Today's Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Forums › Off topic › Today's Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

1 | ... | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | ... | 271

11394 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3215380 7-Apr-2024 22:49

neb: For people in NZ, of all the times you've seen, or at least smelled, marijuana smoked in public, have you ever seen anyone arrested for it? Excluding special events where either the police or the users were trying to make a point about marijuana use.

My brother in law managed to get a possesion conviction as a 17 year old. Smoking a cone outside a Blue Light disco wasn't his finest hour.

deepred

495 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3215386 8-Apr-2024 01:43

tweake:

msukiwi:

From: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/513615/police-abandoned-60-percent-of-reported-cases-in-2023

Police abandoned 572,037 of the cases reported to them last year - that's almost 60 percent.

In total, it received 962,521 emergency calls and reports in 2023, up 50 percent from 2019.

The numbers were supplied to RNZ through the Official Information Act.

Of the cases reported to police last year, 179,957 were closed without any investigation at all.

Nice to see a statistic / report which aligns with your own "perceived" experiences!

nothing new.

the 90's/2000's "domestic violence is not a problem in nz". "meth is a jut a minor party drug", the on/off burglary rates" "lack of road policing", "reducing arms officers/inspectors" etc. our history is full of lack of policing causing social problems. imho police have always been horribly underfunded and in times of recession, when we need it the most, budgets are often cut.

the big question is whats going to be the social consequence to us this time?

If austerity in the public sector means that sworn officers are lumped with extra work usually done by their non-sworn colleagues, we wonder how that's meant to make policing more productive. Particularly if any attempt to carry on where the Mother of All Budgets left off triggers a rerun of the 1981 Tour.

"Lean and mean" hasn't worked out too well for the LAPD, most infamously when it came to handling the 1992 riots (about 7,800 sworn officers that year, not sure if it was before or after the riots).

"I regret to say that we of the F.B.I. are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate commerce." — J. Edgar Hoover

"Create a society that values material things above all else. Strip it of industry. Raise taxes for the poor and reduce them for the rich and for corporations. Prop up failed financial institutions with public money. Ask for more tax, while vastly reducing public services. Put adverts everywhere, regardless of people's ability to afford the things they advertise. Allow the cost of food and housing to eclipse people's ability to pay for them. Light blue touch paper." — Andrew Maxwell

deepred

495 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3215387 8-Apr-2024 02:04

tweake:

kingdragonfly: How many drug syndicates and professional burglars have been undone by speeding, or running a stop light?

Or child abuse case been filed because of an initial noise complaint.

It's investigating little crimes that can lead to big results.

From Wikipedia: Broken windows theory

"In criminology, the broken windows theory states that visible signs of crime, antisocial behavior, and civil disorder create an urban environment that encourages further crime and disorder, including serious crimes.

The theory suggests that policing methods that target minor crimes such as vandalism, loitering, public drinking and fare evasion help to create an atmosphere of order and lawfulness."

absolutely. there has been some major cases that started off as a red light runner. even myself, a *555 call turns into a big police chase. small crimes leads into big crimes. then there is "rules that are not enforced do not exist" so people get angry when they finally do get enforced.

however policing minor crimes takes boots on the ground, resources and money. the 3 things they do not have.

To some extent, city wardens such as Local Host in Wellington can act as extra eyes & ears for the police, as well as giving directions and other guidance.

As for the Broken Windows theory, it was only part of the story. Like other US cities with shrinking heavy industry, NYC struggled to transition to a post-industrial economy from the 1960s, to the point where it was near bankrupt in 1975. It persisted until the 1990s, when its economy bounced back. Also cited in NYC's rebound were the decrease in the number of young "invulnerable" men over the same period, the phase-out of lead pipes & leaded petrol that caused diminished capacity, and housing the unhoused. A major dark side of Broken Windows was the uptick in racial profiling, brutality and fatal shootings by police - the Amadou Diallo case comes to mind.

Dynamic

3867 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3215408 8-Apr-2024 08:03

neb:
Tinkerisk:

Any facilitation also makes it easier to use it every day as a matter of course "because the step in front is no longer prohibited." The scent of what was already coming out of the driver's cab of the car directly in front of me at the traffic lights will certainly not become less, but rather more, if it is decriminalised. Now "only" its use in road traffic is a criminal offence. Before it was several offences. The inhibition threshold continues to fall.

Statistics from Portugal's decriminalisation in 2001 contradict that. Virtually every statistic tied to drug use (HIV/AIDs, drug deaths, use among adolescents, police time devoted to drug enforcement, etc, declined. Some of the stats are a bit ambiguous, e.g. in some cases did a slight rise in use correspond to people being more willing to admit use after decriminalisation, but if there had been serious adverse effects we would have heard about them by now. As a rhetorical question, has marijuana prohibition ever prevented one single person from getting it? (And more generally, this probably belongs in its own thread. I don't particularly care about the whole topic, I just find some of the thinking around continuing prohibition pretty strange).

I struggle to believe this. My limited reading suggests that drug use rises notably with decriminalisation. Promises of treating drug use as a health issue inevitably are unfulfilled as health services are already busy beforehand and can't ramp up to deal with the influx of cases. I was pretty surprised to see Oregon actually re-criminalising. Politicians don't usually backtrack.

Oregon governor signs bill recriminalizing drug possession into law | AP News

“Don't believe anything you read on the net. Except this. Well, including this, I suppose.” Douglas Adams

Referral links to services I use, really like, and may be rewarded if you sign up:
PocketSmith for budgeting and personal finance management. A great Kiwi company.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3215434 8-Apr-2024 08:42

freitasm:

Rep. Beryl Amedee, R-Schriever, presented the bill for Owen, saying ivermectin has been “deemed as safe as Tylenol” and used successfully to treat head line, rosacea and asthma.

Can we get an enterprise sized dose for Stuff?

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3215442 8-Apr-2024 08:51

tweake:

the 90's/2000's "domestic violence is not a problem in nz". "meth is a jut a minor party drug", the on/off burglary rates" "lack of road policing", "reducing arms officers/inspectors" etc. our history is full of lack of policing causing social problems.

Not sure what you mean by the third item, and don't know about the last two, but I'm sure that at no time in the 90s/2000s did anyone say "domestic violence is not a problem in nz" or "meth is a jut a minor party drug".

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3215449 8-Apr-2024 08:56

neb: As a rhetorical question, has marijuana prohibition ever prevented one single person from getting it?

I think it deters people who are of a law-abiding mindset.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3215461 8-Apr-2024 09:13

Dynamic:

My limited reading suggests that drug use rises notably with decriminalisation. Promises of treating drug use as a health issue inevitably are unfulfilled as health services are already busy beforehand and can't ramp up to deal with the influx of cases.

Your expectation that there would be an influx of cases suggests that you believe that there are many people who want to get treated but can't because of criminalisation. I guess no-one wants to be an addict, they just want to get high, or at least escape their real world problems, even briefly.

My question is.... So what if drug use rises notably? Why do you care if some people smoke a joint? It is the downstream consequences of their drug use (crime to support their drug habit, inability to work or function in society) that are costly to society, not the drug use per se. If they can be treated, then the root cause of why they choose drugs can be addressed. I suspect that if drugs aren't available, then they will express their unhappiness in some other way (e.g. gangs, antisocial behaviour).

MadEngineer

4292 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3215464 8-Apr-2024 09:15

As someone who spent a couple of years doing on the job forklift training I’m against anything that reduces restrictions on smoking cannabis. The signs were obvious and consistent and the risks life threatening.

You're not on Atlantis anymore, Duncan Idaho.

Dynamic

3867 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3215475 8-Apr-2024 10:03

frankv:

My question is.... So what if drug use rises notably? Why do you care if some people smoke a joint? It is the downstream consequences of their drug use (crime to support their drug habit, inability to work or function in society) that are costly to society, not the drug use per se. If they can be treated, then the root cause of why they choose drugs can be addressed. I suspect that if drugs aren't available, then they will express their unhappiness in some other way (e.g. gangs, antisocial behaviour).

For me, this is not theoretical. I grew up in an environment where drugs were a part of the landscape. It was not a good place to be. If some people want to write themselves off, there is an argument for letting them do that to themselves. However:

Having them access taxpayer funded health services?
Having them get behind the wheel of a car?
Having them parent?

How far do we go treating the issue with kid gloves?

Addicted to drugs? Taxpayer pays for addiction treatment.
Stealing to fund the habit? Taxpayer pays for the loss either directly or via insurance or via personal physical sacrifice if the theft is violent.
Car accident as they were not fit to drive? Same as above.
Messed up kids? Taxpayer pays to try and recover the situation, but the scars for those kids will never fully heal.

The time and the consequences between the addiction causing issues in society and the treatment is too great to be permitted, and assumes the addicted person is willing to engage. A large number of addicts will relapse when life's stresses creep in and the cycle starts again.

I'll continue to argue against decriminalisation and to come down particularly hard on the suppliers. Those who benefit or even prey on the suffering of others should be shown little regard.

“Don't believe anything you read on the net. Except this. Well, including this, I suppose.” Douglas Adams

Referral links to services I use, really like, and may be rewarded if you sign up:
PocketSmith for budgeting and personal finance management. A great Kiwi company.

Ge0rge

2055 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3215482 8-Apr-2024 10:25

And yet everything you've mentioned equally applies to alcohol, which we show time and time again to be an issue. Why is one drug treated any differently to another?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3215494 8-Apr-2024 10:43

Dynamic:

frankv:

My question is.... So what if drug use rises notably? Why do you care if some people smoke a joint? It is the downstream consequences of their drug use (crime to support their drug habit, inability to work or function in society) that are costly to society, not the drug use per se. If they can be treated, then the root cause of why they choose drugs can be addressed. I suspect that if drugs aren't available, then they will express their unhappiness in some other way (e.g. gangs, antisocial behaviour).

For me, this is not theoretical. I grew up in an environment where drugs were a part of the landscape. It was not a good place to be. If some people want to write themselves off, there is an argument for letting them do that to themselves. However:

Having them access taxpayer funded health services?
Having them get behind the wheel of a car?
Having them parent?
How far do we go treating the issue with kid gloves?

Addicted to drugs? Taxpayer pays for addiction treatment.
Stealing to fund the habit? Taxpayer pays for the loss either directly or via insurance or via personal physical sacrifice if the theft is violent.
Car accident as they were not fit to drive? Same as above.
Messed up kids? Taxpayer pays to try and recover the situation, but the scars for those kids will never fully heal.
The time and the consequences between the addiction causing issues in society and the treatment is too great to be permitted, and assumes the addicted person is willing to engage. A large number of addicts will relapse when life's stresses creep in and the cycle starts again.

I'll continue to argue against decriminalisation and to come down particularly hard on the suppliers. Those who benefit or even prey on the suffering of others should be shown little regard.

Okay, drugs are bad and should be banned. Oh wait, didn't we just have a War On Drugs that put a lot of otherwise harmless people behind bars, cost a bloody fortune, gave criminal gangs a huge boost and otherwise achieved absolutely nothing? It didn't work before and it won't work now. What works is finding ways to give people a better life so they have something that matters to them to lose, and they can develop the self-discipline that goes with that to enjoy their dope in a responsible manner outside of working hours.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32354 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3215498 8-Apr-2024 10:53

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350238347/rugby-coach-describes-pursuit-shots-and-ramming-van-after-game-hastings

I am just lost for words.

johno1234

2808 posts

Uber Geek

#3215503 8-Apr-2024 11:09

networkn:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350238347/rugby-coach-describes-pursuit-shots-and-ramming-van-after-game-hastings

I am just lost for words.

Wpw. That's anarchy. A complete breakdown of law and order.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3215506 8-Apr-2024 11:11

Dynamic:

If some people want to write themselves off, there is an argument for letting them do that to themselves. However:

Having them access taxpayer funded health services?
Having them get behind the wheel of a car?
Having them parent?
How far do we go treating the issue with kid gloves?

Addicted to drugs? Taxpayer pays for addiction treatment.
Stealing to fund the habit? Taxpayer pays for the loss either directly or via insurance or via personal physical sacrifice if the theft is violent.
Car accident as they were not fit to drive? Same as above.
Messed up kids? Taxpayer pays to try and recover the situation, but the scars for those kids will never fully heal.
The time and the consequences between the addiction causing issues in society and the treatment is too great to be permitted, and assumes the addicted person is willing to engage. A large number of addicts will relapse when life's stresses creep in and the cycle starts again.

I'll continue to argue against decriminalisation and to come down particularly hard on the suppliers. Those who benefit or even prey on the suffering of others should be shown little regard.

"Treating the issue with kid gloves"? In the past, but less so currently, we have treated the issue with an iron fist, and have spectacularly failed. A different approach is needed.

"assumes the addicted person is willing to engage" -- how many addicted people want to be addicts? I expect that the answer is zero. I believe they want the highs, not the addiction. So I'd expect that addicted people would be willing to engage, to get rid of the addiction, if there was a path beyond to a happier place.

The question I ask is -- Why do some people prefer a drug-induced high to reality? My assumption is that they don't get (enough of) a natural high from reality. Is it a matter of expectations? Or are they actually not getting adequate seratonin rewards from life? If it's the latter, then it's a neuromedical or societal problem, and taxpayer funded solutions are appropriate.

But really, the choice is taxpayer funded police and prisons and high insurance premiums versus taxpayer funded health services. If drugs are available for free, there's no need to steal to fund a habit. It is the illegality of drugs that makes them unavailable, which drives up the price, which makes drug dealing a lucrative enterprise, and which results in addicts doing other crimes.

1 | ... | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | ... | 271