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 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | ... | 25

18751 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7881

Lifetime subscriber

#2594105 30-Oct-2020 19:43

47% for - is a strong mandate for change. It is not a majority, but considering the question was based on legal-isation - this is not really surprising. If the question was along the lines of "should people be convicted for smoking marijuana?" imo this would have been an easy pass. So, I expect there will be some change after this indication.

Personally I would have preferred to see a lot more around harm minimisation and education funding. It still bothers me that the drinking age was reduced which I supported - with the side effect of giving tons of money to the liquor industry without advancing alcohol health education much if at all. The extent of the legal-isation contemplated is nothing near this level but it still bothered me enough to consider an abstain rather than a yes.

At least one of my friends decided on a 'no' vote with a preference for decriminalisation. So, on the day I strategically voted yes : ).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2594106 30-Oct-2020 19:45

GV27:

Crazy thing is now there's almost arguably no mandate for change. The Yes camp have basically fenced themselves in on something that shouldn't have been subject to a referendum in the first place. Pick fights you know you can win, I guess.

No mandate? I did finish school, so my math tells me there is a mandate. "No" won.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2594107 30-Oct-2020 19:49

Rikkitic:

GV27:

Crazy thing is now there's almost arguably no mandate for change. The Yes camp have basically fenced themselves in on something that shouldn't have been subject to a referendum in the first place. Pick fights you know you can win, I guess.

It is a result but I would hardly call it no mandate for change. Although just over half voted no, nearly half voted yes. That is a significant mandate. It says there is a big chunk of the population who don't agree with the status quo. There will be change, and plenty of it, just not this particular thing at this particular time.

Its democracy. The majority voted no. If say the majority voted yes, others can say its a mandate for change, as MANY voted no, it's not.

Due to this referendum, Id say that young voters were out in force, mainly YES voters, but its still didn't stand up. I'm sure some changes will occur over time, but the numbers are the numbers, democracy

gzt

18751 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7881

Lifetime subscriber

#2594112 30-Oct-2020 19:56

Even the minor "One Party" christian faith based party went into the election with a decriminalisation policy. That's how much times have changed. In that context the yes vote is not surprising.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2594113 30-Oct-2020 20:00

gzt: 47% for - is a strong mandate for change. It is not a majority, but considering the question was based on legal-isation - this is not really surprising. If the question was along the lines of "should people be convicted for smoking marijuana?" imo this would have been an easy pass. So, I expect there will be some change after this indication.

Personally I would have preferred to see a lot more around harm minimisation and education funding. It still bothers me that the drinking age was reduced which I supported - with the side effect of giving tons of money to the liquor industry without advancing alcohol health education much if at all. The extent of the legal-isation contemplated is nothing near this level but it still bothered me enough to consider an abstain rather than a yes.

At least one of my friends decided on a 'no' vote with a preference for decriminalisation. So, on the day I strategically voted yes : ).

I voted no. Not because I am a fuddy duddy, old fashioned etc, etc, but I see no benefit. It wasnt worth while taking part in the debate here as those that vote yes are cool, those that vote no are old fuddy duddy's, not in reality.

Will gangs lose their edge? No. Illegal suppliers will have more edge, it will be cheaper. No need for compliance costs, taxation, suitably approved packaging, and so on. Go to your usual illegal supplier, no change. It will off course allow a new market, kids who aren't in contact with a dealer, so yes, good for the IRD....

Yes, I have taken part in the past, so Im not oblivious to it, but I can't see any real gain and I can see losers. AFAIK still, the Police aren't bothered by private dopes smokers they still turn pretty much a blind eye. So for users out there, nothing changes, its still cheap, so enjoy.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16356

Lifetime subscriber

#2594122 30-Oct-2020 20:27

tdgeek:

I voted no. Not because I am a fuddy duddy, old fashioned etc, etc, but I see no benefit.

Yeah, you're a fuddy duddy. The benefit is not having the authorities stick their noses into every aspect of private life and personal choice. Pick a crime that actually produces victims.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Handle9

11937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9699

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2594170 30-Oct-2020 21:42

tdgeek:
. AFAIK still, the Police aren't bothered by private dopes smokers they still turn pretty much a blind eye. So for users out there, nothing changes, its still cheap, so enjoy.

3100 people charged each year is turning a blind eye? Mmmmkay.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2595268 31-Oct-2020 08:45

Handle9:
tdgeek:
. AFAIK still, the Police aren't bothered by private dopes smokers they still turn pretty much a blind eye. So for users out there, nothing changes, its still cheap, so enjoy.

3100 people charged each year is turning a blind eye? Mmmmkay.

Doesn't seem like a lot. How many of those were as a result of other crimes or other drugs, or supply? How many got diversion?

https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-34-common-crimes/drug-offences/cannabis-and-other-class-c-drugs/

It will be rare for the police to bring a charge against you just for possession of a class C drug like cannabis if you haven’t committed any other offences at the same time. Usually class C possession charges are brought in addition to other charges like assault, disorderly behaviour, resisting arrest, or receiving stolen property.

When there’s no other offending, the police are likely to deal with class C possession with a warning. If they do charge you, you may qualify for the police “diversion” scheme or be able to get a discharge without conviction, both of which will prevent you getting a criminal conviction

FineWine

3115 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2447

Trusted

Nurse (R)

Lifetime subscriber

#2595295 31-Oct-2020 11:01

Speaking with friends and relatives they all agreed that it needs to be decriminalised and taken out of the hands of the criminals but the area they balked at was the allowable quantity. 14gms daily I believe is 14, 21 or even 42 joints per day depending on who you speak to. Now I used to smoke 20 to 30 nicotine fags a day till I quit just over 10 years ago (smoked since I was 12) so smoking that many spliffs a day and you are an addict as opposed to a 'recreational user' and this is what turned my friends and relatives from voting 'Yes'. If this limit had been lower the referendum may have passed.

I also have indulged in a joint or pipe, mainly in Aussie, but have never personally bought the stuff. I did try growing one in Melbourne in the 80's, what a sorry plant that was. But just every once in a while I think to myself "I wouldn't mind a spliff just now". In Aussie a great mate used to indulge me, but here in NZ I would not know how to go about buying. Who do you go to ? How much for what quantity ? Is it unadulterated ?

Even though this referendum failed the current criminal laws do need to be loosened.

Whilst the difficult we can do immediately, the impossible takes a bit longer. However, miracles you will have to wait for.

GV27

5979 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2595866 1-Nov-2020 11:50

FineWine:

Even though this referendum failed the current criminal laws do need to be loosened.

They might 'need' to be but the electorate doesn't agree.

I see they are talking about getting pill testing at festivals back onto the books as an option - this is the kind of drug reform I can get in behind.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2596152 2-Nov-2020 10:24

GV27:

FineWine:

Even though this referendum failed the current criminal laws do need to be loosened.

They might 'need' to be but the electorate doesn't agree.

I see they are talking about getting pill testing at festivals back onto the books as an option - this is the kind of drug reform I can get in behind.

That's not correct. The referendum was about "legalisation" (with the widespread expectation that would lead to "commercialisation" under some regulatory framework) - not "decriminalising".

Anyway, if Biden/Harris win in the USA and Harris' promise to legalise (federally) in the US happens, then re-classification of cannabis (globally) may be a likely consequence. Several major sponsors of UNODC have already legalised / decriminalised. Of course NZ could choose to do whatever regardless.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Varkk

643 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 477

#2596160 2-Nov-2020 10:57

If there is a major international shift to legalising it then I can see the supporters here make another push in a couple of years. They can argue that the electorate rejected the proposed model but if they make changes say the new model will be backed by the electorate.

GV27

5979 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2596202 2-Nov-2020 12:40

Fred99:

That's not correct. The referendum was about "legalisation" (with the widespread expectation that would lead to "commercialisation" under some regulatory framework) - not "decriminalising".

I'll give you that, but there is still no mandate for decriminalisation specifically for the reason you state: we weren't asked about it.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2596210 2-Nov-2020 13:09

GV27:

Fred99:

That's not correct. The referendum was about "legalisation" (with the widespread expectation that would lead to "commercialisation" under some regulatory framework) - not "decriminalising".

I'll give you that, but there is still no mandate for decriminalisation specifically for the reason you state: we weren't asked about it.

I voted for legalisation - but with grave reservations about the possibility for it to become a "thriving commercial market" like the alcohol industry.

I hope we're not asked again. I don't like referendums - representative democracy with policy decisions based on facts are better than mob rule.

I'm not even happy with the end of life choice referendum, which passed with a significant majority. From my experience looking after people at end of life, there's a nightmare of barely adequate (or worse) provision of resources for palliative care, family support, etc. Some guarantee to improve that should have been part of the proposed legislation. Then people who don't qualify to be "put down" will get better help too. Most people with terminal conditions will not qualify - nothing will change for the better for them.

gzt

18751 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7881

Lifetime subscriber

#2596282 2-Nov-2020 14:14

GV27:
FineWine: Even though this referendum failed the current criminal laws do need to be loosened.
They might 'need' to be but the electorate doesn't agree. I see they are talking about getting pill testing at festivals back onto the books as an option - this is the kind of drug reform I can get in behind.

To me it's pretty clear the electorate does agree on a loosening of some kind around the criminalisation aspect. Many people voted 'no' because they prefer a decriminalisation approach for various reasons.

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | ... | 25