Nope to dope or toot toot?

Forums › Politics › Nope to dope or toot toot?

Handle9

4750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#275996 21-Sep-2020 05:39

What are you going to vote in the cannibis referendum?

I'll probably vote for legalisation but without feeling either choice is a positive.

Prohibition clearly is a total waste of time, weed is incredibly easy to buy and policing it is a waste of time. Equally there will probably be more use once it is legal. The only way it's really be positive would be if it reduced alcohol being consumed.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 16

5686 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Microsoft

#2568894 21-Sep-2020 06:10

Voting yes. Legalize it, alcohol is

I expect it to fail though. NZ seems to be unusually conservative on that particular issue.

I've lived 6 years under medical now legalized in Washington State and society hasn't fallen apart because of the devils cabbage.

populism, the most important and misunderstood movement of our time

dwilson

141 posts

Master Geek

#2568898 21-Sep-2020 06:45

I'm voting on whether I want controls wrapped around cannabis sales. Do I want people buying it to buy it from safe locations. Do I want it taxed. Do I want police time to be spent on something other than dope. Do I want to strip gangs of a revenue stream. Do I want equity and fairness?

Easiest yes vote for me.

I also expect it to fail, I talk to many older people, they think they're voting on whether to allow cannabis to exist.

Zero-interest in smoking it myself.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
12931 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2568963 21-Sep-2020 08:33

People against it think it's about dope. People for it think it's about social justice and common sense. I will vote for it.

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

Fred99

11128 posts

Uber Geek

#2568968 21-Sep-2020 08:55

dwilson:

I also expect it to fail, I talk to many older people, they think they're voting on whether to allow cannabis to exist.

Curiously, many of the older people I know (my peers) are for decriminalisation and will vote yes.

I'd say the most resistant to decriminalisation are parents of children, unaware that whether it's legalised or not, if their kids are inclined to use drugs they will regardless of the law just as they have for the past 50 years of the failed "war on drugs", that it would remain illegal for under 20 age group, and that the frequent shortage of supply of weed is used by organised crime syndicates (gangs) to push far more profitable, harmful and addictive drugs.

MikeAqua

6058 posts

Uber Geek

#2569109 21-Sep-2020 11:32

It's a tough decision.

The rational part of my brain easily says "yes".

The emotional part says I've lost friends to it. I've dismissed that as prohibition didn't protect them from harm.

The competitive/parochial part says it would be amusing to see the Greens out of that parliament (currently feasible) and the referenda they have been wanting for decades come back with a resounding "no".

Probably, the rational part will win.

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
12931 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2569143 21-Sep-2020 12:33

Alcohol was once banned. The ban was removed because it did more harm than good. The same applies here. I suspect many people who vote no will do so because cannabis has been vilified for so long that it is just hard to accept all that was wrong. How can it not be bad if so many people having been saying so for so many years?

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

Oldmanakbar

101 posts

Master Geek

#2569148 21-Sep-2020 12:48

Voting yes. It is just common sense really.

Varkk

458 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

#2569343 21-Sep-2020 14:31

Fred99:

dwilson:

I also expect it to fail, I talk to many older people, they think they're voting on whether to allow cannabis to exist.

Curiously, many of the older people I know (my peers) are for decriminalisation and will vote yes.

I'd say the most resistant to decriminalisation are parents of children, unaware that whether it's legalised or not, if their kids are inclined to use drugs they will regardless of the law just as they have for the past 50 years of the failed "war on drugs", that it would remain illegal for under 20 age group, and that the frequent shortage of supply of weed is used by organised crime syndicates (gangs) to push far more profitable, harmful and addictive drugs.

I think usage among teenagers dropped off significantly in the places which legalised it. First the shops have a strong incentive to not get caught selling to under-aged customers as that puts their license at risk. Black market dealers don't care about that. Secondly it apparently lost its cool bad-boy image when it became legal.

Handle9

4750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2571526 21-Sep-2020 19:38

Fred99:

dwilson:

I also expect it to fail, I talk to many older people, they think they're voting on whether to allow cannabis to exist.

Curiously, many of the older people I know (my peers) are for decriminalisation and will vote yes.

I'd say the most resistant to decriminalisation are parents of children, unaware that whether it's legalised or not, if their kids are inclined to use drugs they will regardless of the law just as they have for the past 50 years of the failed "war on drugs", that it would remain illegal for under 20 age group, and that the frequent shortage of supply of weed is used by organised crime syndicates (gangs) to push far more profitable, harmful and addictive drugs.

One of the stranger arguments I've seen is that even if the age limit is 20 that younger people will find a way to get access to it. What do people think happens now? Your local illegal pot dealer is only too happy so sell to a 15 year old. They certainly were when I was young enough to be mucking around with this stuff.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
12931 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2571533 21-Sep-2020 19:55

S. S. Strickland : Is that liquor I smell Tannen?

Young Biff : Ahhh, I wouldn't know. I don't know what liquor smells like, cuz I'm too young to drink it.

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

sen8or

993 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2571864 22-Sep-2020 10:57

I'm a no.

Would be all good if it was for medicinal (I have 2 relatives that have used it for pain following cancer treatment) and it was far superior to prescription meds, but legalization for recreational use is a step too far.

I understand the rationale for taxing it, legislating who, where and when can buy it, but the argument that "alcohol is legal" is pretty weak.

Alcohol is already well documented in the social harm it causes, domestic violence, social dis-order, drink/driving etc etc, saying that we already accept that harm, so we should accept the potential harm from dope is in my opinion baseless.

Is it a "gateway drug" to other drugs, really not sure. 2 other relatives started on dope, one has progressed to other harder drugs, the other hasn't (as far as I am aware) and the one that has now has mental health issues. Would they have been susceptible to the mental health issues and/or harder drugs anyway, no way to know for certain.

I remember when the drinking age was dropped from 21 to 18 partly "because the 18 year olds were drinking anyway", principal difference I observed was that a 21 year old is likely to be in a friend group of between 18 & say 25 and sure, they may well buy drinks for their 18year old friends, but now, an 18 year old is likely to be in a friend group of 15-20+ and they may well be buying drinks for the 15 year old friends. Whats next, drop the drinking age to 15 "because they are drinking anyway"? Mentally there is a world of difference between the maturity of an 18 year old and a 15 year old.

Also, how long does the presence of THC in your blood system impair cognitive function? How much is "safe" from a workplace health & safety perspective?

There are legal limits around % of alcohol as the effects on its impairment are well researched and documented. Has dope gone through the same rigor? How much THC would you want in the bus driver driving your kids to school?

I accept that employers are able to set their own rules around this (e.g. the bus driver would have zero alcohol limit), but if THC takes longer to clear the system than alcohol, someone who sparks up on a saturday may not be legally able to work for x days, then what "dope leave"?

Both my children know how and would have easy access to dope now through students at their school (which is apparently well known for its dope culture), neither have any interest of which I am pleased. I accept that it is already a part of our society, but by not legalising it, we are at least (somewhat) constraining it with a level of societal dis-approval

MurrayM

1995 posts

Uber Geek

#2571884 22-Sep-2020 11:35

I'm 100% in favour of making it available for medicinal purposes, but that isn't a consideration with this referendum because it's already legally available for medicinal use.

I think that weed is definitely a lot more harmful than many supporters want us to believe. I'd like to vote to legalise it as I don't think people should have criminal records simply because they possessed some years ago, but I have serious reservations about the outcome of legalising it.

Supporters say that it will free up the Police to fight real crime, but I don't think this will happen. If you read the proposed laws there will be a whole heap of new regulations around how much you're allowed to buy and possess per day, how many plants you're allowed to grow, age limits, the maximum strength you're allowed, where you're allowed to consume it, etc. Who is going to police all these new rules? Presumably the Police will be given the job, so if anything it sounds like they'll have a whole lot more to do!

Supporters also say that it will stop the gangs from selling it, but I don't think this will happen. With all the new regulations that will need to be adhered to, licenses that need to be obtained, GST that needs to be collected, retail costs (shop rent, staff wages, packaging, etc) the retail cost of weed will be a lot more than people are currently paying for it now. People that can't afford it, or simply don't want to pay three times the old price, will simply go back to their old suppliers (who don't have all the overheads of abiding by regulations, collecting GST, running a shop, etc) and so the gangs will continue to sell weed.

So while I do think legalising weed is a good thing, I don't think that the proposed legislation will solve all the problems that supporters are saying it will.

Fred99

11128 posts

Uber Geek

#2571927 22-Sep-2020 12:26

MurrayM:

I think that weed is definitely a lot more harmful than many supporters want us to believe.

I'm sure that it's a lot less harmful than has been argued for 50 years. With a proviso - until synaptic pruning is complete - then young people are susceptible to long-term harm (or change in behaviour) from any psychoactive substance, which is why generally we don't even give kids coffee, booze

It's far less dangerous than booze, in terms of short and long-term health effects, potential for addiction, and particularly behaviour when under the influence - alcohol is a disinhibitor, cannabis tends to have the opposite effect. Alcohol makes many people over-confident, loud, and to lash out. Cannabis tends to make people introverted and cautious when "high".

The "gateway" effect is mainly myth. Part truth due to black-market distribution where you'd be in contact with criminal organisations to buy cannabis, and those criminal organisations would also likely have harmful/addictive and higher profit product for sale.

The gateway drug is alcohol. It's everywhere, widely accepted as a normal part of social life, it is habit forming, and as it disinhibits / promotes risk taking - after a couple of drinks anyone could succumb to peer pressure to try something else.

Anyway - voting "no" is a mistake. The war on drugs has failed - far more people are using illicit drugs than when the "war" was declared, the black market has resulted in infinite harm to society, increased petty crime, people locked up in prisons for addiction (a medical problem - should not be a legal problem), increased disease burden, murdering drug syndicates, demonised users hence no political will to support and fund rehabilitation.

It was all a serious mistake - and needs to be reversed.

Fred99

11128 posts

Uber Geek

#2571931 22-Sep-2020 12:30

I see a few posts repeating "reefer madness" myths and propaganda.

You need to think harder, and if it's all too confusing and you can't decide which way to vote, then don't vote at all. Casting a "no" vote is voting to continue a harmful, failed, immensely stupid set of policies.

sen8or

993 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2571938 22-Sep-2020 12:33

The shops are already in place, you think the vape stores are set up to sell vaping products to hipsters? They will almost all of them be turned into legal cannabis shops pretty much the instant that the legislation is signed off by the Gov General, that covers the legal aspects around the sale (tax collection, who, what, where, when etc).

As for the retail price of a tinny? who knows. Last I heard it was around $20 but thats years ago so could be completely off base.

Are buyers going to want a watered down version of their favourite weed when they can get full strength, cheaper?

Also, who is going to get prosecuted if you do buy from the blackmarket? Right now, it would be both buyer and seller, for any effective way of discouraging the black market, this would surely have to continue. But as it would be legal to possess cannabis, can it be legislated that only cannabis purchased or grown through the right channels is legal? How do they prove otherwise?

Such a complex issue

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 16