Sex, Drugs & Electoral Rolls Part XII: Four White Teens And A Maori Man Walk Into A Court...

More than a month ago, in a piece entitled "You Don't Have To Apologize - You Do Have To Understand", this column sought to use a case then-prominent in the media to illustrate how race and privilege influence the administration of our criminal justice system. Its conclusion, perhaps unsurprisingly, was that it was pretty much impossible to deny that despite what you might have been told about New Zealand being an egalitarian paradise, even here "race" has a bearing upon what sort of outcome you might get if you were to find yourself thrown before the courts.

The trouble with complex ideas, of course, is that they're often reduced to simple ideas. And the trouble with simple ideas is that they are either wrong - or so lacking in nuance upon a surface reading of same that they might as very well be.

And so it is with recent commentating from a number of quarters about a specific pair of outcomes which have been delivered up unto us by our criminal justice system.

Last week there was a minor furor over the sentences handed down to a quadrangle of teenage boys up in Northland for their respective parts in a serious string of adrenaline-fueled law-breaking. Between them, they racked up 34 charges of burglary, eight charges of theft, and three charges of receiving - with a sum total for the value of goods they stole clocking in at around eighty thousand dollars.

The sentences for this spate of offending? Up to ten months' home detention for each offender, three hundred hours' community service apiece, and between ten and twenty thousand dollars worth of reparations each.

This was seen as a comparatively light sentence by some observers, and it wasn't long before people started drawing the obvious conclusion - that these kids got off easy because they were white. And that if they'd been brown (although presumably not a son of the Maori King), the outcome would have been incredibly different.

The emergence, a little less than a week later, of a case wherein a 37 year old Maori man, David Leef, was sentenced to a four month term of imprisonment for several charges relating to his poaching of fish from a protected rainbow trout spawning stream, appeared to confirm this.

Here were four reasonably well-off young white guys who'd been 'let off' with Home-D - while a poorer, browner defendant guilty of an arguably lesser crime (which incidentally carries a maximum of 2 years' imprisonment in comparison to burglary's ten) found himself thrown in the slammer.

My newsfeed started filling up with progressive-minded people making a direct comparison between the two cases.

Finally, manifest proof of the festering racial iniquity within our justice system!

Except that's not what we have here. Not exactly, anyway.

A little amateur sleuthing with the Google-daemon revealed there was a bit more to this case than the simplistic narrative deployed across social media which sought to explain the disparity between Leef's sentencing and those of others as being largely the result of Leef's race.

For starters, there's the fact that Leef was originally supposed to be sentenced, along with his co-accused, back in April 2015. The reason why it's taken more than a year for him to finally appear in front of a sentencing judge, is that he breached his bail conditions and went on the run for twelve and a half months. This will, obviously, not have helped him in court - and will have directly counted against his prospects for securing a sentence of home detention instead of a term of imprisonment. There may also have been other factors raised by Probations in accordance with the requirements of the Sentencing Act which might have rendered home detention a non-viable option.

Further counting against Mr Leef will have been his curious decision to refuse counsel for his case (despite being offered legal aid, and assistance from the duty solicitors); and his somewhat ballsy attempt to avoid entering any plea at all (whether guilty or otherwise) on the basis that the New Zealand judicial system had, in his mind, "no jurisdiction" over him for this offending due to it having allegedly taken place on Maori land. Now it has in the past been somewhat possible for skilled defence lawyers to argue what you might term a 'cultural defence' to otherwise criminal conduct with some success. R v Minhinnick (also a case from Rotorua) stands as an obvious example of this. But these are defences, not pleas - and are probably going to be rather difficult for the average layperson to even articulate in a court-room setting, let alone win upon.

Leef's courtroom conduct is relevant here for two reasons. First, and most importantly, because "no jurisdiction" was eventually recorded as a de facto "not guilty" plea on the instructions of the judge. Leef therefore lost his shot at a potential sentence reduction of up to 20% as a result of entering a guilty plea at first instance. And second, for some reason judges often tend to take an instant dislike to defendants who are perceived to be 'thumbing their nose' at the system - whether by refusing to turn up to sentencing while a representative shouts at a judge that they ought to stand down for lack of jurisdiction (as happened in Leef's case); or by refusing to have a lawyer represent you. This last point, in particular, tends to draw the ire of judges (all of whom were lawyers at some point beforehand); and it is relatively well-known about in professional criminal circles that those bold or foolish enough to attempt defending themselves risk more severe penalties for doing so.

I make no claim as to whether any of the above *should* be the case. Merely that it is. And thus that Mr Leef's sentencing is not entirely incomprehensible, even if some might find it objectionable.

Now contrast all of the above with the judicial conduct of the four teens from Northland. They entered early guilty pleas (resulting in substantial sentencing discounts). They were competently represented by professional lawyers. They expressed remorse pre-sentencing, went through restorative justice programs with their victims, made financial restitutions, and pledged to pay everything back out of their incomes.

In other words, they did pretty much everything you could expect a 'model' defendant to do to avoid jail, and invoked pretty much every avenue offered in the Sentencing Act in order to secure a reduced sentence.

They were also able to call upon their youth as a mitigating factor in the offending - as the law tends to look more kindly upon those who are not 'older and wiser' by virtue of their brains not having fully matured yet, while also wanting to give young people caught on the wrong side of the law a better shot at eventual rehabilitation through lighter penalties. A younger person will therefore almost invariably get a lighter sentence than an older man convicted of the same crime.

Interestingly, the Sentencing Act mandates that the court "must" take into consideration all of the above factors. As soon as your lawyer raises it, it pretty much required by law for it to be converted into a a reduction in sentence - although this is subject to a certain degree of judicial discretion.

So in other words, there are fairly logical reasons for the differences in sentencing between these two cases which do not exactly afford a huge degree of scope for race as the main reason for the disparity here.

It is, of course, inarguable that a criminal from a more privileged background is going to be far better equipped to deal with a courtroom setting than one who isn't. But a simplistic focus upon race which eschews an analysis of the other factors at play (such as economic status) doesn't exactly help us to understand this situation - still much less change it.

That is not to say that our judicial system doesn't have a racial problem,. Far from it. Even the New Zealand Police acknowledge their own issues with "unconscious bias" in this area. And from a critical legal studies perspective, it additionally occurs that many a minority offender is going to have far greater struggles to scrub themselves up into the mold of being a 'model defendant' than someone more well off and from the dominant culture.

But while there are some great cases out there with which to prove racial bias in sentencing - and, importantly, we must remember that no victim is perfect - Mr Leef's circumstances would not necessarily appear to be one of them.

Sex, Drugs & Electoral Rolls Part XI: Break Up The Presses

"Freedom of the Press is guaranteed only for those who own one" - A.J. Liebling

Earlier this week, my father The Rev. Rolinson (who's an avid reader of this column, and a perhaps surprising fan of the literary contributions of several other luminaries to this magazine) remarked that by this time next year, Craccum might be pretty much the last source of truly independent print-media journalism left on the Auckland isthmus.

Why?

Well, as was reported on a few days ago at time of writing, the twin press giants which stand astride our nation's infosphere like colossi, APN and Fairfax, are apparently contemplating a merger. Between them, they control a huge swathe of New Zealand's news media. Everything from radio stations like Newstalk ZB through to newspapers such as the NZ Herald, Dominion Post, Christchurch's The Press, and another thirty-plus regional newspapers on top of that. All of which could soon be under a single thumb. More worryingly for our increasingly online generation, two of the main "respectable" (to use a term exceptionally loosely) sources for news on the internet, the nzherald.co.nz and stuff.co.nz would also thus find themselves under the same management. 

Although as some wags have pointed out, considering each of these outlets seem to run almost indistinguishable Bachelor-based artificial "news" stories day-in and day-out as priority headlines ... perhaps little of value will be lost in the event of an amalgamation.

In any case, there remain a number of media outlets - whether state-owned like TVNZ and RNZ, or in private hands like Mediaworks - which will still serve to provide a counterpoint to this presumptive behemoth; but it's nonetheless rather hard to remain entirely untroubled by the idea of a further tightening of links between our already far too closely interlinked newsmedia organizations.

This is, as applies my own perspective, very strongly at least partially the result of personal experience in the field.

Back in late 2013, I found myself embroiled in a fairly mid-grade scandal. The precise details of what happened, we'll save for the autobiography (handily *also* titled 'Sex, Drugs & Electoral Rolls'); but suffice to say it was hella interesting to see how modern media works in practice from the 'eye of the storm', so to speak.

First, WhaleOil picked up the story thanks to an anonymous tip. Then, a political reporter from Fairfax contacted me for a statement. What happened next was a bit of a small-scale feeding frenzy, as several other media outlets proceeded to write up stories on the event in question. Interestingly, after the first incident with the Fairfax reporter, they didn't really bother with doing proper due diligence with their 'investigative' reporting. Instead, they merely reprinted reworded content from whichever news outlet it was prior to them in the chain of 'distribution' - with a goodly portion of the wording changed and much of the 'nuance' lost in what they were reporting as a result.

A similar 'domino effect' on an unutterably larger scale also transpired during my major scandal last year, albeit in politically weaponized form. A political adversary from my own Party who was extraordinarily dissatisfied with something I'd penned about her on The Daily Blog had her Press Secretary disseminate a sensationalized account of my legal difficulties to a tame journalist at RadioLIVE (said journalist is now one of Newshub's lead political reporters). This reporter then ran the story in an inaccurate and escalating manner; which was followed up - to my mounting horror - with a number of other newsmedia outlets picking up the story either direct from his reporting, or as a result of the outlets in question being co-owned by the same people who run RadioLIVE - and who were thus transparently sharing the story internally so that it might be circulated more widely.

Now leaving aside my own bemusement at these trains of events - as the above anecdotes serve to illustrate, the way our mainstream media's set up in this country is plainly dangerous to the ordinary pursuit of truth.

There's a line from the Aeneid of Virgil which is quite relevant here: "Rumour! What evil can surpass her speed? In movement she grows mighty, and achieves strength and dominion as she flies". In modern parlance, we're rather more familiar with the maxim that "a lie can travel half-way around the world while the truth's still putting its boots on".

Either way you choose to splice it, the dense and close interlinkages between various media outlets in this country (which, in many cases, might more properly be thought of as numerous and diverse heads to a number of cosmetically competing Hydras) only exacerbates rather than extinguishes the truth of these ancient mottos.

It may seem like a small thing, and a scant protection from salaciousness or slander, but simply by having more journalistic outlets doing more actual and frank journalism (rather than taking the lazier approach of merely reading, re-porting and resyndicating the research of others), we tangibly reduce the risk of misinformation making its miscreant way out across the headlines and into our homes and headspace.

Further, in these increasingly complex times, a multiplicity of perspectives is far better equipped to analyze and dissect the issues of the day. What one reporter - and ten resyndicaters - might miss, five investigative journalists may better pick up between them and shed new light upon.

Greater competition for stories and to present the best and most compelling journalism is also, unquestionably a good thing for the broader dissemination of truth into the infosphere and the public consciousness. Although if that sounds like 'free marketeerism', it's not - to my mind, the inevitable result of lax regulation and the state truly getting out of the marketplace in small countries and polises like New Zealand is *less* competition and tendencies towards monopoly, rather than - as is often assumed - the converse.

This is why I'm a quiet fan and advocate for the state-owned (albeit not exactly state-run) broadcasters and their role in reporting and disseminating news. TVNZ and RNZ, by their very and mere existence help to breakup the monotony of the privately-owned media hubs reporting endless rounds of Bachelorism.

Meanwhile, 'new media' outlets such as The Spinoff and The Daily Blog play a key role in keeping our public sphere fresh and vibrant; reporting on and often breaking stories which for various reasons (at least initially) fall somewhere beneath the larger publishing houses' radar (and yet curiously above their ever-lowering brows). Let's remember that the Ponytail-Gate scandal involving John Key from this time last year was broken by The Daily Blog; and that while Andrew Tidball's seedy behavior might have been vaguely referenced in a Stuff piece some months ago, it took The Spinoff to cover the story in such a way and with such (human) depth that people actually began to sit up and take notice.

I've also been greatly and thoroughly enjoying the unique 'insider perspectives' which a series of disgruntled ex-TV3 and Mediaworks staff have been airing on the same outlet. It's not the sort of thing which would easily have seen the light of day in the absence of these smaller and less *ahem* monolithically engaged media outlets.

This, principally, is why I am such a strong proponent and supporter of semi-professional blogs and other exercises in quasi-citizen journalism. Because, as the Rev. Rolinson pointed out, it's called "The Fourth Estate" for a reason. As it's supposed to be independent from nobility, clericy, government (with some caveats), and most especially from the arms and aims of profiteering Big Business.

I take it a bit further, however, and insist that the Fourth Estate possesses essentialized elements from the other three Indo-European Trifunctionalisms which preceded it. The crusading vigour of the warrior-caste; the knowledge and skill with letters of the priests; and above all the people-centrism and professional guilder ethos of the Third.

The present emphasis upon 'reporting' as being something which big (and, lately, *bigger*) companies do, rather than the individual or small groups of likeminded confederates, is anathema to the true spirit of Journalism.

Developments such as APN's proposed merger with Fairfax ought thus be opposed. And parallel vehicles of more genuinely independent journalism ought to be supported and read in earnest - whether semi-professionalized such as The Spinoff, volunteer-run like The Daily Blog, or even salient bastions of the up-and-coming wordsmith media like Craccum. 

Sex, Drugs & Electoral Rolls Part X: The Power of Myth in Politics

One of my favourite political ideas was coined by a French thinker known as Georges Sorel.

Sorel's core contention was about what motivated people's political behavior. What drives people to take a position, to get involved, and to do things in service of the advancement of a creed. Particularly in the large numbers required to make a democracy - or, indeed, any mass-movement - viably work.

It turns out that contra to the forthright opinions of many a political uber-hack, densely-worded, deeply-thought about reams of finely wrought policy detail ... don't actually tend to draw in people. Particularly the less-aligned persons from outside the seven-circled political hell better known as the Beltway, whose mortal support is vital in actually getting any serious and enduring representational political project off the ground.

Instead, what motivates us - even the hacks, before we lost our sense of wonder and became grey, shriveled husk-like hollow-men feeding on the fires in the spirits of others - is Myth.

"Myth", rather than "Minutiae" is what makes the political world go round.

Now by "Myth", I don't necessarily mean that which we'd traditionally think of as belonging within a legendarium. With some noticeable exceptions, the role of magic swords in determining the future course of governments has been markedly limited.

Instead, it refers to grand, sweeping ideas and aspirational philosophic constructs. "That Vision Thing", as Winston once put it.

The example Sorel put forward when explaining his concept was that of the anarchist "General Strike". Something which quite plainly and self-evidently was highly and hugely unlikely to happen - yet which motivated many thousands of labour activists to get involved and work furiously to try to bring about the conditions wherein the people they championed were able to meaningfully undertake action (almost invariably on a much more limited scale) to secure their own economic self-determination and in train a greater standard of living.

Other ideas which might fit neatly into this "Myth" category include the notion of a truly fair and democratic society; an idealized nationhood; or, a personal favourite, the ongoing struggle against Neoliberalism having an ultimately successful and more ardently nationalist/socialist outcome. Libertarians believe that once the Great Beast of Government, "Leviathan", is slain (or, more rarely, tamed) that we shall all enjoy the looting of its hoard. That 'Free Market' idea is also presumably up there.

This is what gets people involved in politics. Because they're passionate about equal treatment for women, rather than a comparatively minor legislative move which might, in a roundabout way lead to a few cents less disparity in the gender pay gap. Because they love the idea of our state enjoying true economic self-determination instead of merely being bitterly opposed to the fractional reduction of a single tariff on imports betwixt us and China.

In short, because we fall in love with some generalized elements of 'the bigger picture' - and then start zooming in our gaze more and more on the microcosm as we find ourselves getting further, and more deeply passionately involved.

This, of course, can inevitably lead to burnout. But while it lasts, the intoxicating reifiability of some dreams is magical. And even more wondrous is the unique sort of politician's or political activist's brain which can simultaneously entertain both the starkly sweeping Vision, and the subtly stabbing detail-thrusts required to make it happen in any real degree.

But as sublime as all this is ... there is a dark side, too.

Our brains - particularly our political brains - are wired up to prioritize emotional resonances over eminent reasonability when it comes to our inclinations and decision-making. That's why I've kept using terms like "beautiful" and "fall in love with" when describing how we relate to "Myth" in the political sense above. Because those are the parts of the brain being stimulated. It's a rare creature, indeed, who develops an initial, logistitian's pure mathematical acceptance for a concept without first becoming emotively entranced by it.

The trouble with "Myth", then, is how it subjuncts our reasoning on occasion to lead to some very curious avenues and outcomes indeed.

A great example of this in our own domestic politics is the New Zealand National Party.

Many of them are adherents of that aforementioned Myth-cult of free marketry. This causes them to assume that they are innately superior - indeed, unassailable - economic managers. And thus, this forms a cornerstone of the "Myth" of the National Party, as carefully parceled up for mass-democratic consumption.

The trouble is, it isn't true. The idea that National are seriously competent economic managers might have what Stephen Colbert would call "Truthiness", but that's a different rubric entirely. By most standards you care to mention, National's record points in the other direction. Where Labour managed to deliver nine straight surpluses, National had to seriously cheat and fiddle the books to deliver even one - of wafer thickness. Bill English's "fiscally neutral" tax cuts for the wealthy saw working class families paying more tax thanks to the GST hike, while putting somewhere in the vicinity of a five and a half billion dollar hole in the books. The Asset Sales process kicked off in National's previous term in government was also an expensive waste of time which left us worse off than before.

The only way they can even perfunctorily appear to be rhetorically justified is through those self-same appeals to Myth: that part-privatizing an asset already subject to corporate governance structures somehow makes it more efficient; that decreasing taxes on the wealthy (but increasing taxes on those who have the highest marginal propensity to consume) will somehow resoundingly boost economic growth; that less money flowing into the government's coffers for social spending and economic stimulus somehow makes everybody better off.

And yet, the broad preponderance of The Electorate appears to buy into the Myth - or at least, they did up until relatively recently. There are small signs that a growing weight of incontrovertible, crashing reality is beginning to derail this particular mythperception.

Still, this must come as cold comfort to several opposition parties. Thanks to the strength and depth of their myth-making, National are perceived as far superior to Labour when it comes to fiscal management - even though their records on same are utterly the inverse. Meanwhile, The Greens can submit endlessly detailed, fully costed Alternative Budgets ... and it does nothing to alter many people's perceptions of them as little more than ecologically minded economic lightweights whose main commercial visions are some form of semi-literal "pipe dream" surrounding legalized cannabis.

Whether that is because the Myth of one group of adherents is so broadly and easily ascribed to as to effectively drown out the Myths of another - or merely because the 'lesser' Myth is just plain less resonant with the Electorate all up, is an exercise in discretion which I shall leave up to the reader.

But the plain fact of the matter is that if we want to shape the course of events around us in the political sphere, we would do well to learn the art of Myth-Making; rather than becoming, as is every hack's habitual hamstringing, hidebound by hairsplitting detail.

For it is only once we have worked out how to tell truly compelling stories that we can ask our fellow-men to join us and live within them.

Everything up to that point is just faerie tales.

Sex, Drugs & Electoral Rolls Part IX: On Becoming 'The Law & Order Candidate'

A few weeks ago, I found myself pushing what you might term 'law and order' issues at a candidate selection meeting. Information I had to hand suggested that many residents of the ward I was looking at running in were increasingly concerned about street-crime, at the same time Government was closing community policing stations. 

Then, some days later, like an astral projector looking down upon his own material form from on high and tutting, I observed Curwen Ares Rolinson putting together a serious legislative proposal replete with battalions of supporting evidence to try and help ameliorate the present woeful spate of shopkeeper standovers afflicting the Indian community through much of South and West Auckland.

I had, it seems, become something of a 'Law & Order' candidate.

A pretty impressive (if arguably inexplicable) transition for somebody whose last actual interaction with a police officer ended in handcuffs, a free taxi-ride, ensuing professional photo-shoot, and proffered potential prison term.

So how did this happen. What is it which moved me from an extensive stint under wire-tap surveillance by the police's counter-terrorism division as an alleged threat to National['s] security for my political activities, through to using those self-same political proclivities to agitate for a greater state provision of law and order.

To tell you the truth, I'm still piecing together the answer myself. But I think a perhaps surprising degree of it has to do with my own growing involvement in the Indian community. You get talking to people, at the Mandir and elsewhere; you get to know people and you make friends. Suddenly, the nightly newscast story about a dairy proprietor being stood-over - or worse, bashed - for a few cartons of cigarettes and the contents of his til isn't just happening to "some shopkeeper". It's an act of brazen violence being meted out to a person only a degree or two of separation from one's self. Someone I guess you feel like you have a bit of a connection to. And therefore a sense of responsibility towards to try and help.

Now don't get me wrong. Even if I am something of a newfound convert to the importance of law and order, I still retain a healthy skepticism as to its more obvious enforcers. Excesses of policing do happen. Protesters are roughly manhandled. Arthur Allan Thomas - or, worse, Teina Pora - style shenanigans abound. Thousands of burglaries and common assaults go uninvestigated in favour of rounding up pound upon pounds of a mostly-harmless rural cash crop and its peddlers. The Police Force arguably attempts to censor academics. In all areas, and in all ways, the keepers of law are (occasionally somewhat blamelessly) sub-par.

And yet, consider the alternative.

What we're witnessing at present, as a direct result of the steady rollback in easily-available policing under this most recent government, is an increase in petty crime and a decrease in community safety. (And yes, I am aware that there are almost invariably deeper socio-economic drivers of criminality - most especially poverty - which have also only alarmingly increased under the contemporary regime)

The most logical consequence of this tangible absence of police is not what you might call an anarchist paradise nor 'free state'. Instead, it's the embedding and furthering of 'no go' areas in our city after dark - and serious and ongoing intrusions in the peaceable private lives of shopkeepers and citizens alike.

Alongside this, as nature (and, more especially, civilization) abhors a vacuum, there are already growing calls for organizations, apparatuses and civic empowerment of civilians to 'step unto the breech' and start carrying out minor policing/law-enforcement activities themselves. These range in scope from legislative proposals to clarify the Crimes Act sections surrounding 'self defence' and 'defence of property' to give shopkeepers greater surety when using force to defend themselves and their chattels from occasionally quite violent vagrants and intruders ... all the way up to the convening of quasi-militia 'shopkeepers' associations' designed to provide a more *ahem* 'active' deterrence to lawbreaking on our high-streets and corner dairies.

The first set of initiatives, governing the lower end of the spectrum of reform, are legitimate. Everyone has a right to defend themselves from attack using reasonable force - and it can be further extended that if somebody's making off with your property or wares, you have a right to use a reasonable degree of physical intercession to stop them. But with the way the law's drafted at present, Police (and others) can and have taken advantage of perceived ambiguities in what the law allows in order to launch prosecutions aimed at shopkeepers defending themselves. In one memorable case from 2009, their explicit reasoning for so doing was to 'send a message' to the community to refrain from 'intruding' on functions the Police viewed as their fairly exclusive preserve. The charges against the shopkeeper in question - a Mr V. Singh - were only dropped after a high-profile lawyer stepped in and offered to defend Singh in court free of charge.

But even though there's a strong argument to be made in favour of the aforementioned legislative clarification to give shopkeepers and citizens a greater degree of certitude as to how to defend themselves or their possessions without falling afoul of the law ... I feel pretty safe in saying that the vast majority of us would absolutely balk at the next logical step in civic functioning sans police - proprietors keeping a gun under the counter, American-style. 

So what is to be done, then?

Well clearly, the extant status-quo of fewer police isn't working. This ought not even be a controversial statement to make, and yet it flies flat in the face of both the Government's official reasoning, and the half-vocalized, hare-brained sentiments of the post-#Occupy quasi-Anarchist rump you occasionally encounter round certain portions of the Arts department who still cleave to the belief that no-policing rather than better-policing is and ought to be the teleological way forward. A most curious ideological alliance-of-convenience indeed.

As I've previously argued in this very column, one of the core components of the true University experience is coming face-to-face with some of your preconceptions, and critically re-evaluating them in light of the evidence - and, just as importantly, the experiences of others. This doesn't mean that these previously held beliefs must be axiomatically cast by the wayside in favour of newer, shiner thoughts - and often, this process of critical introspection and exploration will throw up interesting and intriguing new reasons (or old reasons half-obscured) to continue to support, in slightly evolved form, previous positions.

That’s why I’ve found myself thinking about demands for ‘more and better’ policing from a bit of a different angle to what I have previously.

Where once I would have balked at the notion of a greater bobby-presence in Albert Park due to their evident penchant for arresting harmless stoners ensconced in same (seriously, I've seen it happen), the idea that there's now insufficient police resources to make Queen St safe to walk down at night is clearly repugnant to me. (And, as noted earlier, the potential for the redirection of police resources *from* chasing down morally blameless cannabis-users *to* generating actually-useful improvements in public safety can be squarely filed under the "*better* policing" heading)

And while I still remain somewhat uncomfortable with ordinary people taking the law into their own hands ... my newfound belief and faith in community militates exploring all possible options to make up for the Government’s shortfall in guaranteeing the public good.

It’s been an interesting journey from one extreme to somewhere in the middle of the other; but I look forward to using my brain and the trove of my experiences in service of this newfound purpose.

There. Suddenly, I don't feel all so strange and different from my previous self, after all.