Nope to dope or toot toot?

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

Forums › Politics › Nope to dope or toot toot?

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 25

1013 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2581100 8-Oct-2020 10:26

networkn:

So your argument is, California did it badly, but NZ will do it well?

I have a bridge you might be interested in buying BTW :)

California's a terrible example.

It's been legal for recreational use there partially since late 2016, and fully since 2018 via an incoherent mish-mash of overlapping municipal, county and state laws.

Illegal growers in remote and rural areas there still supply - via unlicensed sellers – over 50% of the recreational market by some estimates.

'Best Practise' legalisation in other States and Countries has seen the govt take control of the cannabis industry – via stringent licensing and enforcement - from production right through to wholesale and retail.

Multiple studies have shown that youth – in particular – are very susceptible to glossy, brand specific, peer oriented alcohol marketing, and recent studies show cannabis is no different.

A careful and cautious, staged opening of licensed retail outlets with strong regulatory frameworks needs to be in place. Either complete prohibition on advertising, or allowing minimal branding more along the lines of tobacco sales in NZ versus the free-for-all allowed for alcohol.

Finding the right balance of regulation of cannabis and effective implementation and enforcement of that regulation can result in a net benefit to public health and safety while protecting those who are vulnerable.

California hasn't managed to do that.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2581102 8-Oct-2020 10:29

Fred99:

You actually can't point out any issues with legalisation except your dislike of seeing cannabis sale "out in the open". Nobody who wanted to obtain cannabis in California (or NZ) has had much of a problem obtaining it illegally, the worst problem was that your children were by default in contact with criminals, and in NZ in particular where cannabis was in short supply, those criminals would far rather "push" methamphetamine and/or other infinitely more harmful, addictive, and profitable products.

Well, using that logic, we shouldn't legalize weed, because then the gangs will sell (more) Meth, a far more harmful and addictive drug! :)

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2581104 8-Oct-2020 10:30

networkn:

So your argument is, California did it badly, but NZ will do it well?

Why do authoritarian conservatives resort to creating lame strawman arguments when they're losing arguments because they're caught telling lies?

(ie "more cannabis dispensaries in California than 7-Elevens" - not even close to the truth)

Do you think I'm a moron? I argued nothing of the sort. NZ has done very badly with the "war on drugs" approach. It's caused immense harm to society.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2581105 8-Oct-2020 10:30

Sidestep:

California hasn't managed to do that.

If you think based on what the current Government has (not) done well in the past 3 years, they will implement this particular thing well, then I really do have a bridge to sell you :)

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2581106 8-Oct-2020 10:31

Fred99:

networkn:

So your argument is, California did it badly, but NZ will do it well?

Why do authoritarian conservatives resort to creating lame strawman arguments when they're losing arguments because they're caught telling lies?

(ie "more cannabis dispensaries in California than 7-Elevens" - not even close to the truth)

Do you think I'm a moron? I argued nothing of the sort. NZ has done very badly with the "war on drugs" approach. It's caused immense harm to society.

Authoritarian conservative? LOL. Get a grip!

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2581108 8-Oct-2020 10:31

networkn:

Fred99:

You actually can't point out any issues with legalisation except your dislike of seeing cannabis sale "out in the open". Nobody who wanted to obtain cannabis in California (or NZ) has had much of a problem obtaining it illegally, the worst problem was that your children were by default in contact with criminals, and in NZ in particular where cannabis was in short supply, those criminals would far rather "push" methamphetamine and/or other infinitely more harmful, addictive, and profitable products.

Well, using that logic, we shouldn't legalize weed, because then the gangs will sell (more) Meth, a far more harmful and addictive drug! :)

You should probably leave this discussion if that's the best you can do. That's just stupid / ignorant.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2581109 8-Oct-2020 10:33

networkn:

Authoritarian conservative? LOL. Get a grip!

You support the failed "war on drugs". QED.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Handle9

11394 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2581110 8-Oct-2020 10:33

networkn:

You can't point at other places who have legalized it, as a justification of legalization, and then when people point out the issues that exist as a result of legalization in those places, say NZ isn't the same.

You really can say it's not the same, if it is not the same.

For example in the NZ laws the absolute number of outlets is regulated by population. This means the issue you talk about is somewhat mitigated. In all likelihood (I have no data to back this up as the exact number of tinny houses isn't known) this would mean significantly less cannabis outlets than exist in NZ today.

Handle9

11394 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2581114 8-Oct-2020 10:38

networkn:

Sidestep:

California hasn't managed to do that.

If you think based on what the current Government has (not) done well in the past 3 years, they will implement this particular thing well, then I really do have a bridge to sell you :)

What are your specific concerns with the legislation?

gzt

17146 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2581276 8-Oct-2020 12:22

Interesting opinion here:

Stuff - Opinion contributor: Just imagine the bill was drafted by people who deeply mistrust business and commerce, who hate advertising, who are not all that keen on cannabis consumption in any case, and whose ideal cannabis operation would be a small non-profit community-based cooperative that employs people from underprivileged communities. Any provisions you might imagine would be drafted by that kind of group will not be far from how the bill really looks.

If the restrictions can be used to develop the industry in a more sustainable way than elsewhere that's probably a good thing. Pretty hard to do I imagine, looks like there is some intention tho.

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2582743 11-Oct-2020 21:12

Fred99:

You should probably leave this discussion if that's the best you can do. That's just stupid / ignorant.

No, it's not. What do you think happens with criminals when they can't gain income from Cannabis? They just disband and go and earn a honest days living? Of course not, most of these things are run like businesses. They will look for other sources of income.

That also doesn't take away from the fact that that probably doesn't do away with all weed sold via tinnie houses anyways, they will likely still be cheaper since they won't be complying with regulations and compliance has costs. For many people they will buy it from the cheapest source, even if there is no guaratee of quality or purity.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2582757 11-Oct-2020 21:39

networkn:

No, it's not. What do you think happens with criminals when they can't gain income from Cannabis? They just disband and go and earn a honest days living? Of course not, most of these things are run like businesses. They will look for other sources of income.

That also doesn't take away from the fact that that probably doesn't do away with all weed sold via tinnie houses anyways, they will likely still be cheaper since they won't be complying with regulations and compliance has costs. For many people they will buy it from the cheapest source, even if there is no guaratee of quality or purity.

Cannabis is easy money for organised criminals. They use that to fund other, much worse, activities. If they are deprived of that, they have to work harder for less. This puts a brake on them.

Your argument is that they should be allowed to maintain their illegal income because otherwise they will do something even worse. This is morally bankrupt reasoning.

You also claim that customers will continue to buy from tinny houses because those will be cheaper. According to that logic, people will always buy the cheapest product, even in the full knowledge that the quality is inferior. I guess that means that Dell, Microsoft, Gucci, and all other brand names will be driven out of business by counterfeits. Why eat at KFC when some street vendor will sell you fried chicken for less from the back of his car? Your arguments don’t make any sense.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2582762 11-Oct-2020 22:07

Rikkitic:

Cannabis is easy money for organised criminals. They use that to fund other, much worse, activities. If they are deprived of that, they have to work harder for less. This puts a brake on them.

Your argument is that they should be allowed to maintain their illegal income because otherwise they will do something even worse. This is morally bankrupt reasoning.

You also claim that customers will continue to buy from tinny houses because those will be cheaper. According to that logic, people will always buy the cheapest product, even in the full knowledge that the quality is inferior. I guess that means that Dell, Microsoft, Gucci, and all other brand names will be driven out of business by counterfeits. Why eat at KFC when some street vendor will sell you fried chicken for less from the back of his car? Your arguments don’t make any sense.

I am not arguing anything of the sort. You are twisting my words.

People buy cheaper items knowing they are inferior quality every single day (In fact there is no proof yet that it may not still be superior quality). People still pirate TV/Movies despite the fact Netflix is a paltry $15 a month!It should be no surprise to you what many people will do to save a couple of bucks.

I don't think legalization solves as many of the issues that those who propose yes, suggest. There are as many flaws in their suppositions as there are in many of the No Voters ones. There is no magic solution here. I'd support decriminization, but it's not an option, but I also know that if this gets voted down, it's probably a long time before it gets looked at again, and there are real issues that need resolving. I am just not convinced that legalization solves them either. I think the yes voters overstate the benefits and the no voters overstate the consequences.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2582867 12-Oct-2020 09:46

networkn:

Fred99:

You should probably leave this discussion if that's the best you can do. That's just stupid / ignorant.

No, it's not. What do you think happens with criminals when they can't gain income from Cannabis? They just disband and go and earn a honest days living? Of course not, most of these things are run like businesses. They will look for other sources of income.

That also doesn't take away from the fact that that probably doesn't do away with all weed sold via tinnie houses anyways, they will likely still be cheaper since they won't be complying with regulations and compliance has costs. For many people they will buy it from the cheapest source, even if there is no guaratee of quality or purity.

They already have large incomes from selling methamphetamine. I really doubt cannabis is a major contributor to the purchase of gold-plated Harley Davidsons and Porches seized in raids. It's too bulky and hard to deal with, not habit forming enough to guarantee repeat business, relatively low value, small-scale stuff mainly - the larger scale growers have high probability of being caught.

I have no idea about "tinny houses". I thought that was a Billy T James joke. I suspect these days the distribution network is rather more sophisticated, via instant messaging/txt etc, and Joe Comanchero really isn't interested in organising delivery/pick up of a small quantity of weed with about the value of a pack of cigarettes, nor running an operation selling out of premises they own/rent. Same with desperados cooking meth - importing and selling high quality product is a far more attractive proposition.

I think that the "guarantee of quality/purity" argument is a marketing argument by people with ambition to become involved in commercial production (which I don't support). Unlike alcohol or heroin, people aren't going to die from "accidental" overdose and if the quality is garbage, then you can tell by looking at it.

Decriminalisation removes a relatively harmless drug from the distribution network for very dangerous drugs - the network that's far more incentivised to offer kids who want to get high "something else" - because cannabis isn't really worth the hassle.

Sidestep

1013 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2582883 12-Oct-2020 09:56

networkn:

..that probably doesn't do away with all weed sold via tinnie houses anyways, they will likely still be cheaper since they won't be complying with regulations and compliance has costs. For many people they will buy it from the cheapest source, even if there is no guaratee of quality or purity.

There's some question whether 'gangs' are involved much with the 'production' of cannabis – which whether grown seasonally, outdoors in remote areas, or via indoor cultivation - requires a certain level of skill and effort.

They're more likely to be associated with the final distribution and sale of cannabis - and tinnie houses, where the threat of physical violence by gangs or gang associates might be used as a means of protect their turf against competitors or enforce the payment of 'tick' by customers.

The growers who sell to them also run the risk of violence or the theft of crops during cultivation and coercion or non-payment at point of sale with no protection from the legal system..

Illegal profit margins in NZ are pretty solid (most bulk cannabis is still sold by imperial measurement)

Cannabis might be wholesaled by a grower at NZ $3-4,000 per lb, broken by the reseller into 16 ounces and sold at $3-400 per oz, or each oz worth $5-600 when sold as $50 bags or 30, $20 tinnies (of approximately 1 gram each)..

Legally produced Cannabis in NZ, even with regulatory and compliance costs should cost under $5/gram to produce, and retail - including tax - for $10/gram, or roughly half the going price at a tinnie house.

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 25