Marijuana legalization in New Zealand

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Marijuana legalization in New Zealand

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 16

2945 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2147145 18-Dec-2018 14:47

Rikkitic:

SJB:

I agree with you 100% but unfortunately it seems that in this day and age if the margin of victory is not substantial a lot of the aggrieved on the losing side seem to think it's OK to campaign vigorously for another referendum to overturn a result they didn't like.

If say the cannabis result was 50.01% against 49.99% for how would you feel?

This is probably another of those situations where there should be more than a simple majority so those on the losing side are less inclined to feel cheated. I think in polls roughly 75% favour legalisation so the result is more likely to be convincing. With euthanasia, it is probably not so clear-cut.

If people accept the rules of such a vote, and the rules are that a simple majority wins, then that has to be accepted. There is an out, though. If the consequences of the winning decision are so dire, and create so much uncertainty and confusion that the result cannot be implemented without major upheaval, and if this causes many people who voted one way to have doubts, and a significant number of people, possibly a majority, want to do it over, that should also be possible. In a democracy, major decisions should reflect as well as possible the will of the people, including the will to change their minds.

The change from a simple majority doesn't make any difference, it can just change the side that feels aggrieved, possibly more so. Say the threshold for approving cannabis is 75% and yes get's 74.99% and no gets 25.01%. Those in favour lose even though they have a huge majority and probably feel more aggrieved than if the threshold had been 50% and the result had been 49-51.

Your second paragraph also raises some interesting questions. How do you decide that a result is so dire or that a significant enough number have doubts to rerun a referendum. Surely not by polling which has proved extremely unreliable in the past (eg forecasting Trump's victory). Maybe a referendum to decide if there should be another referendum? ... and so on and so forth.

Bluntj

556 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2147148 18-Dec-2018 14:54

The culture of Government banning things that are bad for us does not work. Banning just puts things on the black market.

Banning of synthetic cannabis while good intention-ed, and demanded by the community has made the situation much much worse.

It annoys me no end to see good people demanding bans when they have no idea of the consequences.

Cannabis has become extremely difficult to source now due to the ability of gangs being able to produce crystal meth much more cheaply.

So I have just listed two such example of where Government decisions have made matters worse.

The answer is education and managed supply.

The upcoming referendum sadly will just be a side show where we are hit by so many false truths a wrong outcome is pending. To put the referendum with an election is nonsense.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18664 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2147170 18-Dec-2018 14:56

SJB:

Your second paragraph also raises some interesting questions. How do you decide that a result is so dire or that a significant enough number have doubts to rerun a referendum. Surely not by polling which has proved extremely unreliable in the past (eg forecasting Trump's victory). Maybe a referendum to decide if there should be another referendum? ... and so on and so forth.

You make a good point about majority votes. I would certainly feel aggrieved if my side lost with only 74.99% of the vote. I was thinking that a clear majority for one side might make losing less unpalatable for the other, but you raise a good point and I'm not sure how to answer it. Any arbitrary line is going to have this problem, which takes us back to a simple majority.

I think the current situation in the UK is a pretty good example of a result so dire and with enough doubts to rerun a referendum, which is looking more likely every day. Sometimes I wonder if May is taking lessons from Trump on how to destroy a country's credibility.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Bluntj

556 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2147174 18-Dec-2018 15:05

Rikkitic:

SJB:

Your second paragraph also raises some interesting questions. How do you decide that a result is so dire or that a significant enough number have doubts to rerun a referendum. Surely not by polling which has proved extremely unreliable in the past (eg forecasting Trump's victory). Maybe a referendum to decide if there should be another referendum? ... and so on and so forth.

You make a good point about majority votes. I would certainly feel aggrieved if my side lost with only 74.99% of the vote. I was thinking that a clear majority for one side might make losing less unpalatable for the other, but you raise a good point and I'm not sure how to answer it. Any arbitrary line is going to have this problem, which takes us back to a simple majority.

I think the current situation in the UK is a pretty good example of a result so dire and with enough doubts to rerun a referendum, which is looking more likely every day. Sometimes I wonder if May is taking lessons from Trump on how to destroy a country's credibility.

IMO people like Farage and Boris had more to do with destroying Britains credibility than May will ever have.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18664 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2147175 18-Dec-2018 15:07

Bluntj:

The culture of Government banning things that are bad for us does not work. Banning just puts things on the black market.

Banning of synthetic cannabis while good intention-ed, and demanded by the community has made the situation much much worse.

It annoys me no end to see good people demanding bans when they have no idea of the consequences.

What makes me angry is that cannabis wasn't simply legalised a long time ago. If it had been, there wouldn't be a problem with synthetics now. The uninformed dithering of timid politicians like Peter Dunne has probably done more to stimulate synthetics abuse than any other single factor. I agree that banning doesn't work but for truly dangerous substances, like meth and synthetics, there has to be some kind of regulatory regime. I'm not sure exactly what to do about meth. I don't know what kinds of treatments there are. But surely synthetic cannabis could be stamped out by making the real thing available and even using it as part of a treatment programme?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2147191 18-Dec-2018 15:31

Rikkitic:

I think the current situation in the UK is a pretty good example of a result so dire and with enough doubts to rerun a referendum, which is looking more likely every day. Sometimes I wonder if May is taking lessons from Trump on how to destroy a country's credibility.

I assumed you were talking about brexit. Another awkward referendum situation.

Normally a referendum should be a straight yes or no so in this case what should the 2 questions be?

Obviously remain feels like it should be one but leavers would shout foul as, in their view, that question has already been answered and another referendum should only be about the type of exit. If you assume they can safely be ignored (say around 40% of the population according to the polls (ha, ha, ha) at the moment) what would the second option be?

Leave with no deal? Leave with May's deal? Try for a Norway plus deal? Try for a Canada plus deal? Renegotiate a new deal with the EU?. The list goes on and on.

If there are multiple options on the ballot paper that only adds to the difficulties. Say there are 4 options and remain gets 33% but all the leave options get 67% in total does remain win?

I know, lets just have a remain or leave referendum but set the bar at 75%. I can hear the remainers shouting their objections from here.

I freely admit I have no answers to these questions. Sometimes I just feel like ignoring all these issues, standing back and watching the world go to hell in a handcart which is where I think it's heading.

Way off topic I'm afraid.

elpenguino

3427 posts

Uber Geek

#2147219 18-Dec-2018 16:26

Rikkitic:

Bluntj:

The culture of Government banning things that are bad for us does not work. Banning just puts things on the black market.

Banning of synthetic cannabis while good intention-ed, and demanded by the community has made the situation much much worse.

It annoys me no end to see good people demanding bans when they have no idea of the consequences.

What makes me angry is that cannabis wasn't simply legalised a long time ago. If it had been, there wouldn't be a problem with synthetics now.

I've heard numerous users of synthetics interviewed on the radio and say the attraction is that their use of synthetics won't show up on the drug tests at WINZ - drug tests which were introduced under the last national government.

So the intention to 'come down hard on these people' smoking dope on the benefit has led to a situation where they are/were dropping dead in the street instead.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

gzt

17157 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2147304 18-Dec-2018 19:24

Rikkitic:
gzt:
Most gangs have found that P/meth is more profitable and requires less effort. It is unlikely that medical users are obtaining marijuana from gang controlled distributors. Thriving implies that multiple products/varieties are available from that source. That's not the case. Classic total prohibition issues.

Are you speculating or do you know that to be true? If cannabis is a niche market, suppliers will pop up to fill that niche. I don't know much about the scene here, but I do know from examples elsewhere that there has always been a wide choice of products and varieties available. As for medical users, I have seen several published reports of medical users depending on illegal supplies, though I don't know if any of those were specifically gang-related.

Mostly inferred from news reports and occasional statistics.

Bluntj

556 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2147483 18-Dec-2018 22:17

Rikkitic:

Bluntj:

The culture of Government banning things that are bad for us does not work. Banning just puts things on the black market.

Banning of synthetic cannabis while good intention-ed, and demanded by the community has made the situation much much worse.

It annoys me no end to see good people demanding bans when they have no idea of the consequences.

What makes me angry is that cannabis wasn't simply legalised a long time ago. If it had been, there wouldn't be a problem with synthetics now. The uninformed dithering of timid politicians like Peter Dunne has probably done more to stimulate synthetics abuse than any other single factor. I agree that banning doesn't work but for truly dangerous substances, like meth and synthetics, there has to be some kind of regulatory regime. I'm not sure exactly what to do about meth. I don't know what kinds of treatments there are. But surely synthetic cannabis could be stamped out by making the real thing available and even using it as part of a treatment programme?

To be honest NZ wasnt ready to legalise drugs under Dunne or any Government for that matter. I am not sure NZ is ready now as there are so many people hyperventilating on both sides already. We are going to see so much fake news and scaremongering highlighted by a fake media that the referendum will probably fail.

The issue is one of educating the voters with facts and I am not sure this will happen especially at the same time as an election. The people will need to be informed and convinced that the current system is not working and that legalising wont make it worse. Tough call.

elpenguino

3427 posts

Uber Geek

#2147517 18-Dec-2018 23:19

Bluntj:

To be honest NZ wasnt ready to legalise drugs under Dunne or any Government for that matter. I am not sure NZ is ready now as there are so many people hyperventilating on both sides already. We are going to see so much fake news and scaremongering highlighted by a fake media that the referendum will probably fail.

The issue is one of educating the voters with facts and I am not sure this will happen especially at the same time as an election. The people will need to be informed and convinced that the current system is not working and that legalising wont make it worse. Tough call.

If a look is taken at countries where legalisation has already occurred and it is seen that the sky hasn't fallen down for those people perhaps those NZers with concerns will be reassured.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2147552 19-Dec-2018 08:59

elpenguino:

Bluntj:

To be honest NZ wasnt ready to legalise drugs under Dunne or any Government for that matter. I am not sure NZ is ready now as there are so many people hyperventilating on both sides already. We are going to see so much fake news and scaremongering highlighted by a fake media that the referendum will probably fail.

The issue is one of educating the voters with facts and I am not sure this will happen especially at the same time as an election. The people will need to be informed and convinced that the current system is not working and that legalising wont make it worse. Tough call.

If a look is taken at countries where legalisation has already occurred and it is seen that the sky hasn't fallen down for those people perhaps those NZers with concerns will be reassured.

True - but that's really quite short-term data (at least in the case of "commercialisation" and taxation).

I'd rather see a system where legalisation / full decriminalisation didn't come with vested interests, be that corporations intent on maximising profit (think alcohol and tobacco) and governments rather fond of - and eventually addicted to - a new revenue stream.

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2147556 19-Dec-2018 09:13

Fred99:

elpenguino:

Bluntj:

To be honest NZ wasnt ready to legalise drugs under Dunne or any Government for that matter. I am not sure NZ is ready now as there are so many people hyperventilating on both sides already. We are going to see so much fake news and scaremongering highlighted by a fake media that the referendum will probably fail.

The issue is one of educating the voters with facts and I am not sure this will happen especially at the same time as an election. The people will need to be informed and convinced that the current system is not working and that legalising wont make it worse. Tough call.

If a look is taken at countries where legalisation has already occurred and it is seen that the sky hasn't fallen down for those people perhaps those NZers with concerns will be reassured.

True - but that's really quite short-term data (at least in the case of "commercialisation" and taxation).

I'd rather see a system where legalisation / full decriminalisation didn't come with vested interests, be that corporations intent on maximising profit (think alcohol and tobacco) and governments rather fond of - and eventually addicted to - a new revenue stream.

Fully agree. But its impossible to seperate this new revenue from a Govt perspective

kingdragonfly

11208 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2147565 19-Dec-2018 09:24

Organizations often do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

"Law and sausage are two things you do not want to see being made.

No one should see how laws or sausages are made.

To retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making.

The making of laws like the making of sausages, is not a pretty sight."

--Otto von Bismarck

To me, if the government gets more tax money for marijuana, and regulate the quality, it's better than thugs getting the revenue and spiking it with potential deadly chemicals .

Sure the government could misspend it, and they could still raise our taxes

It's better than gangs without any oversight buying Harley Davidsons,and occasionally killing customers and compatriots alike.

It also allows the health professionals get access to the buyers.

Reducing our prison population also means less taxes, and potentially keeps more people productive.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18664 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2147582 19-Dec-2018 09:38

Politicians should just get over their reefer madness obsession, admit they were sucked in by American propaganda, legalise the stuff, and just let people grow their own. Forget about regulation, or taxes, or any of that crap. Just make it legal and let people do what they want with it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Bluntj

556 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2147626 19-Dec-2018 10:02

Rikkitic:

Politicians should just get over their reefer madness obsession, admit they were sucked in by American propaganda, legalise the stuff, and just let people grow their own. Forget about regulation, or taxes, or any of that crap. Just make it legal and let people do what they want with it.

Politicians are representative of how kiwis think minus the fringe groups. It is the people you need to convince (and mostly always has been), who will then in turn influence the politicians.

If you want the referendum to pass, the legalise group needs to find some polarising people to front their campaign with whom Kiwis and the media will take seriously. This battle isnt about medicinal cannabis, but a quite different thing. I will almost guarantee now that the anti legalisation sector is already well advanced in their campaign strategies. This group will include community and religious leaders.

SO Rikkitic get started..imo you have a lot of work to do!!!

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 16