Learn Liberty Here:
Category Archives: Alcohol
The 4:20 tax plan
Every man and his dog has a tax plan.
Here’s mine.
1. A $20,000 tax-free income threshold
2. A flat rate of 20% on all personal income over $20,000.
3. A flat rate of 20% on all corporate income.
4. GST to be phased out and replaced with an excise tax of 20% on alcohol, tobacco and cannabis.
I call it the 4:20 tax plan. With a name like that, how could it not get the wasted vote?!
Eternal Vigilance… In Da House.
Communion. Christian Libertarians / Eternal Vigilance bloggers Reed, Richard, and Twikiriwhi. Liberty Conference. Crowne Hotel. Auckland. 6-10-12.
It was great to meet you Reed, and to catch up again with you Richard.
HAHAHA! Check out our Halo’s!
“…And there appeared on their heads Cloven tounges… as of Fire…”
(Acts2vs3) 🙂
The Real Fleetwood Mac… Peter Green.
Trained circus seals
On Facebook, a libertarian friend posts
Sue Bradford complains:
“Bennett & English begin promoting next round of welfare changes – this time, it’s drug testing of beneficiaries. No thought appears to be given to lack of adequate A & D services, consequences to personal & family health & well being if you have no income, & downstream medical, police, court, prison & other costs. All aimed at appealing to beneficiary bashing vote, again, sadly.”
If you choose to take drugs, then get done when they stay in your system, any resulting consequences are of your own doing – so deal with them like a mature adult. It’s called taking personal responsibility. How hard is this to understand?
My response? Sue Bradford is right, for once. Here’s a post from my old blog that explains why.
[Reprised from beNZylpiperazine, August 2007. Five years later, National has picked up where Labour left off and nothing much has changed.]
What is it with right-wingers and their fetish for trained circus seals?
Popular among right-wingers is the following proposed solution to the problem of welfare abuse: make welfare beneficiaries jump through hoops. Exactly which hoops it’s thought welfare beneficiaries should jump through depends on the right-winger making the proposal. What particularly irks me is the suggestion put forward here.
Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare cheque because I have to pass one to earn it for them??
Please understand – I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.
I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their arse drinking piss & smoking dope all day.
Surely, paying people to sit on their arses drinking piss and smoking dope all day is one of the better uses of government money. But I digress. There is an obvious problem with the proposal. If you make passing a urine test a condition of eligibility for the dole, this will have the unintended consequence of inducing people to apply for the sickness benefit as alcoholics or drug addicts, where failing a urine test is a condition of eligibility.
It’s all far too reminiscent of Jenny Shipley’s failed and embarrassing 1998 Code of Social and Family Responsibility. [PDF]
The truth is, there is only one solution to the problem of welfare abuse – remove the state entirely from the provision of welfare and devolve that responsibility to voluntary charities and private insurance companies – and only one political party advocating this solution – Libertarianz. Here are a couple of ideas which may (or may not) be part of the soon-to-be-announced Libertarianz transitional social welfare policy.
First, stop treating “alcoholism” and “drug addiction” as afflictions which qualify the afflicted for the sickness benefit. Drug addiction is a lifestyle choice, not a disease.
Second, put a six month time limit on the unemployment benefit. I don’t mean that beneficiaries should cease to receive the dole after they’ve been on it six months. I mean that all unemployment beneficiaries should cease to receive the dole six months after the policy is implemented. So, if the policy were to be implemented tomorrow, the unemployment benefit would be off the WINZ menu come February next year. Six months should be ample time to find a job. Perhaps some right-wingers might offer employment opportunities for professional trained circus seals.
Brewin up a Storm! Popcorn vs The State.
Now here is the first of 11 youtube vids about the last batch of Moonshine old Popcorn Sutton made in the classic ‘Covert style’ in the hills before he made the ultimate protest against tyranical laws… he committed Suicide… rather than do time in the Boob for the so-called crime of brewin likker. This set of vids is an American Libertarian Classic! As you watch this son of a son of a shinner you will hear HillBilly Libertarian Gems!(His Grand Pa helped build the local Baptist church with his ‘Non-taxible’ income!).
It is in the Best spirit of Civil disobedience and refusal to be subjected by tyranny. He talks about suffering Oppression. He admits he was forced to quit, but his Rebel Spirit against Tyranny never left him, he simply got too old to carry on. He’s an inspriraition!Loved his Good Lady and his two model A Fords. God Bless Him! (What? A Christian praisin a Devils Brewer?… Did not Jesus turn Water Into Wine?)
Tim Wikiriwhi
Attempted murder is a victimless crime
By definition, there are no murder victims.
Suppose you board a bus with a suicide bomber. At the appointed stop, the suicide bomber pulls the cord to detonate the belt of explosives around her waist, hidden under her jacket … and nothing happens. She lives to die another day. No one on the bus, including you, is any the wiser. There are no victims that day. But a crime has been committed. Attempted murder is a serious crime. A victimless crime, but a serious crime, nonetheless.
If you drive home blind drunk at 150 kph, with your children unseatbelted in the back and passenger seats, and you’re fortunate enough that there is no oncoming traffic on the several occasions when you veer into the other lane … and you and your children arrive home safely … it’s a victimless crime. But a crime has been committed. Driving while drunk is a crime. A victimless crime, but a crime, nonetheless.
There are obvious differences between the two cases. The suicide bomber intends to initiate lethal force against others, and the odds of success are relatively high. Whereas the drunk driver does not have murderous intent, and the odds of killing anyone are relatively low.
There are laws against attempted murder and laws against drunk driving. As there should be. But why?
Some libertarians get themselves into a tangle trying to justify a prohibition on drunk driving. At first glance, the non-initiation of force (NIOF) principle seems insufficient to justify a law against drunk driving. The drunk driver who arrives home safely does not, and does not intend to, initiate force against other road users. A common libertarian perspective is one where drunk driving is seen as a breach of contract between the road user and the road owner. In a libertarian utopia, roads are privately owned, and the road owner sets the terms of road use. When it’s in the commercial interests of road owners to offer safe passage to road users (as, almost invariably, it will be), sobriety will be a contractual obligation. Take this perspective, and you get the right answer … but for the wrong reason.
Drunk driving is wrong, not because it is a breach of contract (implicit in the case of our state-operated roads), but because it endangers the lives of others. It’s really quite simple. There ought to be a law against drunk driving because there ought to be a law against endangering the lives of others.
Please note carefully. In cases where it is other adults only whose lives are endangered, and those adults have consented to having their lives endangered, no laws should apply.
Roads are dangerous places. When I go for a drive, I’m endangering my own life and that of others, simply by being behind the wheel, sober or otherwise. But there ought to be no law against driving per se, even though such a law would dramatically lower the road toll. But why not?
It’s really quite simple. It’s a matter of degree. The question is, where to draw the line? And the answer is, at 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.
The above figure is arbitrary, and blood alcohol level is only a proxy for driver impairment, but this approach to endangerment is right in principle. Importantly, we can quantify the risk that a driver who has been drinking poses to other road users. We can multiply the chances of a fatal collision by the number of lives lost in the collision and come up with a number. And we can set a threshold. If the number is over the threshold, you’re too drunk to legally drive. If the number is below the threshold, it’s legal to risk getting behind the wheel.
We can apply the principle of an endangerment threshold to other issues, including the issue of parents endangering the lives of their children: allowing their children to climb trees, be vaccinated, be unvaccinated, ride bikes without helmets, travel to dangerous countries, sail, eat food cooked on an unlicensed Komodo Kamado or have their children live with them in Lyttelton houses in danger of being flattened by falling boulders.
In all cases, the same endangerment threshold should apply. Is the risk of staying with your children in your Lyttelton house more or less than driving them to safety after you’ve had one drink too many?
And one last question. Who gets to decide?
Death penalty for dealing P?
Kiwis and Aussies are the world’s biggest stoners. But we already knew that. “Experts are not surprised by new research showing New Zealand and Australia share the highest rates of cannabis and methamphetamine use in the world,” says the NZ Herald.
Here’s something I didn’t know. I clicked on the Herald’s handy related links and discovered that intelligent children are more likely than their less intelligent peers to use illegal drugs in later life, according to a study which has found a link between high IQ scores and drug use. Well, who’d’ve thought? I must be a genius!
Will de Cleene has an informative post showing where (else) in the world to find the stoners, the coke heads, the smack heads, the ravers, the speed freaks, the smokers and the drunks. Check it out.
After serving the standard sound-bites from the executive director of the New Zealand Drug Foundation, Ross Bell, the Herald reports some remarks from former police officer and managing director of “methamphetamine eduction company” MethCon, Dale Kirk.
“We’ve treated cannabis as a soft drug and we’ve ignored the risk of methamphetamine use, and unfortunately we’re playing catch-up.
“We’re now seeing initiatives from the Government aimed at the supply end, which are having some effect, I believe, yet it’s a little bit too late.”
Mr Kirk said the right way to tackle the drug problem was a mixed approach, including punitive measures like harsher sentences, more education, and more resources to treat addicts.
Harsher sentences? What can Kirk possibly be proposing? The maximum sentence for the sale, manufacture or importation of methamphetamine is already life imprisonment. How do you get harsher than that? The death penalty?
Methamphetamine had a devastating effect on families and communities, he said.
“I’m speaking to people all the time in the community who have family members who are affected by methamphetamine, and it is a consistent theme that you hear – it’s a downward spiral in their life, everything else takes secondary interest to the drugs.
“They lose families, they lose jobs, they lose money – and obviously ultimately they can lose their lives.”
Ultimately, yes, if we ever allow drug fascists like Kirk to have their way. Unfortunately, Kirk’s predecessor, Mike Sabin, is now in government as the MP for Northland.
In the picture above, sourced from Sabin’s own website, Sabin gives the thumbs up to alcohol, a drug responsible for more social ills than P and all illegal drugs combined.
Sabin is an enemy of freedom and sane drug policy. Watch this space.
Government Crackdown on Alcohol Kills.
Here is another doozie for all you Controlfreaks out there who think Heavy measures ought to be taken to curb Alcohol consumption in NZ.
Read this NZ hearld article… ‘NZ rugby tourist’s fatal Bali cocktail’
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10770049
Note in particular that… Michael Denton, 29, died after consuming a drink believed to contain a distilled local alcohol called arak, which in 2009 killed dozens of people, including four foreigners.
And…
A month after Michael Denton died, a warning appeared on the Foreign Ministry’s safe-travel website warning that arak was often mixed with fruit juice. It said anyone trying it should ensure it came in a sealed bottle from a commercial distillery.
Authorities in Indonesia have blamed rogue producers in small factories that have started after crackdowns on alcohol imports.
**************************************
There you have it. All prohibition achieves is that it exposes innocent people to Dangerous products.
Tim Wikiriwhi.
For more on this subject See my Blog post : Prohibition is a Bad trip.
Prohibition is a Bad trip!
It has come to my attention that a young relative of mine, whom I love very much has just experienced a very terrible thing. He and a friend have been experimenting with illicit drugs, and just recently dropped some Bad E, and apparently his friend has suffered some sort of Brain damage. This is tragic!
No doubt many of his friends and family will be cursing the Drug dealer as ‘scum’ and will be hoping the Police bust his arse and throw him in jail for ever.
And there currently seems to be a lot of bad gear on the market. On the front page today’s NZ Herald is another story regarding ‘Tainted E’… ‘Ecstasy at Fairfield: 6 girls taken to hospital’
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/drug-abuse/news/article.cfm?c_id=181&objectid=10767817&ref=rss
The experience of having a loved ones harmed by a toxic substance can make people become ardent prohibitionists, not understanding the reality that Prohibition is actually responsible for this tragic situation. The E being manufactured by dodgy people, out of dodgy ingredients processed using dodgy equipment. Thus these concerned citizens unwittingly perpetuate the very situation that will guarantee many more tragedies like this will happen. They probably are not aware of the fact that properly manufactured E is a relatively safe recreational drug.
Police Chief Richard Brunstom insists that ‘Ecstasy is a remarkably safe substance’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574273/Ecstasy-is-a-safe-drug-says-police-chief.html
In their anger and pain, and desire for vengeance, many fail to consider the fact that Prohibition did not prevent this tragedy from occruing, nor will it ever work because the reality is most young people will experiment with drugs, and that because there is a huge market for them, Entrepreneurs will always seek to make a profit from supply.
Nor will many people consider the relevance of the government Ban of BZP Party pills, which took away another safe alternative to Black market substances.
The Waikato Times also ran a story about the school girls, and while they failed to mention that the ‘Pills were tainted, they unwittingly revealed the detremental effect of prohibition means that
…’ Because it is illegal, there is no control over the purity, amount, or type of ingredients in ecstasy
Symptoms of an overdose include death, seizures, vomiting, diarrhoea, nausea and confusion
– Waikato Times’
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/6008804/Drug-puts-college-students-in-hospital
That Prohihibiton results in this chaos is one of the grim realities Prohibitionsts ignore.
Nor will they consider the Lessons of Alcohol Prohibition when Dodgy people brewed dodgy Piss using dodgy equipment, and that this resulted in ‘Tainted booze’ that poisoned thousands of people, explosions, and Gang crime.
Alcohol Probition made Al Capone Millions!
Thankfully Alcohol prohibition was abolished. Criminal Gangs no longer profit from it, Its sale is restricted to Adults with those whom sell to minors being prosecuted, and it is manufactured in a safe manor and to a high quality. It is in the interest of the legitimate brewery to manufacture good quality/ safe alcohol to avoid prosecution and to stay in business. Illness and Deaths from ‘tainted brews’ are virtually eliminated, yet if some bad brew was to hurt someone the fact that alcohol is legal does not prevent the Law from prosecuting the maufacturers.
Prohibitionists also fail to consider the corruption of society that Prohibition fosters amongst the Police, and others professionals, like chemists, Businessmen, Sports professionals etc, for eg a recent drug operation in Auckland netted two police
http://commuterslibrary.com/91/two-police-staff-caught-in-drug-sting-stuff-co-nz/
The chemist Ross Pulman, busted for selling Precursers for the manufacture of P
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10669215
I am appalled that the Drug trade has been given over to the Underworld and such scumbags as will supply minors with Crap gear, yet I know the answer to Harm minimization lies in Ending the drug War, not escalating it. This view is now widely held… and yet the madness continues. I would like to remind you to the recent report by the Global commission on drugs which marks a milestone in the history of Law and order, and in the notions of how mankind ought best to cope with the reality of drugs in society. It is the work of a group of political heavy weights called The Global Commission on Drug Policy, in which they argue that the “global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world”. They say governments should explore legalising marijuana and other controlled substances. The commission included former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former US official George P. Schultz, former US Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, former presidents of Mexico, Brazil and Colombia, writers Carlos Fuentes and Mario Vargas Llosa, Virgin boss Richard Branson and the Prime Minister of Greece. The evidence they say leaves no room for doubt. The war on drugs must stop!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10730196
As a Christian Libertarian I reject the notion that oppressing drug users is a just or intellegent way to deal with drug use in society. I do not believe political force can substitue self-responciblity and personal ethics. Prohibition and persecution are not propperly Christian modus opperandi. Nor is it biblical to believe that it is possible to legislate mankind into a socialist utopia. And Drugs can save lives. There is no Eternal salvation in Drugs, yet they can bring temporal relief to misery, and a depressing reality and thereby keep people from insanity and suiside… until they find Christ.
Tim Wikiriwhi Libertarian Independent for Hamilton West.
Update: 2-12-11. Government Crackdown on Alcohol Kills.