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
In lieu of the government getting off their arses and actually doing something about the issue, Police have been practicing selective decriminalisation for years
I am so in disagreement with this.
People are still getting busted. Ask them if it is "de facto decriminalised". Use a phone for personal safety.
There is no way to score if you are new to town. Before prostitution (technically soliciting) was legalised it was easy to find a brothel. They were in the phone book as "massage parlours", still are. There is no equivalent for tinny houses.
Cannabis is de jure and de facto banned. That is the meat hook reality for dope smokers.
National keep saying it's a supply issue. I say FUCK THAT, it's a demand issue, Auckland is full, nobody should be let in who isn't a citizen. After 10 years, and lots research and evidence then I'd be happy to reconsider.
It is patently a supply issue and a demand issue. How are you going to keep people out of Auckland? Dawn raids? Internal passports?
This is a world wide problem. Most western world major cities are in the same boat.
There are multiple causes and solutions, and many mentioned here. My favourite solution is a decent social housing program with secure long term tenancy. And regional development (I am *never* going back to Auckland where I grew up, the quality of life is so much better in other parts of the country. Way way better. Off the chart better...)
But a cause that we are forgetting is the crash, throughout the stable section of the western world, of interest rates. Not so much that borrowing is cheap but that there are very few places to put capital for a decent risk adjusted return .
It will be interesting to see how much investment is from non-resident foreigners, we need many data to know and we have close to none (Chinese sounding names is racist cant - shame). That is probably "hot money", volatile. There is a good chance the "hot money" buyers will get spooked, liquidate and leave for any number of reasons.
Then as Paul Campbell pointed out a sudden increase of interest rates would wipe out a lot of investors and banks would be forced to liquidate.
Which ever way you look at it it is reasonable to expect that we will see a crash in the housing market, world wide. No government policy changes can prevent it or protect us (except decent secure social housing - but that is a communist plot apparently).
We are at an economic cross roads. All the old assumptions about wealth are getting turned on their head. Now the most valuable thing is ideas not factories, the value of labour is in free fall. This is a symptom, and expect some very rough weather ahead.