Richard Mulcahy comes for your pipe and bong

johnboy 27 August 2008 111

[First filed: August 21, 2008 @ 09:19]

It is with a great deal of amusement that we note an ABC story in which one Richard Mulcahy MLA, formerly of the Tobacco Institute of Australia, is legislating for a ban on the sale of bongs, ice pipes and other drug paraphernalia:

    “Mr Speaker, this bill will not solve all issues related to illicit drugs in our community not even close,” he said.

    “It will however be a step in the right direction and enshrine in legislation the principle that the ACT does not believe that we should facilitate the use of illegal drugs”

Because if people are smoking this stuff anyway do you want them doing it with well constructed gear? Or something they’ve lashed together out of hoses and tin foil?

UPDATED: ABC radio reports that the Bill was supported by the Liberals but defeated by Labor and the Greens. The online report is now up.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
111 Responses to Richard Mulcahy comes for your pipe and bong
Filter
Order
« Previous 1 4 5 6
Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 3:17 pm 17 Oct 08
Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 12:12 am 28 Sep 08

So in order to stick a finger up at the Pathology Museum, I shall just have to torture them with the following link, courtesy of the Google Cache.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:UwIiinFWqTMJ:www.actpathology.act.gov.au/c/ap%3Fa%3Dda%26did%3D1011253%26pid%3D1064982933%26sid%3D+%22ACT+Pathology%22+%22ischaemic+hand%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au

Stick that in your bong and smoke it, Dick.

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 12:07 am 28 Sep 08

Two minor updates:

The proposed amendment is now easily available online at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/bill/cceab2008362/

Minor highlist, under this legislation, you could be arrested and sentenced to two years jail for selling or otherwise making available any combination of two of the following items:
(a) a glass bottle;
(b) a mirror;
(c) a razor blade;
(d) a scoop;
(e) a tube;
(f) any other item that can be used with an item mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) to prepare cocaine or introduce cocaine into a persons body.

Also, the Histopathology Museum has changed it policy of admittance from “The Pathology Museum may be viewed by the general public. However, some people may find it disturbing.” to “The Pathology Museum is open to school groups by appointment only. Other medical groups please contact the Anatomical Department.”

And they’ve taken down the online gallery, despite it being a useful public resource.
How many people ended up going to have a look?

jakez jakez 4:18 pm 28 Aug 08

fnaah said :

ohhhkay…. i was making a light-hearted reference to you stating that you were making yourself sound crazy. No offence intended. Maybe I read that reference in the wrong way or something. If that’s not what you meant, then I’m sorry.

Oh okay that’s alright then. Sorry I’m a bit touchy about being called a crackpot. As someone who is a libertarian and who has some political ambitions in the distant future, it hits a nerve. It’s not easy being a libertarian, especially when (as johnboy said a week or so ago about the LDP) you often defend unpopular positions.

I wasn’t sure if you were playing on my own joke so I quickly put the shield up, particularly when in this instance I’m more enjoying the debate rather than trying to lead a crusade.

I’ll keep playing but it will have to be later tonight after I finish work.

Mick1965 Mick1965 4:02 pm 28 Aug 08

We really should legalise drugs.

fnaah fnaah 3:57 pm 28 Aug 08

ohhhkay…. i was making a light-hearted reference to you stating that you were making yourself sound crazy. No offence intended. Maybe I read that reference in the wrong way or something. If that’s not what you meant, then I’m sorry.

jakez jakez 3:51 pm 28 Aug 08

fnaah said :

You are developing a twinge of crackpottedness there, jakez, but I’m still interested to hear your opinion on a few matters, which I’l get to shortly.

…I don’t want to play anymore. That’s not fair at all.

fnaah fnaah 3:25 pm 28 Aug 08

You are developing a twinge of crackpottedness there, jakez, but I’m still interested to hear your opinion on a few matters, which I’l get to shortly. Before I do though, I think you should be congratulated for staying civil, polite, and open-minded. I think others will agree that it’s a refreshing change for this site.

Back off topic. 😉

it’s a fundamental right

According to who? My study of the Constitution is pretty much limited to my knowledge of it’s existence, a quick skim of the wikipedia page, and what I’ve seen in The Castle, but I’m pretty sure we don’t have anything like the USAnians’ “Bill of Rights”. Where does the fundamental right to a firearm come from, and what protects that right?

Or are you suggesting that it’s more fundamental than that? Has the UN included a firearms provision in their universal declaration of human rights?

an important protection against tyranny

Um, okay. Sure. Democracy is great, you know? But just in case it isn’t, I reckon I should be able to reinforce my argument with some hot lead. What happens (and I’m just spitballing here) when clusters of same-thinking lunatics decide that they have the “right” to “overthrow tyranny”? I’m thinking particularly of the Cronulla riots.

an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man

As Johnboy said, it’s a variant of the Mutually Assured Destruction train of thought, which never made much sense to me – it is only stable when all parties can rationally see the inevitable consequence of starting a fight. When you’re talking about nations, there’s always a good chance that no one person is making rash decisions, or is not getting good advice. That doesn’t work so well with four drunk guys in a mexican standoff.

jakez jakez 2:49 pm 28 Aug 08

Danman said :

Funny how if you can find it on google, you are automatically an authority in the chosen subject

I never said I was an authority and neither did Deadman, I’m doing a pretty lazy job of prosecuting the case, particularly in terms of statistical evidence. Although I have an overall libertarian interest in such issues, gun rights isn’t my issue of expertise. Dead and I are just having a bit of fun.

Skid: Back on topic? fine!

I want someone to ask Ben O’Neill what he thinks about this legislation. I know what he thinks about it but I want to see what he says considering he is one of Mulcahy’s running mates.

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 2:01 pm 28 Aug 08

Back on topic. 😛

Danman Danman 1:31 pm 28 Aug 08

Funny how if you can find it on google, you are automatically an authority in the chosen subject

Deadmandrinking Deadmandrinking 1:14 pm 28 Aug 08

I’ll be back, gotta do some stuff now…but stick around, this is getting good.

jakez jakez 1:08 pm 28 Aug 08

Deadmandrinking said :

Apart from the other guy kicking your arse, no, you don’t have much to worry about. I’d rather that though than someone pulling a gun in the heat of a fight. Texas has concealed carry as well as some very nonrestrictive laws overall. Look at the crime rates in Houston and Dallas.

I’d rather not have someone kick my arse thank you very much.

Yes, I accept that in my world, a person might go crazy and shoot me in the face. However, criminologist Gary Kleck’s research shows that the incidents where their guns averted a threat vastly outnumber those who report being the victim of a firearm-related crime.

Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (1991). New York, NY, Aldine De Gruyter, pp.42-43 and 170-171

Kleck is a famous critic of John Lott’s book ‘more guns, less crime’ so he’s not a propaghandist.

Furthermore, if you want Government statistics, The United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, found that “A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.”

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft, April 1994, NCJ-147003

And what about the random mass-killings? They happen quite frequently in the US. We haven’t had one since Port Arthur (Only one guy got killed in the Melbourne CBD before you mention that).

Yes but at least the Virginia Tech students are safe from all of that. They ban firearms on campus……..OH WAIT!

What if the people at Port Arthur had guns? How many people would have died? What if the students at VT had guns? Would they have stopped crazy boy?

I don’t run around yelling yahoo and shooting six shooters in the air. I’ve never touched a gun let alone fired one. However the reality backs up the old adage that ‘an armed society is a polite society’.

As italian philosophere Cesare said it best “”laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Statistics aside, it’s a fundamental right and an important protection against tyranny (ahh yes, time to make myself sound crazy, this should be fun).

Deadmandrinking Deadmandrinking 12:46 pm 28 Aug 08

Apart from the other guy kicking your arse, no, you don’t have much to worry about. I’d rather that though than someone pulling a gun in the heat of a fight. Texas has concealed carry as well as some very nonrestrictive laws overall. Look at the crime rates in Houston and Dallas.

And what about the random mass-killings? They happen quite frequently in the US. We haven’t had one since Port Arthur (Only one guy got killed in the Melbourne CBD before you mention that).

jakez jakez 12:39 pm 28 Aug 08

Deadmandrinking said :

LA and NY have massive, massive urban areas that are filled with poor people all grouped together.

Maine and New Hampshire have about 2.5 million people between them, spread out over two states in smaller urban areas.

Portland, Maine, is the largest city in the state and has just 400,000 people in all. Canberra’s general area including Queanbeyan is close to that number too. Portland averages around 2-3 murders a year, so does the Canberra/Q-town area – so Maine is pretty safe, all things considered.

But…why is Canberra safe then? We’re not strapping, and don’t say it’s just because we’re less violent, our assault rate is almost 3 times theirs. (I’m also quoting from 4 year old statistics, so if you have more recent, that’d be good – but still, Canberra didn’t have guns then, Portland did.) Could it possibly be because not every man and his dog is armed, it’s a lot harder to kill someone?

The above would have been my answer as well. You mistake my intent. I was pointing out the lack of rigour in your previous explanation, not make a case against gun control.

In one hand you have stated that Portland is similar to Canberra, that they have around 2-3 murders a year, and that Canberra has 3 times the assault rate.

In the other hand you have then asked why Canberra is as safe as Portland if they have very ‘liberal’ gun laws and we don’t.

I put it to you that you have just made the case against gun control laws. Your scenario, merely paints a picture that gun laws (whether to allow or disallow) are not a factor. This position is backed up by much of the ‘neutral’ research material actually.

If the crux of your argument was the assault statistic. Could it possibly be because not every man and his dog is armed, it’s a lot easier to assault someone without having to worry about the consequences?

😉

Deadmandrinking Deadmandrinking 12:22 pm 28 Aug 08

LA and NY have massive, massive urban areas that are filled with poor people all grouped together.

Maine and New Hampshire have about 2.5 million people between them, spread out over two states in smaller urban areas.

Portland, Maine, is the largest city in the state and has just 400,000 people in all. Canberra’s general area including Queanbeyan is close to that number too. Portland averages around 2-3 murders a year, so does the Canberra/Q-town area – so Maine is pretty safe, all things considered.

But…why is Canberra safe then? We’re not strapping, and don’t say it’s just because we’re less violent, our assault rate is almost 3 times theirs. (I’m also quoting from 4 year old statistics, so if you have more recent, that’d be good – but still, Canberra didn’t have guns then, Portland did.) Could it possibly be because not every man and his dog is armed, it’s a lot harder to kill someone?

jakez jakez 12:01 pm 28 Aug 08

Deadmandrinking said :

“The reasons these places, and the US, might not show up the same statistics-wise in those areas is because these statistics are usually collected from people reporting crimes.
victims here more often come from backgrounds where it is advantageous to report crime, as they have insurance, medical care and a better trust in the police and justice system. But if you lived in the poorer areas of say, Cape-Town, Rio, Port Moresby, St Louis or Los Angeles, you wouldn’t have that same faith in cops and you would more likely not have insurance – so there’d really not be much point.”

Hence: We have higher stats on certain types of crime because more people report them.

Cape-Town, Rio, and Port Moresby aren’t in the discussed countries and that’s a whole other kettle of socio-economic fish. So let’s extract LA. Why do plaes like LA and NY (places with the alleged reporting problems and with strict gun laws) have higher crime rates than places like New Hampshire and Maine (where you can open carry)?

Yours is not a definitive statement because it is internally inconsistent. It needs work. On the flip side, my statement is not proof that gun control doesn’t work either. It also needs work.

justbands justbands 11:56 am 28 Aug 08

Oh…I agree Thumper. In terms of relative danger…syringes are the worst still.

jakez jakez 11:55 am 28 Aug 08

Deadmandrinking said :

Can you explain to me what purpose someone would have for a pistol or a semi-automatic that didn’t involve killing or maiming someone and couldn’t be done with a rifle?

I was going to say brandishing but you can do that with a rifle. Would be more bulky though.

I think your question is prefaced on the assumption that I think killing or maiming someone is an illegitimate act. I would submit to you that that isn’t always the case, as tragic as it always is.

Thank you for clarifying your previous post. I find people that rely on faulty statistics to be foolish. The case against gun control is so uber sexy, the NRA only end up shooting themselves in the foot (boom tish) by playing silly buggers.

Oh I thought of another option for the above. Sport pistol shooting. We have that already though so I don’t think that’s what you were getting at.

Thumper Thumper 11:46 am 28 Aug 08

True Mr Bands, but I find bottles easier to see than syringes buried in bark.

The ramifications are also a bit graver than a cut foot.

However, point most certainly taken.

« Previous 1 4 5 6

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site