Rikkitic:

 

.... that harms no-one except the user. ....

 

 

 

Really??!!!

floydbloke:

 

Rikkitic:

 

.... that harms no-one except the user. ....

 

 

 

 

Really??!!!

 

who are we really trying to protect here?

and if we actually really care about protecting them, why aren't we banning an actual poison, alcohol?

nathan:

 

who are we really trying to protect here?

 

and if we actually really care about protecting them, why aren't we banning an actual poison, alcohol?

 

Well, contact your MP, I'll support it.

networkn:

 

nathan:

 

who are we really trying to protect here?

 

and if we actually really care about protecting them, why aren't we banning an actual poison, alcohol?

 

 

Well, contact your MP, I'll support it.

 

 

 

Elected officials don't tend to support policies that the voting public doesn't support :)

nathan:

 

Elected officials don't tend to support policies that the voting public doesn't support :)

 

Then, that's your answer.

Though, it's also not that true. Parliament passes laws each cycle lots of people don't agree with.

floydbloke:

 

Rikkitic:

 

.... that harms no-one except the user. ....

 

 

 

 

Really??!!!

 

Yes, really. Of course there are exceptions but people who smoke dope and cause harm are usually people who cause harm anyway, not people who cause harm because they smoke dope. 

networkn:

 

nathan:

 

Elected officials don't tend to support policies that the voting public doesn't support :)

 

 

Then, that's your answer.

 

Do you think if Alcohol was illegal right now, and there was a referendum in legalizing it in a few weeks, the public would support it?

I'd have to assume it would have about the same luke warm amount of support

floydbloke:

 

Rikkitic:

 

.... that harms no-one except the user. ....

 

 

Really??!!!

 

All is relative - hence unavoidable comparison with booze (far worse) and coffee.

But anyway, if non-compliance with existing laws is widespread (true) then decriminalisation gets rid of the worst harm - being a convicted criminal has a very harmful affect on people's futures, thus a negative affect on those around them, and that's easy to fix.

Maybe we should illegalise fast food, chips, sweet biscuits and lollies, dogs with teeth, motorcycles, Mike Hosking, scissors with sharp points, swimming without a lifeguard.

Rikkitic:

 

Yes, really. Of course there are exceptions but people who smoke dope and cause harm are usually people who cause harm anyway, not people who cause harm because they smoke dope. 

 

Highly unlikely IMO that someone "high" on cannabis alone would do something violent (as is likely or highly likely with alcohol).

The synthetic (once "legal") highs once sold freely in NZ wasn't cannabis and did cause major issues.  If someone uses booze or methamphetamine and cannabis and does something violent, then it's daft blaming the cannabis.

Rikkitic:

 

...

 

Yes, really. Of course there are exceptions but people who smoke dope and cause harm are usually people who cause harm anyway, not people who cause harm because they smoke dope. 

 

 

 

I was thinking more along the lines of how, if one of my children were to be come a cannabis user and started suffering due to it, how it would hurt me, my wife, their grandparents, aunts and friends to see them suffer

or

someone who is still under the influence causes a traffic accident

or 

a tradesperson who is impaired from a session makes mistakes at work that result in an accident

but hey...

FWIW, this thread has helped me make up my mind.  It'll be a No from me.

floydbloke:

 

Rikkitic:

 

...

 

Yes, really. Of course there are exceptions but people who smoke dope and cause harm are usually people who cause harm anyway, not people who cause harm because they smoke dope. 

 

 

 

 

I was thinking more along the lines of how, if one of my children were to be come a cannabis user and started suffering due to it, how it would hurt me, my wife, their grandparents, aunts and friends to see them suffer

 

or

 

someone who is still under the influence causes a traffic accident

 

or 

 

a tradesperson who is impaired from a session makes mistakes at work that result in an accident

 

but hey...

 

 

 

FWIW, this thread has helped me make up my mind.  It'll be a No from me.

 

That's unfortunate to see/hear. There are always going to be some bad eggs in any group, I would hope that by legalising there will be regulations around driving under the influence and worksafe type regulations etc to deal with those issues you've highlighted. 

I would just add - by voting no, should your children become cannabis users - and "started suffering due to it", you and your family 'may' experience harm, but your children would technically also be criminals - is that the better way of dealing with it? I only say 'may' experience harm as you can't really say what type of user they'll be. They could be high functioning users. They may not. With legalising, I would hope there would that some of the revenue gained from taxes would be put towards education around the harm aspect - like there currently is with alcohol and tobacco...

edit - grammar/typos

floydbloke:

 

I was thinking more along the lines of how, if one of my children were to be come a cannabis user and started suffering due to it, how it would hurt me, my wife, their grandparents, aunts and friends to see them suffer

 

As it's illegal and you've got a very apparent negative view about the impact of decriminalisation, then they'd probably not tell you if they were using it.  Chances are you'll never know, thus never have the opportunity to discuss things rationally.

floydbloke:

 

I was thinking more along the lines of how, if one of my children were to be come a cannabis user and started suffering due to it, how it would hurt me, my wife, their grandparents, aunts and friends to see them suffer

 

or

 

someone who is still under the influence causes a traffic accident

 

or 

 

a tradesperson who is impaired from a session makes mistakes at work that result in an accident

 

but hey...

 

 

 

FWIW, this thread has helped me make up my mind.  It'll be a No from me.

 

Fair enough. We live in a democracy. From comments I have seen here and elsewhere, and other research, it doesn't seem to me that there is a lot of fundamental disagreement between yes and no voters. We all want to minimise harm. We just disagree somewhat on how to go about that. I personally believe that more harm is done by keeping cannabis illegal than would be done by regulating it. I think some others here agree with that. 

I think you are being unduly pessimistic by assuming that if one of your children became a cannabis user, the child would start suffering as a result. A user is not necessarily an abuser, and most of the suffering is caused by our system of justice.

The ads with the girl holding the signs by the side of the road are very effective. It is worth noting that every one that attributes an accident to cannabis, also mentions that the driver had consumed alcohol. There is no question that cannabis use impairs driving ability, but the effect of the alcohol is likely to be far worse.

People shouldn't go to work stoned. They shouldn't go to work drunk, either, but some do. This isn't about dope. It is about personal responsibility. Most people don't go to work impaired, regardless of the substance. But hey...

Reefer madness is the meme of the War on Drugs. The modern version is not much different. It is based on the false panicky assumption that cannabis use will somehow make someone behave in a manner they normally wouldn't, like the equally false belief that someone can be hypnotised into committing a murder. Cannabis does not turn people into raving maniacs. Mainly, it just makes them hungry and sleepy.

How many people each year get charged and convicted of possession of cannabis? Police do not care about possession, they care about supply/distribution/dealers.