Thursday, August 4, 2016

SOMETIMES PROTECTION FOR THE VULNERABLE IS NEEDED.



It has been apparent for months that there is something very smelly around the paranoid reaction to "P" contamination.

Fair Go have revealed that currency notes with $20s in the frame, almost all carry a contamination level per square cm equal to walls of houses deemed as requiring decontamination.

There is clear and serious contamination risks from premises used for cooking meth but to evacuate tenants from rentals where the drug has been smoked has always had a degree of OTT about it.
Hell smoking tobacco has serious contamination outcomes but even though cigarettes have serious carcinogens present and it is one major benefit that the degradation of bars and public areas has been mitigated by forcing smokers outdoors, I am unaware of an eviction for decontamination of tobacco residues.

Perhaps there is a current need to establish what level of total contamination requires decontamination, as a standard.

Is it unreasonable for me to suggest that a very young child being nurtured (advisedly) by ferals who are heavy users might be at a higher risk than an adult renting a tenancy where smoking "P" has occurred whether regular or casual. The alternative is the Treasury might need to make Bank Note currency a one trip item?

Btw cannot someone, anybody,  get Sam Got to linger to see there might be serious advantages in legalising "Vaping" without imposing draconian tax impediments as an unnecessary act of stupid.

4 comments:

Redbaiter said...

How many politicians and bureaucrats and police are drug users I wonder?

For whatever problems the vulnerable are suffering, the bottom line is that the above are not doing what is needed to enforce the law.

The "war on drugs" is a myth.

I read the rap sheet of a recent cop killer in the US and he had something like 70 prior arrests for drug use/ pushing.

Yet he was till out on the streets, and probably high when he killed the cops.

So what the hell is this "war on drugs" BS? When Bill Clinton, one time President, is reputed to have a "nose like a vacuum cleaner". The rot is at the top, and that is why there is no real war. Just the pretence of a war.

In Singapore, the drug problem is minuscule compared to the US or NZ.

And they do not need to engage in any war, mythical or real.

There, the cop killer with the 70 convictions would probably have been hung after his second or third offence.

They enforce the law in Singapore.

I despise drug users/ pushers. Not so much for their habit, but for all of the flow on effects of their pathetic need for an utterly illusory and false experience.

What percentage of people would be drug users in NZ society?

20%? 30%?

Whatever, because of the selfish narcissistic self-indulgent needs of these halfwits the rest of society has to suffer so much.

The curious thing is that no one seems interested in finding an answer to the question "Why is it that western societies all have major drug dependency problems far in excess of what they had sixty years ago?".

The answer is out there, and it ties in with the overall steady degeneration of our societies that is not happening by accident.

gravedodger said...

I guess that Redbaiter, would need some clarification as to what any one person considers to include as 'drugs'.

Notwithstanding Singapore's fairly stringent criminal law and drug penalties in Islam dominated Indonesia and Malaya, many regard alcohol that is banned in Islam, as a drug of choice and it escapes largely being included in spite of the well documented widespread damage that can accompany even what most would regard as acceptable use levels.
Then there is caffeine a known stimulant.

When ephedrine products were freely available I never resorted to the relief of symptoms that accompanied a head cold being sufficiently serious to resort to those meds. While I have no evidence that can be used there is widespread anecdotal legend around stimulant use by workers in the rebuild of my City.

It is far too simplistic to rail against "the Drug Scourge" in a hypocritical environment so aptly portrayed by the cartoon of the parent, cigarette in hand and a glass of booze adjacent telling a youth to avoid drugs.

I am in the camp that declines the evidence of a 'gateway' aspect of weed in how society views drug law, I still drink in moderation, and I despair in the societal damage clearly evident in abuse of any substance that leads to employment problems, crime and risk profiles.

Now Redbaiter perhaps you could outline where you would wish the line to be drawn in the NZ sand between fats and sugars, caffeine through medical weed/cannabis oil, alcohol, to cocaine, pseudo ephedrine, morphine et al.
Just which "freedoms" I currently appreciate and enjoy do you want to curtail as apart from occasional risks around driving short distances where I am potentially at risk of the totally inane imho, lowered limits of blood alcohol, I am otherwise a law abiding functioning member of society.
Hell I have in my immediate circle some who get high on exercise that releases endorphins and other mood elevating substances.

Redbaiter said...

It always amuses me to see those who profess to care about "freedom" fretting over their need to have access to narcotics, when they go out each election and vote for parties who each election bring tyranny closer on so many other aspects of life.

If you are so worried about your fucking freedom, why are you working half the year for to pay your taxes?? How come we have legislation which allows us to be selectively prosecuted on so many issues, including what we think do and say??

Get your damn priorities fixed and I may be able to give your concerns with freedom more than a modicum of credibility. Right now they're a joke.

Chaz said...

"How come we have legislation which allows us to be selectively prosecuted on so many issues, including what we think do and say??"

Poor persecuted Russell. He's not allowed to drink and drive! Oh the tyranny. Go to Russia and claim refugee status, Fletch.