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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 25

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2572785 23-Sep-2020 14:00

MikeAqua:

Fred, apologies in advance, if I have misunderstood .. are you suggesting we should legalise meth? I could understand decriminalising possession/use of meth by users, accompanied with taking health approach. But not full legalisation.

I've just seen too many people ruin themselves with it - job, home, family all gone. It's the only drug I've seen detected in post accident testing and I've seen it in turn up so many times. It's a devastating drug. Way more impactful per user than alcohol.

I would think quite different from pot/alcohol where recreational use could is seen as acceptable.

I think you may have replied before I edited my post to add comment in brackets. My "yes" reply was a bit brief.

Meth is evil, it's a huge problem, and it needs to be stamped out - but what we're doing now seems to be only making it worse.

I think it's generally used by a different demographic than weed etc. That's not to say that a meth user won't smoke a joint, they probably would.

nova

268 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 153

Trusted

#2573093 23-Sep-2020 21:33

I was quite disturbed by the proposed market framework for cannabis that berl outlined: https://www.berl.co.nz/our-mahi/recreational-cannabis-regulation-and-harm-reduction

A quota system for production seems like a terrible idea. It is not at all the same as a fishery where you want to conserve the natural resource. It makes the whole thing quite commercial, controlled by big business and open to corruption. I think it would be better to just tax and control the distribution rather than the production.

Related to this, I have a lot of misgivings that the current government is up to the task of implementing this properly. So even though the current system is flawed, there is a chance that if the referendum is passed we could end up increasing the level of harm.

My personal view is that cannabis is less harmful the alcohol. Alcohol is fairly harmless if used in moderation, but a large portion of society is unable to use it sensibly and overall it causes a lot of harm.

Cannabis is less harmful in the short term, but has more subtle and complex effects from long term recreational use which are worse than low level use of alcohol, but not as bad as long term heavy alcohol consumption.

I think the key to both is regulation, rather than prohibition, but since we already have defacto decriminalization we need to proceed carefully, and not rush into widespread commercialization.

Handle9

12535 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10353

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2573106 23-Sep-2020 22:05

The idea behind the production quota was to limit the involvement of large businesses. No one company can hold more than 20% of the production quota and a company can't both grow and retail cannabis. There are carveouts of the cap for micro cultivators and also a limited number of retailers based on population.

They are trying to stop large companies controlling the market, which has happened overseas.

Whether or not that would be successful is debatable but that's the idea.

Handle9

12535 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10353

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2573108 23-Sep-2020 22:11

Incidentally if the referendum is successful the final bill will still go through the select committee process and be subject to a normal vote in parliament. If the Greens and Labour form the government then I'd expect it to become law, National have already said they would not support it.

I'd expect to see quite widespread participation in the select committee hearings and some changes made based on the submissions.

floydbloke

3703 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4688

ID Verified

#2573162 24-Sep-2020 07:26

MurrayM:

.... I just think that the proposed legislation won't have the benefits that the pro-weed people say it will have.

GV27:

..., but I am having a hard time understanding how this bill will do everything the proponents say it will. It seems like it's trying to do a lot of aspirational things, but they may not play well with each other. ...

Agreed. A bit like the anti-smacking law was going to end child abuse. How that did work out Sue Bradford?

The Institute of Unfinished Research has concluded that 6 out of 10 people

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2573171 24-Sep-2020 08:08

floydbloke:

Agreed. A bit like the anti-smacking law was going to end child abuse. How that did work out Sue Bradford?

*sigh*

How many perpetrators of horrifically violent "correction" of children have argued for and even escaped prosecution for beating the crap out of their kids since this bad law was repealed:

(1) Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3), every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.

It wasn't an "anti-smacking" law. It was a law to prevent arguments about what constitutes "reasonable force" even when the result was beaten, bloodied, and sometimes dead children.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

MurrayM

2524 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 758

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2573266 24-Sep-2020 09:48

Random thoughts, not really to do with legalisation: How does this affect the whole "Smoke-Free New Zealand by 2025" campaign? I assume that most people will want to smoke cannabis rather than ingest it via an edible or some other way. If we want a smoke-free NZ then will smoking cannabis be eventually outlawed?

Blurtie

488 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 131

#2573316 24-Sep-2020 10:37

Handle9:

Incidentally if the referendum is successful the final bill will still go through the select committee process and be subject to a normal vote in parliament. If the Greens and Labour form the government then I'd expect it to become law, National have already said they would not support it.

I'd expect to see quite widespread participation in the select committee hearings and some changes made based on the submissions.

Yes I think this is a good point, one which I mentioned in my earlier post.

I do wonder if the majority of the population are aware of the additional critique that is still to come before it becomes law, or if they think that what they are voting on now will be what is enacted - it which case you could understand why people would vote no as they simple disagree with the limits, age or whatever.

I agree that if it does go to the select committee stage, then there will be some strong submissions from both sides and I would hope/expect changes to be made accordingly.

In the event the no's win, then I can't see this issue being raised again for at least another 3 or 4 election cycles - if at all.. Which would be a huge shame.

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1145

#2573327 24-Sep-2020 10:55

I get really annoyed by people saying "it won't fix 100% of the issues" - no of course not, that's not how life works. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good (or far better).

We also have the opportunity to fine tune this legislation, I think @Blurtie is right and a lot of people think this is a vote on whether this comes into force the day after the election (like how end of life choice works). It isn't. This is essentially just giving the government permission to do the legislation and work through the process.

floydbloke

3703 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4688

ID Verified

#2573385 24-Sep-2020 11:28

What I'm taking from the couple of posts above is that the public are being asked to vote in a referendum without being fully informed what the consequences could or will be. That's a fundamental flaw I feel (although I don't know what the better alternative would be). Some similarities to the Brexit vote in the UK here perhaps??

The Institute of Unfinished Research has concluded that 6 out of 10 people

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19324 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16744

Lifetime subscriber

#2573388 24-Sep-2020 11:38

I don't see the problem here. When a law change is proposed, people have a voice through the submissions process. That will also be the case with this. The referendum is an extra layer that doesn't normally happen. People aren't being asked to vote on anything except whether the law change should be considered.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2573446 24-Sep-2020 12:03

MurrayM:

Random thoughts, not really to do with legalisation: How does this affect the whole "Smoke-Free New Zealand by 2025" campaign? I assume that most people will want to smoke cannabis rather than ingest it via an edible or some other way. If we want a smoke-free NZ then will smoking cannabis be eventually outlawed?

I doubt smoking (tobacco) will be outlawed, just regulated as to where you can't smoke, don't see why the same wouldn't apply regardless of what you're smoking.

Some people I know who regularly use cannabis have vaporisers, so there's almost no smell/visible smoke.

Edibles carry a risk if made into cookies or lollies that kids might accidentally eat them, so I'd hate to see them "commercialised" as products for sale.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19324 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16744

Lifetime subscriber

#2573448 24-Sep-2020 12:07

Edibles also carry the risk of accidental overdose. Probably won't kill you, but might leave you comatose.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

8731 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4336

#2573453 24-Sep-2020 12:24

Fred99:

I doubt smoking (tobacco) will be outlawed, just regulated as to where you can't smoke, don't see why the same wouldn't apply regardless of what you're smoking.

Some people I know who regularly use cannabis have vaporisers, so there's almost no smell/visible smoke.

Edibles carry a risk if made into cookies or lollies that kids might accidentally eat them, so I'd hate to see them "commercialised" as products for sale.

The proposed legislation for cannabis specifically allows for premises for consumption of cannabis. It's been suggested in another thread that such premises they would have to comply with the smoke free act - i.e. smoking outdoors only.

If I was to indulge, it would be edibles, as I have no interest in smoking or vaping anything, ever.

I noticed on my last trip to the US that little xmas tree shaped chewables were available for purchase. I have no idea what they tasted like, but they looked as if they would appeal to kids. Maybe they should have a flavour that's repellent to kids.

Ingestion overdose risk - I agree it's there. It's also a issue with alcohol and the legality of alcohol is still being used by some people as an argument for legalising cannabis.

Mike

PsychoSmiley

265 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 204

#2573456 24-Sep-2020 12:29

MikeAqua:

If I was to indulge, it would be edibles, as I have no interest in smoking or vaping anything, ever.

Basically same for me. Me being me though I'd want to be able to grow it myself so I know what it is, and what goes into it so I have control of the whole thing. It'd be just another plant somewhere in the garden that gets cared for so we can enjoy the fruits of our care.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 25