Cracker: Psst... buddy... got any BZP?
80 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Firstly, the harm principle is not an absolute, nor is it perfect, I accept that. However the harm principle is a great starting point for justifying criminalisation.
When the 'harm' starts getting more abstract, such as say, tax dollars for remedies, then you are out on a limb. Can you tell me how mush money was taken in GSt and income tax from BZP sales in the last year? No, you cant. Can you tell me how much more tax would have been taken had there been an excise tax on it? No, you can't. We can however safely state that it would be in the tens of millions.
"BZP cases ARE costing taxpayers money and stretching already quite stretched health resources. That's harmful."
The other obvious point is that criminalising it will cost a fortune. Criminal justice is bloody expensive.
Think the 'ounce of weed' Hansen argument all the way to the Supreme Court, how many million did that stash of pot cost us? And that was one case! Could that money have been better spent? Hell yes, I'd start by spending money trying to end sexual violence, but hey, maybe my priorities are all screwy.
-
Can you tell me how mush money was taken in GSt and income tax from BZP sales in the last year?
That's assuming of course that the purpose of GST and income tax is to offset the harm caused by the item they relate to. Can you tell me how much GST was collected from the sale of road maps last year? Ukeleles? What harm did they cause? So do we earmark all GST on BZP to covering related health costs, but the GST on roadmaps and ukeleles can go towards Education?
A specific 'sin tax' however is a different matter, hence those people supporting regulation and tax over a complete ban.
My point is, that the 'no harm' principle doesn't stand up, which is again separate from the 'but it kinda pays for itself, or at least it could' principle.
The other obvious point is that criminalising it will cost a fortune. Criminal justice is bloody expensive.
It is. But again we don't know just how much of a problem it's going to be. The amount of money spent on the cannabis ban? Huge. To use an example from my post, the amount of money spent on the ban on thalidomide? Not so huge.
Rather than seeing where BZP pills go - onto the black market or not - I'm far more interested to see what 'legal highs' take their place. Kids pepped up on No-Doze? Back to mixing Aspirin with Coca-Cola? Drinking nutmeg? Poppy seed tea?
-
Ok, I'll try rephrasing my earlier post.
Hamilton has a smaller population than Wellington, but when I was living there and walking down Victoria Street or the general downtown area, I'd seldom run into people I knew.
However, the last time I was in Wellington, I ran into Regan Throng in an internet cafe, and the time before that I ran into Andrew Cheese On Toast walking down the street, and I've never had that experience in Auckland or Hamilton.
-
Robyn, I think I found the answer to that one.
Not sure about Hamilton, but the difference between Auckland and Wellington is that not only is it mcuh smaller, but everyone walks everywhere, whereas Aucklanders generally drive.
And like those paths in the jungle that all the animals use, in Wellington every walks up and down Cuba St, up and down Willis St, up and down Lambton Quay etc. There just aren't that many options, so sooner or later you will see everyone you know/slept with.
-
I just hope it doen't start yet another tiresome Jafas v. The Provinces war of words.
Gollly gosh I hope not, because if you dish it out you shouldn't have to take it back. Is Brad Butterworth, blessed gentle flower that he is, an Aucklander by any chance?
-
As for meeting people, I only met Che Tibby for the first time two weeks ago and Stephen Judd of Stephen Judd fame on Tuesday. That being said, I don't get out all that much.
-
Mind you, the clubbers of the land are heaving a collective sigh of relief at the prospect of the tidal wave of liquored and BZP'd up North Shore wigga boys and their natural prey the Epsom Girl's Grammar party frock crew that has been threatening to engulf clubland receding back to the Viaduct and Queen Street.
Amen to that.
-
Rik,
Whiskey did you say? Or was that whisky? Either way, far better than pills any day. Working my way through a 27 year old Port Ellen from Douglas Laing at the moment, a bit pricey but what better way to celebrate the arrival of your first baby boy?! The day Labour bans whisky is the day I will have to make a stand.
-
"the 'no harm' principle doesn't stand up, which is again separate from the 'but it kinda pays for itself, or at least it could' principle".
The principle does 'stand up'. My point about costs is that stretching the definition of harm to include secondary and non-quantified (quantifiable) harm in order to bring it within the principle is artificial. When an action clearly fits the harm principle, such as say assault, then the argument for criminalisation is halfway made out. The argument is not made out by stretching the harm principle and ignoring or omitting variables such as tax. You could make a spurious argument that anything can be harmful in some abstract and disconnected way (to the soul even, as I mention above), but it does not follow that the principle falls. It is not perfect but it is simply the best principle for criminalising any action and should be the first port of call.
But importantly Damian, BZP was not primarily argued to fall within the 'harm to others' category. I wish it had been. It was argued that it should be criminalised because of harm to self, and that is an insufficient premise for the criminalisation of anything. Or do you think otherwise?
-
"Stephen Judd of Stephen Judd fame"
Which is just like real fame, only without the recognition, money, or sex.
-
Rik, you realise you're paying more for your port, thanks to Uncle Jim?
-
Another point, you state: "That's assuming of course that the purpose of GST and income tax is to offset the harm caused by the item they relate to."
What? You do not need to assume anything to know that without those figures then you cannot claim to have shown net financial or resource loss so as to prove your point re harm to others being made out. It is not that simple. And, unfortunately the argument never entered that realm, as regulation would dominate criminalisation if it was really about harm reduction.
All Anderton and co relied on for justification were their subjective morals. That is not good enough in my opinion.
-
It was argued that it should be criminalised because of harm to self, and that is an insufficient premise for the criminalisation of anything. Or do you think otherwise?
*I* might not think otherwise, but NZ society (or at least our government of the time) certainly does. Hence seatbelts, bike helmets etc. Based on that, yes BZP does cause harm to self - though perhaps not death - so it's no surprise it's been banned on those grounds.
I just hope it doen't start yet another tiresome Jafas v. The Provinces war of words.
In my defence, the Metro article was written as a response to an article by Simon Wilson, a Wellingtonian living in Auckland, in which he accuses Auckland of being a city without a heart. My argument is that Wellington is a heart without a city. A cold, windy one at that.
-
"Actually, I think that's a little unfair. He did wait for research, and his own medical advistory committee recommended a ban."
I have always held the view that Anderton took the scenic route to banning BZP only because he wanted to make sure he had a cast-iron legislative case beyond hope of challenge.
The outcome was never going to be in doubt. Jim Anderton is an old school, Muldoonist prohibitionist, and personally I think he is to old to be making these sorts of decisions anymore.
-
...yes BZP does cause harm to self - though perhaps not death - so it's no surprise it's been banned on those grounds.
I sort of disagree. Yes, the overt argument is one of harm causation but the underlying, emotional, argument is "your drugs are evil and mine aren't". People are very immune to seeing their poisons as poisons and correspondingly very keen to see the poisons of others as the source of all evil. The two views go hand in hand.
-
I had a big comment/post done on the BZP thing, but it's too long to put here. It's here if you wanna read it.
-
Its occurred to me just now that one of the key reasons BZP has been banned is its delivery mechanism. Normalising pill popping was always going to frighten aging politicians.
-
"seat belts" what? I thought this was about criminalisation? 'Not legal' is not the same as 'criminal'. BZP has been *criminalised*.
And, I support heavy 'regulation' of BZP, on the grounds of *harm to self*.
"personally I think he is to old to be making these sorts of decisions anymore."
I completely agree, yet go further in that I believe his tragic personal experience should disqualify him from decision making for his patent lack of objectivity.
-
If Jim *has* to be a minister to secure his vote, don't the Fishing and Antarctica portfolios deserve his attention.
-
I sort of disagree. Yes, the overt argument is one of harm causation but the underlying, emotional, argument is "your drugs are evil and mine aren't".
I don't see how that disagrees with what I'm saying at all, in the sense that I totally agree with what you're saying :)
Bottom line, They don't want us to get high, but it's too late to do anything about the bolted horses of Alcohol and Cigarettes.
-
"Bottom line, They don't want us to get high, but it's too late to do anything about the bolted horses of Alcohol and Cigarettes."
Firstly, to me, that sums up the level of understanding regarding the criminalisation argument. "too late to do anything about cigs?" Hell, I thought they were doing something, and even having successes.
Secondly, 'they' do not want to ban alcohol.
Finally, why is it that the criminal sanction must be the natural solution to regulating social behaviour? (key word - 'regulating'). So much so that Anderton and co see regulation and other successful measures as 'doing nothing'?
This is all about old men's morals and the abuse of the criminal sanction to in order to enforce them.
-
Bottom line, They don't want us to get high, but it's too late to do anything about the bolted horses of Alcohol and Cigarettes.
I can make myself a bit clearer. It's not so much that the horse has bolted but that people need an enemy drug so that they can happily delude themselves that what they imbibe is not a drug. That gets dressed up in the causes harm argument but what's really going on is a form of charade. Damn those druggies and pass the bottle. Denial.
Anderton I think really is on about harm reduction (and although I disagree with him I can understand why he makes such an issue of this) but I think in the population at large the motivation for criminalising particular substances is part of a process of denying that substances like alcohol are actually drugs.
-
Secondly, 'they' do not want to ban alcohol.
Is that what They said when you asked Them?
-
I myself only drink whiskey for its delicious taste.
-
Which is just like real fame, only without the recognition, money, or sex.
You just need to walk the streets more
Post your response…
This topic is closed.