As reported by Radio New Zealand Andrew McKenzie was asked about a Deloitte report at select committee...
... the Deloitte report the agency commissioned last year.
That report again told Housing New Zealand the guidelines were designed only for cleaning up meth labs and warned its eviction campaign was not based on a solid foundation of research or science.
"Housing New Zealand spent $50,000 on a report from Deloittes. As I understand it that report told you that the standard you were using was not sound, and yet you continued to use the standard - is that right?"
At the same committee meeting Andrew denied getting the advice from the Ministry of Health. I am not a journalist, but methinks that Deloitte report would be OIA'able....
I wonder where Mike Sabin fits into this picture?
You did good work.
It was a classic drug panic.
Astatutory defence is a defence in law, so it’s okay – the same as being legal, in fact. I think it will have an impact on police willingness to prosecute in general.
It is a defence in law. But it is a defence. It is used in court. It is nothing like being legal.
Whilst it may have some effect on police actions, probably, police can still use the law to harras and terrify people. The search provisions of themisuse of drugs act will (?) still apply.
This is worth supporting. But do not be fooled. This is still classifying cannabis users, even medical users, as not quite good enough.
We have a long journey. We must hold Labour's feet to the fire and make them see their hypocrisy. All animals are equal, but some...
Definitely better than nothing.
Was it too far to have protection better than "legal defense"?
Protection for growers would have good too. Too far?
On drug stigma: Drug policy still, still, expressed in terms of harm.
Prejudice. Bigotry. People use drugs because drugs are good.
There is harm associated with drugs. There is harm associated with concrete, plums and motorcycles.
Congratulations Russell Brown for your good work around drugs. Drug users are vilified and patronised everywhere else I go.
I recently watched the Ken Burns documentary miniseries on Prohibition. What was very interesting about it was all the unintended consequences of those laws and how that played out. Various commentators in that series may have overstated their views but the criminalisation of alcohol was said to have created many of the organised crime in the U.S at the time.
I think it is worthwhile to point out that the prohibition of alcohol in the USA in 1920 was effectively "decriminalised". That is private ownership and consumption of alcohol were not made illegal, under federal law. It was the production, importation, transportation and sale of alcohol which was criminalised.
Which is what "decriminalisation" advocates wish for here with regards for cannabis.
Over half of all people apprehended and processed for drug offences in Northland last year were charged with a criminal offence
I bet to them, "defacto decriminalisation" is as meaningless as it is to me.
So I'm happy enough with the phrase "de facto decriminalisation".
That is nice, be safe and be nice to police officers, because you have to.
But the number of arrests and prosecutions for use and possession has been falling significantly, while use and possession haven't. Something is happening.
It is not any sort of decriminalisation.
Alfie should post the phone numbers of his dealers.
But of course he should not. Cannabis is very much illegal and criminal