I’d argue having more minimal laws based on wide consent is much better and more effective.
Well put. Btw Rich before I forget, there was a guy looking for you over on the KingPin thread...
If you take the Venn diagram of populations indulging in illegal activities (drug users, boy racers, copyright violators...) then you start to cover an (un-) surprisingly large chunk of the population.
To an extent it seems that this could be the point. If everybody is criminal in some manner, the justice system has universal power to coerce information from anybody. Makes their job easier and everything runs smoother.
In all fairness Craig, you are right that NORML and ALCP’s disorganisation (and not limited to) would seem to be stymieing progress and your argument regarding incremental decriminalisation has merit.
Yes, politics is a thankless business. It's moments like this I find the story of the Little Red Hen instructive:
Everyone's bitching for bread, but no-one wants to get their hands dirty.
The government in Uruguay is proposing to legalise cannabis, but by the look of it, customers of state-owned sellers would need to be on a database.
but by the look of it, customers of state-owned sellers would need to be on a database.
Y’know, I’d happily go on a database for that by choice, over many other reasons. I’m probably on one anyway. The police put one on databases all over the information highway as long as it suits them, so what’s the diff? Bring it on. Legalise.
Oddly enough I can't seem to find the actual online interveiw on the NORML website as they have updated it and you can't currently access the past versions.
Here is the Norml News article on Helen Clark that you were looking for.
I find that rather disturbing to Andrew, that article states the industry is worth $75million a year, other sources suggest $750 million. This is an interesting case given possession of up to 25 grams is already decriminalised.
Last year legislation was proposed allowing for plantation, cultivation and harvesting as well as the industrialization and trade of up to eight cannabis plants per household. I'm not sure what happened there but someone's obviously smelt the money.
Everyone’s bitching for bread, but no-one wants to get their hands dirty.
Keen observation Will. There is clearly opposition to the law as it exists – people be a’ railing, and yet, other than Craig very few have gone to any length to clarify the terms and parameters of their ideal, given the legislative nuance available this is a must, otherwise we’re all just diners complaining about the soup nazi.
Personally I feel that change should accommodate the right of adults to grow a minimal number of plants. Growers by necessity self educate, it would wipe $800million off the black market in one fell swoop, eliminating a vast chunk of cannabis related crime, and may even encourage people who otherwise wouldn’t to develop a better horticultural understanding (amongst other noble kindred faculties). Policing costs could be directed to health and education.
I don't feel under legalisation that this would be a realistic outcome.
Personally I feel that change should accommodate the right of adults to grow a minimal number of plants. Growers by necessity self educate, it would wipe $800million off the black market in one fell swoop,
The market for dope would still exist - though under decriminalisation for home growing and personal use the market may be slightly reduced for a time until smokers realised that for a quantity and quality of supply they need to rely on the market.
Conasidering all things Dope - Bill English comments on Drug testing for Benefs
I have to agree with Hone Harawira - Random alcohol and drug testing for ministers attending cabinet meetings and for members going to and from the chamber.
Drink. Drive. Marry. Enlist. Smoke Tobacco. Fornicate. Vote.
Yes, but that's not a particularly useful list. It's pretty easy to stop under-age people from marrying, enlisting or voting because they all involve paperwork and bureaucracy. On the other hand, children do drink, drive, smoke tobacco and fornicate, and the risks associated with their doing so would appear to be higher than for those who are over-age. Thus, I think that the argument that cannabis is less harmful than alchohol is probably a better argument for its decriminalisation for those who might be persuaded in that sort of way.
I always wonder about this. Why do those pushing law reform (campaign wise, i.e. norml) never lead with [Portugal]?
Maybe "the way they use statistics in [Portugal] is different." Or "[New Zealand] is a much smaller country". Or something.
/e wanders off to have a quiet cry for the days when NZ had a Prime Minister who appeared to have ever thought critically and analytically about anything that mattered (i.e. not how to make the most money off forex futures).
smokers realised that for a quantity and quality of supply they need to rely on the market.
change should accommodate the right of adults to grow a minimal number of plants
Excuse my brevity there Dex, I was about to have dinner, I probably could have worded myself better. I envisage ‘the right to grow’ as one (cost saving) aspect of a greater shift, be that medicinal legalisation decriminalisation, what have you . By ‘minimal’ I don’t mean ‘the minimum’, but a reasonable lower end figure, so that 1 person can grow enough cannabis to sate 1 person’s appetite, and if pressed to guess I’d (generously?) expect 4 plants on a rotating perpetual harvest to be sufficient for most. but that’s just an opinion, I believe estimates of quantity rather than categorical dismissal may be more conducive to progress, a key objective being to deflate the black market. Accept the inevitability, list your quite reasonable demands…
or other measurements....
I would volunteer, but I'm focused on achievable objectives- although as indicated, I do support decriminalisation of medicinal cannabis derivatives and would join any lobby for that- and I do agree with the points made earlier about the evolution of social movements,. Taking the LGBT rights movement as an example, the use of amenable and available expertise to substantiate our particular incremental claims is the route we've followed in New Zealand and overseas. It's taken time, but we're now knocking at the door of full LGBT equality rather insistently.
Incidentally, why has no-one brought up the Netherlands in this debate yet? How did they deal with drug law reform in their context?