarette industries by setting ever higher barriers for other legal highs. And I’m that cynic.

I’m not against anyone selling something for human consumption having to prove its safety. But why doesn’t Dunne extend that to his the booze and bakky shills? Let’s be under no illusions – if the party pill industry was funding United Future, this law change wouldn’t be happening.

A cynic might asked why Zetetic has bravely launched this attack knowing I have just been muzzled at The Standard (he may have been involved in the muzzling).

But more important – how much is Peter Dunne and United Future funded?

Peter Dunne’s Ohariu electorate candidate return 2011.

  • one $10,000 donation from the United Future Party

So all that alcohol and tobacco industry money must go to the party then.

UnitedFuture party donation return 2011

  • Four donations totalling $15,000
  • One donation of $10,000

Total donations $25,000. More than that was paid out of United Future candidates own pockets. No sign of any generous benefactors of any sort, let alone from industries that have been alleged to fund the party.

So the scandal is that this old allegation keeps being promoted, this time by Zetetic, who didn’t think there may be virtually nothing to pin his smears to.

And to add ignorance to stupidity:

Incidentally, do you know where Dunne worked before becoming an MP? The Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council.

It was quickly pointed out:

I thought ALAC was the crown entity to moderate the effects of drinking. ? You make it sound like a front for Super Liquor.

And Ross Bell comments:

A cynic would be wrong.

Instead we should be applauding Mr Dunne for following – pretty much to the letter – the advice he received from the NZ Law Commission as part of its seminal review of NZ’s obsolete Misuse of Drugs Act.

I don’t think we should be dissing a minister for following evidence-based, independent advice.

Rather, congratulations to Dunne for doing this. If Parliament passes this, NZ will be the first to try a regulated market for psychoactive substances.

So yeah, there are certainly hypocrisies in our approach to drugs, but credit where credit’s due.

by Pete George on July 17, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on July 17, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/07/17/united-future-donation-scandal/

Dope to dope

A soon to be released study will show that significant use of cannabis when young results in noticeable intellectual impairment at the age of 38.

This was mentioned during a Science Festival debate last night – “wisdom of age vs the enthusiasm of youth” – by the director of the Dunedin Study (Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study), Professor Richie Poulton.

The enthusiastic use of cannabis in youth can lead to a lack of wisdom of age.

(This is in my words from memory of what was said, plus my opinion).

Those who are not intellectually impaired will see the obvious – that too much abuse of your brain by drug taking will affect the function of your brain. And that continued excessive drug taking is risky.

I don’t know if the study will show that dope smokers are more likely to end up more dopey, or dopes are more likely to dope up. Possibly both, one leading to another which adds to the original, etc.

Booze to bozo?

Not mentioned but also quite likely is a link between excessive booze and bozoness. Once again bozos are more likely to booze too much, which in turn will lead to increased bozoness.

Most of us survive the use of recreational drugs, but the more mind altering substances we take the more chance there is of permanently alteraing our minds.

 

by Pete George on July 7, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on July 7, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/07/07/dope-to-dope/

Alcohol questions for Charles Chauvel

In your proposed amendment to the Alcohol bill you are suggesting setting minimum prices. You  have said:

“The minimum pricing amendment is very simple.  It will give the Minister power to set a minimum price per unit of alcohol.  This power, if properly exercised, will put an end to $6 bottles of wine being sold in supermarkets.

But there is no clear indication of how much the price might go up.

  • What do you envisage the prive of a $6 bottle of wine will change to?
  • What do you envisage the prive of a $6 bottle of wine will change to?
  • How much will a bottle of beer go up?
  • Is it open to the minister of the day to decide how much we should pay for alcohol?

I think these are simple questions that we deserve to know before you promote potentially significant changes.

This will affect many people who are able to enjoy and handle their alcohol.

by Pete George on July 4, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on July 4, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/07/04/alcohol-questions-for-charles-chauvel/

Minimum alcohol price support

Labour have proposed setting minimum prices on alcohol to try and reduce harmful consumption. There may not be much time to adequately inform the public and discuss this. A large price increase would have widespread effects far beyond simply changing consumption levels.

It would appear that Labour have the support of Green, Maori and Mana parties.

National appear to be against.

Prime Minister John Key appeared opposed to the proposal, saying some people would switch to the lowest quality alcohol rather than drink any less volume.

“I am not convinced minimum pricing will do that much,” he said.

Act are against: Minimum alcohol price penalises everyone:

ACT Leader John Banks today urged Opposition Parties to dismiss Labour’s Alcohol Law Reform Bill SOP which would introduce a provision for a minimum price for alcohol.

“Labour’s SOP is far too broad. Rather than target those who drink excessively, it punishes the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who drink responsibly,” Mr Banks said.

New Zealand First’s position is unknown?

United Future’s Peter Dunne may have the deciding vote.

Dunne has previously stated he was unconvinced a minimum pricing regime would have the desired affect.

However, as Associate Health Minister he won’t have a “defined position” until he receives advice from the department, a spokesman said.

So it could come down to Ministry of Health advice.

The Labour admendent:

Labour’s Justice Spokesperson Charles Chauvel drafted the Supplementary Order Paper relating to minimum pricing because the Government failed to pick-up a Law Commission recommendation on the issue when it drafted the Alcohol Law Reform Bill.

“As a community, we need to get real about what encourages people to binge drink. We know that just like tobacco, the price of alcohol is a big influence on how often and how much we drink. It’s time to get serious about the pricing issue if we’re going to make any significant impact on our binge drinking culture.

“Advertising, availability, and price are all highly significant factors that need to be tackled if this culture change is to come about. National’s Bill does very little to address these factors.

“The minimum pricing amendment is very simple.  It will give the Minister power to set a minimum price per unit of alcohol.  This power, if properly exercised, will put an end to $6 bottles of wine being sold in supermarkets.

What isn’t said is how much it will put prices up. A small increase won’t make much if any difference. A large increase could have many consequences besides reducing consumption.

I think there needs to be much more information, investigation and discussion.

Edit:

Peter Dunne ‏@PeterDunneMP

If Labour’s minimum alcohol price amendment depends on my vote, it is doomed.

So if Act and National are against it then it’s doomed.

by Pete George on July 4, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on July 4, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/07/04/minimum-alcohol-price-support/

John Banks: no to minimum alcohol price

John Banks is opposing Labour’s call for setting minimum prices for alcohol.

Minimum alcohol price penalises everyone

ACT Leader John Banks today urged Opposition Parties to dismiss Labour’s Alcohol Law Reform Bill SOP which would introduce a provision for a minimum price for alcohol.

“Labour’s SOP is far too broad. Rather than target those who drink excessively, it punishes the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who drink responsibly,” Mr Banks said.

“Under Labour’s policy, buying a relatively cheap bottle of wine to go with dinner would be a thing of the past.

“And because a minimum price is not a tax, all the additional revenue from a price increase will flow straight out of consumers’ pockets, into the hands of liquor companies and retailers.

“So who is this policy going to benefit? Not the Government, who would receive no additional revenue, not the majority of responsible New Zealanders who would have to fork out more for a drink and it is least likely to impact on problem drinkers, who are the least responsive to price increases. The main beneficiary of Labour’s policy will be the those in the alcohol industry.

“We do have an issue of problem drinking in New Zealand. But punishing everyone is not the way to go about solving it.

“A minimum price on alcohol will penalise responsible drinkers and is a policy that should be dismissed,” Mr Banks said.

by Pete George on July 4, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on July 4, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/07/04/john-banks-no-to-minimum-alcohol-price/

A taxing alcohol problem

RadioLive asks “Is alcohol too cheap?”

Would lifting the price of alcohol reduce consumption?

Possibly, depending on how much the price was increased.

Justice Minister Judith Collins has confirmed the idea of a minimum price for alcohol is being floated, due to concerns that it is available too cheaply. The regime may be included in last-minute changes to legislation.

The Law Commission recommendations include a 50 percent excise tax on alcohol.

In general I’m against penalising everyone to address a problem with a minority.And so is Bill English…

Acting Prime Minister Bill English this morning told Marcus Lush the Government has not yet seen convincing evidence that an increase in price will make a difference to consumption.

“With alcohol, there’s a lot of people for whom moderate consumption is just fine – it doesn’t have a detrimental effect on their health or their state of mind.”

So I have been reluctant to support artificially pushing up the price of alcoholic drinks.

Is price-fixing best way to cut alcohol consumption?

It may cut consumption, depending on how much of a price increase.

Or is it merely a swipe at the poor?

Good grief, soon we won’t be able to change anything in case some poor person could conceivably be detrimentally affected. Leave that out of this argument.

An illogical case for increasing the price of alcohol

I drink a small-moderate amount of alcohol, and have thought that I shouldn’t have to pay more for it to try and stop a few heavy drinkers from making a mess of themselves.

But…

  • Alcohol is a non-essential “luxury”
  • A modest increase in price may hardly affect modest drinkers
  • None of us would be harmed if we drank a bit less alcohol
  • The extra tax would be handy right now
  • It may stop heavy drinkers from drinking so much

Those aren’t all strong reasons to increase alcohol prices, but there’s no strong reason not to, and we could all benefit a bit.

by Pete George on June 5, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Issues
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on June 5, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/06/05/a-taxing-alcohol-problem/

« Older Posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 76 other followers