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 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | ... | 25

18710 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7839

Lifetime subscriber

#2596285 2-Nov-2020 14:24

tdgeek: 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?

3100 people charged represents the tip of an iceberg of goodness knows how many unnecessary searches and things related to that. This impacts on some communities more heavily than others.

gzt

18710 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7839

Lifetime subscriber

#2596289 2-Nov-2020 14:28

Māori Council calls for police to address discrimination in cannabis arrests:

New Zealand Māori Council chief executive Matthew Tukaki said he knows many Māori would be disappointed with the failure of the cannabis referendum.

However, he said the disparity in the policing of cannabis that leads to more Māori being charged and convicted for cannabis offences than non-Māori could still be addressed.

"We should not delay in having a conversation - not about decriminalisation - but actually, reform of the criminal justice system more generally.

"Police already have powers of discretion and instead what we see is them continue to arrest mostly brown kids, and Māori and Pasifika kids, when it comes to possession of cannabis - that's a low level form of offending that the police already have the ability to use discretion for but for some reason they're not using it.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2596300 2-Nov-2020 14:48

gzt:
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.

Perhaps, But its not pretty clear as it was never asked. If they asked 7 questioins and you tick the ones you want, then yes, we would know, but we cannot deduce what the 53.1% wanted. Its like when Trump loses, say 46% to 54% we cant say that the 54% that didnt vote for him, like him but they like Biden more. Some will, many will have other notions...

The referendrum is a pity as it was a yes or no, 0 or 1, hate you or love you answer. The fact is in between the NO WAY and YES WAY there are many that have les s toxic views, as you imply, but we dont even know that.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2596358 2-Nov-2020 14:57

gzt:
tdgeek: 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?

3100 people charged represents the tip of an iceberg of goodness knows how many unnecessary searches and things related to that. This impacts on some communities more heavily than others.

Did you read the post I posted from a Community Law Office?

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2596363 2-Nov-2020 15:09

gzt:
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.

Then you're making stuff up. The electorate didn't agree to legalisation in the form proposed. Trying to twist that using projected motivations for people who voted 'No' into clear support for a completely different proposal is entirely baseless.

There may be other opinion polls that show that, and I suspect you are right, but you cannot possibly infer that from the extremely specific question that was asked on the referendum about something totally different.

networkn

Networkn
32876 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15477

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2596366 2-Nov-2020 15:13

I was half-listening to an interview, I think it was on Radio NZ, about how there was an addition/amendment to the Crimes (I think) Act in 2019 which to all intents and purposes made decriminilization a reality today. Unfortuntely, I wasn't in a position to capture enough about it, like what it was and if it had been effective, but from what I could gather, whomever it was being interviewed said, that possession on it's own was extremely unlikely to get you in trouble any longer in NZ.

Edit: OK I think I found it *maybe*

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2019/0119/6.0/whole.html#LMS167567

6 Section 7 amended (Possession and use of controlled drugs)
After section 7(4), insert:
(5)
To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that there is a discretion to prosecute for an offence against this section, and a prosecution should not be brought unless it is required in the public interest.
(6)
When considering whether a prosecution is required in the public interest, in addition to any other relevant matters, consideration should be given to whether a health-centred or therapeutic approach would be more beneficial.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2596377 2-Nov-2020 15:29

networkn:

I was half-listening to an interview, I think it was on Radio NZ, about how there was an addition/amendment to the Crimes (I think) Act in 2019 which to all intents and purposes made decriminilization a reality today. Unfortuntely, I wasn't in a position to capture enough about it, like what it was and if it had been effective, but from what I could gather, whomever it was being interviewed said, that possession on it's own was extremely unlikely to get you in trouble any longer in NZ.

Edit: OK I think I found it *maybe*

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2019/0119/6.0/whole.html#LMS167567

6 Section 7 amended (Possession and use of controlled drugs)
After section 7(4), insert:
(5)
To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that there is a discretion to prosecute for an offence against this section, and a prosecution should not be brought unless it is required in the public interest.
(6)
When considering whether a prosecution is required in the public interest, in addition to any other relevant matters, consideration should be given to whether a health-centred or therapeutic approach would be more beneficial.

100%. A post I did a page or so back, this is from a Community Law Office, reflecting a real world stance

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

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16324

Lifetime subscriber

#2596422 2-Nov-2020 16:50

A problem, I think, with this (no, of course I am not a lawyer) is that casual pot possession is still under the shadow of many years of hysterical overreaction and a more moderated enforcement approach has not yet filtered down to most people, including some cops. The overall mentality remains that this is some kind of drug crime that requires punishment. That will change over time, but if it had been legalised, the change in thinking would have been much more widespread and much quicker. Now it is back to a slow, painful slog.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

8033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3823

#2596757 3-Nov-2020 08:46

Rikkitic:

I think you believe that, but I don't think it is true. If you would have voted yes, then you would have, regardless of the imperfections of the referendum. You are just trying to excuse voting no. Your argument sounds so much like 'I'm not racist, but ...'

It's not a belief it's knowledge. I have no issue with people smoking pot. I attend parties where people openly smoke pot.

And again ... I don't need an 'excuse' for voting a particular way. I also don't have any particular need to project a moderate or balanced on this issue on this forum.

This isn't an issue of principle for me. It isn't a strongly held belief. It won't really bother me if the yes vote wins. It will be a huge PITA in my professional life.

I've set this out clearly and rationally. Perhaps you simply can't accept that someone could have a rational basis for voting no.

BTW I strongly object to you comparing my view on cannabis legalisation to racism. Race is not a choice. Cannabis use is.

Mike

networkn

Networkn
32876 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15477

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2596763 3-Nov-2020 08:54

MikeAqua:

It's not a belief it's knowledge. I have no issue with people smoking pot. I attend parties where people openly smoke pot.

And again ... I don't need an 'excuse' for voting a particular way. I also don't have any particular need to project a moderate or balanced on this issue on this forum.

This isn't an issue of principle for me. It isn't a strongly held belief. It won't really bother me if the yes vote wins. It will be a huge PITA in my professional life.

I've set this out clearly and rationally. Perhaps you simply can't accept that someone could have a rational basis for voting no.

BTW I strongly object to you comparing my view on cannabis legalisation to racism. Race is not a choice. Cannabis use is.

Very well put.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16324

Lifetime subscriber

#2596833 3-Nov-2020 10:30

MikeAqua:

I've set this out clearly and rationally. Perhaps you simply can't accept that someone could have a rational basis for voting no.

BTW I strongly object to you comparing my view on cannabis legalisation to racism. Race is not a choice. Cannabis use is.

I believe there is a rational basis for voting no. I just don't believe (from the things you have said over time) that is what motivated your vote. I think you just felt more comfortable maintaining the status quo than risking a cultural experiment in this matter and that is what motivated you. The impairment argument is an excuse, because that would have been addressed in detail many times over had the vote been yes. As was explained many times, in great detail, a yes vote would not have meant legalisation. It would merely have meant starting a political process to consider legalisation, with all the checks and balances that involves. Impairment would have been debated and analysed in great detail. The process could have been rejected at any point. I think the confusion about this that the no lobby managed to generate was probably the reason the referendum was defeated.

I was not comparing your view to racism. I was using an example to illustrate the manner in which people can fool themselves. I think you are fooling yourself.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

MikeAqua

8033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3823

#2596888 3-Nov-2020 10:52

Rikkitic:

I was not comparing your view to racism. I was using an example to illustrate the manner in which people can fool themselves. I think you are fooling yourself.

"Your argument sounds so much like 'I'm not racist, but ...' "

What do you think word like means then?

Mike

networkn

Networkn
32876 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15477

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2596890 3-Nov-2020 10:53

MikeAqua:

Rikkitic:

I was not comparing your view to racism. I was using an example to illustrate the manner in which people can fool themselves. I think you are fooling yourself.

"Your argument sounds so much like 'I'm not racist, but ...' "

What do you think word like means then?

I'd admire your persistence but firmly believe you are wasting your time. :)

MikeAqua

8033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3823

#2596891 3-Nov-2020 10:56

Rikkitic:

I believe there is a rational basis for voting no. I just don't believe (from the things you have said over time) that is what motivated your vote. I think you just felt more comfortable maintaining the status quo than risking a cultural experiment in this matter and that is what motivated you.

OK, I think I understand. You believe you know my own mind better than I do - despite the fact we have never knowingly met or spoken.

Mike

networkn

Networkn
32876 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15477

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2596933 3-Nov-2020 11:00

@Rikkitic can we be done with the harrasment of those who decided to vote no?

I think you'd be pretty upset if people said to you, half of what you've said or implied of others here.

1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | ... | 25