Canvassing for Opinion - aka "Blairs Brain on Cannabis"

IMHO prohibition sentiment requires inherent addiction to status quo, an incapacity to visualise beyond the here and now and a desperate desire to know others might feel the same... Reform is not revolutionary, rather it is evolutionary. Having survived banging your head against a brick wall the evolutionist relishes having stopped. / Blair

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Archbishop of Canterbury appoints new climate change adviser

[Lambeth Palace] The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has appointed Paula Clifford on a six-month secondment from Christian Aid to help further the Church of England's quest for sustainable solutions to climate change, following on from the launch of the Church's " Shrinking the Footprint" initiative. [ Episcopal Life Online - WORLD REPORT   September 19, 2007]

Clifford has been at Christian Aid for nine years and has traveled extensively in the developing world, seeing the effects of climate change first hand. She recently published a paper titled "All creation groaning: a theological approach to climate change."

"I am delighted that the Archbishop and the Church of England are showing their deep concern for the effects of climate change on the world's poorest people in this way," she said. "I am very much looking forward to working with them in highlighting the wider issues of poverty and injustice and in helping to inspire a real movement for change."

Clifford is a lay Reader in the Diocese of Oxford, and has written books on a variety of topics, as well as being a theater critic for the Oxford Times.

View blog reactions

Dr Bob Melamede on forward looking communities

CHCH Sister City HempFest = 150,000 people, 300 stalls at nearly 500 dollars each for the two days.
Self organising, and the exceptional community spirit....
I remember going home one year at 1 AM on Saturday night, the ground covered in litter. It had all been picked up the next morning by an army of street kids. On Monday and Tuesday we might find people helping clean up the park who haven't even been to the event . They see what we're doing and they just pitch in.

"Nobody is paid. Some of the bands get a travel allowance but it isn't exactly princely. Lots of core members put in hundreds of dollars of their own money to make it happen. And the miracle is, each year it comes off and we leave the park as clean as we found it."

The Hempfest's goals are explicitly political. Vivian McPeak, a prime mover since 1991, quotes Gandhi: "'First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.'"

'Mayor Blair' Anderson  ‹(•¿•)›

ph (643) 389 4065   cell 027 265 7219
View blog reactions

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

What is this woman doing in Parliament?

What is this woman doing in Parliament? at

  • Blair Anderson

    If ACT were on the climate case they would be taking a more precautionary principled, constitutional and (property) rights based approach, namely 'contraction and convergence' (C&C, see ). But Heather, like the rest of NZ was duped with a consultation process that was gravely flawed. All views were not at the table. The stakehold interests in NZ's CC agenda (yes, out comes the conspiracy's) can be likened to that of big pharma, big sugar, big tobacco and big oil. We can ignore the evidence at our collective peril and steer ourselves ourselves into the unmanageable outcomes or we can turn the ship around albeit slowly and save our collective arses. The primary stakeholders in business as usual must be challenged. There is nothing inconsistent in ACT principles with this strategy. It is the only game in town. /Blair

  • Labels: , , ,

    View blog reactions

    Saturday, September 22, 2007

    What Price Democracy, the Acid test?

    As voters open today's mail I declare and I promise a style in leadership 'fresh each day' for it appears Christchurch is not seeking a doctor of history's dead people nor a "this was your life, Christchurch". Christchurch needs a professor of future, a man of living vision, a breath of fresh air, Vote "Mayor Blair"

    read more digg story
    View blog reactions

    What Issues? Democracy's Litmus Test

    What Issues? Democracy's Litmus Test

    Christchurch's Mayoral aspirant Blair Anderson was 'disappointed' to read the trite and specious analysis provided in recent days by Canterbury hard copy media. (in particular but not limited to the STAR and PRESS). "It is one of the primary reasons I co-founded the Canterbury Issues Forum, an e-democracy initiative engaging new media and the need for the truth to be out there." says the second tilt candidate.

    Following last Tuesdays Town Hall debate, the PRESS reported that Anderson and fellow candidate Peter Wakeman 'spoke about climate change'. This is about as truthful as if it had been reported that Anderson said "it had been a warm day on Tuesday". Even sillier, was the observation that Anderson was the only one who came out 'from the podium'. This factoid rhymed with odium. Lets not mention that Anderson's climate change initiative (contraction and convergence) is only endorsed by Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, head of the G8 or that in the context of current politics 'carbon is king'.

    If the STAR thinks that candidates in the Bob and Megan show had policy differences it wasn't obvious in the headlines of the 'Weakend STAR' with the appalling headline "Woods puts acid on Parker over mayoralty funding ". The STAR's acid metaphor was base forth estate politicking on the very 'weekend' of delivery and commencement of voting.

    The context is even funnier, Wood's fellowship with Progressive Coalition Party "PCP" MP Jim Anderton. Czar Jim imperils reason in misconstruing harm reduction and evidence from his own expert advisory committee on ACID (LSD). The august Medical Research Council rates acid as less harmful to the community or to one's self than alcohol or cannabis. What say you Megan and Bob? Acid or Alcohol? lets find the litmus test that defines public concerns over violent crime, domestic violence, sexual assault. Lets have it? who is tough on protecting the community, who is evidence based, equitable, ethical and just.

    It is the public who are being tricked into a polarising battle of persona over policy.

    Single Transferable Vote [STV] and First Past the Post [FPP] has to be reviewed in this term of governance and the candidates view on this issue is imperative to informed voter choice. It was 'Mayor Blair' Anderson who put the acid on this policy gap in 2021's Dr Megan Woods. Flummoxed at the Town Hall, she fumbled, stumbled and failed to blow the house down. Yet all the PRESS discovered and publicised was what flavour sugar hit she liked. ( those elected under FPP are unlikely to support STV, it's been likened to turkeys voting for Christmas/Blair).

    So? What value democracy? Anderson reports he has spent about 20 dollars so far, with about $9.20 remaining on his warehouse photocopy card. There is a lot of campaigning to go yet, Anderson reports 'I shall be spending the remaining resource judiciously, I need to pay my rates too!."

    Megan and Jo have both lauded and indeed suggested they model themselves on the visionary Shadbolt of "Mayor Blair's" birthplace, Invercargill. It is with 'delicious irony' that Anderson noted his SAFER option for women (see attached 'billboard' graphic) is a Shadbolt/Anderson inspired harm reducing anti-crime, waist management and public health policy. Anderson who has professorial advice linking cannabis (policy) to forward looking politicians declared " Mayor Tim and I are both former deputy leaders of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party".

    So, in a cogent message to voters and journalists applauding the big spenders, Anderson's $20 for his campaign is still better value and cheaper than a concrete mixer and, it seems "Mayor Blair" is by all accounts the more fiscally prudent even if largely under reported.

    As voters open today's mail I declare and I promise a style in leadership 'fresh each day' for it appears Christchurch is not seeking a doctor of history's dead people, nor a "this was your life, Christchurch" just before it dies of chronic congestion following binge drinking.

    Christchurch needs a professor of future, a man of living vision, a breath of fresh air, "Mayor Blair".

    'Mayor Blair' Anderson ‹(•¿•)›

    ph (643) 389 4065 cell 027 265 7219

    Labels: , , , , , , ,

    View blog reactions

    Friday, September 21, 2007

    Alcohol = Hate, Cannabis = Love

    During the civic elections "Mayor Blair" has been repeatedly asked "how is cannabis a local body issue?"

    "Are we rendered silly by our inability to have the required discussion?"

    The candidate's reply notes that city plans approve bar after bar in inner city revitalisation while other candidates wax lyrical about crime and 'broken glass' usually while they prognosticate in an alcohol free zone.

    British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, reported: "Cannabis differs from alcohol in one major respect. It does not seem to increase risk-taking behavior. This means that cannabis rarely contributes to violence either to others or to oneself, whereas alcohol use is a major factor in deliberate self-harm, domestic accidents and violence."

    That's WHY we need a SAFER community. "Don't vote to reward failure" on the crime and 'get tougher policy' front, demands the mayoral aspirant.

    The Canadian Senate in 2002, determined: "Cannabis use does not induce users to commit other forms of crime. Cannabis use does not increase aggressiveness or anti-social behavior."

    "We would be better off with Cannabis Cafe's along with some candidates with some integrity who would front up on core issues. "

    At yesterdays Social Issues forum at the Knox Church in Christchurch alcohol was roundly linked to social dysfunction and access to health when candidate Blair drew to the attention of the many non-mayoral candidates attending (23) that the 2006 NHS study in the UK attributed 70% of the health vote to alcohol related dysfunction, and questioned the displaced resource allocation in limited access to elective surgery, impediments to health promotion and baseline primary health..

    Time to get real. Time to VOTE for integrity AND social justice.

    Blair Anderson

    Labels: ,

    View blog reactions

    Thursday, September 20, 2007

    Andrew Johns honesty about alcohol and performance - he prefered something else!

    New Matilda: "In the wake of the Andrew Johns affair, calls for an honest debate on drugs by Sydney Morning Herald Opinion Editor Lisa Pryor and columnist Michael Duffy are laudable. But any real alternative needs to be one where Government can place real controls on the drug market — and for that mere decriminalisation just won’t cut it. "
    View blog reactions

    Sunday, September 16, 2007

    Listener makes the case, P = moral panic

    View blog reactions

    Thursday, September 13, 2007

    So cannabis can save lives!

    CanWest News Service

    Published: Wednesday, September 12, 2007

    OTTAWA -- Some 250 soldiers who tested positive for drugs were not allowed to serve in Afghanistan, the Canadian Forces confirmed yesterday.

    According to documents obtained by CBC News, the army has tested almost 7,000 soldiers since mandatory drug screening of troops headed to Afghanistan began in 2006.

    The results were for the period September 2006 to last May, which show that most of the soldiers who failed tested positive for marijuana.

    View blog reactions

    Wednesday, September 12, 2007

    Australian Press gets behind Contraction and Convergence (C&C)

    APEC's agreement is a good start to tackling climate change.
    September 11, 2007

    Contraction and convergence's answer to this problem is that every person should be given an equal share, that is, emissions should be distributed at a national level on a per capita basis.
    A per capita allocation is the only allocation principle that is likely to be accepted by India, China, Indonesia and other developing nations with large populations.

    THERE are positive aspects to the Sydney Declaration on climate change.

    It helps re-establish Australia as one of the good guys working to solve the global warming problem, and essentially re-aligns Australia's position with that of progressive nations including the European Union. Admittedly, much of the declaration simply recommits APEC countries to the principles and aims of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. But this achievement will be warmly welcomed by the international community.

    Aspirational targets are also useful in signalling that the 21 APEC leaders now acknowledge global warming is the mother of all environmental problems and must be tackled sooner rather than later.

    But we will be sadly and dangerously misled in thinking that aspirational targets, and promoting particular technologies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, provide a suitable framework for the post-Kyoto protocol. In the rush to act, we risk ending up with a new international agreement that fails to address the specific actions needed to actually solve the global warming problem.

    First, let's be clear about the problem. Humans are releasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases into the atmosphere at a faster rate than natural processes can absorb them. The global warming problem will be solved when we have reduced the total annual global emissions of greenhouse gases so that their atmospheric concentration is stabilised at a safe level that does not cause significant climate change.

    This will not be achieved in the absence of a legally binding international agreement that leads to global greenhouse gas emissions being reduced to a safe level over a time that minimises harm to people and nature. In its absence, national initiatives will not solve the problem. Nor can there by any guarantee that efforts by individuals and organisations to voluntarily reduce their carbon emissions will actually lead to the problem being solved.

    Fortunately, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change commits all nations, including Australia, to work together to solve the global warming problem through negotiation of additional agreements.

    The Kyoto Protocol is one such agreement committing nations to take some baby steps (albeit important ones) along the road to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (a total of about 5 per cent during the period 2008 to 2012). But governments now need to start negotiating a new post-Kyoto protocol that will solve the global warming problem. What should such a new protocol look like?

    The answer is called "contraction and convergence", a framework for crafting a new protocol that forces governments to agree on three vital questions.

    First, what is a safe concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases?
    Many scientists argue a safe concentration is what it was during the
    1960s. Once a safe concentration is agreed on, it is then easy to
    calculate the total global amount of greenhouse gases that can be
    emitted each year to achieve that target.

    The second question that contraction and convergence forces governments to answer is: "When will the total global emissions of greenhouse gases be reduced to the amount needed to maintain
    atmospheric concentrations at the agreed safe level: in 2020; 2100;
    next year?

    The third critical question governments must reach agreement on is how the global permissible amount of greenhouse gas emissions will be
    allocated between nations.
    This is the most politically difficult
    problem to resolve in negotiating a new international agreement.

    Contraction and convergence's answer to this problem is that every person should be given an equal share, that is, emissions should be distributed at a national level on a per capita basis. A per capita allocation is the only allocation principle that is likely to be accepted by India, China, Indonesia and other developing nations with large populations.

    Once a new protocol is in place based on the contraction and convergence framework, national governments can then begin the difficult and complex task of negotiating their way through the various implementation issues and working out how to most efficiently and fairly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to the agreed safe level, such as through a national carbon market. Contraction and convergence does not tell us how to reduce carbon emissions to a safe level, but provides a framework so that all our actions to reduce carbon emissions will count and lead to the global warming problem being solved.

    A new contraction and convergence framed international protocol will ensure all nations are working together in a co-ordinated way and that everyone's efforts to reduce carbon emissions make a real difference.

    This certainty will be of great benefit to investors, solidify national carbon markets, and encourage the next generation of greenhouse friendly technologies. We can make our personal and organisational contributions to reducing carbon emissions confident that the problem will actually be solved in due course. Without such an agreement, all our individual and collective efforts may be to no avail and we will fail to solve the problem.

    However, solving the global warming problem will require a level of international co-operation not seen since the Allied nations' response during World War II. Australia, with the APEC nations, can play a critical leadership role in the international diplomatic campaign that will be needed to secure a new contraction and convergence-framed agreement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    Oz Press C&C at APEC
    Brendan Mackey is a professor of environmental science at the Australian National University
    Aubrey Meyer dated
    Monday, September 10, 2007

    Also see:
    Support Grows For Equity-Based Global Warming Plan and Climate Change: Session on future international action
    Democracy at the international level – the basis for global climate action.
    Talk by Kay Weir, editor Pacific Ecologist, published by the Pacific Inst of Resource Management
    Organised by Adrian Macey, Climate Change Ambassador, Environment Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Lambton Quay, Wellington, 16 August 2007.

    / 'Mayor Blair' Anderson ‹(•¿•)›

    View blog reactions

    Wednesday, September 05, 2007

    Merkel revives emissions proposal to unite world

    ... but they can't knock it down, it's bullet-proof in its methodology," he told Reuters on Friday of the idea, which he terms contraction and convergence . ...
    Reuters UK -
    31 Aug 2007

    Merkel revives emissions proposal to unite world
    'Mayor Blair' Anderson  ‹(•¿•)›

    ph (643) 389 4065   cell 027 265 7219
    View blog reactions

    Another Mild Green Initiative

      (search tips)

    Visitor Map
    Visitor Map, daily!

    Visitor Map, previous 6 months

    MildGreen Technorati Search
    Web Blog Pinging Service Blog Flux Directory Blogarama - The Blog Directory Find Blogs in the Blog Directory Search For Blogs, Submit Blogs, The Ultimate Blog Directory Health Blog Top Sites Google PageRank Checker Tool Top Blogs Health blogs