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 | ... | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25

12088 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9916

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2601308 10-Nov-2020 20:26

Rikkitic:

Handle9:

That's what she said however let's be realistic. Her stance wasn't about principle it was about politics. If she didn't want to influence the outcome of one referendum why didn't she take the same approach for both?

I think @Blurtie's explanation is the correct one. Jacinda Ardern may well be just a calculating politician, or maybe she isn't, but I don't think the two referenda can be directly compared. Although I wish the result had been different, I think her decision not to influence it by revealing her vote was the correct one.

Labours entire strategy was to present a low attack surface and not offend anyone. Their approach around the cannabis referendum was consistent with this.

MikeAqua

8205 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3958

#2601566 11-Nov-2020 10:30

Rikkitic:

I think @Blurtie's explanation is the correct one. Jacinda Ardern may well be just a calculating politician, or maybe she isn't, but I don't think the two referenda can be directly compared. Although I wish the result had been different, I think her decision not to influence it by revealing her vote was the correct one.

I don't disagree with that. But surely euthanasia is a more critical issue and she was happy to influence that referendum by revealing her view.

So it's the inconsistency I'm picking up on. I don't thinking the euthanasia bill having passed through parliament as noted by @Blurtie is a sufficient explanation, as parliament left it to the electorate to decide.

Mike

Blurtie

488 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 131

#2601620 11-Nov-2020 11:11

I guess it's just where the two issues were in the parliamentary process. I don't think it's inconsistent at all. As the euthanasia bill was picked out of the ballot during the parliamentary term, it was a bit harder for Jacinda to hide her views. MPs had already debated and voted on the bill - as part of the debate parliament agreed to hold a binding referendum for the public to decide on this critical issue... And rightly so.

I'm not sure it's a reasonable view to suggest that she shouldn't have participated in the debate/process... It's what she and all other MPs are in parliament for.

Perhaps things might have been different if it was only the cannabis referendum to consider?

MikeAqua

8205 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3958

#2601879 11-Nov-2020 15:06

Blurtie:

I guess it's just where the two issues were in the parliamentary process. I don't think it's inconsistent at all. As the euthanasia bill was picked out of the ballot during the parliamentary term, it was a bit harder for Jacinda to hide her views. MPs had already debated and voted on the bill - as part of the debate parliament agreed to hold a binding referendum for the public to decide on this critical issue... And rightly so.

I'm not sure it's a reasonable view to suggest that she shouldn't have participated in the debate/process... It's what she and all other MPs are in parliament for.

Perhaps things might have been different if it was only the cannabis referendum to consider?

What I'm saying is that in voting for the euthanasia bill Ardern supported a referendum on it, she wasn't supporting euthanasia per se.

Likewise her name is on the Cannabis Referendum Order. So by definition at that point she supported the referendum, but not necessarily the legalisation of cannabis.

So I still see the two as very similar, and the distinction is not logical.

Mike

Blurtie

488 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 131

#2601917 11-Nov-2020 15:57

Well the way I see it was that she supported the referendum for cannabis in order to provide an opportunity for the public to have their say first before being an issue for parliament to consider... It came about in part with Labour's coalition agreement with the Greens.. I wouldn't read too much into seeing her name on the referendum order tho, I assume (happy to be corrected) that as PM her name would be on all orders of this type.

Whereas the euthanasia bill was picked out of a ballot... parliament had to consider it without getting public feedback.

If she did state her position on this issue (i.e. yes) prior to the referendum - what good would it have done? I think she would have been accused of trying to influence the public... The very thing she was trying to avoid.

FWIW the referendum on euthanasia came very late in the piece, after the select committee submissions and second reading in the house.. I would like to think she would've done the same thing on if the cannabis/euthanasia issues were flipped..

gzt

19019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8111

Lifetime subscriber

#2603763 14-Nov-2020 17:33

USA election state referendums add another four legal states + one medical

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/marijuana-legalization-successes-pave-national-conversation-drug-laws/story?id=74130289

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.

tdgeek

30088 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9526

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2603847 14-Nov-2020 19:37

MikeAqua:

I don't disagree with that. But surely euthanasia is a more critical issue and she was happy to influence that referendum by revealing her view.

So it's the inconsistency I'm picking up on. I don't thinking the euthanasia bill having passed through parliament as noted by @Blurtie is a sufficient explanation, as parliament left it to the electorate to decide.

I see that. IMHO euthanasia with all its checks and balances is a sensible view. Cannabis is a more polarising view. Its like caring for the elderly's needs vs fun.

So I don't see it as inconsistent. BUT, she could have taken the same view, I agree. National too a 100% anti view vs Cannabis, but while that easy to criticise, its also the party's view. Euthanasia when suffering vs fun isn't the same.

tdgeek

30088 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9526

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2603848 14-Nov-2020 19:39

gzt: USA election state referendums add another four legal states + one medical

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/marijuana-legalization-successes-pave-national-conversation-drug-laws/story?id=74130289

Does that mean we should support that??? We could also remove free health care to align to the US. The US is not the world nor the proven magic solution

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19157 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16484

Lifetime subscriber

#2603916 14-Nov-2020 20:47

tdgeek:

Does that mean we should support that??? We could also remove free health care to align to the US. The US is not the world nor the proven magic solution

You miss the point. A country of hundreds of millions of people who have always swallowed the War on Drugs propaganda and exerted enormous influence on the attitudes of the rest of the world, is changing its mind. The example illustrates a trend. It does not say we should slavishly imitate whatever Americans decide to do.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

gzt

19019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8111

Lifetime subscriber

#2603983 15-Nov-2020 09:44

tdgeek: Maybe Ive missed it but I've not seen a list of pro's and con's from the YES and NO people here

There was also the in-between people. In the end I voted yes strategically to see the number for change go a bit higher. I figured it was going to be around 40% yes. It surprised me that it nearly passed.

gzt

19019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8111

Lifetime subscriber

#2603984 15-Nov-2020 09:50

tdgeek: Maybe Ive missed it but I've not seen a list of pro's and con's from the YES and NO people here

You missed it. The main sticking point for the 'NO' voters on geekzone was around drug testing for driving and employer responsibility regarding safe workplace requirements.

There is clearly a standard testing for intoxication being applied in USA in places where it it legal so imo that's not really a problem.

There may be some edge cases where the test is not going to provide a result proportionate to the affect, but I'm not sure those are really worth worrying about in the larger statistical picture.

New World

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

MikeAqua

8205 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3958

#2604669 16-Nov-2020 12:29

gzt:

There is clearly a standard testing for intoxication being applied in USA in places where it it legal so imo that's not really a problem.

Wouldn't have been a problem if someone had included with the draft bill another draft bill amending the Land Transport Act 1998.

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19157 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16484

Lifetime subscriber

#2608364 22-Nov-2020 12:56

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/longest-serving-cannabis-offender-be-released-early-90-year-prison-n1248322

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

landcruiserguy

777 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 137

#2623055 16-Dec-2020 22:02

If you want to look to a role model then look to Canada. Canadians are like more sensible Americans.

It's worth noting that legalising cannabis isn't going to solve the war on drugs because it's only a small, unimportant part of it. It's still worth doing though as it effects the largest amount of people (third most popular drug in NZ).

Portugal took a logical approach on this whole thing and everything got better. Switzerland legalised heroin and it was a vast improvement.

America has now made steps. In Oregon, voters decriminalized — but not legalized — all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Also in Oregon, voters legalized the use of magic mushrooms for supervised therapeutic uses. In Washington, DC voters decriminalized all psychedelic plants, following the lead of several other cities.

If you had asked me in the 90s how the war on drugs would end I wouldn't have predicted that the country that started it (USA) would be the one to end it. If I look back it's more obvious that it would pan out that way because the countries with the highest enforcement of prohibition create the market conditions that encourage organised crime and illegal drug markets (think Chicago and Capone during prohibition). The countries with the worse problems are more likely to fix them first and unlike south america the USA has the direct democracy ballot initiatives.

This book explains the whole depressing mess in detail:

Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs (Audio Download): Johann Hari, Tim Gerard Reynolds, Audible Studios for Bloomsbury: Amazon.com.au: Audible

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2623165 17-Dec-2020 11:03

We'll see what happens in the US. There seems to be bipartisan support for general decriminalisation of drugs - not just cannabis.

The UN has recently reclassified "medical" cannabis so it's no longer considered by them in the same category as "hard" narcotics etc. That's not to say any country is obliged to follow.

France had banned sales of CBD oil, that's been overruled by EU courts who have determined that CBD isn't a narcotic.

There's a bill going through congress in Colombia to (further) legalise cocaine, and for the government to buy the entire crop. They currently spend $1 billion a year on enforcement, the claim is that the cost to buy the entire crop would be $680 million. This seems a bit crazy, from what I know about cocaine (and I've never tried it) it sounds risky in many ways.

1 | ... | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25