Pubdate: Sun, 15 Aug 2010
Source: Listener, The (New Zealand)
Contact: http://www.listener.co.nz/default,contact.sm?subject=Editor
Copyright: 2010 APN Holdings NZ Ltd.
Website: http://www.listener.co.nz/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/241
Author: Bill Ralston
Note: Bill Ralston is a former head of TVNZ News

P IS FOR PREFERENCE

Regardless of whether our politicians are drunk or sober, stoned or
straight, we deserve better from them.

All candidates running for political office should declare what drugs
they prefer. One candidate for the Auckland super-mayoralty recently
declared he had smoked P and thought it should be legalised. I admire
his honesty and respect his right to an opinion that I don't share.

However, he is a lone truthful voice. Since he made that revelation,
I've been taking a long hard look at our nation's politicians, both
local and national, and it is abundantly apparent most are on
something, and we need to know what it is.

The behaviour of our mayors intrigues me. It's not just those who
inhabit the soon-to-be super-city, all of whom from time to time seem
to exhibit unusual characteristics indicating some form of enhanced
highs or lows.

Across the country we throw up oddball civic leaders whose behaviour
appears to be neither straight nor sober.

I'll exempt Whanganui's Michael Laws. He's not on drugs, but he should
be. For someone who consistently presents symptoms of such downright
bile-ridden nastiness, I'd recommend regular dosages of Ecstasy,
Valium and ketamine (a horse tranquilliser), all of which in concert
might just bring him under control.

Contrast Laws's behaviour with that of Invercargill's Tim Shadbolt. My
old mate Tim smoked enough dope during the 60s and 70s that even after
all these years he's still grinning, affable and euphoric, even when
he shouldn't be.

I know he would deny it, but I suspect our Prime Minister rolls
himself a big doobie over breakfast. How else to explain his ability
to glide through the rest of his day waving and relaxed, with a Mona
Lisa smile, while those around him sneer and yell abuse? Were I in his
position and dead cold straight, I would be punching Press Gallery
journalists in the head and kneeing Trevor Mallard in the groin on a
daily basis.

Why should politicians be any different from the rest of us? The most
recent studies show 49% of New Zealand adults - about 1.2 million
people - admit to having used drugs for recreational purposes in their
lifetime. Most of the rest are probably lying. More than 430,000
people are doing drugs regularly, generally cannabis.

Let's not forget the most popular drug of all, alcohol. Eight-five per
cent of us have a drink or two, or three or more. Of course, you risk
committing contempt of Parliament if you imply a member is drunk, so
I'd better come up with another explanation for MPs' behaviour.

Perhaps the killer drug nicotine is the reason, because around 23% of
those under 65 years are still ingesting tobacco. Of course, the only
really nasty behavioural impact from smoking is when you attempt to go
through withdrawal. When I listen to Question Time in the House, it
sounds as if many have just given up and their irritation levels have
reached Condition Red.

Our leaders are definitely on something. How else do you explain
events like the Queens Wharf debacle, where our top national and local
political figures seem unable to come up with a coherent plan?
Observing them over the past few months has been like watching Cheech
and Chong do town planning.

"Wow, man, let's have a party on the wharf."

"Ah no, dude, what about the sheds?"

"Let's smoke them."

"No, man, let's build this huge cosmic twisted-glass structure we can
stand inside."

"And then we smoke that!"

I'm sorry, but the confused stoner-like debate over Queens Wharf could
not have been held if everyone involved was rational.

Whether politicians are drunk or sober, stoned or straight, we deserve
better from them and their decision-making. The Government has the
commendable tendency to put controversial decisions before the public
for "consultation", but this inevitably leads to a split in public
opinion and, with one eye on the polls for a "Rudd effect" (the sudden
collapse of popular support), the Government inevitably shelves the
plan in question.

This leads to little change ever occurring during a time when change
is being demanded by international economic circumstances.

Looking back over the past 18 months, we have had Government U-turns
on such things as mining, blood alcohol levels, the Tuhoe settlement,
ACC, TV rights for the Rugby World Cup, tax cuts and KiwiSaver.
Whatever your position on these issues, maybe it's nice to know that a
government can be open-minded, but it's also a little scary.

I get the feeling we are dreamily drifting, one toke over the line at
a time, when we really need to be in full command of our collective
facilities. Hard decisions need to be made at the risk of alienating
some voters in the short term. Either that or they share what they're
on and we, too, won't give a damn. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake