Speaker: Towards a realistic drug policy
385 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
Thanks Peter. I've always been a firm believer in ability to live a relatively satisfying lifestyle if one can support (their habit) themselves. Personally I would say the opium is yet another smoke that I could want decriminalised.I do really appreciate the Methadone Clinic in this country and would hope the same for pot if one felt help was needed. Shit we should have more Rehabs for all types of drug (without all being 12 steps) Still Heroin, I have no problem but don't think it would be slightly considered in this Country.Not too common over here. We had Asia Syndicate as the biggest supplier for a long time then along came Homebake (as Russell wrote so well of earlier) as soon as they were all busted. When I say not too common I mean compared with other countries as opposed to friends. Good stats.
-
So the Herald refuses to publish a reasoned piece citing evidence about marijuana, but an intelligent-design-touting physicist bitching about the atheist bus adverts is OK?
-
Religion is the opium of the people, maybe the Herald has got a limit on drug based opinion pieces ;p
-
Kyle, I think you missed my point. Harm reduction is not the driving force behind "The War On Drugs" and using it as an excuse to criminalise behaviour is not on in my book.
You must be arguing with someone else, as I didn't advocate a war on drugs. Harm reduction does seem like a good basis to modify our drug laws and figure out which should and shouldn't be legalised.
-
I see more people people smoking cannabis than tobacco in New Zealand anyway, I thought it was already legal.
-
but an intelligent-design-touting physicist bitching about the atheist bus adverts is OK?
Well I sent an email pointing out a couple of the lies this "physicist" told in his pathetic moan, but the Herald they no publish.
-
You must be arguing with someone else, as I didn't advocate a war on drugs. Harm reduction does seem like a good basis to modify our drug laws and figure out which should and shouldn't be legalised.
Which is quite different from how the pro-legalisation lobby presents its argument, which is why I'm starting to sound like some sort of anti-fun puritan in response...
We've got data on that puppy. In the decades of extremely restrictive licensing laws in New Zealand, we became pretty much the world's champion home brewers.
Geez, the laws weren't that restrictive before the drinking age was lowered/ supermarket sales started etc- I don't recall visiting gang pads to buy crates of home brew just because all the wholesalers closed at 8...
But there is plenty of evidence that loosening the licensing laws has had the effect of more young people drinking more. Sophisticated cafe society my arse.
-
I see more people people smoking cannabis than tobacco in New Zealand anyway, I thought it was already legal.
Yes, in our hearts and at the the Daktory:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3218470/Pot-clubs-go-nationwide
-
Unintended consequences of the prohibition cause
To me the biggest argument against the legalisation of cannabis is that we don't know what unintended consequences it will cause.
Most of the thread seems to indicate we can't agree over what the intended consequences will be.Experimenting in a laboratory, or on your own body, fine.
Experimenting on the society where we live, not so good. -
Experimenting on the society where we live, not so good.
We do it all the time. Hell, we unleashed cars on people in the last century. Great and fun and transportalicious; they have also killed more people than a major war. Also: asbestos. Besides of course alcohol and tobacco and all the other drugs that are in fact legal. And it's being done in many countries in the world so we can in fact observe the effects these experiments are having. We're not totally clueless.
-
To me the biggest argument against the legalisation of cannabis is that we don't know what unintended consequences it will cause.
The Netherlands has been regulating cannabis sales to adults only through licensed coffee-shops - i.e. de facto legalisation - for over 30 years now. Their rate of cannabis use teens is 3 times lower than ours, adult rates of use are below ours, they have an ever-declining rate of heroin use due to seperation of 'hard' and 'soft' drug markets (very relevant to NZ and 'P'), standard of living is high, population health is good, health services well funded, lower rates of teen suicide rates and depression than NZ.
We're not The Netherlands I know, but ... if the sky didn't collapse there, why would it here?
-
Coffee is available – food is planned – and there's a pool, fus and a table tennis table plus a projector screen, a library – which includes a copy of Shakespeare's complete works – and music.
Obviously not as dangerous as watching TV. There was a news item on 3 that showed the Daktory after it was busted.
-
I had the privilege of visiting the Daktory twice early in 2009 when it had only been open for a month or so. It already had more than 1000 members and was absolutely humming - full of members, lots of smoking going on of course, but vapourisers were provided and were used a lot.
It was about 8 or 9 in the evenings: the environment was relaxed and mellow. I saw a whole range of people there - old, young, Pasifika, Asian, Caucasian, men, women, professional and non-professional people alike - a total microcosm of society.
A very different atmosphere than I'd expect to find in any pub at the same time of the day.
-
Oh yeah, apropos both the fun and the misery: does everyone know about the Rat Park?
Huge explanatory power there. Miserable rats need to have druggie fun. Rats aren't people of course, but it's very tempting to draw some conclusions all the same.
-
To me the biggest argument against the legalisation of cannabis is that we don't know what unintended consequences it will cause.
And it's possible, if we're that worried about this, to embed into the legislation an end date if we really want to have the argument twice.
If you time stop it at... 5 - 10 years, then you can do some research near the end which investigates who it's affected the country and get some good data on users and their behaviour, crime etc.
If the sky hasn't fallen in, you make the law permanent.
-
We do social experimentation all the time, I'm sure some one could make a case that if your society is not changing then it is dying - but that's a whole 'nother thread.
You put two good cases forward Gio, with cars we accept the costs (deaths and injuries, pollution, loss of ammenity etc) and benefits they bring; with asbestos we find the costs significantly outweigh the benfits and are looking to reverse the whole policy/minimise the harm it caused. In both cases there were significant unintended consquences. What's the worst that could happen? I don't know and that worries me (perhaps I should take something for that).The argument that 'X worked over there so it should be fine here' seems dubious, we know of cases where introduction of drugs from one culture to another has caused problems (opium, alcohol). There are still issues if the drugs are a cause, a symptom of other problems, or perhaps both. Societies and cultures are complicated things, too complicated for a one size fits all approach.
The point I was trying, badly, to make is if we can't agree on what the benefits here will be, and don't know the full consequences for our society of a decision, then is it responsible for us to take that decision? -
A very different atmosphere than I'd expect to find in any pub at the same time of the day.
True. One thing I have contemplated whilst imbibing myself at my local was the distinctively better atmosphere once the outdoor part had been taken to the front of the pub. Being exposed to the street (glass partition defining pub from footpath) People being watched (or perceived to be being watched) and smokers not being "taken out back" seems to have a positive effect. Eye of the beholder annat.
The argument that 'X worked over there so it should be fine here' seems dubious,
Reports are commissioned all the time from Government .They seem to rely on samples from other countries. Why would Marijuana be different?
-
It was about 8 or 9 in the evenings: the environment was relaxed and mellow.
And once again you are demonstrating why I dislike the way in which your organisation frames this debate - it's like using the atmosphere at a wine club evening as a rationale for why alcohol laws should be even more liberal.
Whether it's your intention or not, you minimise the harm potential of your drug of choice - why is this a problem? As discussed at great length in this thread, the real people at risk from the adverse effects of cannabis use are teenagers - a group who also tend to particularly attuned to the types of arguments you put forward. I knew many enthusiastic 16-year-old supporters of Norml when I was a teenager.
So by all means, let's have sensible debate about our drug laws and move toward some form of legalisation for cannabis, and probably one or two other recreational drugs while we're at it. But can we please have a little less focus on the utopian paradise that would exist if only more people smoked pot.
-
Why don't we trial the legalization on senior citizens? R65
I reckon I could get my Dad on board (Mum said it gives her a headache) We could then have a "how does it affect or effect the children?" type case study.
can we please have a little less focus on the utopian paradise that would exist if only more people smoked pot.
This is about the possibility of laws to address what already exists and if it is utopian paradise to some, more power to them. It is not about making more people smoke pot. Now you are sounding paranoid of which I would suggest to you to __ not __try it as Steven mentioned earlier.
-
As discussed at great length in this thread, the real people at risk from the adverse effects of cannabis use are teenagers - a group who also tend to particularly attuned to the types of arguments you put forward.
I would hope that a sensible legalisation policy - R18, maybe only available from a licensed premises would reduce the number of young people doing pot.
Legalisation would savage the black market. Legal prices would probably be lower, and also, I think most users would prefer to be inside the law than outside it. So there would be very little incentive to sell to the black market - which would be where under agers would get much of their drugs.
People that are currently selling pot - not many of them are going to refuse to hand it over because you don't look old enough. And its distribution methods and network are perfectly designed for getting it to young people.
Surely one of the advantages of legalisation is to try and seriously damage the black market drugs network, and that seems like a good thing for everyone.
-
What Kyle said.
-
Miserable rats need to have druggie fun.
Stephen, this argument about 'depressed people wanting to get off their tits' might work to a point, but couldn't I just want a gently enhanced experience of The Muppet Show without actually being, like, the sad clown of west Auckland?
-
The point I was trying, badly, to make is if we can't agree on what the benefits here will be, and don't know the full consequences for our society of a decision, then is it responsible for us to take that decision?
I understand your point, but there's a point at which we may have to decide to suck it and see. There are now multiple jurisdictions to look at, and there really have not been any disasters.
I think we're now up to three NZ Parliamentary select committee inquiries that have heard the evidence and recommended cannabis law reform -- and all gone wanting because it's too politically difficult. At some point, you have to act on the evidence.
-
Irrational old naysayers like Dunne will die eventually.
-
Danielle: sure! And never mind enhancing the Muppet Show, there's sex! (There is some sort of Private Eye euphemism to be had there if I can just figure it out).
These things aren't mutually exclusive.
I wasn't positing systemic unhappiness as a reason for mere usage in our society, but for abuse . I should have italicised "need".
Big elements of the debate about binge drinking and drug abuse focus either on the moral failings of users, or their helplessness in the face of advertising/nefarious drug pushers. And when it does turn to the interesting question of why some patterns of use are so different in our country to others, people don't seem to want to drill very far into exactly what makes us different.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.