Hard News: Drugs and Sex
170 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Newer→ Last
-
DUNEDIN PUBLIC ADDRESS MEET-UP TOMORROW:
Ironic Bar, (opposite railway station), 5.30pm onwards. There's a couple of tables reserved for us.
If you're in Dunedin tomorrow, come along !
Feel free to e-mail me for more info.
-
Green co-leader Tariana Turia ... I guess all those Maoris look the same.
and their funny little names all look the same too. Turei/Turia, it's sooooo confusing ...
-
If commissioning murder, torture, slavery, civil war, corruption and deforestation is not a crime, what is?
Hmmm. Yeah, OK, probably true, but aren't there a lot of goods we rich westerners buy which cause suffering elsewhere? Example: isn't oil similar? It indirectly causes wars, corruptions, environmental damage, all manner of things. It's just more useful to us as a society than cocaine, so we mostly ignore the dodgy parts. We're all complicit, we're all hypocrites, we're all corrupt. (Oh, also, the world is doomed and people suck. Happy Thursday!)
-
Perhaps we need a "Buy Kiwi Made Drugs" campaign? I guess we're allowed weed and, um... P.
-
Or, to put it another way, for so long as prohibition dictates the ugly means of production.
Getting rid of prohibition in a legal sense is not the only problem for politicians. There are the other stakeholders in the illicitness to consider:
- The police, who risk losing their budgets for fancy helicopters to haul in cannabis from forests, undercover cops and other extra personnel (and by extension, the prison service, who risk losing a large number of their clients)
- The gangs, who would be averse to losing the profits from illicit growing, producing and trading
- The moralists, who can't abide anyone imbibing anything for pleasure
- The legal drugs traders (tobacco and alcohol sellers), who don't want extra competition and choice diversification on their patch.New Zealanders in large numbers do like their drugs, legal and illegal. The problem is the irrational dividing line between the two.
-
Hmmm. Yeah, OK, probably true, but aren't there a lot of goods we rich westerners buy which cause suffering elsewhere? Example: isn't oil similar? It indirectly causes wars, corruptions, environmental damage, all manner of things. It's just more useful to us as a society than cocaine, so we mostly ignore the dodgy parts. We're all complicit, we're all hypocrites, we're all corrupt. (Oh, also, the world is doomed and people suck. Happy Thursday!)
Well, it wouldn't be the first suggestion like this; "clean" diamonds are becoming quite popular, for instance. Just because the world sucks doesn't mean you can't start *somewhere*.
-
Just because the world sucks doesn't mean you can't start *somewhere*.
You're right, you're right. I think watching King Leopold's Ghost last week caused some kind of disturbance in my force. Good christ on a bike, that was dispiriting.
-
Yeah, OK, probably true, but aren't there a lot of goods we rich westerners buy which cause suffering elsewhere?
Indeed. When I read that, my first thought was that a lot of the negative consequences that Monbiot talks about are direct results of the prohibition structure. These things are not specific to drugs. For example, there's a lot of farmers in Tasmania growing opium poppies (Tasmania is the largest producer of legal opium alkaloids in the world, fact fans - http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/2001/plenary/1/fist.htm), and I don't see that causing the kind of direct social ills to the growers and their communities that Monbiot mentions in connection with cocaine. Remove the prohibition, legalise the production, and you're left with people growing a cash crop with slightly interesting side effects. I'm sure there'd still be some abuses, but probably no more than already exist in the coffee or chocolate trades.
-
I'll second the recommendation of Julie's piece, it's lovely and remarkably sensible.
-
Green co-leader Tariana Turia ... I guess all those Maoris look the same.....and their funny little names all look the same too. Turei/Turia, it's sooooo confusing ...
Not half as confusing as those who have never stood for a Maori seat i (Lockwood Smith, Nick Smith, Phil Goff, Phil Heatley, John Hayes, John Carter, Chris Carter,David Carter, David Bennett, Paula Bennett, Jacinda Arden, Shane Arden, Grant Robertson, Ross Robertson, Eric Roy, Heather Roy,Graham Kennedy - or is that Kennedy Graham..)
-
Green co-leader Tariana Turia ... I guess all those Maoris look the same.....and their funny little names all look the same too. Turei/Turia, it's sooooo confusing ...
As someone who has mixed up both Turei/Turia and John Carter/David Carter I don't think it's a huge deal, or a racial issue - just a mistake.
-
It seems there's too many vested interests keen on retaining prohibition of the illicit drugs that we, as kiwis, like to take. It would take a politician with the cojones of a ram to seriously propose an end to prohibition.
I could see NZ doing well out of 'cannabis tourism' if we legalised it. Get the tour groups at immigration, micro-chip them (they won't mind - it's in a good cause), give them info on where to go, what to smoke/drink/eat and eventually round them up and ship them out again. They would be generally peaceful and compliant. We could organise good transport for them so they never have to drive while under the influence. Get that nice Mr Key on the phone, pronto!
-
3410,
Hmmm. Yeah, OK, probably true, but aren't there a lot of goods we rich westerners buy which cause suffering elsewhere?
Danielle beats me to the punch (again.)
Quite so. Even just considering Colombia, you can't even buy Coca-cola without tacitly supporting this sort of thing:
In Carepa in north-western Colombia, Coca-Cola has a fairly typical bottling plant. Until 1994, the workforce was unionised, and successfully bargained for the basic workplace benefits we all want: bonuses, overtime and healthcare. But the corporation wanted to cut costs - and around the same time, the armed gangs arrived. The far-right militia the AUC presents itself as "the defenders of business freedom" in Colombia - they massacre trade unionists.
Soon after they showed up, Enrique Gomez Granado - one of the Coke-plant union leaders - was shot in the face on his doorstep, in front of his wife and kids.
Five more union leaders were hunted down and murdered. There was, as Thomas puts it, "a campaign against the union at the Coca-Cola plant".
It seems unfair to call Coke(aine) users hypocrites. Likely those who buy fair-trade coffee would buy fair-trade cocaine, if such a thing was available. Nevertheless, the article is more thoughtful than the headline and pull-quote would suggest.
-
Kong,
I don't follow Monbiot's line of reasoning at all, when he says that casual use should remain criminalized, to protect the oppressed Columbians. He makes some unproven connection between decriminalization and massively increased demand, and then without any argument at all suggests that would lead to greater levels of oppression for more Columbians. But he isn't suggesting open season for the actual production of coke, so how/why does he conclude that anything at all would change for the Columbian drug slaves? Their shithouse lives are a product of the already existing demand for the drug, and the fact that it can only be produced and distributed illegally, the most economic place being of course the most lawless place with the most conducive climate and the most impoverished population. None of that is going to change just because of increased demand, even if demand does actually increase, something we can't be sure of.
I guess the missing premises in his argument are that increased demand would lead to increased profits, enabling the cocaine producers to expand their operations, and tempting others into the market. But missing from that is the possibility that decriminalization might also lower the value of the drug, making it less profitable, and would have the exact opposite effect.
So I find his finger waggling at casual users bizarre, especially in context of the idea of treating addicts less harshly. What is it about having fucked up their lives through overusing the drug that makes them less culpable than the casuals?
But I guess, between the lines, he's really saying that the problem isn't the criminalization of the users, it's the criminalization of the production and distribution, and that ultimately the problem is massively political, and the finger waggling is all about getting bitter on people who feel for oppressed third world slaves but still want to take coke, and won't see that it helps that oppression.
What he misses, in his fixation on the oppressed Columbians is the other goods that could come from decriminalization, in the very society in which it is criminalized. He totally ignores that.
So whilst I agree that the war on drug production pretty much causes the harm to the Columbians, I can't agree that halting the war on users would have no good effect. It just might not help the Columbians very much.
-
there is a lot of crap around about how cannabis is a gift from the earth, harmless etc etc. sorry folks, just not true. a certain number of people can use cannabis recreationally with little or no harmful effects. another group can suffer very badly from the effects of it - depression, anxiety, drug-induced psychotic symptoms ... not to mention legal hassles, family problems, financial problems ...
it's not quite the harmless little plant a lot of smokers would like us to think. the fact that turei included "depression and mental illness" as reasons for being prescribed this depressant is reason enough for the bill to have been kicked out without even a first hearing, IMO.
the fact that alcohol is a legal drug which causes known harms (while cannabis remains an illegal drug) does not have anything to do with whether or not cannabis is harmful. two seperate conversations.
-
Rik,
Looking forward to my first Media7 tonight - Sky digital subscriber!
-
Kong,
It would take a politician with the cojones of a ram to seriously propose an end to prohibition.
While on the other side, it take absolutely no courage at all to score easy points condemning an end to it. Same goes for all condemnation, come to think of it. Waggling your finger at people doing their thing whatever it is seems to score more friends than it makes enemies. It doesn't matter how many people think the thing is OK, so long as those who think it isn't feel strongly enough, and the rest don't care. Saying you think something fun is cool can always be seen as immoral, showing off some weakness of character. But getting bitter on it is seldom seen as weakness of character, indeed it is showing the strength to resist temptation.
Which is why society trends towards more prohibitive all the time. When was the last time the law got more relaxed on anything? It's one of the things I least like about the Old World - everywhere you turn there's someone waggling a finger at you.
-
I could see NZ doing well out of 'cannabis tourism' if we legalised it. Get the tour groups at immigration, micro-chip them
???
What, are they toaster-ovens or something?
-
Enjoyed that article in the handmirror, damn shame it''s blocked here, it's exactly what people need. I just hope her son doesn't turn out to be a devout catholic.
-
Same goes for all condemnation, come to think of it. Waggling your finger at people doing their thing whatever it is seems to score more friends than it makes enemies. It doesn't matter how many people think the thing is OK, so long as those who think it isn't feel strongly enough, and the rest don't care.
Wise words Kong.
-
Hmmm. Yeah, OK, probably true, but aren't there a lot of goods we rich westerners buy which cause suffering elsewhere? Example: isn't oil similar? It indirectly causes wars, corruptions, environmental damage, all manner of things. It's just more useful to us as a society than cocaine, so we mostly ignore the dodgy parts. We're all complicit, we're all hypocrites, we're all corrupt. (Oh, also, the world is doomed and people suck. Happy Thursday!)
Reminds me of this gem from the proudly ex-Republican Arianna Huffington earlier in the decade. It couldn't be more true in the wake of General Motors going Chapter 11, thanks in no small part to its inability to think small.
-
Uroskin
- The police, who risk losing their budgets for fancy helicopters to haul in cannabis from forests, undercover cops and other extra personnel (and by extension, the prison service, who risk losing a large number of their clients)
Has anyone considered the wisdom of LEAP?
-
The Great Depression ended alcohol prohibition at least as much for someone pointing out how much tax could be raised from sales as any moralising. Perhaps our current state of near financial collapse will get governments hunting for unrealised revenue streams and Coke can go back to being coke.
-
Russell, I think you have confused Monbiot's characterisation of the EU proposal as being what he thinks. It isn't. He goes on to say:
The other possible policy is to legalise and regulate the global trade. This would undercut the criminal networks and guarantee unadulterated supplies to consumers. There might even be a market for certified fairtrade cocaine.
The thing about cocaine vs oil is that the invasion of Iraq was a policy choice by people who had different options. The oil trade is largely peaceful.
Prohibition is imposed, and inevitably draws in the more violent criminal elements, especially when the price of the drug is very high. Violence and organised crime are well-documented features of prohibition.
Buying cocaine is directly supporting the murderous criminals who control coca production. Putting petrol in my car is not akin to supporting the US invasion of Iraq.
It's a shame that Metiria's bill didn't make it to committee. I have not heard one objection to it that could not have been addressed at the committee stage.
-
Kong,
I thought that was because the world realized that if it was going to be Depressed anyway, it might as well be Pissed too. But unfortunately there is no such connection between being Recessed and Baked.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.