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

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#2596956 3-Nov-2020 11:35

networkn:

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

Fair enough. The straw man approach tends to wind me up. I think I've made my point now anyway.

Mike

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2596958 3-Nov-2020 11:42

MikeAqua:

networkn:

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

Fair enough. The straw man approach tends to wind me up. I think I've made my point now anyway.

Yeah, I get that, but I don't see any movement from anyone's position at this point, from here, in my experience the thread just spirals into increasingly insulting observations :)

There probably isn't much more than could be added in value to this thread. The people got a vote and they voted. It will be disappointing for one group or another inevitably.

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1145

#2597006 3-Nov-2020 12:54

I think the no outcome was the wrong one for society - for a variety of reasons, but that's just my opinion. The reality is that I'm of an age and a race where it being illegal won't casue me trouble because I won't face consequences for using it that others would. Logically, we should decriminalise use/possession entirely regardless of the legalisation referendum.

I actually think there was a massive number of voters who simply didn't know what they were voting for in either referendum. You need only see the number of people believing that dairies could sell weed, or that 18 year olds with autism could get access to end of life choice, to see that. A failure to clearly lay out the facts pre-referendum and some poor efforts from various campaigns IMO.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2597009 3-Nov-2020 12:58

antonknee:

I think the no outcome was the wrong one for society - for a variety of reasons, but that's just my opinion. The reality is that I'm of an age and a race where it being illegal won't casue me trouble because I won't face consequences for using it that others would. Logically, we should decriminalise use/possession entirely regardless of the legalisation referendum.

I actually think there was a massive number of voters who simply didn't know what they were voting for in either referendum. You need only see the number of people believing that dairies could sell weed, or that 18 year olds with autism could get access to end of life choice, to see that. A failure to clearly lay out the facts pre-referendum and some poor efforts from various campaigns IMO.

As mentioned, there is drug legislation that gives discretion over what gets dealt with and what doesn't, if it falls outside the public interest.

I think police need an additional push here.

I agree regarding the failure in both campaigns to clarify the proposals. I think a lot of people voted yes to the end of life referendum because they support having a choice at end of life, but I wonder how many read and understood the proposed bill, which I opposed in it's current state.

It, unlike the Cannabis one, goes into law unchanged.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2597028 3-Nov-2020 13:46

MikeAqua:

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

What do you think word like means then?

Here is another way of phrasing it: "I don't actually enjoy cake that much but I will have this little piece just to be polite".

In other words, it is a reference to a particular ploy people use to deceive themselves. It has nothing to do with racism and if that is what you took from it, then I apologise. I should have thought of a better example.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2597031 3-Nov-2020 13:51

networkn:

@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.

I am not harassing anyone. I was questioning a claimed motive.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2597034 3-Nov-2020 13:53

networkn:

Yeah, I get that, but I don't see any movement from anyone's position at this point, from here, in my experience the thread just spirals into increasingly insulting observations :)

There probably isn't much more than could be added in value to this thread. The people got a vote and they voted. It will be disappointing for one group or another inevitably.

I agree with this. The vote was no. Time to move on.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

sen8or

1897 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1402

#2597041 3-Nov-2020 13:56

They could have pushed a few messages trying to address concerns -

We will have the following measures in place to measure and enforce impaired driving, the limits will be (insert whatever measure here) which is scientifically proven to be no more impaired than a driver with (insert measure here) alcohol reading.

Employment and Health & Safety at work, defining impairment similar to alcohol content, but with a "employers can still have policies tighter than this" type approach

They could even have pushed forward with cases where regulation of "acceptable vices" like drinking, gambling, prostitution has resulted in less social harm (as was the argument presented by one commentator when the results of the prelim count was done).

I think the age thing is a bit of a non issue. I know my children can easily access it at their high school if they should so desire, fortunately they don't, but legalizing or decriminalizing it would unlikely change their access to it one way or the other.

Ofcourse, the no campaigners could likely have come up with other studies or scientific evidence to refute the yes campaign, but it would have presented some solid facts rather than an ex policeman saying he supports a yes vote without any real supporting information (or other similar "fluffy" type campaigners)

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1145

#2597043 3-Nov-2020 13:57

networkn:

As mentioned, there is drug legislation that gives discretion over what gets dealt with and what doesn't, if it falls outside the public interest.

I think police need an additional push here.

The real failure IMO is for the discretion to even exist. Discretion by its nature is not applied fairly.

I actually think the Police should have the weight of this on them - they should enforce the law not be forced to make moral judgements. I appreciate this happens anyway across all Police ops.

networkn:

I agree regarding the failure in both campaigns to clarify the proposals. I think a lot of people voted yes to the end of life referendum because they support having a choice at end of life, but I wonder how many read and understood the proposed bill, which I opposed in it's current state.

It, unlike the Cannabis one, goes into law unchanged.

Very few unfortunately. I discussed it with a number of people before the election who said they didn't care what it said, and afterwards with a number people who had some shocking misunderstandings of what it covered and included and what the process was. One of my friends said he was glad this would allow people to end their lives if they wanted for any reason via EOLC, eg to save getting old!

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2597070 3-Nov-2020 14:07

networkn:

As mentioned, there is drug legislation that gives discretion over what gets dealt with and what doesn't, if it falls outside the public interest.

I think police need an additional push here.

I disagree. I don't think "police" (ie a policeman) should have discretion over who does and who does not get prosecuted when caught breaking a law. "The public interest" is very vague and subjective, and policeman are not and should never be de facto judges.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2597073 3-Nov-2020 14:09

antonknee:

The real failure IMO is for the discretion to even exist. Discretion by its nature is not applied fairly.

This 100%.

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.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2597076 3-Nov-2020 14:11

Fred99:

networkn:

As mentioned, there is drug legislation that gives discretion over what gets dealt with and what doesn't, if it falls outside the public interest.

I think police need an additional push here.

I disagree. I don't think "police" (ie a policeman) should have discretion over who does and who does not get prosecuted when caught breaking a law. "The public interest" is very vague and subjective, and policeman are not and should never be de facto judges.

Well, it's not soley at the discretion of the police though is it? The courts can also opt not to prosecute.

This happened in a case I was involved in (not drugs related). Even though the police felt there was obviously offending, when it was discussed, they decided the amount of money being swindled from the eliderly didn't warrant the amount of time the police would spend trying to get a conviction. I presume this decision was made in conjuction with a procesecutor of some sort.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2597082 3-Nov-2020 14:17

sen8or:

We will have the following measures in place to measure and enforce impaired driving, the limits will be (insert whatever measure here) which is scientifically proven to be no more impaired than a driver with (insert measure here) alcohol reading.

Employment and Health & Safety at work, defining impairment similar to alcohol content, but with a "employers can still have policies tighter than this" type approach

The impairment argument is a bit of a red herring, which is why I objected to it. Trying to link it specifically to cannabis creates a false equivalence. It is already illegal to drive while impaired, or operate machinery, or do anything else that creates a safety hazard. The cause of the impairment is irrelevant. Cannabis has nothing to do with it. The only issue is if impairment can be more readily hidden when caused by cannabis. You can't smell it on someone's breath, but usually it is pretty obvious if someone is impaired, and detection technology is rapidly developing.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2597084 3-Nov-2020 14:23

networkn:

Well, it's not soley at the discretion of the police though is it? The courts can also opt not to prosecute.

What?

If the police (ie a friendly to you policeman) decides not to prosecute, then it's not even getting to court.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2597085 3-Nov-2020 14:25

Fred99:

networkn:

Well, it's not soley at the discretion of the police though is it? The courts can also opt not to prosecute.

What?

If the police (ie a friendly to you policeman) decides not to prosecute, then it's not even getting to court.

Right, which means the law is working as intended.

Even if the police decide it's worth bringing charges, the courts can still drop it at that point. Two points of consideration.

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