Speaker by Various Artists

Read Post

Speaker: Towards a realistic drug policy

385 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 8 9 10 11 12 16 Newer→ Last

  • Just thinking,

    Corruption exists here. The whole reason for tipping it out is due to the confiscated alcohol being drunk by the police themselves in the square kiosk.
    Customs used to throw the best Christams parties back in the day too!

    Putaringamotu • Since Apr 2009 • 1158 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Geez. I have a problem with this Guy's attitude.

    Mike Sabin strongly supports drug education in school and believes the Government has missed the wider issue. He argues that demand for drugs will continue as long as we have a policy of harm minimisation (accepting that drug use occurs and dealing with the consequences) rather than harm prevention (not tolerating drug abuse and aiming to reduce it to zero).

    Yeah, sure, P is bad, all those that don't use it would, I think, agree with that.
    However. This attitude does more harm than good. Zero drug abuse is never going to happen and going into businesses and "outing" drug users (Who will most likely lose their jobs and become a "Burden on Society" ) for profit is just another aspect of the problem, not a solution.
    Any realistic Drug Policy must come from the Harm Reduction point otherwise it is just another piece of social engineering that the "Same Suspects" lambasted the last government for doing.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen McIntyre,

    Geez. I have a problem with this Guy's attitude.

    Mike Sabin strongly supports drug education in school and believes the Government has missed the wider issue. He argues that demand for drugs will continue as long as we have a policy of harm minimisation (accepting that drug use occurs and dealing with the consequences) rather than harm prevention (not tolerating drug abuse and aiming to reduce it to zero).

    Here you have the perfect example of someone who makes a living from prohibition and has a strong vested interest in maintaining - or even ramping up - the status quo.

    I major problems with anyone who thinks sending sniffer dogs into high schools and randomly checking my kids is OK.

    3 years back one of my nephews described the way in his entire class were one day suddenly made to exit the room, line up outside in the corridor, and wait while a dog went in and sniffed bags and desks.

    And the police wonder why they're often treated with fear and suspicion by youing people???

    Come to think of it: isn't it illegal for schools to allow random checks on students?

    Auckland • Since Jan 2010 • 37 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Come to think of it: isn't it illegal for schools to allow random checks on students?

    In the political climate surrounding drug use it would appear that "Morality" overrides "Legality" when it comes to "Stamping out this menace"
    By all means take methamphetamine use into account for sentencing someone for committing harm to others but punishing someone for harming themselves is bizarre.
    The way we treat drug abuse is way out of whack here. A drug supplier is treated as a criminal because drug abuse can lead to harm to others. Alcohol abuse can lead to harm to others yet we give the man responsible for a large amount of that supply a knighthood.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • chris,

    I don't see the point of laws that are not enforced. That encourages too much discretion in the police which leads to arbitrariness in the application of the law and the opportunity for corruption.

    Hey Peter, I see unenforced laws as a kind of security measure, were someone committing an actual crime, the unenforced laws are an extra arrow in the authorities bow when charging someone for vandalism or something. Were a coffee shop to be under strong suspicion of fencing stolen goods, they could be more easily closed down.

    It keeps the criminal element on their toes and innocents more weary of the line they they're crossing. In the case of group walking with open bottles, every individual would feel more of a sense of responsibility to behave knowing that any excess criminal act at that juncture may not simply entail charges being brought against them alone, but the entire open vesselled group. Oftentimes we're more likely to support our friends than uphold arbitrary laws in the throws of drunkenness.

    It really comes down to whether we want people to feel a sense of social responsibility or simply just herd them through the yard.

    I'm from NZ, where it was previously a non-issue. I've lived in China 7 years, where alcohol legal issues (including selling to minors) are pretty much non existent, due to the civil manner in which alcohol is used negating the necessity to ban open bottles. Correct me if I'm wrong Peter but the laws that exist in the countries or at least municipalities that you mentioned, are primarily due to drinking problems, violence etc, lack of public civility on the turps. So although you maintain it's civil, why the need for the law, if not to control the tanked barbarians wreaking havoc?

    My issue is not so much with the law as the administration, I saw no street signs, and surely they don't cost much, but in this case, a cop car passed, drove 50 metres down the road, did a U-ey, drove 50 metres back, two officers in stab proof vests emeerged, and gave us the heavy act on a totally empty street, us just minding our own business. That's a waste of police time, petrol, money.

    Again if that's the society New Zealand wishes to construct about itself, I have no issue, my main point was.

    idyllic tourism destination par excellence.

    but I wouldn't think of walking a street carrying an open bottle of alcohol.

    I wouldn't think of not walking a street crrying an open bottle of alcohol. how much influence does a further 330mls of 4.7% beer being consumed en route to a bar really have on my otherwise intoxicated/non intoxicated state. I don't see that drink being here nor there. If i were going to bottle someone I could do more damage with an unopened bottle. Those police should have been stopping drunk drivers.

    Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report Reply

  • chris,

    Of course if you want to develop the populace's ability to skull fast before heading out the door, then this legislation is a surefire winner.

    Corruption exists here. The whole reason for tipping it out is due to the confiscated alcohol being drunk by the police themselves in the square kiosk.
    Customs used to throw the best Christams parties back in the day too!

    Out of interest, How many here have had cannabis confiscated and not been charged?

    me, twice

    Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report Reply

  • Rich Lock,

    I see unenforced laws as a kind of security measure, were someone committing an actual crime, the unenforced laws are an extra arrow in the authorities bow when charging someone for vandalism or something.

    In that case, we should probably make everything we can possibly think of illegal, and just leave it to the discretion of the police whether they arrest someone or not....right?

    back in the mother countr… • Since Feb 2007 • 2728 posts Report Reply

  • chris,

    No, that would be silly Rich. We should make each law with clear reasoning, and long term consideration of potential societal reaction to that law. Furthermore, prioritizing that law and providing a clear and convenient method of policing it. Not to simply maintain the peace, but to create a more convivial and civil environment.

    The very notion that police getting into happy innocent peoples' faces somehow benefits New Zealand, is decidedly old hat.

    Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report Reply

  • chris,

    the, "allo, allo, allo, what's going on 'ere then?" kind of hat. The one that looks like a big tit with a nipple on the top.

    log;
    28/12/2009 20:14.Armagh/Gloucester: Stopped 4 geeks and a model with an open vessel. model emptied her Sol into rubbish bin. Situation neutralized.

    Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Can't believe I totally missed this debate. I was caught up in another addiction, online gaming, and lost several days.

    But after forging through 250 odd posts, it looks like the whole debate is in good hands.

    My own attitude to the evil weed is that it's something to keep in the cupboard, like biscuits, chocolate sauce, spirits, instant coffee, Panadol, cigars. Basically, because it is illegal, I don't care too much what anyone thinks about it. Anyone who has a problem will never know, anyone who likes it can have a smoke. My duty as a good host.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Just thinking,

    Duties of a good host.
    My Great Grand Parents were teetotal but by Dads account had the best selection of top-shelf you could wish for, just because they didn't, didn't mean you couldn't.

    Putaringamotu • Since Apr 2009 • 1158 posts Report Reply

  • Rich Lock,

    instant coffee....My duty as a good host

    There may be a few members of the Cult of Brown who'll have a word or two to say about that.

    back in the mother countr… • Since Feb 2007 • 2728 posts Report Reply

  • Graham Reid,

    Apropos of this discussion, some of you may like to see what i wrote for the Herald a decade ago when decriminalisation was the issue.
    I've posted it at www.elsewhere.co.nz/culturalelsewhere.
    There are some oddball internal links too -- and the music track I've posted is kinda cool.

    auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 45 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen McIntyre,

    some of you may like to see what i wrote for the Herald a decade ago when decriminalisation was the issue.

    Did they run it?

    Auckland • Since Jan 2010 • 37 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    I wouldn't think of not walking a street crrying an open bottle of alcohol. how much influence does a further 330mls of 4.7% beer being consumed en route to a bar really have on my otherwise intoxicated/non intoxicated state. I don't see that drink being here nor there. If i were going to bottle someone I could do more damage with an unopened bottle. Those police should have been stopping drunk drivers.

    You're a bit at cross-purposes with yourself here, Chris. The council liquor bans in the Auckland CBD have improved the atmosphere of the streets, in part because they're reliably enforced. If it were simply the kind of back-pocket law you want for cannabis, we'd be back to to the cops playing favourites. Which is pretty much what happens with marijuana now.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Just thinking,

    But what has been lost is your ability (right) to have a picnic on your soon to be beautiful waterfront, unless you pay for the pleasure.
    What needs to be policed, in and outside of licensed areas is the level of intoxication and the anti-social behaviour.

    Putaringamotu • Since Apr 2009 • 1158 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Litterick,

    What has been gained is peace of mind. The Police could spend a lot of time arresting drunks for anti-social behaviour, but it is a lot better to have fewer drunks on the streets.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1000 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    There may be a few members of the Cult of Brown who'll have a word or two to say about that.

    Some people insist on instant. I've got whiskey and Karajoz in there too, if it ever comes to that, and the instant will be hidden, just like dak is hidden when ubersquares are there.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • chris,

    You're a bit at cross-purposes with yourself here, Chris.

    Yes, I know. not so black and white. I have no doubt that Auckland streets have an improved atmosphere as a result of the law. "improved atmosphere' is exactly what I imagine they were going for when they introduced the legislation, and that's what I would have liked to experience.

    A friendly wind down the window and "Hey guys, there's a liquor ban here, can you tip your bottle out"

    As opposed to a mini confrontation on an empty street outlined previously.

    If it were simply the kind of back-pocket law you want for cannabis

    As I see it Russell, It's not so much what I want that matters, as opposed to what our country has to offer, it's simply that as a tourist, bringing tourist dollars, I don't want to be threatened with arrest, for a law that is not signposted, if the police must kill the vibe in order to administer a law to improve the atmosphere...then...there's nothing I can really do about it. Of course I will not hesitate to recommend that friends visiting New Zealand avoid Chch at all costs. We're talking about little more than a few grands. But the question is left teetering on the dance floor, What exactly were they going for?

    Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report Reply

  • Just thinking,

    Chris, what do you mean avoid Christchurch?
    Just be aware of the alcohol policing, which is signposted. Christchurch is much safer than any other city in NZ, still walk in groups at nights [edit] & always has been.

    Putaringamotu • Since Apr 2009 • 1158 posts Report Reply

  • chris,

    2,000,000+ tourists a year come to New Zealand (many of whom come from places without these kinds of laws). New Zealand is arresting people for carrying a bottle of shandy as opposed to fining people for speeding? Or even just personally threatening tourists from developing and undeveloped countries where the concept of arrest can be pretty fucking serious.

    Welcome to New Zealand, empty your bottle or we'll arrest you.

    World Cup Rugby? Manpower/room in the cells?
    fines no?=income not important?
    signs-didn't see them.
    Basically, Towards a realistic drug policy

    Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Christchurch is much safer than any other city in NZ, still walk in groups at nights [edit] & always has been.

    Not quite true, according to the police statistics. Canterbury district had 442 grievous assaults in the year to June -- vs 387 for Auckland district off. Its overall rate for violent offences is slightly less than Auckland's -- until you compare the two central city areas.

    Central Auckland City logged violent 1,446 offences -- and Central Christchurch saw 1,713. Violent crime fell 5% in central Auckland and rose 13.4% in Christchurch Central.

    I'm with the ladies. I feel much safer in the CBDs of Auckland or Wellington than I do in Christchurch on a Friday night.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Welcome to New Zealand, empty your bottle or we'll arrest you.

    Ever been to Paris?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov,

    I'm with the ladies. I feel much safer in the CBDs of Auckland or Wellington than I do in Christchurch on a Friday night.

    Same.

    Ever been to Paris?

    Sure, a few times.

    If you're unlucky and policemen in a bad mood, they can ask you 11 to 38 euros of penalty

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081009055637AA5JFt4

    I do think a fine is more fitting than arrest for this offence.

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Litterick,

    You were breaking the law, you got caught. Get over it.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1000 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 8 9 10 11 12 16 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.