They lost the war on drugs

Forums › Politics › They lost the war on drugs

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ... | 45

15344 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1535716 19-Apr-2016 15:41

This whole thing about drugs and decriminalising it, I really don't care too much about the person taking the drugs and the damage they do to themselves. They have made a decision with their big persons pants on ( I hope) so they can deal with that. My concern

is for the collateral damage that will occur from the decriminalisation and logically the easier availability and wider usage that will bring. Further more a decision now may result in a huge mess for a future generation to fix up.

Mike

Consultant

The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

He waka eke noa

tdgeek

21158 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1535718 19-Apr-2016 15:42

BlueShift:

Fred99:

How facts get distorted - when people have an agenda:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/78486729/how-an-unemployed-westie-discredited-a-key-police-report-on-cannabis.html

The "actual" ~200 admissions where primary diagnosis is cannabis related - not the figure (deliberately?) fudged by a zealot, presumably include people admitted with psychiatric disorders which may or may not have been induced by cannabis (very hard when drugs are used by some to self-medicate) - but anyway pales into insignificance compared with ~10,000 admissions where primary diagnosis is alcohol related.

By that measure, alcohol is 50 times worse.

That's not comparing apples with apples though. Alcohol is legal and pot isn't. That affects useage, are 50 times as many people using alcohol than pot?

Its like saying ACC pays out 50 times as much to people injured playing rugby than people injured in home invasions, so rugby is much worse than home invasions.

Nice analogy. Earlier someone said that the prohibiton is useless. name me one topic where prohibiton worked? We prohibit bank robberies but they happen. So when drugs are prohibited, and people use them its a failure. Bizarre. Alcohol isnt prohibited, so I assume thats been very successful. I also recall that drug legality will reduce consumption. I cannot yet find a calculator that agrees with that! I can see some sound arguments, once I filter out the irrational noise. Perhaos if druge are legal, we can enjoy the same success we have with booze...

Fred99

10570 posts

Uber Geek

#1535719 19-Apr-2016 15:43

BlueShift:

Fred99:

How facts get distorted - when people have an agenda:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/78486729/how-an-unemployed-westie-discredited-a-key-police-report-on-cannabis.html

The "actual" ~200 admissions where primary diagnosis is cannabis related - not the figure (deliberately?) fudged by a zealot, presumably include people admitted with psychiatric disorders which may or may not have been induced by cannabis (very hard when drugs are used by some to self-medicate) - but anyway pales into insignificance compared with ~10,000 admissions where primary diagnosis is alcohol related.

By that measure, alcohol is 50 times worse.

That's not comparing apples with apples though. Alcohol is legal and pot isn't. That affects useage, are 50 times as many people using alcohol than pot?

Its like saying ACC pays out 50 times as much to people injured playing rugby than people injured in home invasions, so rugby is much worse than home invasions.

I'm not sure. People take cannabis to get stoned. Mostly people don't tend to drink with the purpose of getting blotto - but plenty do (younger folks and alcoholics), but it wouldn't surprise me if "hard" use of alcohol and cannabis use rates are comparable. I don't expect too many folks smoke a fraction of a puff of cannabis only - because they don't want to feel the effects.

I'm sure that "hard" use of both is common, and that such use of alcohol is much more damaging. 50 times so - perhaps. Even if it's only 10 times so, it's still a crazy situation.

tdgeek

21158 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1535724 19-Apr-2016 15:47

MikeB4:

This whole thing about drugs and decriminalising it, I really don't care too much about the person taking the drugs and the damage they do to themselves. They have made a decision with their big persons pants on ( I hope) so they can deal with that. My concern

is for the collateral damage that will occur from the decriminalisation and logically the easier availability and wider usage that will bring. Further more a decision now may result in a huge mess for a future generation to fix up.

Thas exactly where I stand. Users and boozers can deal with what they choose to do. Its the innocent bystanders that is an issue. Alcohol is a prime example. Its a mess.

Drugs are a small mess because they are not available on street corners. And for those that say they are, they are not. Not everyone knows 5 tinny houses and has been OK'ed by the grower/seller. I dont see drugs as much of an issue now, its contained to the current level of usage by the law and Police.

Fred99

10570 posts

Uber Geek

#1535725 19-Apr-2016 15:48

MikeB4:

This whole thing about drugs and decriminalising it, I really don't care too much about the person taking the drugs and the damage they do to themselves. They have made a decision with their big persons pants on ( I hope) so they can deal with that. My concern

is for the collateral damage that will occur from the decriminalisation and logically the easier availability and wider usage that will bring. Further more a decision now may result in a huge mess for a future generation to fix up.

If you're talking about collateral damage then you must consider the collateral damage caused by prohibition.

The evidence from Portugal suggests your worst fears are wrong.

Rikkitic

Devastation by stupidity
12478 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1535732 19-Apr-2016 16:08

MikeB4:

is for the collateral damage that will occur from the decriminalisation and logically the easier availability and wider usage that will bring. Further more a decision now may result in a huge mess for a future generation to fix up.

Mike, I think we already have a huge mess because of a decision taken in the past. The only reason people aren't out in the streets demanding change is because a lot of the mess is out of sight, though it is becoming increasingly visible and that will be one of the forces that finally does drive change. Think gangs in nearly every community and the violence they commit, home invasions, burglaries, health problems, limited police resources through misallocation, prison costs, the social burden, etc., etc. The list goes on and on. What I believe doesn't really matter. I am just a single lay person. But many, many other people, who are considered experts in their fields, also believe that the present system is counter-productive. And now there is apparently strong evidence that the police and presumably at least some politicians have been purposely manipulating statistics to serve their own agenda. How can anyone be expected to believe the arguments they have been making if that is indeed the case? It calls everything that has been said against decriminalisation or legalisation into question.

I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney

tdgeek

21158 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1535802 19-Apr-2016 16:39

And that can also be said about the opposing view.

SaltyNZ

5396 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1535887 19-Apr-2016 18:03

tdgeek:

Alcohol isnt prohibited, so I assume thats been very successful. I also recall that drug legality will reduce consumption.

It doesn't necessarily follow that the opposite of a bad thing is a good thing. The argument is not that decriminalisation is a good thing. The argument is that decriminalisation is a less bad thing: less overdosing, less AIDS & hepatitis infections, less theft, less gang power. Less money spent on police, prosecutors, public defenders, judges and prisons. Less time spent training kids who have lost their way at Criminal University.

Not none. Because nobody is suggesting that doing drugs is good. But less.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone XS + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

tdgeek

21158 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1535901 19-Apr-2016 18:18

SaltyNZ:
tdgeek:

Alcohol isnt prohibited, so I assume thats been very successful. I also recall that drug legality will reduce consumption.

It doesn't necessarily follow that the opposite of a bad thing is a good thing. The argument is not that decriminalisation is a good thing. The argument is that decriminalisation is a less bad thing: less overdosing, less AIDS & hepatitis infections, less theft, less gang power. Less money spent on police, prosecutors, public defenders, judges and prisons. Less time spent training kids who have lost their way at Criminal University.

Not none. Because nobody is suggesting that doing drugs is good. But less.

I do agree. There are positives either side. How it would work is another matter. Me, I feel containment is better . Am I right ? Dunno. If it was legalised I can see two issues . Easy access to the cool, young and uninformed. Like booze. Two, the regulations will be a cost. The underworld can beat that cost so I don't think the underworld will be disenfranchised . It's just a business model change. But again that's my feelings

Fred99

10570 posts

Uber Geek

#1536229 20-Apr-2016 08:27

The Illicit Drug Monitoring System by Massey University is an annual snapshot of drug use, markets and new substances:

"The proportion of frequent drug users who could purchase methamphetamine in one hour or less increased from 51 per cent in 2011 to 76 per cent in 2014".

"Globally, methamphetamine supply networks appear to be more organised and the price of the drug in New Zealand remained stable at $681 per gram in 2014, compared to $815 per gram in 2011".

The authorities seized $72,186,000 worth of meth at the border in 2014 - you'd think that might make a dent in local supply - but no, it looks like it's become more freely available. "Recent claims of a "cannabis drought" in New Zealand are supported by the study". Wow - that might seem to be a sign of success - but it surely isn't.

So - how's the "war on drugs" been working out?

tdgeek

21158 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1536230 20-Apr-2016 08:32

Fred99:

The Illicit Drug Monitoring System by Massey University is an annual snapshot of drug use, markets and new substances:

"The proportion of frequent drug users who could purchase methamphetamine in one hour or less increased from 51 per cent in 2011 to 76 per cent in 2014".

"Globally, methamphetamine supply networks appear to be more organised and the price of the drug in New Zealand remained stable at $681 per gram in 2014, compared to $815 per gram in 2011".

The authorities seized $72,186,000 worth of meth at the border in 2014 - you'd think that might make a dent in local supply - but no, it looks like it's become more freely available. "Recent claims of a "cannabis drought" in New Zealand are supported by the study". Wow - that might seem to be a sign of success - but it surely isn't.

So - how's the "war on drugs" been working out?

I dont follow the war on drugs fallacy. Its as though a war on drugs will reduce or remove illicit drug use. Robbing banks is illegal but it happens. Anything that is illegal still happens. So its a fallacy that there is a war on drugs. If meth is $681 a gram, legal meth will be a lot cheaper, freely available, thats got to be good news and a success story

SaltyNZ

5396 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1536233 20-Apr-2016 08:36

Fred99:

So - how's the "war on drugs" been working out?

Well it means I can't buy Sudafed anymore, but at least I can still get phenylephrine. So we're definitely winning. Definitely.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone XS + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Fred99

10570 posts

Uber Geek

#1536246 20-Apr-2016 08:57

tdgeek:

Fred99:

The Illicit Drug Monitoring System by Massey University is an annual snapshot of drug use, markets and new substances:

"The proportion of frequent drug users who could purchase methamphetamine in one hour or less increased from 51 per cent in 2011 to 76 per cent in 2014".

"Globally, methamphetamine supply networks appear to be more organised and the price of the drug in New Zealand remained stable at $681 per gram in 2014, compared to $815 per gram in 2011".

The authorities seized $72,186,000 worth of meth at the border in 2014 - you'd think that might make a dent in local supply - but no, it looks like it's become more freely available. "Recent claims of a "cannabis drought" in New Zealand are supported by the study". Wow - that might seem to be a sign of success - but it surely isn't.

So - how's the "war on drugs" been working out?

I dont follow the war on drugs fallacy. Its as though a war on drugs will reduce or remove illicit drug use. Robbing banks is illegal but it happens. Anything that is illegal still happens. So its a fallacy that there is a war on drugs. If meth is $681 a gram, legal meth will be a lot cheaper, freely available, thats got to be good news and a success story

Robbing a bank is much more risky (to the perpetrator) than making vast amounts of money by selling drugs. It's also likely that those seeking to make vast fortunes by robbing banks would need to be the perpetrators - not sit back at a distance to reap vast profits as "kingpins" in a highly successful pyramid selling scheme. It also seems that most bank robberies (let alone petty property crimes) are committed by people connected to the drug trade, users needing money etc. In a bank robbery, there's also a threat of immediate violence initiated by the perpetrator, the bank workers aren't "willing participants" in a business transaction. It's not a good analogy IMO, nor do I think that organised crime syndicates would shift their operations to bank robbery if the profit was sucked from their drug business.

MikeB4

15344 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1536261 20-Apr-2016 09:15

Rikkitic:

MikeB4:

is for the collateral damage that will occur from the decriminalisation and logically the easier availability and wider usage that will bring. Further more a decision now may result in a huge mess for a future generation to fix up.

Mike, I think we already have a huge mess because of a decision taken in the past. The only reason people aren't out in the streets demanding change is because a lot of the mess is out of sight, though it is becoming increasingly visible and that will be one of the forces that finally does drive change. Think gangs in nearly every community and the violence they commit, home invasions, burglaries, health problems, limited police resources through misallocation, prison costs, the social burden, etc., etc. The list goes on and on. What I believe doesn't really matter. I am just a single lay person. But many, many other people, who are considered experts in their fields, also believe that the present system is counter-productive. And now there is apparently strong evidence that the police and presumably at least some politicians have been purposely manipulating statistics to serve their own agenda. How can anyone be expected to believe the arguments they have been making if that is indeed the case? It calls everything that has been said against decriminalisation or legalisation into question.

Can you explain to me, (genuine interest) how legalising (decriminalising) will reduce the collateral damage, family violence and other violence, etc etc?

Mike

Consultant

The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

He waka eke noa

Geektastic

14712 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1536262 20-Apr-2016 09:16

On a personal level, my view is that as an adult I can see little or no difference between consuming alcohol and consuming cannabis.

I've been legally allowed to consume alcohol for about 30 years now and generally I do not do so. Indeed, last weekend I poured 11 bottles of out of date beer down the sink, one of which had a Best Before date of 2013 on it. Last time I was in a bar, I ordered sparkling mineral water and that is what I order 99 times out of 100 when dining out too.

Ergo, access to legal alcohol has not resulted in any form of addiction.

Likewise, I will admit to the occasional joint when at school/university and thereafter but not since moving here as I know nowhere to get it. I've never so much as touched any other non-prescription drug. Ergo, using cannabis did not turn me into some sort of junkie.

I conclude therefore that were I able to go to the off licence and buy some Red Lebanese for the weekend, I may well do so and would probably enjoy it far more than the, say, bottle of vodka I could buy today (but since the only bottle of that in our cupboard is still half full and was bought for our wedding in 2006, you can see I do not contribute much money to that just now!). I would certainly contribute more in duty and taxes in this way than I do for alcohol.

Once you step beyond the odd bifta on the patio and on to the cocaine, heroin, P etc I absolutely do not condone any form of legalisation and indeed am on the fence as to whether the death penalty is the appropriate answer for people who make, import and push those seriously harmful and addictive drugs. I wonder just how much P would be made in NZ if the penalty for being caught was a long drop attached to a short rope.

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ... | 45