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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 25

463 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2573480 24-Sep-2020 13:03

floydbloke:

What I'm taking from the couple of posts above is that the public are being asked to vote in a referendum without being fully informed what the consequences could or will be. That's a fundamental flaw I feel (although I don't know what the better alternative would be). Some similarities to the Brexit vote in the UK here perhaps??

Rikkitic:

I don't see the problem here. When a law change is proposed, people have a voice through the submissions process. That will also be the case with this. The referendum is an extra layer that doesn't normally happen. People aren't being asked to vote on anything except whether the law change should be considered.

Yes I agree with Rikkitic, generally the public don't get a vote/referendum on whether laws should be changed. The government usually only kicks off the process to change laws based on reviews that have been commissioned (or from a public petiton with tonnes of votes or some other bad news media story), the public don't get involved until the select committee stage. If it does get to that stage (i.e. the yes votes win) I think that's the appropriate forum to air out all your concerns and possibly get the answers you need on how the legislation attempts to reduce the harm/risk. Of course, as alluded to earlier, I don't think everyone will be 100% happy with the law (if it does get through). But there will be opportunities to tweak it if there are any issues..

But it does beg the question, whose responsibility is it to be informed here? The public or the govt? I think the govt are trying to stay somewhat neutral here, they probably shouldn't be seen to sway public opinion in such matters. I'm sure if you dig deep enough, you'll be to find all the info you need to make your decision.

Handle9

11265 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2573533 24-Sep-2020 14:43

Rikkitic:
I don't see the problem here. When a law change is proposed, people have a voice through the submissions process. That will also be the case with this. The referendum is an extra layer that doesn't normally happen. People aren't being asked to vote on anything except whether the law change should be considered.

The "problem" is common to most referenda, and politics in general. The vast majority of people are not informed to an even basic level so don't really understand what they're voting for or against.

The lack of engagement isn't exactly easy to fix.

Handle9

11265 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2573537 24-Sep-2020 14:47

Blurtie:
But it does beg the question, whose responsibility is it to be informed here? The public or the govt? I think the govt are trying to stay somewhat neutral here, they probably shouldn't be seen to sway public opinion in such matters. I'm sure if you dig deep enough, you'll be to find all the info you need to make your decision.

The information is all there and very easy to find. The referendum website has both referenda explained and there are FAQs and any number of other documents.

Once you look there's a ton of information but you have to make an effort. The government can't really change that IMO.

MurrayM

2449 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2574053 25-Sep-2020 09:49

At the moment I'm sitting on the fence. I agree that what we have at the moment doesn't work well, but I'm hesitant to make it legal and let the genie out of the bottle. Some people argue that alcohol is legal so cannabis should be too, but we now know a lot more about alcohol and the harm it causes to individuals and society than we did 50 or 100 years ago. I'm worried that in 50 years time we might look back and wonder how on earth we could have ever thought that making cannabis legal was a good idea. Scientists in 2070 will say that back in 2020 we simply didn't know about this or that harmful affect and we didn't have long-term 50+ year studies that showed how continual use of cannabis affects the brain and what affects widespread use has on society. This is pretty much what happened with smoking, where back in 1930's-50's doctors would actually recommend cigarettes and say they were healthy in tobacco advertising. Are we in a similar situation now where we don't fully appreciate the health implications?

Handle9:

Incidentally if the referendum is successful the final bill will still go through the select committee process and be subject to a normal vote in parliament. If the Greens and Labour form the government then I'd expect it to become law, National have already said they would not support it.

I'd expect to see quite widespread participation in the select committee hearings and some changes made based on the submissions.

The fact that changes might be made to the legislation isn't a great comfort to me. I remember the government saying that it was important that people knew what they were voting for in the referendum, and that's why they spent a lot of time drafting the proposed legislation. I might very well vote Yes but only because I agree with the proposed legislation that the sale of cannabis should be restricted to people aged 20+. I'm not sure I want to take the risk that after the referendum is held the government might turn around and say "well, you know what, the legal age of buying alcohol is 18 so it would be easier and less confusing for everybody if we made that the age for buying cannabis too".

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2574075 25-Sep-2020 10:17

MurrayM:

I'm worried that in 50 years time we might look back and wonder how on earth we could have ever thought that making cannabis legal was a good idea. Scientists in 2070 will say that back in 2020 we simply didn't know about this or that harmful affect and we didn't have long-term 50+ year studies that showed how continual use of cannabis affects the brain and what affects widespread use has on society.

Same can be said for just about any "new" substance used in industry, pharmaceuticals, etc. The evidence on cannabis suggests that compared to alcohol, it's relatively harmless, similar addictive potential as caffeine - but less risky in terms of ratio between "therapeutic" dose and lethal dose.

But it's been used for thousands of years. When evidence of "inexplicable" (because prehistoric) behaviour is found, the default explanation is usually to apply some deep religious purpose. Maybe it was much more mundane - and used because people enjoyed the effect.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18603 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2574088 25-Sep-2020 10:43

MurrayM:

I'm hesitant to make it legal and let the genie out of the bottle.

Many people share this doubt. The problem is, the genie is already out of the bottle. Cannabis is the most available 'illegal' substance in New Zealand. Any kid, any age, who wants to, can get it. Probably it is at least as widely used as tobacco is, maybe even more. It is easier for a young person to buy than spray paint or glue. Everyone knows someone who knows someone who can access it.

The idea that the legal status of cannabis makes any difference to its availability and use is false reassurance. All it does is make it less visible. It is sweeping the issue under the carpet.

Legalising it brings it out of the shadows. This makes it easier to identify and control abuse. It removes the thrill of doing something that isn't allowed. It doesn't solve the issue completely, but it helps.

Any kid who wants to smoke cannabis can and will. The only thing that can prevent that is education and adult supervision. Supervision doesn't mean locking your kids up, which isn't possible anyway. It means talking to them, setting an example, explaining why it matters, giving them the tools they need to make the right decisions. It also means not freaking out when they do try a joint. Experimentation is part of being young. That already happens on a large scale. One joint won't hurt them. Doing it every night will.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Blurtie

463 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2574140 25-Sep-2020 11:52

Fred99:

MurrayM:

I'm worried that in 50 years time we might look back and wonder how on earth we could have ever thought that making cannabis legal was a good idea. Scientists in 2070 will say that back in 2020 we simply didn't know about this or that harmful affect and we didn't have long-term 50+ year studies that showed how continual use of cannabis affects the brain and what affects widespread use has on society.

Same can be said for just about any "new" substance used in industry, pharmaceuticals, etc. The evidence on cannabis suggests that compared to alcohol, it's relatively harmless, similar addictive potential as caffeine - but less risky in terms of ratio between "therapeutic" dose and lethal dose.

But it's been used for thousands of years. When evidence of "inexplicable" (because prehistoric) behaviour is found, the default explanation is usually to apply some deep religious purpose. Maybe it was much more mundane - and used because people enjoyed the effect.

Just to add to Fred's comment, I do understand the concerns around not knowing what will happen in the future but as with most things you can't predict with absolute certainty what will happen 50, 70 or 100 years down the line (apart from death and taxes...). There's always going to be an inherent unknown. While the risk is mitigated with new drugs by clinical studies/trials etc, you still can't be certain what will happen once that drug/substance is released to the general public. You can only go off the best evidence at the time.

If it does get legalised, I'm sure there will be further studies conducted to show both the harm and benefits. It will then be for authorities to review the literature and decide whether to change the laws. But based on the current evidence I've seen, I don't think there is any compelling evidence to sway me into voting no.

I'd be interested to hear what you mean by 'widespread use'. It seems you mean that you think a lot more of the population will use it if is legalised? As I said previously, just because something is legal, does not mean that everyone will use it. I would put it to you that it's already widely used here in NZ... But regardless if you agree or not, you only have to look at the Netherlands to see how they've coped with more relaxed laws around cannabis (while technically no legal there). They seem to be doing alright as a whole.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

MurrayM

2449 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2574152 25-Sep-2020 12:08

Blurtie:

But regardless if you agree or not, you only have to look at the Netherlands to see how they've coped with more relaxed laws around cannabis (while technically no legal there). They seem to be doing alright as a whole.

If the Netherlands is seen as a success story, then why don't we do what they do and keep it illegal but tolerated?

Blurtie

463 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2574161 25-Sep-2020 12:20

MurrayM:

Blurtie:

But regardless if you agree or not, you only have to look at the Netherlands to see how they've coped with more relaxed laws around cannabis (while technically no legal there). They seem to be doing alright as a whole.

If the Netherlands is seen as a success story, then why don't we do what they do and keep it illegal but tolerated?

I meant more in the context of their society rather than the way they've done it. But you raise a good point, and I'm not entirely sure of the answer as to why they haven't legalised it. Without knowing the exact system they have there and how the coffee shops are run or whether there are any rules to follow, it seems to me that that's not the best system to adopt..

In my view legislation would provide greater clarity for consumers, manufactures and society in general.

MurrayM

2449 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2574206 25-Sep-2020 13:16

Headlines like the one that appeared today, Police investigating video of man smoking weed while driving on Auckland motorway, certainly don't help the Yes campaign:

The unknown man posted the footage on web forum Reddit on Thursday, showing a confrontation between him and another driver - who he refers to as "Karen".

In the video the man has a brief and bizarre shouted conversation with the female driver which, as he explains in the comments, came about because he was driving stoned and passed her because he felt she was driving too slowly.

But I must say that the well-presented arguments for legalisation that have been presented in this thread have caused me to have a re-think on my position, so I thank you all for making me reexamine my convictions. So nice to have an earnest discussion without it degenerating into a slanging match.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2574324 25-Sep-2020 15:33

Here's the Reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/iz4ake/stoner_caught_driving_dangerously_on_the_motorway/

More likely a rolled cigarette, and very much a stupid wind-up.

networkn

Networkn
32245 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2575103 28-Sep-2020 10:44

dejadeadnz:

If this was about decriminalisation, I would vote yes in a heartbeat. But currently inclined to vote no.

I am surprised by this (I am not having a potshot) and would like to know why ?

arcon

423 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2575430 28-Sep-2020 16:14

Rikkitic:

The idea that the legal status of cannabis makes any difference to its availability and use is false reassurance.

Are you suggesting no one will start growing at home at all? And that everyone existing and new growers would abide by growth limitations, and that none of those increases will be distributed therefore increasing availability... ?

I'm against having a grow at home aspect to the bill which contradicts the commercial potential of a cannabis industry. I'm not against that or cannabis for adults, but I've seen the damage this has done to teenagers so am extra cautious in that regard. Any parent supervision argument needs to take into account that there are so many bad parents ie. they are the problem and will never be able to set a good example. So every time easier access to a substance comes around I don't think "people are going to do it anyway" is anything but a dangerous over-simplification of the issue. It is certainly not something a politician should say when claiming to want a "mature discussion".

The grow at home aspect looks like a backdoor for Chloe's more extreme base saying "Don't worry, we know its impossible to police growing it at home so grow as much as you want, and you won't have to pay for it. F^&* kiwi business and thanks for voting Green!" Then when I see her try and draw a parallel to safety with brewing alcohol at home.... really??? Yeah teenagers are not stupid and very few go to that kind of effort to brew something which tastes like cat piss.

I'm open to a bill that is less of an open floodgates situation... this could've been handled a lot better if a rookie politician wasn't so stubborn. I voted for the coalition but its not the first time they've acted like this and had the people shoot down policy.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2575498 28-Sep-2020 17:03

arcon:

I'm against having a grow at home aspect to the bill which contradicts the commercial potential of a cannabis industry.

Wait... what???

Alcohol has "commercial potential" and it's highly "normalised" through advertising, product placement etc, I really don't think home brewers increase overall harm.

My real fear about a possible cannabis "industry" is that they'll behave as the alcohol industry does - which is not good, they do their best to sell as much as they can.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18603 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2575512 28-Sep-2020 17:46

arcon:

Are you suggesting no one will start growing at home at all? And that everyone existing and new growers would abide by growth limitations, and that none of those increases will be distributed therefore increasing availability... ?

I'm against having a grow at home aspect to the bill which contradicts the commercial potential of a cannabis industry. I'm not against that or cannabis for adults, but I've seen the damage this has done to teenagers so am extra cautious in that regard. Any parent supervision argument needs to take into account that there are so many bad parents ie. they are the problem and will never be able to set a good example. So every time easier access to a substance comes around I don't think "people are going to do it anyway" is anything but a dangerous over-simplification of the issue. It is certainly not something a politician should say when claiming to want a "mature discussion".

The grow at home aspect looks like a backdoor for Chloe's more extreme base saying "Don't worry, we know its impossible to police growing it at home so grow as much as you want, and you won't have to pay for it. F^&* kiwi business and thanks for voting Green!" Then when I see her try and draw a parallel to safety with brewing alcohol at home.... really??? Yeah teenagers are not stupid and very few go to that kind of effort to brew something which tastes like cat piss.

I'm open to a bill that is less of an open floodgates situation... this could've been handled a lot better if a rookie politician wasn't so stubborn. I voted for the coalition but its not the first time they've acted like this and had the people shoot down policy.

I am suggesting that cannabis is already so widely available and normalised in this country, that legalising it will make little difference to consumption patterns. What it will do, and why I endorse it, is remove the injustice and stigma of a criminal conviction for doing something that harms no-one except the user. I believe it will also have major benefits by bringing cannabis use out of the shadows. I believe it will also have other benefits that have been widely documented elsewhere and don't have to be gone into again here.

People having been growing cannabis at home for years in Holland. It is not abused and it does not cause problems. Why should that be any different here?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 25