They lost the war on drugs

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

Forums › Politics › They lost the war on drugs

1 | ... | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | ... | 45

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1612433 16-Aug-2016 12:43

Fred99:

frankv:

Fred99:

I'm also not in favour of deciding these laws through referendums. There's still far too much ignorance and fear out there - as a result of 1/2 century of anti-cannabis propaganda.

I'm in favour of *binding* referenda, as per Switzerland. There is then an incentive for people to actually find out the facts and become politically aware.

It would cost very little (certainly not $26M) to add questions to the 3-yearly ballot.

Too much risk of "mob rule" IMO.

Then there's also an assumed finality, but circumstances change. Ie the NZ flag referendum, "we've had it" so don't need to revisit the discussion for a long time, but circumstances out of our (NZ) control could easily change, the Queen could die and republicanism grow rapidly under king Charles, Scotland could leave the UK, Australia could become a republic. So we should stick to our flag - because we already had a referendum.

With cannabis (and narcotic law reform in general) opposition is founded on FUD. When that FUD is based on the concept that it's (law reform) going to put children at risk, then logic flies out the window.

It truly is FUD. One could write equal amounts of FUD to 'prove' that car travel puts children at risk...

MikeAqua

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#1612435 16-Aug-2016 12:55

Unfortunately FUD are an easy sell for moralising politicians.

Mike

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1612442 16-Aug-2016 13:04

MikeAqua:

Unfortunately FUD are an easy sell for moralising politicians.

True. In the UK they have just banned knives because they are called "Zombie Killer" as part of the branding.

It is entirely irrelevant what they are called - they were already illegal to carry in a public place - and is just more FUD.

What will they ban when the gang member's knife of choice is "8 inch chef's knife from Wusthof"?!

Headline coming soon....

"British chefs must now prepare food with a plastic teaspoon unless they have a "Knife Licence" costing $500 and all knives are kept locked in an approved safe. Home cooks can own knives provided they are blunt and the blade is no more than one inch long."

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1612581 16-Aug-2016 16:53

Geektastic:

"British chefs must now prepare food with a plastic teaspoon unless they have a "Knife Licence" costing $500 and all knives are kept locked in an approved safe.

Given the temperament of the average British TV celebrity chef, that's a bloody good idea.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1615257 21-Aug-2016 20:16

Dulouz:

networkn:

Don't be daft. If it's law, it's law. YOU don't get to decide if you will follow the laws, you either do, leave or end up in prison. If you don't LIKE the laws, lobby to have them changed, but whilst they are law, you will comply, or face the consequences.

Up until 1986 it was illegal for men to have sex with one another. Now it's not. This is one of many laws which humans have implemented which are daft and discriminatory.

too true - the repeal of the previous act making homosexual conduct legal is completley daft and discriminatory - oh wait, did you mean the orginal law was daft and discriminatory? Coz it does sound like the repeal law is the one you're saying is daft and discriminatory. Of crud, I'm confused. Which law is daft and discriminatory? Can someone please tell me what to think?

In a more serious vein - what the law says is one thing, but morality and common sense is quite another. Laws are an attempt to regulate society in order that we may more easily get on with living in a society - but that neither makes them moral or common sense.

Take the Homosexual Law Reform bill that made Homosexual conduct - not illegal. It may have removed the criminality of it but that doesn't mean it is morally defensible. Laws around marriage were designed to protect society and so sex outside of marriage, which in 86-201X was the state of all Homosexual acts, still applied and as such put much / all such acts in the decriminalised but certainly not legal camp (no pun intended).In fact much homosexual activity was probably still illegal as it would have constituted adultery.

Drugs ditto - just because we can, just because laws are passed changing the legal status doesn't make it right, moral or common sense. The argument that why not legalise mary jane as it is less harmful than alcohol is actually half correct. Yes, it is hypocritical to make alcohol widely available and not soft drugs BUT - that doesn't mean we should as it may not be common sense.

Prohibition should probably be repealed as a matter of practicality in order to help cripple criminal enterprise and allow education to flourish more easily BUT that doesn't mean it should become legal. Drugs in general are still not good for you and siting how it helps Ms sufferers, cancer patients etc is just BS as it tries to justify what the majority are doing using edge cases.

An argument could be made to make it illegal to sell or manufacture alcohol for sale, but not criminalize it so we home brewers can still shuffle ourselves closer to a liver transplant. But again, allowing home brewers to produce alcohol and having every joe average do their own distilling, will leave many blind, dead and liver failed when they fail to grasp the intricacies of removing the initial methanol pour and wait for the clean ethanol to come out.

Thankfully maryjane is as easy as growing lettuce. Warmth, sunshine, a little fertiliser and hey presto. however Meth, PCP, Coke, Heroin, LSD etc all require more brains otherwise kableweee go a few houses and a surge of really bad highs followed by horrible death.

So if we decriminalize MJ should we decriminalize meth, pcp, ghb, gbh, e, etc etc etc? No - it should stay criminalized to help avoid the bad consequences letting every drop kick, heisenberg , wannabe loose with their chemistry set. And then - the gangs step in, set up their monopoly and off we go on the roundabout again.

Maybe we shouldn't decriminalise drugs as in the long run the harm caused by keeping it criminalised is less than that of allowing it to be decriminalised.

Maybe we should do with it what we do with alcohol and make it legal - but licensed. Party highs, especially the early ones with chemical structures close to GBH only cost 2-3c per pill to produce but sold at over $10=$20 per pill. Maybe we should let her rip, tax the hell out of it and ensure that the money is spent on rehab and education. I mean that certainly seems to be working with tobacco right? Oh wait -

At the end of the day until Govt and society are prepared to do what they need to do, to sort this stuff out, we will keep going around in circles.

Education, intervention, taxation, and actually kick the snot out of the toilet paper dip sticks who grow rich by killing and maiming others. Bring back hanging. !!

gzt

18690 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7829

Lifetime subscriber

#1615977 22-Aug-2016 19:00

Surprising news: A patient brought medical marijuana through NZ customs a couple of days ago flying from Hawaii:

I listened to the RNZ interview with her

It appears that the misuse of drugs act specifically allows overseas prescriptions for arrivals with no more than 31 days prescribed. She mentioned back pain so I'm guessing she has some kind of spinal condition.

Signature goes here.

HP

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

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 314
Inactive user

#1616234 23-Aug-2016 11:22

Rikkitic:

So you are saying it is okay to break some laws, as long as they are about IMPORTANT stuff, but not others that prohibit what you regard as frivolous activities? That certainly clarifies things.

Some laws are more important than others. The law itself recognises this by choosing differing levels of punishment for breaking different laws.

The level of punishment or importance attached to a law changes according to an organisation / countries / areas emphasis. In Singapore dropping litter is treated a whole lot more severely than it is here. For them it is more important in order to maintain the agreed consensus of society's standards.

The reason a law is broken is also recognised by law. An example would be mens rea. Mens rea is the state of mind or driving force and belief that was present when a crime was committed. If a woman grabs a knife and stabs her husband to death in order to get insurance payout she will face murder charges however if she grabs a knife when her husband is beating the snot out of her (again) and is going to start in on their infant child, and stabs him to death, it will be mans slaughter at worst. Why? State of mind.

Flouting a law to make point, like the Springbok protests, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, is sometimes required to get change and bring about an awakening in society.There are non-selfish, society wide issues being addressed, not personal enjoyment and hedonism.

With weed - flouting the law to get high so you can feel good, that's not even comparable. It is a selfish, self serving act that possibly puts others in harms way (still stoned at work, while driving etc) where as growing weed to alleviate crippling pain from cancer or MS or others where there is good medical evidence to support its efficacy and no other options, then that is a different ball game all together.

The problem with weed is most people want to legalise it to get high - hedonism. There is no upside to that and plenty of down sides. Medical supply - different again.

however -many countries which have legalised weed for medicinal purposes have regretted it as it becomes a legal way to sell Amstardam super skunk and other similar MJ, and is abused. Saying it would be monitored and only used for medical reasons is not a solid safe guard, as that was the argument for legalising abortion - and with 1 in 2 or 1 in 3 pregnancies ending in abortion, you cant tell me its not driven by convenience and hedonism rather than medical necessity.

The alternative is also bad - putting it in the hands of pharmiceutical companies. It will put the product out of reach price wise, lining their greedy pockets at the expense of the tax payers and those who need it. currently morphine, codiene etc require medical scripts and the abuse is reasonably limited - so the pharmacy option may work - but by golly it will cost a lot more than a reefer from the local tinny would.

From a pragmatic point of view decriminalisation - recognising our current situation, would free up police resource, allow Ms suffers to grow their own and cripple some of the gang influence and income. It's already being smoked. Rather than waste resource in your average 18 year old, educate harder, prosecute the snot out of anyone with more than enough for personal use and move on to killing off P, E, and other similar drugs. It solves a few problems without adding too many more. But hey, do bring in tests for those travelling high - working high etc and get alchohol, drugs and speed off our roads.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1616294 23-Aug-2016 13:14

nunz:

The problem with weed is most people want to legalise it to get high - hedonism. There is no upside to that and plenty of down sides. Medical supply - different again.

Riiiiighht.... so something that people want and enjoy shouldn't be allowed, just because they want and enjoy it. The fact that it makes people is happy *is* an upside. I agree that there are plenty of downsides though.

But you say it should be allowed for the relief of pain (which I do agree with). But why? Ultimately, the only downside of pain (or any other negative thing in a person's life) is that it makes the person (very) unhappy. (With apologies to those who are living in pain... I'm not trying to denigrate that. But it is part of everyone's life experience, and "happiness" is a continuum. There is no point where you can say "This is the borderline of weed being OK or not").

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1616349 23-Aug-2016 14:59

nunz:

Like you, I am confused. I am not sure if you are arguing for or against drug use, or homosexual behaviour, for that matter. Are you actually saying that homosexuality is not morally defensible? Laws around marriage were not designed to protect society at all, but to enshrine the status of women as chattel. With the evolution of society they have gradually worn away, but there are still remnants such as the quaint notion of the father ‘giving away’ the bride. This is an accurate reflection of past (legal) practice, which held that daughters were the property of their fathers until they became the property of their husbands. Dowries have fallen out of fashion in much of the world but this used to be the price charged for the woman. That hardly seems very moral to me.

As to changing the legal status of drugs, it is not ‘right, moral, or common sense’ to imprison people for doing something in the privacy of their own homes that harms no-one else (sounds a lot like homosexuality, doesn’t it?). Many otherwise perfectly ordinary lives have been ruined beyond repair because punitive, cowardly governments blinded by prejudice, fear and an unwillingness to look at the facts used overwhelmingly unjustifiable force to rip people from their families and friends and frog-march them into a jungle pit of despair ruled by gang brutality and bureaucratic indifference. If they didn’t have a drug problem when they went in, they usually had one when they came out. Where is the morality in that?

Prohibition most certainly should be repealed, not as a matter of practicality but as a matter of justice. A big, fat, Prime Ministerial apology to all those victimised by stupid and evil laws would not be out of place either.

The job of the government is to keep its citizens from bashing each other, nothing more. It is not the business of government to mind our business, or to police our morals, or to tell us how to live or die. My common sense tells me that what I get up to is no concern of yours unless it affects your welfare in some way. That is the only point of contention. If I smoke dope, I go to sleep. That is my business. If I smoke meth, there may well be a risk that I may do something that harms you. That risk needs to be properly assessed and appropriate measures taken. I may need help, but I definitely do not need prison. Society has a right to protect itself from me if I represent a danger. There are different ways of going about that. It does not have a right to restrain me beyond that. All drugs should be decriminalised as a matter of justice and common sense. Not all drugs should be legalised. Some are demonstrably harmful. Different ways need to be found to deal with that. A better measure than common sense is lesser of evils. It may be the lesser of evils to make some harmful drugs available on a prescription basis. It may be the lesser of evils to ban some outright, though my common sense says that probably won’t work since banning anything just creates a black market for it. There may be a better solution. These things need to be properly researched, without politically motivated foregone conclusions getting in the way.

Doing nothing (doing more of the same) is not an option. That has already been tried. It doesn’t work.

That was your first post. Moving on to the second one, why someone uses dope has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the arguments for being allowed to do so. That is just bizarre. You are saying that flouting a bad law might be justifiable if the intention is noble, but not if the purpose is just to enjoy hedonistic pleasure. That doesn’t even make sense. The reason for flouting the law is that it is a bad law. Drug laws victimise people. That makes them bad. Jim Crow laws discriminate against people. That also makes them bad. Neither deserves to be respected. Or to put it in your terms, loving couples who break anti-gay laws because they can’t bear to be without each other do not have moral authority over those who just want to enjoy a tumble in bed. That is a ridiculous assertion. It is the law that is deficient, not the reason two people want to be together.

And then we move on to abortion. I’m really not sure how that got involved but you do seem to be touching all the bases. This really is a completely separate issue with very different, highly emotive principles driving it. The only point that matters, though, is that it is no business of yours or anyone else’s why a woman chooses to put herself through that. It doesn’t matter whether the reason is ‘convenience, or hedonism, or medical necessity’. It is none of your business. It is not yours to pass judgement on. And neither is the reason I may want to smoke dope.

At least I can more or less agree with your last paragraph. I guess that is something.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1616396 23-Aug-2016 16:10

Here's probably the worst anti-legalisation rant I've ever read:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/83410482/mike-yardley-legalising-cannabis-not-in-the-public-interest

64% of readers who answered the poll question seem unconvinced by his err... arguments.

I quite like the reader comment:

"I think this needs to be relabeled from Opinion Piece to Wildly Emotional Claptrap."

SepticSceptic

2263 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 779

Trusted

#1616409 23-Aug-2016 16:30

Rikkitic:

---

Very nicely and eloquently stated.

Thanks

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.

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3317

Trusted

#1616592 24-Aug-2016 07:53

Have they lost the war on drugs in the Philippines? 1900 and rising killed under the blessing of their new president.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1616626 24-Aug-2016 09:01

Yeah, I guess that is an effective illustration of what happens if you take the punitive approach to its logical extreme. I guess you can always terrify people into submission.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1616633 24-Aug-2016 09:29

Now the NZIER is calling for cannabis to be legalised.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/311702/high-cost-to-criminalised-marijuana-nzier

Interesting quote: "[Three hundred thousand] New Zealanders are annually saying they use marijuana. If we could reduce that by 50,000 that would be a success so I think it's very important not to compare this with a world in which no-one uses, but compare it with the current situation."

That is the first time I have ever seen that point made in this context. How refreshing to finally see some common sense enter the discussion. Indeed, models of legalisation/decriminalisation should not be compared to an absurdly unrealistic vision of zero drug use, but to the situation as it currently exists. I think a lot of people miss this important point.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1671225 15-Nov-2016 11:50

http://www.radionz.co.nz/programmes/from-zero/story/201823312/from-zero-episode-2

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | ... | 45