smokers realised that for a quantity and quality of supply they need to rely on the market.
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 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.
That blew my mind, you don't often hear about the bass player. I had no idea all that playing was one person, that's the Midas touch, what a phenomenal body of work. How many of these are you going to post Russell?
Incontrovertibly not an ideal state of affairs...
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...
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. If that’s what it would take to get a foot in the door then so be it, my misgivings are only that it could be taken by legislators as an end in itself and we’d end up with a situation similar to Canada:
patients complain of the single strain selection as well as low potency, providing a pre-ground product put through a wood chipper (which deteriorates rapidly) as well as gamma irradation and foul taste and smell.
+ a bunch of synthetics.
But on that note, I’d also have misgivings about the lauded Portugese model, where decriminalisation entails far stiffer penalties than users face in New Zealand:
Suspension of the right to practice if the user has a licensed profession (e.g. medical doctor, taxi driver) and may endanger another person or someone’s possessions.
Ban on visiting certain places (e.g. specific discotheques!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Ban on associating with specific other persons.
Interdiction to travel abroad.
Requirement to report periodically to the committee.
Withdrawal of the right to carry a gun.
Confiscation of personal possessions.
Cessation of subsidies or allowances that a person receives from a public agency.
decriminalisation or descriminalização…
Am I mistaken or is Australia sound years ahead of New Zealand in sensibly addressing this issue?
As Chris mentioned in his blog, she’s recently been conferred the title “family member of China” on account of her marriage to Chinese-Samoan David Wong Tung, they have a son together, so I’d imagine that brings some perspective…
I’m liking your logic here: John Key is the perfect Minister of Tourism.