I agree.

Legalising drugs is a much more effective policy than a 'war on drugs'.
Just imagine the cost savings and the benefits about being honest about drugs.
Fewer people in prisons. Less crime. Proper treatment of addicts.
Yet we never have this debate.
Why is that?

cheers
Bernard

Thankyou David : A timely piece . Jelly Key is beginning to resemble Queen Helen , in his " I know best " zeal . We dodged bullets on the folate in bread malarky , the squiggly light bulbs , and the restrictors in shower heads . But the Nat's have given us car crushing to make boy racers cry , a massive increase in ACC levies on motorcycles , and the ban on pseudoethedrene . ........ .Yer dodge some , but not all . I wonder if any of these ridiculous " solutions " would have gotten the light of day , had respective ministers sought advice from a range of experts in each particular field . Grannie used to say , " you don't ask , you don't learn , boy " . More questioning from politicians please , and less flapping of ignorant gums .

David, BH and Roger,

Legalising meth? The wrong drug for this argument!!

I don't agree with a nanny state but ZN needs protection from this drug, anyway we can get it.

I use the medication that is to be restricted and am happy to go to the Dr for a script if it helps slow this problem.

I deal with the carnage of meth daily.

BH you have talked about grand kids not being able to afford houses in this country, if meth was legal chances are that they wouldn't live long enough to need one.Imagine a meth problem as big as our alcohol problem.

As for it not being cost effective for crims to buy it over the counter. Buy it for $20 and sell it for $100. And they want 20 packets before they take them off your hands. - You do the math.

I don't think many have an understanding of this evil drug, it is manufactured by chemists who make more addictive.

The poem below is written by a meth addict.

Meet Mr. and Mrs. Crystal Meth.

I destroy homes "“ I tear families apart.

I take your children and that's just a start.

I'm more valued than diamonds, more precious than gold.

The sorrow I bring is a sight to behold.

If you need me, remember, I'm easily found.

I live all around you, in school and in town.

I live with the rich, I live with the poor.

I live just down the street and maybe next door.

I'm made in a lab, but not one like you think.

I can be made under the kitchen sink,

In your child's closet, and even out in the woods.

If this scares you to death, then it certainly should.

I have many names. But there's one you'll know best.

I'm sure you've heard of me, my name is Crystal Meth.

My power is awesome, try me, you'll see.

But if you do, you may never break free.

Just try me once and I might let you go.

But if you try me twice, then I'll own your soul.

When I possess you, you'll steal and you'll lie.

You'll do what you have to do, just to get high.

The crimes you commit for my narcotic charms,

Will be worth the pleasures you feel in my arms.

You'll lie to your mother; you'll steal from your dad.

When you see their tears, you must feel sad.

Just forget your morals and how you were raised.

I'll be your conscience, I'll teach you my ways.

I take kids from their parents; I take parents from their kids.

I turn people from God, I separate friends.

I'll take everything from you, your looks and your pride.

I'll be with you always, right by your side.

You'll give up everything, your family, your home.

Your money, your true friend, then you'll be alone.

I'll take and take till you have no more to give.

When I finish with you, you'll be lucky to live.

If you try me, be warned, this is not a game.

If I'm given the chance, I'll drive you insane.

I'll ravage your body; I'll control your mind.

I'll own you completely; your soul will be mine.

The nightmares I'll give you when you're lying in bed,

And the voices you'll hear from inside your head.

The sweats, the shakes, and the visions from me.

I want you to know these things are gifts from me.

But then it's too late, and you'll know in your heart

That you are now mine and we shall not part.

You'll regret that you tried me (they always do).

But you came to me, not I to you.

You knew this would happen.

Many times you've been told.

But you challenged my power,

You chose to be bold.

You could have said no and then walked away.

If you could live that day over now, what would you say?

My power is awesome, as I told you before.

I can take your life and make it so dim and sore.

I'll be your master and you'll be my slave.

I'll even go with you when you go to your grave.

Now that you've met me, what will you do?

Will you try me or not? It's all up to you.

I can show you more misery than words can tell.

Come take my hand, let me lead you to H---.

Written by

Alicia VanDavis

Well written piece. If only anyone took notice. How much more proof does Key need to learn that prohibition never works. I grew up in the Netherlands and people here just won't believe it when I tell them I never even tried a joint or a piece of space cake. Why not? Simple, I had no interest in it knowing that I could always try it "tomorrow" if I wanted. I never wanted it so I never had any.

In fact I don't know anyone in my family or friends that uses any marijuana (I had to lookup the spelling) or stronger drugs. This is because the Dutch drug policy works.

Besides, as much as I am put off by drug users, the actual use of drugs does not harm anyone else besides themselves so why is a deed that produces no victims frowned upon?

Your experience agrees with my links above Paul. The Netherlands has a tolerant drug policy, and a falling crime rate - 28 year old how do you explain that? (Regarding the gang link you mention, legalising is what finally takes away their grip of the user, for there is no longer profit in them pushing P. The very same reason that Prohibition simply handed power and profit to organised crime in the US.)

But, back to the article, don't be too quick to reach the conclusion this is a 'well written piece'. Did you read this bit?

Others have complained about this being another step towards the creation of a nanny state. I personally feel that governments have a role in being our nanny. What I object to are nannies that make a show of being concerned but are really more interested in their own comfort or reputation than the welfare of the children they are minding.

So Nanny is good, but Nanny is not good.

The legalise drugs argument here is just that two-faced sort of pragmatism employed by the Business Round Table: there is no free society to be found in this argument. None.

David: what evidence to you have that 'governments have a role in being our nanny'?

Well, Paul - there are more victims of drug abuse than there are abusers - families, friends and the victims of criminal acts to support the habit. That said however, I too believe the 'war on drugs' and maintenance of prohibition laws and criminalisation of drug use is a sadistic response from governments - it does nothing to address the underlying cause, nor to deter (rather it encourages!) the makers and dealers of these weapons against society.

I would have no qualms whatsoever for the death penalty to be brought in for anyone found manufacturing and/or dealing in "P" - but we should not imprison users, we should reinvest in our mental health system with secure facilities. Families should be given the ability to legally commit their sons/daughters/fathers/mothers to these institutions - the institutions will soon know whether the individual is or is not a user.

Regards marijuana, the Netherlands has it right, decriminalise its use and the ability to grow a certain amount for personal consumption. But similarly, growing it for profit/dealing should be a criminal act, as should providing it to minors and the penalities should be severe. All persons who want to grow it for personal use, should have to be registered (just like firearms licensing) and similarly they should have to have a secure means of storage of their finished product, so that there is no defence for the finished product having got into the hands of a non-registered user/growers.

Publicly owned/controlled gardens for growers who do not own their own land should be set up - with strict in/out ID and camera security provisions. A minimum age for legal use needs to be determined.

I have this attitude toward marijuana not because I approve of the use of that drug - far, far from it. But if I had to choose between a pot head and an alcohollic as a husband, father, son or daughter - I'd go for the pot head anytime.

I only wish we as a society found alcohol use as offensive as we do tobacco smoking - and we should find marijuana use less offensive than both.

Here are the Minutes of the November 2003 Medicines Classification Committee Meeting - Yes almost 6 years ago!

See heading - 6.6 Phenylephrine
http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/class/mccMin26Nov03.htm

Over the counter as a source of pseudoephedrine to make "P" is insignificant (< 1%), no data to back this up ... however it takes 6 boxes of the 24 tab boxes (or 144 tabs) to make 1.0 g of "P" ... this easily would come up if someone was shopping for it from Pharmacy to Pharmacy (networked computer database), similar to what Australia is doing. Cost appprox. $3 M.
Note : "Most methamphetamine in New Zealand was now manufactured from ephedrine and pseudoephedrine imported illegally from overseas."
Restricting OTC sales is a joke and will not effect our "P" habits ... but this will take 5 years to realise, in the mean time the Government has made a significant (short term)cost-savings.

On a more technical note:
"The Committee noted the claim that it was technically difficult to convert phenylephrine to methamphetamine",

so new labs then?! But they won't bother, because there's enough "pseudo" coming over the our borders!

The problem with legalisation of harmful drugs is that usage will increase. Even though there will be a reduction in crime, there will still be the increase in harmful direct effects. While prohibition in the US caused all manner of crime, it did drastically reduce the abuse of alchol and its attendant misery.

The problem with legalising drugs is that it creates huge economic incentives to get people hooked.

A better approach would be to allow doctors to prescribe currently illegal drugs to law abiding addicts at no charge. Pharmac could then acquire in bulk as a single purchaser. This would illiminate any commerical opportunity to addict more users. And it would give drug users a powerful incentive to obey the law.

Here are the Minutes of the November 2003 Medicines Classification Committee Meeting - Yes almost 6 years ago!

See heading - 6.6 Phenylephrine
http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/class/mccMin26Nov03.htm

Over the counter as a source of pseudoephedrine to make "P" is insignificant (< 1%), no data to back this up ... however it takes 6 boxes of the 24 tab boxes (or 144 tabs) to make 1.0 g of "P" ... this easily would come up if someone was shopping for it from Pharmacy to Pharmacy (networked computer database), similar to what Australia is doing. Cost appprox. $3 M.
Note : "Most methamphetamine in New Zealand was now manufactured from ephedrine and pseudoephedrine imported illegally from overseas."
Restricting OTC sales is a joke and will not effect our "P" habits ... but this will take 5 years to realise, in the mean time the Government has made a significant (short term)cost-savings.

On a more technical note:
"The Committee noted the claim that it was technically difficult to convert phenylephrine to methamphetamine",

So new labs then?! But they won't bother, because there's enough "pseudo" coming over our borders!

Mark

The whole purpose of modern governments is to be a nanny. They do things for our "good" which we wouldn't do if left to ourselves, say because we do not co-ordinate well, we want to free ride on the actions of others, or we just do not realise that helping others has personal benefits. So basically you can read my statement as meaning that I think there is a role for governments that are focussed on improving national welfare. The alternatives are either anarchy or "robber barons", neither of which are very appealing. So discussion about a nanny state is just not useful, it is in practice simply a tautology. The issue then is not about whether governments act as nannies, but what type of nanny are they trying to be.

Dave

Bernard - It doesn't fit-in with the imprisoning for profit business model, which of course is trying hard to be re-established.

Mark "“ Interesting link.

Making cold tablets prescription-only is a purely cosmetic gesture. Pseudoephedrine sourced from over-the-counter sales of medication has only ever been a minor factor in methamphetamine production. It was only a viable option for a short period in the mid to late 90s, after methamphetamine use spread from outlaw motorcycle gangs and their associates and into mainstream society, and before reporting and monitoring regimes made it too risky, expensive and time-consuming to be viable. Now, almost all pseudoephedrine is imported in bulk quantities, with minimal risk and expense.

The only part of this policy which will have any effect whatsoever is the increased capacity for Customs to inspect incoming mail and sea cargo.

An interesting measure of the effectiveness of this policy will be in the prevalence of burglaries and armed robberies. Back in the 80's, when addicts were left high and dry after the collapse of the Mr Asia syndicate, there was an epidemic of chemist shop robberies to obtain drugs that couldn't be obtained any other way. If restricting pseudoephedrine to prescription only genuinely disrupts supply in any way, we can expect a huge upswing in pharmacy robberies. But I'd be flippin' surprised if it happened.

As a final point to my last post, though, albeit I don't think either anarchy or robber barons will be the result of slaying nanny state, I'm wondering if either option is yet preferable to the outright hypocrisy of having to read in the media Bill English lambasting high worth individuals 'abuses' of family trusts.

A) I can't believe he kept his job when what he did with his Trust, in the tax sphere, would be considered outright evasion, and B) I can't believe he then had the gall to deliver that pathetic speech with a straight face - he must have been on drugs to have been able to do that.

Cactus Kate summed it up well here: http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2009/10/no-trust-in-english.html#l...

... back to the topic at hand.

@Burton ??? Did you actual read the whole report? If not, please do go away and read it.

Yes , Nicky Lee : That is a tadge disrespectful !

dogma - absolutely, why not end their lives? Those who cook up/deal in "P" effectively end the innocense and wellbeing of those that consume their product - or to be more specific - they end the productivity and happiness of those who consume the product.

The cookers and the dealers are the worst of the worst scourges on society - and they prey on innocence, wait on street corners, stand outside school yards.... because with "P" it takes so little effort to hook your prey, and once hooked - they'll do anything for you.

We should have no tolerance for these pond scum - a quick death is less cruel than what they commit their customers to.

On a technical note:

"it is possible to convert phenylepherine to meths"

THERE IS JUST A SINGLE BOND MISSING IN THE BENZENE RING!!!

So, new labs will be build, however they won't bother, because there's enough pseudo supply coming over our borders!

Less OTC supply will not affect the "P" trade, this is a joke ... :0

To those distinguishing between Marijuana and P for appropriate policy. I think you are deluded. What a person ingests is their own business and the consequences will be theirs too. Chances are if P was legal it would be purer, much better quality and much much cheaper to obtain. Gangs would struggle to make money selling it.

Take the ever increasing cost of cigarettes. The price has already increased to the point that you now see more and more illegal tabaco being turned into cigarettes and sold. Apparently it is already worth the risk. Moonshine anyone?

The other victims being family can help their loved ones in what ever capacity they wish just as long as my freedom is not curtailed such as is the case with the restricted availability of flu medicine.

Kakapo: after the up drugs will come the down drugs; the cycle seems to always happen so get ready for the heroin epidemic soon. and Afghanistan has a mountain of it to shift.

Paul, what people ingest is not "their business" where P is concerned - it is the business of those that make and sell it to create a market.

There is a world of difference between P and pot on the scale of mind altering substances. And there is a world of difference between personal freedom in its extreme and a humane, caring society.

P dealers prey on the innocent - the immature - the young - the impressionable.

Perhaps you were a blushingly confident, totally level-headed individual when entering or going through your youth. Perhaps you weren't curious - you weren't full of energy - full of a feeling of being invincible - full of the desire to experience things you hadn't experienced before.

Perhaps you didn't like rollercoasters, bungy jumping, skiing, and all those other activities that most youth find thrilling. Perhaps you could say no to something someone promised would be a bigger thrill than anything else you had ever experienced. Perhaps you were 'grown up' enough at 10 or 13 or 15 not to be tempted to believe what someone 16 or 17 or 18 told you wouldn't harm you - that it would only give you a buzz and an enjoyable time.

Perhaps you only now need to worry about your own personal/individual freedom because you are an adult capable of making rational decisions about what you ingest - and perhaps you feel this scourge will never impact on those in your family. And perhaps for this reason, you feel offended by those families who might somehow impact on your freedom by needing your help. Perhaps there is no call for you to have any concern about people who prey on the innocence of others, and the consequences they face because of their exercise of freedom at the age of 13 or 15 or whatever.

The problem I have with Libertarianism or this 'personal freedom above all else' mantra - is that most of the die hard proponents seem to somehow feel they are not one with society - they are somehow different than the masses - they are rational beings and the rest of us are bludgers. They have no sense of community or of compassion.

They have no sense of community or of compassion.

Prove that.

Libertarianism sits very comfortably with both those notions, whereas, I put it to you, what is breaking down both 'community' and 'compassion' is the Welfare State: watch the news every night. Figure out why NZ has amongst the highest child murder rates in the world.

The Big State has seen the advent of the Compassionless State: it works by force and coercion, how can it be any other way. Believe me, you rub up against the State in the wrong way, you'll very quickly learn there is no compassion to be found there: you find that only amongst friends and family, and again, family - the central unit under attack by the Welfare State.

Before speaking to what you think Libertarianism is, perhaps it would help to find out what it actually is.

Because we pay children to have children. The consequence of bad life choices is a pay cheque and an income for life.

Our welfare state has proven it produces the very class it was supposed to be supporting. And that flows through to every other problem that you list in your post.

The welfare state broke the family.

** I was watching the news on Breakfast, TV1 this morning, and they interviewed what I thought was a school girl, and I'm still sure she was wearing a uniform, about the fact they have (hopefully) caught the sex offender in Aucklander: I was floored with this young girl said she was scared because she had to walk through the park concerned - okay to here - with her child!

I think most women (and it is only women who bear children, not children who bear children as that is a physiological impossibility) have children for largely emotional, as opposed to purely rational reasons, as your theory implies.

Well of was really thinking of those teen 'women' who were drunk while conceiving.

Also, as quality of life and incomes rise - such as in the West, thanks to capitalism - family numbers go down - for example the middle class - indicating that so long as you don't provide a financial incentive from the State, then women do make rational decisions on having children, amongst other factors. Whereas the welfare classes in NZ would appear to be having a higher number of children, per family (or rather, single parent - read Lindsay Mitchell's excellent blog/analysis), than the working middle class, which indicates to me that the welfare state, as you have mentioned above, is moving us back toward those 'economically impoverished countries', and dooming generations of children to the poverty cycle. Which is why I say the welfare state is such a compassionless entity.

ruru, yes I agree - and generally I think at the root of our substance abuse problem is alcohol. The cost of alcohol on society is overwhelming - and we still allow its promotion on television and in the media, reinforcing its social acceptability as a drug. Which makes me wonder why Hone H and the Maori Party are giving tobacco such a hard time, when what's really killing their constituency is alcohol.

Mark, perhaps as a result of consumer capitalism, these middle class women you speak of are more making an emotional decision to have manicures and pedicures, a gym membership and tan treatments, marble topped kitchen benches and a good bottle of wine every night after work, a front load washing machine and a suite of empty bedrooms in the infrequently used 3 and a half bath house - instead of a bigger family.

Emotion and values are at the core of the decision-making for all of us.

Mark "“ if you truly believe removing welfare for those in need will improve our communities and is acting compassionately - you prove Kate's point (no sense of community or of compassion).

If we didn't "pay children to have children" do you think they would stop having them?

Has it nothing to do with increasingly young promiscuousness, low education, under age drinking, media manipulation, etc...?

Moreover, what about the fact that it has become socially acceptable that the fathers of these kids don't tend to stick around, people marry off a whim, and divorced couples have become all so common?

Western living standards improvements are largely an illusion based on debt, what's really been increasing is global disparity. So we are not really raising the overall quality of life to achieve the middle class reduction that you've mentioned. Therefore, it's not the welfare state that's the cause; it's exactly the opposite, the welfare state is what prevents us from totally slipping into an impoverished nation.

As a nation, we are not ensuring "all" are able to attain a middle class status (appropriate education etc...)

Welfare is primarily considered an incentive not to work when wages being paid are to low.

Low wages will never allow those who are under-qualified to get ahead. Better educating the nation will enrich the nation thus enabling "overall" wages to increase.

Removing welfare and the minimum wage (which for some is the overall objective) will come at a far greater cost to the majority of the community.

How well the State administers welfare (as with the rest of the tax take) is more the point of contention.

Thanks, Chairman.

Perhaps we have given birth (excuse the pun) to a new motto for capitalism here - 'Prosperity without procreation'.

:-)

Roger "“ The nun from Kensington who saw the great banking crash coming.

I think you'll find this interesting:

Casting the socialists out of the temple

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10603992

Kate - No worries

National could plug a decent sized hole in their budget by scrapping Labour's WFF . 3 or 4 billion $ , infact . This monster bribe by Cullen , to permanently pull middle-income earners into the welfare net , and into Labour's voting bloc . An appallingly unfair and stupid " package " . ......... . Which says alot about Wild Bill & Jelly Key , 'cos they've kept it .

It's theft Mao, plain and simple. Immoral.

And it's a drag on the productive sector: there's nothing else it can be. Just leave business/employers with their money, stop holding them back with red tape and regulations: that will improve productivity and wages. Redistribution is for socialist countries, which of course, we are, and that is, again, the problem.

@Mark H: Your underlying assumption that laissez faire capitalism is a perfect system that ensures everyone will benefit is one I do not share; it does not take account of greed which drives some to accumulate way more than their fair share. I am not against an individual's right to prosper; far from it . But I do believe that a healthy society is one that ensures no-one goes hungry or is locked out of the opportunity to improve themselves. I don't believe in the nanny state either.

I repeat that WFF, no matter where is comes from, is helping keep the NZ economy going at the moment. heaven help us all if you stop blogging and start politicking!

My understanding of WFF is that it is a tax credit - and you have to be working (i.e. paying tax) in order to qualify for the credit. If that is the case, then I can't understand, Mark, why you frame it as "the forceful taking of money from the productive, to give to people for no other reason than they made the life choice to have children.."

Your whole point is people should pay less tax - and from what I can see, WFF is just that - an income tax deduction for people supporting children. You must remember that working adults who support dependent children pay additional consumption taxes (GST) for food, clothing and all the other expenses related to raising a family - as well as they likely need/own second car and all the additional petrol excise taxes that go with running kids around.

So, to me the WFF income tax credit serves to rebalance some of the additional tax burden paid for by those raising families, as compared to those workers who have no dependents.

Roger, here is my understanding about the WFF policy rationale.

If you do not qualify for WFF it is because there is an assumption made with respect to the consumtpion taxes you pay for x2 adults and x1 child. This assumtions is then considered against the income you bring in, and if ithat income is over a certain threshold - then your income tax burden vs your consumption tax burden are deemed to be adequately balanced.

If instead your income is under the threshold, then your consumption tax burden is at too great a proportion to your the total tax you pay (i.e. consumtion + income), and hence you get an income tax credit to rectify that imbalance.

The basics of the tax policy were set out in an OECD recommendation to the NZ Government some years ago - because of the imbalance they perceived arising from our blanket 12.5% GST provisions. If I get a chance, I'll hunt out that OECD document.

Cheers.

No no , don't hunt out that document on my behalf . The explanation you gave has my head spinning enough , as it is . .." an assumption with consumption.....certain threshold........consumption tax burden......rectify that imbalance........imbalance they perceived....".....Kate , this is blithering nonsense . Some over-paid wallys from the OECD are feeding us this malarky , and you believe it . Saints preserve us . What a pile of twaddle !

Kate, I seem to remember from another thread somewhere that your minimum recommended family size was four children, so:

As of the current financial year we are in, if you have four children below 12 years old, and you earn a gross salary of $80,000 (pretty good salary), then the IRD will physically post you a cheque for $9,100 for the year ($175 per week).

Now:

Where do you think this $9,100 came from? (Hint, where does all government money come from?)

Add to that I do not have children, by responsible choice, and I earn, say, $80,000 also, and I have to pay $21,740 tax, $9,100 of which, after a huge transfer fee we both have to pay for, gets transferred to you.

You constantly talk about equity: well where is the equity in that?

Having the four children was a life choice you made, I had no control over it, hell, you can have another four children (meaning the government is going to send you yearly cheque of $27,820!).

When you are answering this, as to equity, work on the assumption that I wanted to give a donation of $9,100 toward cancer research, related specifically to children, say, Canteen, but I could not afford to given all my other life choices meant that I can barely to everything I want/need on my tax paid wage.

Kate : Why are you accepting anything that the OECD says , as if it is gospel ? And who pays the army of bureaucrats , that the Gumnut has to employ , to administer all this " correcting of the imbalance ".......... Please don't tell me that the Gumnut pays for it , or I really shall have an apoleptic fit !

But Kate, you 'chose' to have the child, thus you chose to be responsible for the cost?

Apparently not: your calculations indicate you do indeed expect me to pay the entire cost of your child? What gives you the right to do that.

I want to give my donation to Canteen: where is my 'tax reduction' to enable me to do that?

What makes your choice, here, more equal than mine? And therefore gives you the forced access to my money, for your tax reduction is only possible on me having to pay the full bite.

Look at my last post Kate. Your 'tax reduction' is only possible by me not getting a reduction. If it looks like a transfer, sounds like a transfer, it's a transfer. I was forced to pay you $9,100.

(Wish we could get this edit thing fixed.)

Not sure why I should follow " capitalism's capitalist elite club " ! I believe in individual freedom , and free choice . And the responsibility to take care of yourself , having made those choices . You have 4 or 7 kiddies , your choice , don't pilfer from me to feed them . Your face gets blown off in your P lab , don't expect me to subsidise the million bucks of plastic surgery you need , your choice , too bad ! ( this has happened here , we taxpayers are funding surgery for P lab " victims " ! ) .

But, perhaps what you really want to argue is that people with children should proportionally have to pay more tax because they have children? If so, just come out and say it!!!

My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Thee.

Look back on my posts, I said nothing like this at all. As far as my consumption tax paid (I assume you mean GST - hell, it's all theft), perhaps I should show you my alcohol bills after reading your convoluted, nonsense, logic.

That's me out of this thread ...

Have a gummy bear , Mark . I'm not gonna figure Kate's logic on this one ........ Sometimes life is too short .......... Better a bag of yummy gummys , under the old oak tree , than this thread !

Mark: Do you include "acts of God: as a choice? I set out to have one dear wee,middle-class, double income family baby and got a litter through, in the words of my hard-nosed old ob/gyn, "an act of God". Never mind a global financial crisis, having multiples buggers your financial planning I can tell you...

How about this - highly controversial:

"Wanganui Mayor Michael Laws says giving the "underclass" money to be sterilised will address our child abuse problem." according to www.stuff.co.nz

And here's a real surprise, also from the stuff website, a statistic from the latest "Happiness Survey" here in NZ:

"Kids: Childless couples are the happiest, with 90 per cent satisfied with life."

Bump for Mark.

Cheers, Mark.

I'm off to pay my taxes at the grocery store!

:-)

I have one child , no free-loading or tax credits ( and don't want any part of Labour's idiotic " redistribution " packages .) Paying full whack on our less than average income ........And .......This really hurts , I'm Rodney's cousin . Ye gads , what an amazing lapse in judgement . You have risen too fast too soon , cousie , come back to Rangiora , and share some gummy bears..........Bring the floosie , but , that is a tadge yummy !!!!!!