Posts by Craig Young
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I see Family First imported him, as I thought. The details are probably on their website…http://www.familyfirst.org.nz
Ah. Nope, but it is here...: https://www.rhema.co.nz/shows-djs/days/item/10959-marijuana-debate
-
We're being visited by one Dr Ben Cort, associated with groups like Smart Approaches to Marijuana, funded by a conservative corporate called Coachella, which used to bankroll anti-LGBT organisations opposed to marriage equality and transgender rights.
-
Fortunately, though, Newshub/Three News is not rating highly and Duncan Garnet's scale of influence is therefore probably circumscribed by this. Added to which, McCoskrie is serioisly isolated on this issue - none of the other New Zealand social conservative isual suspects share his 'reefer madness' obsession, although Family First is a cod in a sea of guppies insofar as those pressure groups are concerned. The problem is, the MagicTalk/Herald/Newshub axis gives him more publicity and less critical scrutiny than he deserves.
-
The prison abolitionist group People Against Prisons Aotearoa is holding a symposium on drug policy reform:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1903/S00014/expert-panel-holding-public-discussion-of-drug-law-reform.htmThe panel will be on the top floor of the Auckland Central Library from 1pm, on Sunday 3rd of March. MP Chlöe Swarbrick of the Green Party and Sandra Murray of the Cannabis Referendum Coalition will join PAPA Research Coordinator Ti Lamusse.
-
Hard News: Always asking the wrong…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Why does the raving right have so much contempt for substantive representative democratic institutions? And the concept of a written constitution, too.
-
Hard News: Always asking the wrong…, in reply to andin,
McCoskrie does this, though. He wouldn't know mainstream professional expertise and evidence-based substantive science if he tripped over it in the dark.
-
Hard News: We have to rethink the annual…, in reply to andin,
It'd be an interesting idea to quantify the harm caused by perfectly legal alcohol and compare it to decriminalised pot, wouldn't it? Has anyone undertaken what could be a potentially useful comparative exercise during overseas cannabis policy debates? It wouldn't be hard to get the information about booze's effects. It'd certainly rattle those who selectively focus on cannabis but not alcohol.
-
Hard News: We have to rethink the annual…, in reply to andin,
I don't give a damn what the liquor industry thinks. If we're talking about a harm reduction and risk minimisation policy on drugs, why exempt alcohol from regulatory scrutiny? Isn't it hypocritical focusing this much attention on pot and negligible focus on alcohol, which is a far more problematic drug? The only anti-pot activist who's agreed with me is Bob McCoskrie, ironically enough. The others avoid the large hallucinatory pimk elephant in the room.
-
And as a parent (albeit one of an adult child), I can relate to what this woman is saying. It looks like one of the concerns about cannabis regulation that we will need to face is the thorny question of developmental maturity and cannabis potency. To me, eighteen seems to be a reasonable age to draw the line, as it is the final year of high school, two years later than the sexual age of consent, and marks the onset of developed adult strategic reasoning skills and foresight about the consquences. Having said that, I'd support a minimum age of twenty, but only if the minimum age of liquor ingestion is raised to the same age. Alcohol is a far more dangerous drug.
-
Hard News: We have to rethink the annual…, in reply to Sandra Coney,
The problem that I have, Sandra, is that P/crystal meth appears to be linked to unsafe sex, domestic violence and other social dysfunctions. If people are using too much weed, is it possible that is attributable to neoliberal detox service cutbacks, and how would continuing prohibition actually assist these people to undertake remedial care? It's possible that liberalisation might encourage access to detox services. And surely liberalisation would come with an age of consent provision that would be more strictly enforced, whereas prohibition has no such protections and safeguards in place? Insofar as already existing large scale recreational substance industrialisation goes, shouldn't we be actively engaging in far greater restrictive regulation of alcohol than we currently are, given its harmful effects. which are far greater than those of cannabis? I do sympathise with your property concerns, but I cannot see how continued prohibition would rectify such behaviour. Surely you could invoke the Trespass Act in that context, anyway?