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 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 25

Networkn
32204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2582896 12-Oct-2020 10:08

*should* be and *will* be, are two different things. The problem is, we are dealing with many unknowns right now. There is no real certainty about what the outcome of legalization is. There are guesses based on what other countries have done. We are a country that has a real problem with binge culture.

I'll be exceptionally surprised if the final price of legal weed in NZ is $10 a gram. I'll also be incredibly surprised if the money we "get" from legalizing weed, even covers the cost of compliance and regulation.

I am genuinely torn. I think there are real problems with the existing system, but I have serious doubts if legalization will solve them in any meaningful way. Decriminilzing it would have been a really good first step, but voting no, kicks this current problem probably a long way down the road.

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2582917 12-Oct-2020 10:31

Again, look overseas. Even if legalisation isn't ideal, I don't believe it will open the portals to hell. We need to keep the discussion proportionate.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2582919 12-Oct-2020 10:34

Rikkitic:

Again, look overseas. Even if legalisation isn't ideal, I don't believe it will open the portals to hell. We need to keep the discussion proportionate.

Plenty has gone wrong with overseas implementation, and we are hardly batting 100 here for implementation of policy lately (and since it looks likely that we will end up with another 3 years of the same crew.....), and we are a different country to pretty much most others who have gone down this route. We have serious issues with alcohol here, we don't really control our impulses in NZ.

It may go perfectly as the yes proponents suggest, I have considerably less faith.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2582925 12-Oct-2020 10:41

networkn:

Decriminilzing it would have been a really good first step, but voting no, kicks this current problem probably a long way down the road.

NZ might find itself an outlier - it's been decriminalised/legalised in many countries.

networkn

Networkn
32204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2582929 12-Oct-2020 10:46

Fred99:

networkn:

Decriminilzing it would have been a really good first step, but voting no, kicks this current problem probably a long way down the road.

NZ might find itself an outlier - it's been decriminalised/legalised in many countries.

So?

We need to do what's right for NZ, not just do what everone else has done. If we followed the example of the countries you mentioned, in their COVID reponse, where would we be now? Decriminalization sure beats nothing.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2582934 12-Oct-2020 10:54

networkn:

So?

We need to do what's right for NZ, not just do what everone else has done. If we followed the example of the countries you mentioned, in their COVID reponse, where would we be now? Decriminalization sure beats nothing.

Covid kills innocent people - cannabis doesn't.

You also seem to assume that I'm in favour of "full legalisation" - when I'd rather just see it decriminalised (but not commercialised).

The referendum was a very bad idea, it's provoked knee-jerk responses from extremists.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2582937 12-Oct-2020 10:55

Supply/demand. The market economy. The demand is there so it will attract the supply. You can choose to meet that demand with a regulated product or leave it to the free market with no controls at all on quality, potency, bad people in the supply chain, zero tax benefit, etc. etc.

No, the logic is not the same as legalising meth. The undisputed damage that does is such that it has to be met with strong measures. Regardless of how you spin it, this argument does not apply to cannabis.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2583057 12-Oct-2020 11:52

Fred99:

Covid kills innocent people - cannabis doesn't.

You also seem to assume that I'm in favour of "full legalisation" - when I'd rather just see it decriminalised (but not commercialised).

Well, I guess you are excluding cannabis related vehicle deaths.

The fact there is no roadside test for cannabis after all this time, when there is clearly a commercial need, says the issue isn't as simple as someone would have you believe.

Re Your position; Well, your approach to this topic does tend to be pretty aggressive.

The referendum was a very bad idea, it's provoked knee-jerk responses from extremists.

Well, extremists from both sides quite obviously. I disagree the referendum was a bad idea, I think the problem was they only offered all or nothing. If they offered decriminzation, it would have been a almost certain landslide yes.

Sidestep

1013 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2583061 12-Oct-2020 12:00

networkn:

Well, I guess you are excluding cannabis related vehicle deaths.

The fact there is no roadside test for cannabis after all this time, when there is clearly a commercial need, says the issue isn't as simple as someone would have you believe.

There are plenty of roadside tests for cannabis - and other drugs.

Their application in New Zealand will be at least partially addressed by Julie Anne Genter's Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2583085 12-Oct-2020 12:50

networkn:

Well, I guess you are excluding cannabis related vehicle deaths.

The fact there is no roadside test for cannabis after all this time, when there is clearly a commercial need, says the issue isn't as simple as someone would have you believe.

Can you actually cite any statistics for this? Has cannabis driving actually caused any deaths? How many? As I mentioned before, the safety ads with the girl holding the signs did mention cannabis in relation to a couple of fatalities, but these also cited alcohol as a factor. Alcohol is always going to have a much bigger effect than cannabis will, and we do have very good roadside tests for that. I am not aware of any road fatality figures on cannabis use alone, and if there are not, then you can't speak of "cannabis related vehicle deaths".

There seems to be an assumption in your arguments, and those of others, that the choice is between a perfect state of affairs at present, and all the problems that legal cannabis will bring. The reality is that all the problems cannabis brings are already with us. Keeping it illegal doesn't magically solve anything. The hope and expectation, supported by considerable evidence, is that making it legal will improve at least some things. It won't make them worse. What will make them worse is keeping it as it is.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2583089 12-Oct-2020 13:02

Well, a quick google:

https://saynopetodope.org.nz/driving-stoned/

PEDESTRIAN FATALITIES
While many factors contribute to pedestrian fatalities, it turns out that states that legalized marijuana for medical and/or recreational use saw a 16.4 percent surge in such deaths in the first six months of 2017 compared to the first six months of 2016, while nonlegal states saw a drop of 5.8 percent in pedestrian fatalities over the same time.

Chad Britton (16) was standing next to a parked car when he was hit in 2014. He died from his injuries. The district attorney’s office said the driver, Brandon Cullip, who was 17-years-old at the time, had been smoking marijuana and had been warned by friends in his car that he was too high to drive when he hit Britton.

DEATHS
Since recreational marijuana was legalised in Colorado, marijuana related traffic deaths increased 151%, more than doubling from 55 in 2013 to 138 people killed in 2017. The percent of traffic fatalities that involved drivers intoxicated with marijuana in Colorado rose by 86% between 2013 and 2017, with over one-fifth of all traffic fatalities involving a driver testing positive for marijuana by 2017 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2006-2011; Colorado Department of Transportation, 2012-2017).

Blurtie

463 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2583092 12-Oct-2020 13:10

For those that missed it, there was a panel discussion show on Three last week that (I thought) provided some good info/context on this issue from both sides - the panel included former PM Helen Clark, former deputy PM Paula Bennett, Juliet Gerrard (PM's chief science advisor), Parent ambassador Petra Bagust just to name a few (it also included academics, experts, former police offices, a school principal etc.)

My main take home message was that it seems both camps were in agreement that cannabis + young people is bad. The 'no' camp essentially just said that voting yes would make it more accessible to them, while the yes camp argued that it voting yes would provide more control on what they had access to (as it's already out there). The R20 was just selected as you had to start at some place, the evidence suggested that 18-21 was okay..

They had a couple people on telling their own personal stories of their experience with cannabis - the first was a guy who started using really young which then basically led to him to disengage from society and mental health issues. Not surprisingly, his own personal experience has left him in the "no" camp. To me - he's not really an example of your typical cannabis user, he was an extreme example of what can go wrong if you use the drug young and abuse it. There are going to be a few in society that head down this path with any substance - be it alcohol or gambling. Maybe I'm being naïve, but I'm sure the vast majority will be responsible. I'm not sure if he ever got arrested/convicted or if he sought help to address his abuse problem (or if friends and/or family tried to as well), but I would think that since it was illegal that it may have been a deterrent for him seeking that assistance - if any was available. By all accounts, he seems to be addressing his problems now and getting his life back on track. To my mind, education and providing a health based response would have been the best course of action for this guy (and any others who head down this path) - but it would be wrong to think that all cannabis users end up doing what this guy has done.

The second was a middle aged lady who was convicted for selling cannabis in order to "put food on the table" for her family, her experience of the criminal justice system has left her in the yes camp. Again not really a great example either. They also had a grower who wanted to use his skills for legitimate purposes. This raised an interesting point that you could have a new industry of 'craft growers' in the same vein as you have craft breweries..

Some other points I found interesting - the daily limit of 14gms was acknowledged to be quite high, but it's not envisaged that a single person would be able to consume that amount in a day. It was aimed more towards people who preferred buying in bulk to consume over weeks/months - i.e. for rural communities who may not be able to commute regularly to towns/cities to purchase.

There's also restrictions on where shops can be opened/operated - i.e. not by a church, school etc. They're not allowed to advertise/promote or offer Briscoe's style sales, in terms of edibles they're not allowed to produce products like gummy lollies that would interest kids. Amsterdam style coffee shops are also not allowed under the proposed bill.

All this of course is still open for further debate at the select committee stage - should it get through. Which I hope it does, as that is the best place for the questions/uncertainties from both camps to be heard, with experts and evidence to support each argument.

networkn

Networkn
32204 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2583093 12-Oct-2020 13:12

Suggesting that I am in anyway saying the current state of affairs is perfect is ridiculous and a gross misrepresentation of the statements I have made, including those which state outright, that the current situation isn't good enough, and one of my issues with voting no, is that we will abandon solving the issues that are currently faced. I fully support actions which will meaningfully solve some of the issues that are currently a problem, but that I don't feel the current bill/legalization proposal will actually solve many if any, and that the proposed pros of this bill will actually ever eventuate.

I am frustrated that the Greens have yet again made this a all or nothing situation, as they often do with issues. This is extremely offputting behaviour and one of the reasons I think they are important for the country, but only in smallish doses.

I really hope, that if this does not pass, that whoever is in Government, does not take this as a signal to abandon the issue entirely, but instead continues to work on alternative ways to solve the issues that exist today.

Anyways, I don't think there is much more to be said, so I am going to opt out here, as these threads do tend to devolve over time.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2583124 12-Oct-2020 14:38

networkn:

Well, a quick google:

https://saynopetodope.org.nz/driving-stoned/

That's an openly "anti-cannabis" site that cherry-picks data to try to make a point.

There's a wikipedia page on the subject which is probably far less biased.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_and_impaired_driving

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18581 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2583153 12-Oct-2020 15:22

networkn:

Well, a quick google:

https://saynopetodope.org.nz/driving-stoned/

PEDESTRIAN FATALITIES
While many factors contribute to pedestrian fatalities, it turns out that states that legalized marijuana for medical and/or recreational use saw a 16.4 percent surge in such deaths in the first six months of 2017 compared to the first six months of 2016, while nonlegal states saw a drop of 5.8 percent in pedestrian fatalities over the same time.

Chad Britton (16) was standing next to a parked car when he was hit in 2014. He died from his injuries. The district attorney’s office said the driver, Brandon Cullip, who was 17-years-old at the time, had been smoking marijuana and had been warned by friends in his car that he was too high to drive when he hit Britton.

DEATHS
Since recreational marijuana was legalised in Colorado, marijuana related traffic deaths increased 151%, more than doubling from 55 in 2013 to 138 people killed in 2017. The percent of traffic fatalities that involved drivers intoxicated with marijuana in Colorado rose by 86% between 2013 and 2017, with over one-fifth of all traffic fatalities involving a driver testing positive for marijuana by 2017 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2006-2011; Colorado Department of Transportation, 2012-2017).

There is too much stuff here to go through in detail in just a few minutes, but I did a quick scan and I would make a couple of points:

First, the organisation presenting this information clearly has a conservative bias and is pursuing an agenda to make a point. There is nothing wrong with that and they are up-front about it, but it does mean that their 'data' should at least be fact-checked if you want to build a clear picture of their claims.

Most of the data they draw on seems to come from a series of 'papers' by an organisation called 'RMHIDTA'. This seems to be a War on Drugs propaganda body set up by the federal government. The papers adopt a quasi-academic presentation style to give themselves an appearance of legitimacy, but they lack the rigour and objectivity of true research. They do not provide any citations or references for the figures they present and that alone is suspect. Any reputable publication would include this information. They do quote a New York Times article from 2014, as well as other sources. The article starts out making statements that seem to support the most alarming claims, but if you read all of it, it becomes much more nuanced and informative in the main body of the text, and at the end it basically says that the jury is still out.

The boy who killed a pedestrian while high was 17 years old. He was breaking the law. The minimum age there for consuming cannabis is 21 years, similar to our own proposed law.

The death figures given are not correct. They are based on 'interpreted' data. Which is not to say there are no deaths, just that they are made to look as bad as possible. Of course any deaths are a tragedy, but blaming this on the substance abused rather than the abuser creates a false picture. A teenager who smokes and drives is no different from a teenager who drinks and drives. It is not the cannabis that causes the abuse and easy availability is not likely to be an issue, as it is already widely available in New Zealand.

Here is a different view of the same material. This publication is also pushing an agenda so is also unlikely to be completely objective. But if it doesn't present the whole picture, neither does the other, and simply clinging to the one that feeds your own prejudices achieves little.

Damned statistics can always be manipulated to prove whatever point you want them to. You have to dig to get at the real information. I could go through the site in depth and fact-check all the examples presented, but it would take more time and energy than I have to devote to it. Believe what you like, but be aware of who is whispering in your ear.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 25