Personally, I think the correct response is to focus on drug use as a health issue rather than a criminal one, and to try and find the approach that results in the least harm. Not no harm - that's an unachievable pipe dream, but the least harm.

In this regard, I think the data from Portugal is instructive here. They have decriminalised pretty much everything, including the harder drugs. As I understand it, usage has fallen and not increased as a result.Plus it has become much easier for people to get treatment help, and the police and legal systems aren't clogged up with drug cases.

It's not implausible that legalisation, accompanied by stiff taxation and regulation of legal sellers wouldn't actually reduce consumption and harm here - as well as cutting law enforcement and prison costs, and raising some much needed revenue for social services along the way. I think this is almost certainly true for MJ in NZ, not sure about the lesser-used harder drugs though.

If you take the criminals out of the equation then you take away much of the associated problems. As well as a reduction in crime, as you don't have violent gangs competing for turf like prohibition-era gangsters. Plus, legal sellers will be regulated and licenced. This means that they will hopefully be more vigilant about selling to under-age people, less aggressive in pushing product (drug dealers aren't called pushers for nothing), and proper controls to ensure that the product is actually what is claimed rather than the dodgy product of someones backyard chemistry experiment.

All in all, I think I incline to the OP's position. It's wordt trying a new approach - the current one is a bit of a failure.

JimmyH:

Personally, I think the correct response is to focus on drug use as a health issue rather than a criminal one, and to try and find the approach that results in the least harm. Not no harm - that's an unachievable pipe dream, but the least harm.

In this regard, I think the data from Portugal is instructive here. They have decriminalised pretty much everything, including the harder drugs. As I understand it, usage has fallen and not increased as a result.Plus it has become much easier for people to get treatment help, and the police and legal systems aren't clogged up with drug cases.

It's not implausible that legalisation, accompanied by stiff taxation and regulation of legal sellers wouldn't actually reduce consumption and harm here - as well as cutting law enforcement and prison costs, and raising some much needed revenue for social services along the way. I think this is almost certainly true for MJ in NZ, not sure about the lesser-used harder drugs though.

If you take the criminals out of the equation then you take away much of the associated problems. As well as a reduction in crime, as you don't have violent gangs competing for turf like prohibition-era gangsters. Plus, legal sellers will be regulated and licenced. This means that they will hopefully be more vigilant about selling to under-age people, less aggressive in pushing product (drug dealers aren't called pushers for nothing), and proper controls to ensure that the product is actually what is claimed rather than the dodgy product of someones backyard chemistry experiment.

All in all, I think I incline to the OP's position. It's wordt trying a new approach - the current one is a bit of a failure.

gzt: Replacing pushers with commercial marketers I'm not sure about that part.

tdgeek:

 

So it will be unregulated and free. Unhindered by any Govt involvement over supply, quality, taxes, and so forth. How will the Govt tax it so as to obtain revenue to cater for the fallout?

 

Maybe they could reduce the funding to Police, courts, and prisons?

How does the Govt obtain revenue to cater for the fallout now?

frankv:

 

tdgeek:

 

So it will be unregulated and free. Unhindered by any Govt involvement over supply, quality, taxes, and so forth. How will the Govt tax it so as to obtain revenue to cater for the fallout?

 

 

Maybe they could reduce the funding to Police, courts, and prisons?

 

How does the Govt obtain revenue to cater for the fallout now?

 

 

 

The police don't go all out to catch MJ users. We see on prison/cop reality shows that when they turn someone away for having a roach in a car they don't stalk and arrest them. 

The criminal element will always be there, legalising MJ wont stop that, they will just compete, and if hard drugs are legalised, well thats a road to the bottom. Cheaper, easy access to hard drugs is a road to nowhere. Does the police really care about illegal MJ use? No. Do they care about suppliers and pushers? Yes, but they will always be there. Status quo lets many users use MJ, there is no need to hide in the man shed at 2am to have a joint. So use it. 

Im out of this thread, its been interesting. Good points made by many, excluding the odd negative rant.

If you want them all legalised, you need to lobby, I dont see much of that, and it all comes dow to what the voters want, and if Labour and the Greens see  again or loss in votership if they push it. In nNZ that may take a generation

Cheers all

tdgeek:

gzt: Replacing pushers with commercial marketers I'm not sure about that part.

Agree. Although they are legal pushers then? And the argument is choice, so therefore there is no pushing?

I don't think there is any "pushing" anyway - IMO that's a term which was adopted in order to demonize illegal drug dealers.  OK - so there have been cases even in NZ where young girls have been held against their will, forced to inject opiates, then once addicted sent out to work in street prostitution by pimps.  This also happened in Sydney with young boys being enticed into addiction, then sent out to "work".  It's unusual here (I hope) but probably common in certain countries. That's a whole different level of evil from dealing in drugs.  OTOH it also demonstrates the extremes that (particularly opiate) users may go to avoid going cold turkey, it's not just burglarising your house, robbing you on the street, hanging around cancer clinics to follow people home to steal their morphine, reading funeral notices where "donations to cancer society" or "after brave fight" are mentioned, then raiding houses when the funeral was on.

Decriminalisation with support services instead of wasting money on hapless and clearly ineffective enforcement will solve those issues.

As far as "pushing" goes, it's usually the reverse - habitual users are desperate buyers, not having "pushers" beating down their doors offering them whatever they want with reward points and free interest loans.  The large scale suppliers might "develop a market" by making supply available (cocaine epidemic in the US a classic example), but it didn't need salesmanship - there were millions of customers ready and waiting.

The "pushing" that does go on is social pressure to use.  That needs to change - and only education will change it.  

On the other hand, "pushing" does go on with alcohol marketing, vast sums of money are spent to convince users of the benefits, there's even a "class system" where it's very good apparently to drink single malt or Central Otago Pinot Noir, but low-rent to sup on cans of bourbon and coke RTDs.  It's all really the same stuff - flossed up with marketing BS.  Immense social pressure to use alcohol too.    Laws surrounding alcohol marketing are half-baked compromises - there's little evidence that governments would be interested in legislating to control advertising more strictly, policies which might work to reduce consumption would be immensely unpopular with voters.  It's crazy hypocrisy.

tdgeek:

 

The police don't go all out to catch MJ users. We see on prison/cop reality shows that when they turn someone away for having a roach in a car they don't stalk and arrest them. 

 

The criminal element will always be there, legalising MJ wont stop that, they will just compete, and if hard drugs are legalised, well thats a road to the bottom. Cheaper, easy access to hard drugs is a road to nowhere. Does the police really care about illegal MJ use? No. Do they care about suppliers and pushers? Yes, but they will always be there. Status quo lets many users use MJ, there is no need to hide in the man shed at 2am to have a joint. So use it. 

 

You think those shows relate to reality in some way?  They're a PR service for the Police & prisons.

Maybe the Police don't go hard out, but (a) legally at least they are required to care, and (b) they *do* spend money on chasing MJ "criminals". For example, they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each year helicoptering around the place looking for plantations, digging them out, and carting them away.

If you think it's OK to have a joint (whether at 2am in the man shed, or at 8pm in the privacy of your home), then surely it ought to be legal. The whole point of the law is to allow people to do OK things, and not allow them to do bad things.

I'm not sure anyone here is advocating legalisation of hard drugs... certainly I'm not. I don't see criminals competing in the home-brew market... I don't see why they would be able to compete in the home-grown market.

frankv:

 

tdgeek:

 

The police don't go all out to catch MJ users. We see on prison/cop reality shows that when they turn someone away for having a roach in a car they don't stalk and arrest them. 

 

The criminal element will always be there, legalising MJ wont stop that, they will just compete, and if hard drugs are legalised, well thats a road to the bottom. Cheaper, easy access to hard drugs is a road to nowhere. Does the police really care about illegal MJ use? No. Do they care about suppliers and pushers? Yes, but they will always be there. Status quo lets many users use MJ, there is no need to hide in the man shed at 2am to have a joint. So use it. 

 

 

You think those shows relate to reality in some way?  They're a PR service for the Police & prisons.

 

Maybe the Police don't go hard out, but (a) legally at least they are required to care, and (b) they *do* spend money on chasing MJ "criminals". For example, they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each year helicoptering around the place looking for plantations, digging them out, and carting them away.

 

If you think it's OK to have a joint (whether at 2am in the man shed, or at 8pm in the privacy of your home), then surely it ought to be legal. The whole point of the law is to allow people to do OK things, and not allow them to do bad things.

 

 

 

I'm not sure anyone here is advocating legalisation of hard drugs... certainly I'm not. I don't see criminals competing in the home-brew market... I don't see why they would be able to compete in the home-grown market.

 

Some are for sure.

 

 

 

 

 

tdgeek:

 

frankv:

 

 

 

I'm not sure anyone here is advocating legalisation of hard drugs... certainly I'm not. I don't see criminals competing in the home-brew market... I don't see why they would be able to compete in the home-grown market.

 

 

Some are for sure.

 

Where?  I haven't seen it in this thread.  

Perhaps you're confusing the intent/meaning of "decriminalisation" with "legalisation".

For the record, I am not in favour of blanket legalisation of all drugs, though there seem to have been some attempts here to confuse things by suggesting that. I do think some substances that are known not to cause major problems, certainly marijuana, should be immediately decriminalised and possibly legalised as soon as appropriate control measures can be put into place. I also support, at the very least, serious, objective, honest research into possible decriminalisation and control of drugs known to cause serious problems, such as methamphetamine, with the objective being to find practical ways of minimising the harm caused by these by taking them out of the illegal sphere.   

If legalisation would make drugs so expensive that criminal organisations would be able to just carry on doing business as usual, as has been argued, then it is worth asking why that is not already the case with other expensive drugs that are already legal? Tobacco certainly springs to mind, but also distilled alcoholic spirits, which are not particularly cheap. I don’t doubt some smuggling of these products already takes place, but it does not seem to occur on the scale of illegal drugs like methamphetamines and their precursors. Also, though tobacco can legally be grown for personal use and beer and wine brewed, there does not seem to be much of a black market for these things. Logically this suggests to me that legalisation would undermine any illegal supply that currently exists, even if the substances are highly taxed. I simply don’t believe the argument that making drugs legal will also make them so expensive that criminals will remain motivated to supply them illegally. The huge profits that currently drive this trade will no longer exist.

Fred99:

 

tdgeek:

 

frankv:

 

 

 

I'm not sure anyone here is advocating legalisation of hard drugs... certainly I'm not. I don't see criminals competing in the home-brew market... I don't see why they would be able to compete in the home-grown market.

 

 

Some are for sure.

 

 

 

 

Where?  I haven't seen it in this thread.  

 

Perhaps you're confusing the intent/meaning of "decriminalisation" with "legalisation".

 

From just the first 5 pages

marijuana at the least should be decriminalised

My title comes from the 'war on drugs' that was declared by Richard Nixon and again by Nancy Reagan and has recently been used in other publications, which I was effectively quoting. They coined it, not me, and they and people like them saw no difference whatsoever between a joint and shooting up heroin,

I think _all_ drugs should be decriminalized

I think it must be clear to everyone that I do believe all drug use should be decriminalised and regulated

So you believe Methamphetamines and similar should be legalised?

What I would like to see is a cautious graduated policy, probably starting with an easing towards decriminalisation of marijuana, with careful steps in between to see how each stage goes before moving on to the next.

Preventing sharing of syringes and collecting them for proper disposal could also have important health benefits for the rest of the community.

I'm not sure what the point of the above post is. None of the statements quoted advocates the legalisation of hard drugs, which I assume from the bolded text is the issue being disputed.