< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Outright Lies #13


SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Friday, September 09, 2005

Outright Lies #13

The Greens are claiming the EB brochures are filled with outright lies. I'm having a look at the claims, one by one, to see how the EB may have formed their opinion.

Outright lie #13: Offer financial assistance to cannabis growers for alternative employment.

I have been able to find no information to justify this assertion. The closest I got was an inference that (illegal) cannabis growers might be encouraged to grow hemp in the economically depressed Northland areas. "What is most interesting about the new policy is a pilot scheme to integrate commercial hemp crops into economically depressed areas like Northland that have traditionally been reliant on cannabis for their income." It is possible the EB mistook growing Hemp, with low THC properties as part and parcel of the drugs issue. Hemp crops are an interesting possibility for NZ, but that's another post.

Verdict: Innocent

Update: New information at NZ Conservative
ยท Linked Article

Posted by ZenTiger | 9/09/2005 03:53:00 pm


Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...


9/09/2005 04:40:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

15+1 that the Greens didn't even acknowledge (which I might wrap up in my summary)

9/09/2005 04:50:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

No, I mean isn't this #12.

9/09/2005 04:51:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, this is #11 because we don't have a #5. #5 became #6. Promotion for a job well done.

9/09/2005 04:55:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or maybe my RSS reader has been having too much of that legal Cannabis. Pardon folks, I'll blame it on the RSS reader for not refreshing the bloody content.

9/09/2005 04:56:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

oops - I'm seeing double. I'll fix.

9/09/2005 04:59:00 pm  
Blogger unaha-closp said...

what gets me is why use a pamphlet campaign if you had $500,000 to spend? A television or radio campaign would be more effective.

9/09/2005 05:21:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

1. They had more to say than a 15 second soundbite?

2. TV Advertising has gone up?

3. The Greens paid them, as a stunt to sink National?

4. They don't watch TV, so couldn't tell if they were effective?

5. One of the members owns a print shop, and the whole thing actually cost about $10,000?

6. God wanted ZenTiger to waste a day doing the rebuttal to the Greens?

9/09/2005 05:59:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home