Cannabis referendum.

[Katman]

Well we're now just over 2 months away from getting to vote on the subject so I figured it was timely that we had some open discussion on it.

Personally I don't feel that it will change usage habits overly much - it will just mean that those who partake are not breaking the law in doing so.

So here's an opportunity to express any doubts or fears that might exist and maybe get answers to some questions.

[TheDemonLord]

On the Principle - 100% support it, long overdue IMO.

On the implementation - I've not seen any discussion about decriminalizing people:

For some people who's living is made by growing and selling Weed, their immediate network is comprised of Fellow Criminals - it seems foolish to me to expect them to suddenly become law-abiding citizens.

I'd like to see some plans/thought by the Government as to how we look at moving those people from their current state of existence outside of the law, to law abiding Tax Payers.

[Katman]

On the implementation - I've not seen any discussion about decriminalizing people:

For some people who's living is made by growing and selling Weed, their immediate network is comprised of Fellow Criminals - it seems foolish to me to expect them to suddenly become law-abiding citizens.

I'd like to see some plans/thought by the Government as to how we look at moving those people from their current state of existence outside of the law, to law abiding Tax Payers.

Some of those who grow the product in large quantities may well get to continue doing so in a legal manner.

I'd prefer to see people grow small amounts just for their personal use, but I also believe there will be a massive demand for supply to the medical profession as we get to know more about the therapeutic benefits of the product.

[HenryDorsetCase]

On the Principle - 100% support it, long overdue IMO.

On the implementation - I've not seen any discussion about decriminalizing people:

For some people who's living is made by growing and selling Weed, their immediate network is comprised of Fellow Criminals - it seems foolish to me to expect them to suddenly become law-abiding citizens.

I'd like to see some plans/thought by the Government as to how we look at moving those people from their current state of existence outside of the law, to law abiding Tax Payers.

Some very good overseas models for this - Washington State, Oregon, Portugal

edit: I also agree with decriminalisation,/legalisation and taxation. People still drink alcohol and its known to be bad for you. People (stupid people) still smoke cigarettes. Stupid people vape. People want to get fucked up. Weed is objectively less harmful than most of those - let the gubblemunt get some revenue from it.

No, I don't use it but of course I've tried it.

[Viking01]

Just in case people think that we are comparing like-with-like, please do note several important distinctions between medicinal cannabis and that to be grown for recreational purposes (namely purity and composition).

Medicinal Cannabis
In the case of medicinal cannabis, any products will need to be approved as a medicine, and therefore be subject to stringent conditions governing its production (e.g. the product must not contain solvents, heavy metals or pesticides).

It will likely contain only certain components typically found in raw cannabis oil. Some of the naturally occurring components (which have beneficial effects) will likely have been removed during the commercial purification process.

The medicinal product will have been produced to have a very low (effectively zero %) THC level, and focus more on CBD and naturally occurring turpenes etc.

The product to be sold must have a consistent known composition and concentration(s). In terms of ranges and maximum cut-off limits.

Production of a medical grade product will likely not be cheap, even when grown in bulk.

Recreational Cannabis
None of the above will apply for the backyard grower who grows their own plants, and produces their own product for their own consumption.

[Edit]

The other point to make - and possibly the most important - is that the referendum is on recreational cannabis.

It is already legal to consume an approved medicinal cannabis product (subject to prescription for medicinal purposes).

[Katman]

...and focus more on GHB and naturally occurring turpenes etc.

I suspect you mean CBD.

[Viking01]

I suspect you mean CBD.

Thanks. Just re-read my post, and realised the error. Now corrected.

[Katman]

Here is the outline of the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill.

https://www.referendums.govt.nz/cannabis/index.html?gclid=CjwKCAjwrvv3BRAJEiwAhwOdMz0dI6fQY fDp1nXgH_35q41pJi2LAxuQI7KxMEobLzkiBAUSizlN0BoC5oM QAvD_BwE

(And don't forget to check out the link at the bottom of the page for information on the End of Life Bill which will also be part of this Elections referendums.)

[Oakie]

I'm moderately opposed. This based on my occasional involvement with the stuff for a few years about 30 years ago. I found that the results were inconsistant. Sometimes I got really fucked up and other times it was like ... mehh. If it were able to be produced in a commercial setting where results had to be consistent or at least measurable and reported (like alcohol content in booze) and there was no home grown because face it ... home grown will still be sold. ... then I'd probably be more comfortable with it being legal. I'll vote against but not by much ... and I won't lose sleep if it becomes legal as long as there are good guidelines around it.

There ya go Katman. I'm sure you wanted one negative guy for you to jump on and ridicule. Go for it!

[Katman]

There ya go Katman. I'm sure you wanted one negative guy for you to jump on and ridicule. Go for it!

Then you assumed wrong.

It's a subject that we'll be voting on as adults very soon - so it probably deserves to be discussed like we're adults.

[Katman]

But to address the issues you raised.....

I think consistency in the product is very much what the government will be aiming for if the legislation is voted in.

And I don't think that homegrown will be sold that much.

If consistency is what someone wants then they're likely to go where they can expect consistency.

[Oakie]

It's a subject that we'll be voting on as adults very soon - so it probably deserves to be discussed like we're adults.

In KiwiBiker?

[Oakie]

I've not read the detail but does it indicate whether people growing ostensibly for home use then selling on what would be a black market would receive more of a punishment than now? Also would they also be charged with tax avoidance (evasion?)?

[Katman]

I've not read the detail but does it indicate whether people growing ostensibly for home use then selling on what would be a black market would receive more of a punishment than now? Also would they also be charged with tax avoidance (evasion?)?

I think that question can best be answered by asking another question....

Why would people buy cannabis on the black market if they could buy it legally?

[Viking01]

I think that question can best be answered by asking another question....

Why would people buy cannabis on the black market if they could buy it legally?

Several factors spring to mind:

1. Cost (black market product may be relatively cheaper if "tax free")

2. Local Availability (depends whether legal product may be purchased only from a "bricks and mortar" outlet). How many resellers will wish to establish premises ?

3. Variation in Product Content (depends upon variation in product potency e.g. THC, or in other non-THC components). Wide range of strains having varying THC and CBD %, as well as other components (such as GHB and turpenes).

Buyers may not be able to purchase a "product" meeting their particular wants from a local outlet (or even a web-based outlet, if that is permitted).

[Katman]

Several factors spring to mind:

1. Cost (black market product may be relatively cheaper if "tax free")

2. Local Availability (depends whether legal product may be purchased only from a "bricks and mortar" outlet). How many resellers will wish to establish premises ?

3. Variation in Product Content (depends upon variation in product potency e.g. THC, or in other non-THC components). Wide range of strains having varying THC and CBD %, as well as other components (such as GHB and turpenes).

Buyers may not be able to purchase a "product" meeting their particular wants from a local outlet (or even a web-based outlet, if that is permitted).

If any of those options where a real issue why wouldn't the person just grow their own?

You can't get much cheaper than that.

(By the way, is your reference to GHB another oversight or do you know of some connection between GHB and cannabis?)

[MD]

Good to see some calm and considered posts and so far no mud slinging. It's a difficult topic. I'm on the fence. I sure used it from high school onwards as a youth but I stuck to the rule that it was a socialising tool, not a daily must have and never something you would take on your own. Friday and weekends , at parties, at a the pub it seemed no different when socialising than sharing a drink of Cola or beer.

For me I simply grew out of it in my late 30s I suppose. But I do know of a couple of people, old friends, who I would describe as addicted to dope since high school age. They didn't 'grow out of it'. It's intrenched, no different than a regular food source, and not wanting to be insulting they are not the bright intelligent spark I remember. It does eventually slow the brain or dumb down the heavy user to a point where their company is, well a tad lacking.

One concern is what will the current criminal supply element- gangs, do if they find their Buyers are going elsewhere. Get nasty, intimidate people to buy from them. Or infiltrate the legal market, or worse increase their efforts to push P instead.

For now I will probably vote yes because it's the lesser evil compared to booze and casual dope users, like I was, shouldn't find themselves with criminal convictions. Booze causes the most harm in our society and that's legal. Cannabis smokers from my experience don't get nasty, don't get violent, don't often get a sense of false bravado that leads to reckless dangerous behaviour.

[Katman]

For me I simply grew out of it in my late 30s I suppose. But I do know of a couple of people, old friends, who I would describe as addicted to dope since high school age. They didn't 'grow out of it'. It's intrenched, no different than a regular food source, and not wanting to be insulting they are not the bright intelligent spark I remember. It does eventually slow the brain or dumb down the heavy user to a point where their company is, well a tad lacking.

I've used cannabis for coming up to 40 years now.

I don't indulge every day though - it's more of a 'when the mood strikes' thing.

Yes, cannabis can be psychologically addictive to some people - but not to anywhere near the same degree as alcohol.

[Viking01]

If any of those options where a real issue why wouldn't the person just grow their own?

You can't get much cheaper than that.

(By the way, is your reference to GHB another oversight or do you know of some connection between GHB and cannabis?)

GHB: Understand that it may also be present in very small concentrations. Error in earlier post yesterday was writing GHB when I meant CBD.

Agree your point on cost, but an intending user may still have some “concerns” on points 2 and 3.

Availability
While it may grow like a “weed”, do all intending users have a “green thumb”, or want the bother of manufacture (harvesting and drying)?

Will they always have continuity of supply (i.e. a stash of product ready for their consumption when wanted) ?

Users may want some control over access. Easier to "lock up" supply of dry product (i.e. want it to be available for adults in their household, but not children).

Might attract some unwanted attention from “black market” operators (if demand for their product falls off).

Product Content

Still to be determined if higher THC % strains will be permitted. If not legal, then the “black market” may be the only source for high THC % products.

[Katman]

GHB: Understand that it may also be present in very small concentrations.

Really? I've googled 'GHB in cannabis' and can't find anything that supports that suggestion.


Availability
While it may grow like a “weed”, do all intending users have a “green thumb”, or want the bother of manufacture (harvesting and drying)?


Will they always have continuity of supply (i.e. a stash of product ready for their consumption when wanted) ?

Users may want some control over access. Easier to "lock up" supply of dry product (i.e. want it to be available for adults in their household, but not children).

Might attract some unwanted attention from “black market” operators (if demand for their product falls off).

A household would be permitted to grow up to 4 plants. Four plants would provide plenty for most cannabis users. Grown outdoors you'd have to wait 6 months for your crop but indoors under grow lamps cuts the time down to a fraction of that.


Product Content

Still to be determined if higher THC % strains will be permitted. If not legal, then the “black market” may be the only source for high THC % products.

There are already higher THC % seeds out there. If people want to grow their own higher THC strains they can do so without any difficulty.

[Viking01]

Really? I've googled 'GHB in cannabis' and can't find anything that supports that suggestion.

You're correct (again). I should have said CBG.

I'm having a bad week. Trying to do several things at once, and too many similar initials. I'll shut up now .... 8-)

[Katman]

You're correct (again). I should have said CBG.

I'm having a bad week. Trying to do several things at once, and too many similar initials. I'll shut up now .... 8-)

Do you have reason to believe that CBG is particularly bad in cannabis?

Because this link suggests that it might well have medical benefits.

https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabis-101/what-is-cbg-cannabinoid

[Viking01]

Do you have reason to believe that CBG is particularly bad in cannabis?

Because this link suggests that it might well have medical benefits.

https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabis-101/what-is-cbg-cannabinoid

Think the main concern is with THC. And that (as the link suggests) some components - other than just CBD - do have beneficial (or moderating) properties.
Reluctant to say any more.

I'm more interested in hearing what other people (users of the product) have to say on the legislation.

[Edit]

https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabis-101/list-major-cannabinoids-cannabis-effects

[BMWST?]

i dont know enough about the actual product ,benefits etc of the product.As some one above has already mentioned what are the uninteded consequences going to be.?You are disrupting a big black market.There will be consequences.

[MaxPenguin]

I'm moderately opposed. This based on my occasional involvement with the stuff for a few years about 30 years ago. I found that the results were inconsistant. Sometimes I got really fucked up and other times it was like ... mehh. If it were able to be produced in a commercial setting where results had to be consistent or at least measurable and reported (like alcohol content in booze) and there was no home grown because face it ... home grown will still be sold. ... then I'd probably be more comfortable with it being legal. I'll vote against but not by much ... and I won't lose sleep if it becomes legal as long as there are good guidelines around it.

There ya go Katman. I'm sure you wanted one negative guy for you to jump on and ridicule. Go for it!

Yet you can purchase many different alcoholic drinks ranging from 1/2% to 50plus % and people drink them and get well and truly fucked up. So consistency to me seems a tad irrelevant.

[Katman]

Yet you can purchase many different alcoholic drinks ranging from 1/2% to 50plus % and people drink them and get well and truly fucked up. So consistency to me seems a tad irrelevant.

And many of those alcoholic drinks are being manufactured (and marketed) in such a manner that they can't really be seen as anything much other than an attempt to entice younger drinkers.

[mashman]

I'm moderately opposed. This based on my occasional involvement with the stuff for a few years about 30 years ago. I found that the results were inconsistant. Sometimes I got really fucked up and other times it was like ... mehh. If it were able to be produced in a commercial setting where results had to be consistent or at least measurable and reported (like alcohol content in booze) and there was no home grown because face it ... home grown will still be sold. ... then I'd probably be more comfortable with it being legal. I'll vote against but not by much ... and I won't lose sleep if it becomes legal as long as there are good guidelines around it.

There ya go Katman. I'm sure you wanted one negative guy for you to jump on and ridicule. Go for it!

With regards to consistency. Did you know what strain(s) you were smoking each time? With 4 different variants of plant and hundreds of strains to choose from, each with their own characteristics, I'd be surprised if consistency was really an issue, especially when you consider that homegrown tomatoes taste much better than commercial grown tomatoes for some reason(s). It's a plant that is just as consistent as any other grown thing when it's treated right and grown with love. State of mind, amount smoked, current tolerance and a few other things also come into play with regards to how stoned one is likely to become.

More comfortable?

[Katman]

i dont know enough about the actual product ,benefits etc of the product.As some one above has already mentioned what are the uninteded consequences going to be.?You are disrupting a big black market.There will be consequences.

You can't cook an omelette without breaking some eggs.

[FJRider]

On the Principle - 100% support it, long overdue IMO.

Not quite. 100% of those that smoke it support the changes.


On the implementation - I've not seen any discussion about decriminalizing people:

Possession for your own use will be legal in small amounts.

There will be set limits of what maximum amount you may have in your possession ... for your "Own use".

Smoking it in the privacy of your home will legal. In Public places it will not.

Growing it for supply will be illegal.

Riding or driving under the influence of it will be illegal.

Any past convictions for possession will be removed from your record. But only for amounts OVER the new maximum amounts for personal use.

If your record has convictions for any drug offenses that are still illegal ... (Possession for supply, Growing for supply, driving under the influence of it ..etc) they will NOT be removed from your record.


For some people who's living is made by growing and selling Weed, their immediate network is comprised of Fellow Criminals - it seems foolish to me to expect them to suddenly become law-abiding citizens.

And when the bottom drops out of their products value ... and the penalties increase for the unlicensed Growing/selling ... so will their market.

And they'll find/make other products to sell.


I'd like to see some plans/thought by the Government as to how we look at moving those people from their current state of existence outside of the law, to law abiding Tax Payers.

Perhaps a life INSIDE might be more to their liking ...

Some seem to have a high expectation of what the law changes will mean.

The drug laws are being relaxed ... NOT removed.

[FJRider]

i dont know enough about the actual product ,benefits etc of the product.As some one above has already mentioned what are the uninteded consequences going to be.?You are disrupting a big black market.There will be consequences.

One door closes ... another door opens. Other markets (and products) will be found.

Change ... but the same. Just like every other business.

[ellipsis]

...this is about personal interpretation of life...I couldn't give a fuck how the vote goes...nothing will change other than legislation and tax...

...I have a sciatic problem that has me six weeks prostrate and a further two weeks being terrified to move...when it visits...my friend makes oil that when rubbed into my gums improves my situation by 40%...

...stoners fuck me off, and always have..

[Katman]

Not quite. 100% of those that smoke it support the changes.

I think you'll find he means he 100% supports it.

[Katman]

Possession for your own use will be legal in small amounts.

There will be set limits of what maximum amount you may have in your possession ... for your "Own use".

Smoking it in the privacy of your home will legal. In Public places it will not.

Growing it for supply will be illegal.

Riding or driving under the influence of it will be illegal.

Any past convictions for possession will be removed from your record. But only for amounts OVER the new maximum amounts for personal use.

If your record has convictions for any drug offenses that are still illegal ... (Possession for supply, Growing for supply, driving under the influence of it ..etc) they will NOT be removed from your record.

Any past convictions for possession will be removed from your record. But only for amounts OVER the new maximum amounts for personal use.

If your record has convictions for any drug offenses that are still illegal ... (Possession for supply, Growing for supply, driving under the influence of it ..etc) they will NOT be removed from your record.


And I think you'll find that by 'decriminalising people' he's talking about turning the current suppliers away from a life of crime.

[Bonez]

Personally I support a change in legislation and this is defiantly a good step. Certainly prefer the smell of dope far better than tobacco and a wee puff around a rally bonfire is better tan waking up with a hang over.

[FJRider]

Some of those who grow the product in large quantities may well get to continue doing so in a legal manner.

If they are judged to be "Fit and proper people" ... and licensed ... and taxed ... and sales in Government approved / licensed premises only.

Those that want some for personal use ... will be allowed to grow their own.

But the Wiki version of what is proposed here ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_New_Zealand_cannabis_referendum

The final version has not been decided yet. The various parties are still arguing over it.


I'd prefer to see people grow small amounts just for their personal use

I think that is the Governments preference. But collecting the GST from commercial sales will give another boost to the economy.


but I also believe there will be a massive demand for supply to the medical profession as we get to know more about the therapeutic benefits of the product.

Very likely, but it probably wont be cheap from any commercial enterprises.

[Katman]

In case anyone's wondering.....

https://images.app.goo.gl/Gk2djTYECYNqTk4x5

[FJRider]

And I think you'll find that by 'decriminalising people' he's talking about turning the current suppliers away from a life of crime.

I disagree ... dope-heads want their records wiped.

The basic rules will be there ... but simply smoking it in your own home will not be an offence.

Turning "The current suppliers" away from a life of crime would be a really big ask.

[Katman]

But the Wiki version of what is proposed here ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_New_Zealand_cannabis_referendum

Thanks, but I posted the info straight from the government's website earlier.


I think that is the Governments preference.

Actually, I think if the vote passes, the government's preference is to make as much money from it as they can.


Very likely, but it probably wont be cheap from any commercial enterprises.

I suspect that medicinal cannabis will become very affordable.

[Katman]

Turning "The current suppliers" away from a life of crime would be a really big ask.

Yes, I think that's exactly what TDL was suggesting.

[FJRider]

I think you'll find he means he 100% supports it.

If he is not aware of ALL the rules and conditions proposed ... and the actual reality of the new laws (not yet written in it's final form yet) he may not.

Add several Government taxes to any product (like alcohol and Tobacco) and sold commercially ... and it won't be cheap.

A huge tax income for the country for sure.

[FJRider]

Thanks, but I posted the info straight from the government's website earlier.

Actually, I think if the vote passes, the government's preference is to make as much money from it as they can.

I suspect that medicinal cannabis will become very affordable.

I missed it ... sorry.

The main plan I think was to remove the current suppliers from the equation. That MAY work. Or not.

Would you prefer to grow ... or buy it ???

Time will tell on a lot of the various points.

[FJRider]

And I don't think that homegrown will be sold that much.

I don't think "Home Grown" will be legal to sell. Home grown for personal use only.

[FJRider]

You can't cook an omelette without breaking some eggs.

Heat needs to be added though. If you don't add enough heat ... the result is a big sticky mess.

[Oakie]

Well bugger me! Three pages in and this thread is still being discussed in a polite and constructive manner. 'Applause'. :clap:

[FJRider]

Well bugger me! Three pages in and this thread is still being discussed in a polite and constructive manner. 'Applause'. :clap:

All stoned ... <_<

[Bonez]

Well bugger me! Three pages in and this thread is still being discussed in a polite and constructive manner. 'Applause'. :clap:Only one negative Nelly so far. Some kind of semblance to the KB of old.

[Katman]

I don't think "Home Grown" will be legal to sell. Home grown for personal use only.

I'm well aware that homegrown will not be legal to sell.

I was responding to Oakie's suggestion that, even if the vote passes, homegrown will still be sold.

[Katman]

Would you prefer to grow ... or buy it ???

I see no point whatsoever in paying someone to do what I can do for free.

[MaxPenguin]

I do wonder if the suppliers will have to find a new source of income, or increase other income streams like P for example .

[BMWST?]

I do wonder if the suppliers will have to find a new source of income, or increase other income streams like P for example .

this is part of my "unintended consequences" scenarios.I am sure that some thought has gone into what may happen but i guess you dont actually know until it happens....a bit like the pandemic thing.Untill it happens you dont know what is actually gonna happen.you might have some theories but.......Who woulda thought that the US for example would be the hardest hit.I do not want to start a discussion about that,just an example.

[Katman]

this is part of my "unintended consequences" scenarios.I am sure that some thought has gone into what may happen but i guess you dont actually know until it happens....a bit like the pandemic thing.Untill it happens you dont know what is actually gonna happen.you might have some theories but.......Who woulda thought that the US for example would be the hardest hit.I do not want to start a discussion about that,just an example.

I do understand the point you're making but it's really just saying "maybe we should leave cannabis supply in the hands of the criminals because otherwise they might go off and do something else criminal".

[jellywrestler]

.......Who woulda thought that the US for example would be the hardest hit.I do not want to start a discussion about that,just an example. hardest hit by legalizing cannibis? how so?

[Bonez]

hardest hit by legalizing cannibis? how so?I'd like to know as well. Mind you it has got nothing to do the NZ situation despite what some grumpy bums may think.

[FJRider]

I'm well aware that homegrown will not be legal to sell.

I was responding to Oakie's suggestion that, even if the vote passes, homegrown will still be sold.

I did wonder if you knew ... <_<

However ... due to the tax "enhancements" added to any commercially sold "Product" ... the current "Suppliers" prices may actually be cheaper than those legal sales outlets.

And the ability to posses it for personal use ... will mean more customers willing to front up with the cash ... win win all round eh ..

[FJRider]

I see no point whatsoever in paying someone to do what I can do for free.

A fair comment. Those with money, position and desire to be not seen breaking any law. And with no time and/or inclination to grow their own ... will prove a ready market I'm sure.

[FJRider]

Yes, I think that's exactly what TDL was suggesting.

You kept telling me what he was "Most Likely" thinking in a few posts now ... do you know him well ... or is he just a "special friend" .. ??

[BMWST?]

hardest hit by legalizing cannibis? how so?
no not cannabis,but the pandemic.I am sure that no one would have thought that their response would be so chaotic.The difference between theory and practise

[FJRider]

this is part of my "unintended consequences" scenarios.I am sure that some thought has gone into what may happen but i guess you dont actually know until it happens....a bit like the pandemic thing.Untill it happens you dont know what is actually gonna happen.you might have some theories but.......Who woulda thought that the US for example would be the hardest hit.I do not want to start a discussion about that,just an example.

The coming cannabis referendum is in regard to proposed changes to New Zealand drug legislation. Any such changes in NZ law should not affect any US drug issues or laws.

Are you sure you were posting in the correct thread ??

[FJRider]

no not cannabis,but the pandemic.I am sure that no one would have thought that their response would be so chaotic.The difference between theory and practise

It's the (current) governments first pandemic. They might get it better next time.

[jasonu]

The herb they sell here in Oregon’s dispensary’s blows your head off. It is cheap, readily available, legal and fucking strong.

[george formby]

The herb they sell here in Oregon’s dispensary’s blows your head off. It is cheap, readily available, legal and fucking strong.

Some good shit getting smoked here, too, judging by the confusion in recent posts.:innocent:

[Bonez]

no not cannabis,but the pandemic.I am sure that no one would have thought that their response would be so chaotic.The difference between theory and practiseYou are in the wrong thread...

[Laava]

Some good shit getting smoked here, too, judging by the confusion in recent posts.:innocent:
Gotta wonder how it will affect northlands economy too eh? I spend most of my week in mangonui and it is pretty easy to spot the stoners and drugheads cruising about the place esp when sitting at the eateries in mangonui. Seatbelts? Voluntary once you get north of waipapa!

[jellywrestler]

The herb they sell here in Oregon’s dispensary’s blows your head off. It is cheap, readily available, legal and fucking strong.

I think you'll find it's dispensaries.

[jasonu]

I think you'll find it's dispensaries.

Thank you professor.

[TheDemonLord]

Yes, I think that's exactly what TDL was suggesting.

It's amazing how accurately my posts are interpreted when it's not a subject where there is disagreement....

To add to this - there seems to me to be a golden opportunity to bring certain communities or segments of communities back into 'polite society', to reset their view of the Police and the Government, to use the generated Tax Revenue for improving those areas that haven't had a lot of love etc.

Get it right - and I think the improvements will be massive,
Get it wrong - and it will be a waste.


If he is not aware of ALL the rules and conditions proposed ... and the actual reality of the new laws (not yet written in it's final form yet) he may not.

Add several Government taxes to any product (like alcohol and Tobacco) and sold commercially ... and it won't be cheap.

A huge tax income for the country for sure.

It will likely be modeled after existing Alcohol laws - minimum age, driving restrictions, probably 50% or more Tax, licences required for the selling and growing - maybe provisions for 'home brewing', probably a restriction on concentrated products (like Oil, Hash etc.)

Even if the new law is badly written (and I give that a strong possibility of occurring), it's still long overdue. IMO

[TheDemonLord]

the current "Suppliers" prices may actually be cheaper than those legal sales outlets. .

Bootleg liquor is cheaper than the Bottle-O, So why doesn't everyone go Bootleg?

Because it's an unnecessary risk for a product that doesn't have the implied official seal of authenticity on it. If it's Bootleg, I've got no guarantee if it's the genuine article or has been tampered with in any way and if it all goes badly, I have no recourse.

Whereas if I go to a Liqour Store and buy a Legit product, I've got a number of guarantees (both explicit and implicit) that I'm willing to pay the marked up Tax on, for those safeguards.

[TheDemonLord]

Gotta wonder how it will affect northlands economy too eh? I spend most of my week in mangonui and it is pretty easy to spot the stoners and drugheads cruising about the place esp when sitting at the eateries in mangonui. Seatbelts? Voluntary once you get north of waipapa!

Ages ago, I read something that suggested the (illegal) Economy of Northland was valued at around $4 Billion a year - which if you just charge GST on is $500 Million, Think of all the Bridges, Roads, Social Services etc. that could be provided if that income was taxed....

[Paul in NZ]

Ages ago, I read something that suggested the (illegal) Economy of Northland was valued at around $4 Billion a year - which if you just charge GST on is $500 Million, Think of all the Bridges, Roads, Social Services etc. that could be provided if that income was taxed....

Given wellingtons experience with Transmission Gully a half a road.....

[FJRider]

Bootleg liquor is cheaper than the Bottle-O, So why doesn't everyone go Bootleg?

Home brewing is economical ... and plenty of people do it. And they know what goes into it.

The time it takes to produce it is the downside.


Because it's an unnecessary risk for a product that doesn't have the implied official seal of authenticity on it. If it's Bootleg, I've got no guarantee if it's the genuine article or has been tampered with in any way and if it all goes badly, I have no recourse.

Obviously the risk hasn't deterred the multitude lining up at the various "Outlets" to date. Trust their suppliers quality I would imagine.

Or ... the dope-heads brains are already addled by the shit they've smoked already ... and past caring.

And too lazy (or stoned) to grow their own.

Is that your excuse ...

[FJRider]

It will likely be modeled after existing Alcohol laws - minimum age, driving restrictions, probably 50% or more Tax, licences required for the selling and growing - maybe provisions for 'home brewing', probably a restriction on concentrated products (like Oil, Hash etc.)

With the stuff already declared as to policy ... 20 years and over, no driving under the influence of drugs, and commercial production and sales licensed (with added GST). The rest and final decisions to be decided post election ... by the party in power.

The "random" police stops will include a drug test. If your car (or bike) fits the "profile" it will be a given.


Even if the new law is badly written (and I give that a strong possibility of occurring), it's still long overdue. IMO

No doubt Police will have some "Discretion" with the enforcement policies. How you choose to act or speak (roadside) ... may decide your eventual fate.

[TheDemonLord]

Or ... the dope-heads brains are already addled by the shit they've smoked already ... and past caring.

And too lazy (or stoned) to grow their own.

Is that your excuse ...

If the choice is:

A: Going to my local store, paying $20 for a quality product that hasn't been laced with anything
vs
B: Going to a Tinny House, potentially getting Robbed, paying $20 for a product of Dubious Quality

Then which do you think most people will opt for? Especially when Option A incurs no attention from the Local Blue Hat Mafia, whereas Option B is.

To most people, even the most Chronic of Chronic Stoners, it's not even a choice.

As for my Excuse: It's been years since I've dabbled and the time and place where potentially I could dabble doesn't come around very often. I don't homebrew because I don't like Beer or Wine, I have been tempted on occasion to try Distillation, but my understanding is that distilling Spirits (even if for personal use) isn't legal and even if it was - the items required to get a working distillation setup exceeds my give-a-fuck-o-meter for the 1 or so Bottles of Vodka I drink a year.

[FJRider]

If the choice is:

A: Going to my local store, paying $20 for a quality product that hasn't been laced with anything
vs
B: Going to a Tinny House, potentially getting Robbed, paying $20 for a product of Dubious Quality

Then which do you think most people will opt for? Especially when Option A incurs no attention from the Local Blue Hat Mafia, whereas Option B is.

To most people, even the most Chronic of Chronic Stoners, it's not even a choice.


Have a look at the number of times booze gets taxed ... and I doubt any drug sales/production will be taxed any less.

Getting a decent (sized) cup of coffee costs a bit nowadays ... A few licensed joints (pun intended) would sell you a smoke for $20 at least. I'm guessing more ... but time will tell.

I wonder if commercially made dope smokes will be a thing ... a business opportunity there maybe ...

[onearmedbandit]

Not quite. 100% of those that smoke it support the changes.




Wrong. I know plenty of smokers who don't want the laws changed.


dope-heads




the dope-heads brains are already addled by the shit they've smoked already ... and past caring.

And too lazy (or stoned) to grow their own.



Interested to know if anyone who smokes marijuana is a 'dope-head' to you? Sure I know there are plenty of lazy stupid people who use weed. But on the flipside I can also name dozens of people I know personally who partake regularly yet are incredibly successful both financially and in their personal lives. People who live a normal life but yet like to relax with a smoke. Dope-head and other similar descriptions talk to me more about the person saying these things than those they are trying to put down. And yes these terms are put downs. I've been a smoker most of my adult life, as are a lot of my friends, it's funny to hear people tell me 'no you don't smoke dope' when they find out I do, just because I don't fit their naive perception of a 'typical pot-smoker'. Not that one actually exists.

[Katman]

Or ... the dope-heads brains are already addled by the shit they've smoked already ... and past caring.

Do you drink alcohol?

[TheDemonLord]

Wrong. I know plenty of smokers who don't want the laws changed.

Out of curiosity - why? Granted I've not been involved with many people who are regular smokers these days, but when I was, they were all for Legalisation.


Interested to know if anyone who smokes marijuana is a 'dope-head' to you? Sure I know there are plenty of lazy stupid people who use weed. But on the flipside I can also name dozens of people I know personally who partake regularly yet are incredibly successful both financially and in their personal lives. People who live a normal life but yet like to relax with a smoke. Dope-head and other similar descriptions talk to me more about the person saying these things than those they are trying to put down. And yes these terms are put downs. I've been a smoker most of my adult life, as are a lot of my friends, it's funny to hear people tell me 'no you don't smoke dope' when they find out I do, just because I don't fit their naive perception of a 'typical pot-smoker'. Not that one actually exists.

There's a couple of people I used to know who definitely fall into the 'Dope-Head' cliche:

Hyper-Talented Musicians that 'discovered' drugs and then their life priorities changes, Some of them are people who it was sad to watch, since they were very capable people who ended up preferring to get High.

[Katman]

There's a couple of people I used to know who definitely fall into the 'Dope-Head' cliche:

Hyper-Talented Musicians that 'discovered' drugs and then their life priorities changes, Some of them are people who it was sad to watch, since they were very capable people who ended up preferring to get High.

And for every 'dope-head' who has done nothing with their life, there is a cannabis user who has gone on to be successful in what they do.

[TheDemonLord]

And for every 'dope-head' who has done nothing with their life there is a cannabis user who has gone on to be successful in what they do.

I don't know what the ratio is, I've known of lawyers who said that having a good smoke every once in a while really helped them in their work, There's Joe Rogan of course.

Point was more that those types of people do exist and for me, personally, watching some of them go from mind-blowing musicians, to living in a shit-hole flat, on the benefit, worrying about how they are going to get their next Tinny - yeah, it was hard to watch and worse when you tried to help them....

Perhaps more poignantly, is that those people provoke for me a more visceral memory, than watching those who are successful and enjoy the occasional Smoke.


It's not that agree of FJRIders disparagement of an entire group of people - only that they do exist

[onearmedbandit]

Out of curiosity - why? Granted I've not been involved with many people who are regular smokers these days, but when I was, they were all for Legalisation.

Because they don't want governments stepping in an taxing the hell out of it or being involved in it in any form whatsoever. And these are not the 'off the grid' type of people.


There's a couple of people I used to know who definitely fall into the 'Dope-Head' cliche:

Hyper-Talented Musicians that 'discovered' drugs and then their life priorities changes, Some of them are people who it was sad to watch, since they were very capable people who ended up preferring to get High.

And so do I. I also know of people that have destroyed their lives with alcohol. Some with excess fatty foods and lack of exercise. What is your point? These people were unable to regulate their consumption and paid the price. More fool them. Nothing to do with the substance. I like a beer at the end of the day. I don't drink to the point that I can't function as person, a father, a friend. I like to have a burger from time to time, but I don't stuff my face with them to the point I'm morbidly obese. Self control is a beautiful thing.

[Katman]

Point was more that those types of people do exist and for me, personally, watching some of them go from mind-blowing musicians, to living in a shit-hole flat, on the benefit, worrying about how they are going to get their next Tinny - yeah, it was hard to watch and worse when you tried to help them....

And yet, after 40 years exposure to cannabis use, I don't personally know anyone that fits that bill.

That's not to say those people don't exist - I just don't know any.

And not everyone measures success by the size of their bank account.

[onearmedbandit]

It's not that agree of FJRIders disparagement of an entire group of people - only that they do exist

And what? There are hospital wards full of beaten up people every weekend from excessive alcohol consumption. Families destroyed by alcohol. Lives ruined. Lives ended. But do we make wholesale generalisations about everyone who has a drink? So what if they exist? There are losers out there that don't drink, don't smoke marijuana, don't eat and exercise poorly. But lo behold if someone smokes weed they must be a 'dope-head'. It's (and I'm not pointing the finger at you) ignorant statements like this that means those that can choose to have a smoke and live a normal life keep themselves well under the radar for fear of persecution.

[Katman]

Because they don't want governments stepping in an taxing the hell out of it or being involved in it in any form whatsoever. And these are not the 'off the grid' type of people.

That's actually very close to my own view of it.

But I'd like to be able to grow a couple of plants without nosey neighbours having the ability to dob me in to the police.

[jasonu]

Because they don't want governments stepping in an taxing the hell out of it or being involved in it in any form whatsoever. And these are not the 'off the grid' type of people.


.

The taxed herb sold here legally is stronger and cheaper than the mafia product and you don't have to deal with some cunt down a dark alley to get it.

[jasonu]

But I'd like to be able to grow a couple of plants without nosey neighbours having the ability to dob me in to the police.

That can be done here too. 7 plants per household I think.

[onearmedbandit]

The taxed herb sold here legally is stronger and cheaper than the mafia product and you don't have to deal with some cunt down a dark alley to get it.

The weed I get is grown by a trusted friend who has spent thousands of dollars and hours of research developing. I can sit in the comfort of his home and discuss life while enjoying a sample of his hard work. I've never had to meet anyone down a dark alley to get weed. Painting it like you have done just reaffirms peoples belief that the whole industry is full of shady crims. It's not. Wise up.

[Kickaha]

The thing I am most interested in is how workplace drug testing will be managed, current testing is for the presence of only and in no way lets them know the level of impairment

[Viking01]

Because they don't want governments stepping in an taxing the hell out of it or being involved in it in any form whatsoever. And these are not the 'off the grid' type of people.

Struggling a little to understand the logic of your comment.

If the referendum relates to recreational cannabis, then surely quantities per person / family growing their own are to be small, and taxation has not been mentioned as being applicable.

Are you perhaps mixing the prospect of growing cannabis for recreational / own use purposes, with the commercial growing of cannabis (implying regulation and taxation) ?

Cheers

[jellywrestler]

And what? There are hospital wards full of beaten up people every weekend from excessive alcohol consumption. when two people share a drink they start a fight, when two people sahre a joint they start a band....

[Katman]

Are you perhaps mixing the prospect of growing cannabis for recreational / own use purposes, with the commercial growing of cannabis (implying regulation and taxation) ?

Well it makes sense to mix the two - both will be implemented if the vote passes.

Personally, I'd have been quite happy to see cultivation for personal use made legal - while leaving the government's grubby little mitts right out of it. (Excuse the pun).

[onearmedbandit]

Struggling a little to understand the logic of your comment.

If the referendum relates to recreational cannabis, then surely quantities per person / family growing their own are to be small, and taxation has not been mentioned as being applicable.

Are you perhaps mixing the prospect of growing cannabis for recreational / own use purposes, with the commercial growing of cannabis (implying regulation and taxation) ?

Cheers

I'm not mixing anything, I'm simply stating that some people don't see more regulation from the government as a good thing. Have they fully thought out their position? Maybe not. But my response was to the assumption of FJRider that 100% of people who use it support the law changes. If you want my opinion, I don't care. Whether it's legal/decriminalised/whatever doesn't change the fact I'll still smoke it, and still catch up with my friend for supply.

[onearmedbandit]

when two people share a drink they start a fight, when two people sahre a joint they start a band....

I've often argued similar. If you're at an event where everyone is drinking and say trip over someone and spill your beer on them, almost without fail a confrontation will happen (not always of course). If you're an event where everyone is smoking weed and trip over someone and spill your buds they'll roll you a joint and invite you to sit with them. Fucking dope-heads.

[Viking01]

I'm not mixing anything, I'm simply stating that some people don't see more regulation from the government as a good thing. Have they fully thought out their position? Maybe not. But my response was to the assumption of FJRider that 100% of people who use it support the law changes. If you want my opinion, I don't care. Whether it's legal/decriminalised/whatever doesn't change the fact I'll still smoke it, and still catch up with my friend for supply.

OAB:
Thanks for the reply. Just trying to understand other peoples perspectives.

I'm not trying to mix things up, in fact quite the opposite.

Katman:
I understand your point re recreational cannabis for your own use. Fine.

But why the push-back against government being involved if it was going to be grown commercially in large scale?

Especially given that the primary driver from government perspective is a "health related" initiative (i.e. harm minimisation). In the link you posted earlier on the referendum, right upfront is the statement:

"The Bill's main purpose is to reduce cannabis-related harm to individuals, families/whānau and communities."

The reason for asking is that we have a regulated liquor industry operating here in NZ, where controls are placed on sourcing, quality and distribution of the product, and tax is paid along the way.

Would you propose a different model applying to cannabis being grown in large scale quantites ? Completely government hands-off and unregulated ? If so, I'd be interested to hear why.

Cheers

[Katman]

But why the push-back against government being involved if it was going to be grown commercially in large scale?

Well it's not really a push-back - I'm actually grateful that the government has brought the referendum into being.

I just don't feel that governments deserve to make money out of nature's gifts.

[Viking01]

Well it's not really a push-back - I'm actually grateful that the government has brought the referendum into being.

I just don't feel that governments deserve to make money out of nature's gifts.

If the taxation collected is being used to fund cannabis related health initiatives and education, does that modify your view ?

[Katman]

If the taxation collected is being used to fund cannabis related health initiatives and education, does that modify your view ?

You're probably taking my comments about that particular aspect just a little too literally.

The commercial growing and selling side of it won't actually affect me in the slightest.

So yes, if the revenue raised from it is used for 'good causes' then I'm ok with it.

[BMWST?]

The coming cannabis referendum is in regard to proposed changes to New Zealand drug legislation. Any such changes in NZ law should not affect any US drug issues or laws.

Are you sure you were posting in the correct thread ??
yes i am sure.my ananology is obviously to obscure

[Bonez]

yes i am sure.my ananology is obviously to obscureStill the wrong thread...Btw it's "too obscure" Obtuse may have been a better description.

[Swoop]

If legalised, will NZ become a tourist destination for smokers wanting a legal high?
We appreciate the legislation wants to be passed by politicians, simply due to the increased tax revenue that can be generated from it, but add in additional tourists and it would become an even bigger earner for the country.

On the other hand, the driving skills of tourists coming here is a regular media headline. Do we want more impaired drivers on the roads?



With retired friends (wife dying of cancer) who are smuggling medicinal canabis into the country to ease her pain, they have said that they never saw themselves being put into the position of being criminals, because that is what they now are.
They have said their exposure to the medicinal benefit has changed their minds on legalising and now fully support it.


Also, the end of life legislation is another law needing to be supported. For various reasons.

[scumdog]

And many of those alcoholic drinks are being manufactured (and marketed) in such a manner that they can't really be seen as anything much other than an attempt to entice younger drinkers.


Dead right there!:niceone: Just look when the alcopops were introduced....

I'd be keener to see cannabis legalised if alcohol were to disappear.:msn-wink:

As it is nobody is really sure how legalised cannabis will affect the country although Colorado has discovered some interesting unanticipated issues since legalising it.

[jellywrestler]

If legalised, will NZ become a tourist destination for smokers wanting a legal high?
. sounds interesting, arrive at a hotel for your two weeks quarantine, a large bag of wobbly weed on your pillow, and twenty bags of chippies for the munchies, Jacinda will pick up the tab

[TheDemonLord]

And yet, after 40 years exposure to cannabis use, I don't personally know anyone that fits that bill.

That's not to say those people don't exist - I just don't know any.

Maybe it was a function of the group of people that I used to move with.


And not everyone measures success by the size of their bank account.

Sure - some people are quite happy on a subsistence existence. My Umbrage with the individuals is 2-fold:

1: They are (at last count) living on the Benefit, so I'm paying for them to live
2: They had such potential to do something great, whether that be Music, Art or other creative outputs (The work that I do, as an example, has a creative element to it) and seeing them as a person not only fail to realize that potential but to let their talent and gifts (that other people would kill to have) stagnate and rot.

If you've not experienced it - then I'm genuinely happy for you - seeing people spiral down really sucks.

But I feel to add Balance and to cover off OAB's point - There are a myriad of Vices that can lead people in a downward spiral that we allow as a society (Alcohol, Food, Gambling etc.) and I don't think we should tar the majority with the actions of a Minority.

The only point I'm really making here is that I personally witnessed several people fall into that trap and it was very hard for me to watch.

[jasonu]

The weed I get is grown by a trusted friend who has spent thousands of dollars and hours of research developing. I can sit in the comfort of his home and discuss life while enjoying a sample of his hard work. I've never had to meet anyone down a dark alley to get weed. Painting it like you have done just reaffirms peoples belief that the whole industry is full of shady crims. It's not. Wise up.

and those people, especially younger ones that don't have a friend like yours or the means to grow their own are mostly forced to deal with shady dealers ie criminals.

[onearmedbandit]

and those people, especially younger ones that don't have a friend like yours or the means to grow their own are mostly forced to deal with shady dealers ie criminals.

Man when I was buying it from wherever I could 20+ years ago my friends and I never dealt with shady dealers. Interesting people most definitely, but not dangerous or nasty. It's weed, not smack. Of course there are the bad element out there, but with the social media chat groups for example that are widely used there's less and less need for dodgy dealings now than ever before. Anyway I was just countering your stereotypical generalisation.

[Bonez]

Maybe it was a function of the group of people that I used to move with.



Sure - some people are quite happy on a subsistence existence. My Umbrage with the individuals is 2-fold:

1: They are (at last count) living on the Benefit, so I'm paying for them to live
2: They had such potential to do something great, whether that be Music, Art or other creative outputs (The work that I do, as an example, has a creative element to it) and seeing them as a person not only fail to realize that potential but to let their talent and gifts (that other people would kill to have) stagnate and rot.

If you've not experienced it - then I'm genuinely happy for you - seeing people spiral down really sucks.

But I feel to add Balance and to cover off OAB's point - There are a myriad of Vices that can lead people in a downward spiral that we allow as a society (Alcohol, Food, Gambling etc.) and I don't think we should tar the majority with the actions of a Minority.

The only point I'm really making here is that I personally witnessed several people fall into that trap and it was very hard for me to watch.Are they just doing dope or have moved on to the harder stuff like Ice.?

[jasonu]

Man when I was buying it from wherever I could 20+ years ago my friends and I never dealt with shady dealers. Interesting people most definitely, but not dangerous or nasty. It's weed, not smack. Of course there are the bad element out there, but with the social media chat groups for example that are widely used there's less and less need for dodgy dealings now than ever before. Anyway I was just countering your stereotypical generalisation.

Fair enough. I didn’t factor in the social media aspect, wasn’t around when I was a reefer addict.

[TheDemonLord]

Are they just doing dope or have moved on to the harder stuff like Ice.?

At last count, it was unhealthy amounts of LSD

[Katman]

At last count, it was unhealthy amounts of LSD

Well that certainly puts quite a different complexion on your post at #78.

[Bonez]

At last count, it was unhealthy amounts of LSD


Well that certainly puts quite a different complexion on your post at #78.What Katman said.:weird:

[TheDemonLord]

Well that certainly puts quite a different complexion on your post at #78.

Except there's a timescale of a good number of years between those two time periods.

Trust me when I say (as the person who was there and watched the downfall) it was chronic abuse of Weed that did them in, the Acid that came later didn't do them any additional favours, but the damage was well and truly already done.

[Katman]

Trust me when I say (as the person who was there and watched the downfall) it was chronic abuse of Weed that did them in, the Acid that came later didn't do them any additional favours, but the damage was well and truly already done.

So was that the weed's fault - or does the fault lie with the individuals who couldn't control their use of it?

[Viking01]

Following a survey of experiences from overseas jurisdictions:

https://www.pmcsa.ac.nz/topics/cannabis/

[Katman]

Following a survey of experiences from overseas jurisdictions:

https://www.pmcsa.ac.nz/topics/cannabis/

I find it curious that they state.....


Whether this plays out in reality is yet to be determined, as legalisation reforms in other places have not been in place for long enough for a full evaluation of long-term impacts. There is an inevitable lag before evidence of changes in health and social measures emerge. It also takes some time for the effects of commercialisation of cannabis to eventuate where a profit-oriented approach is taken.

.....considering the fact that, while cannabis is strictly speaking still illegal (it has only been decriminalised), in the Netherlands coffee shops have been openly selling cannabis and associated products without any government hindrance for over 30 years.

[TheDemonLord]

So was that the weed's fault - or does the fault lie with the individuals who couldn't control their use of it?

Depends on how you want to slice it:

The Weed has no agency, therefore it's entirely the individuals fault - like all substance abuse
or
The Weed was what did the damage, therefore it's entirely the Weeds Fault - like all dangerous substances.

My personal view is that some people have both temperamental and genetic predisposition to abuse, add in things like life events - and you create the perfect scenario. I don't, however, hold that those individuals are enough cause to warrant restricting everyone else.

Again - I'm all for the Cannabis referendum: Frees up Police resources, generates tax revenue, incentivizes certain groups to rejoin polite society etc. etc. Win/Win and long overdue in my book. Not only that, but by removing the criminal association, it should help individuals who are on a downward spiral seek help (since there is no longer the looming shadow of arrest).

I say that despite seeing several people become burn-outs - point was only that whilst it's uncharitable to cast that shadow over all people that Smoke Weed, there are some people who fit that bill, I've seen it first hand and it wasn't pretty or nice to watch.

[Katman]

Depends on how you want to slice it:

The Weed has no agency, therefore it's entirely the individuals fault - like all substance abuse
or
The Weed was what did the damage, therefore it's entirely the Weeds Fault - like all dangerous substances.

So if someone shoots up a mosque, is it the gun's fault or the fault of the person who fired it?

[TheDemonLord]

So if someone shoots up a mosque, is it the gun's fault or the fault of the person who fired it?

The Police's fault for issuing a Licence when they didn't meet the vetting requirements.

Edit:

Considering my follow-up statements should clarify where I think the issue lies: Temperament, predisposition and life-event factors, and that it does not provide a basis for restricting the rights of everyone else.

[Bonez]

Except there's a timescale of a good number of years between those two time periods.

Trust me when I say (as the person who was there and watched the downfall) it was chronic abuse of Weed that did them in, the Acid that came later didn't do them any additional favours, but the damage was well and truly already done.Did you try to intervene or suggest help when they went down hill or just watched like 80% of the population?:drool:

[onearmedbandit]

Fair enough. I didn’t factor in the social media aspect, wasn’t around when I was a reefer addict.

I've not met a reefer addict yet, habitual smokers yes but not an addict. I'm sure they exist due to lack of self control but the substance itself unlike say tobacco isn't addictive. I've gone months without it overseas and not missed it at all, and I'm a regular smoker (well now I use a dry herb vape, much better on the throat).

[TheDemonLord]

Did you try to intervene or suggest help when they went down hill or just watched like 80% of the population?:drool:

Does breaking into their bedroom, via a window, untying them from a bed where they were attempting to commit suicide (thankfully, badly) and calling 111 for an Ambulance count?

[Katman]

Does breaking into their bedroom, via a window, untying them from a bed where they were attempting to commit suicide (thankfully, badly) and calling 111 for an Ambulance count?

Did they tie themselves up?

[TheDemonLord]

Did they tie themselves up?

I didn't ask them, y'know - too busy worrying about them Dying and all....

But since you asked:

https://www.wikihow.com/Tie-Yourself-up-in-a-Spreadeagle-Position

Now kindly stop being a Cunt.

[Bonez]

Does breaking into their bedroom, via a window, untying them from a bed where they were attempting to commit suicide (thankfully, badly) and calling 111 for an Ambulance count?That is not what I asked.:brick:

[TheDemonLord]

That is not what I asked.:brick:

Does that meet your threshold of trying to intervene and help?

[Katman]

I didn't ask them, y'know - too busy worrying about them Dying and all....

But since you asked:

https://www.wikihow.com/Tie-Yourself-up-in-a-Spreadeagle-Position

Now kindly stop being a Cunt.

I'm merely trying to establish what degree of credence we should place on your assertion that cannabis was the cause of your friend's downward spiral.

I'm more inclined to think a pre-existing psychological issue was the real cause.

Cannabis has been treated as a convenient scapegoat for long enough.

[Bonez]

Does that meet your threshold of trying to intervene and help?Was that before or after LSD? I was referring to when you observed your mates were going down hill using dope BEFORE they got hooked on LSD:eek5:

[onearmedbandit]

I think the issue is more to do with the user in this instance than the substance. Sure weed played its part but only because the user couldn't control their intake. It's akin to blaming Suzuki for making a bike capable of going near on 300kmh and blaming them because you couldn't control yourself and lost your license.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm merely trying to establish what degree of credence we should place on your assertion that cannabis was the cause of your friend's downward spiral.

I'm more inclined to think a pre-existing psychological issue was the real cause.

Cannabis has been treated as a convenient scapegoat for long enough.

After they started getting heavily into Weed, that was when the behavioural shift was noticed, bearing in mind this took place over several years. During which time, as things went bad (due to increasing habitual smoking), so they started to smoke more, make of that what you will - whether you think it's the Chicken or the Egg.

It got to the point where even when they hadn't smoked up in a while (which for them was measured in hours), talking to them - they simply weren't all there, in a way that didn't happen before they started heavily smoking.

There were others I knew (2-3 people) who never went as far as trying to kill themselves (thank fuck), but still were heavy smokers and you could see the cognitive decline it was having on them - they were barely the same person.

Trying to condense observations made over a 5-10 year period for a handful of individuals down into a post, and then getting critiqued that some things have been generalized, especially when that one incident was quite difficult to deal with...

I'm not particularly sorry that the abridged version of events doesn't have the level of detail that you'd like...

I want to be clear: I knew these people before they started smoking (and so had a pretty good baseline reference point) and knew them after several years of heavy regular smoking, they were not the same person and not in the way that people change as they get older and have serious relationships etc.

It was like watching a 100 meter sprinter running along a track and then seeing them trying to run through a swamp - everything was slowed down, ungainly etc. they had turned into a shadow of their former selves.

[TheDemonLord]

Was that before or after LSD? I was referring to when you observed tour mates were going down hill using dope BEFORE they got hooked on LSD:eek5:

That particular person (the one who tried committing suicide) was before LSD, I only really found out about the LSD stuff when I happened to bump into them several years later.

All of the people that I'm thinking of, I don't think I've seen in 5+ years - so giving them the benefit of time and doubt, they may have turned their lives around. Last I knew of them, they were on the benefit, still more concerned with getting high.

But for the time period where I knew them (which was around from my mid-teens to mid-twenties), I'd seen them drastically change, in a way that others (who, like myself, enjoyed the occassional smoke) didn't.

[scumdog]

I'm merely trying to establish what degree of credence we should place on your assertion that cannabis was the cause of your friend's downward spiral.

I'm more inclined to think a pre-existing psychological issue was the real cause.

Cannabis has been treated as a convenient scapegoat for long enough.


You may be correct re the pre-existing psychological condition but there's a good chance the use of cannabis had exacerbated said conditions - there's evidence that apparently that has been the case in the past.

[Katman]

After they started getting heavily into Weed, that was when the behavioural shift was noticed, bearing in mind this took place over several years. During which time, as things went bad (due to increasing habitual smoking), so they started to smoke more, make of that what you will - whether you think it's the Chicken or the Egg.

It got to the point where even when they hadn't smoked up in a while (which for them was measured in hours), talking to them - they simply weren't all there, in a way that didn't happen before they started heavily smoking.

There were others I knew (2-3 people) who never went as far as trying to kill themselves (thank fuck), but still were heavy smokers and you could see the cognitive decline it was having on them - they were barely the same person.

Trying to condense observations made over a 5-10 year period for a handful of individuals down into a post, and then getting critiqued that some things have been generalized, especially when that one incident was quite difficult to deal with...

I'm not particularly sorry that the abridged version of events doesn't have the level of detail that you'd like...

I want to be clear: I knew these people before they started smoking (and so had a pretty good baseline reference point) and knew them after several years of heavy regular smoking, they were not the same person and not in the way that people change as they get older and have serious relationships etc.

It was like watching a 100 meter sprinter running along a track and then seeing them trying to run through a swamp - everything was slowed down, ungainly etc. they had turned into a shadow of their former selves.

I also know people who are habitual cannabis users - to the point that sparking up is the first thing they do in the day.

The difference being, they didn't spiral downwards like your friends did. In fact, some of them run their own businesses.

So I don't buy the theory that cannabis was the 'cause' of all your friends downfalls.

Like I said, it's been too easy for a long time to blame cannabis for people's own failings. Much like it's all too easy to blame alcohol when a scumbag smacks his wife around when he's pissed.

[Paul in NZ]

I have a sister that works in mental health in Northland… Heavy use of cannabis, particularly in younger people is definitely linked to mental illness… And I’d say that opinion would be the same for anyone in a similar field in a similar area.

However – You can say the same for alcohol as well…

Note I say heavy use – daily and often multiple times per day which isn’t what the usual person would do AND these kids usually come from some dysfunctional situations as well…

It would be nice to think that getting some control over strength and supply would help regulate this but of course it wont.

Personally – if it was legal I would use it a little.

[scumdog]

I also know people who are habitual cannabis users - to the point that sparking up is the first thing they do in the day.

The difference being, they didn't spiral downwards like your friends did. In fact, some of them run their own businesses.

So I don't buy the theory that cannabis was the 'cause' of all your friends downfalls.

Like I said, it's been too easy for a long time to blame cannabis for people's own failings. Much like it's all too easy to blame alcohol when a scumbag smacks his wife around when he's pissed.


But people DO blame alcohol for a lot of evil doing and crime and problems it causes.

(and frequently on KB when comparing its use to that of cannabis use)

[Katman]

But people DO blame alcohol for a lot of evil doing and crime and problems it causes.

That would probably fall under the heading of refusing to accept responsibility for one's own actions.

Now where have we heard that one before?

[Katman]

Personally – if it was legal I would use it a little.

And that right there is one of the very real problems.

A great many people choose not to take advantage of any benefit they might gain from cannabis simply because of an archaic law.

[TheDemonLord]

I also know people who are habitual cannabis users - to the point that sparking up is the first thing they do in the day.

The difference being, they didn't spiral downwards like your friends did. In fact, some of them run their own businesses.

So I don't buy the theory that cannabis was the 'cause' of all your friends downfalls.

Like I said, it's been too easy for a long time to blame cannabis for people's own failings. Much like it's all too easy to blame alcohol when a scumbag smacks his wife around when he's pissed.

Except we noticed the personality changes before it started to fall apart, again - this took place over a period of several years.

Look - I'm not saying you can't smoke regularly and be successful like your business owner friends.
Nor am I saying that what I saw in a handful of people is guaranteed or par for the course.
Nor, for the umpteenth time, am I saying that incidents like this justify it being illegal, the fact that despite all this, I still absolutely support decriminalization should make it clear where I stand.

Only that I know several people whose lives were the cliche of drop-kick stoners.

Most of the other people I knew from that time who enjoyed the occassional smoke (and some of them still do) are doing just fine.

What irks me is when people imply that it's just a prejudicial stereotype with no basis in reality, I've seen that happen several times, first hand - any discussion has to take into account the positive and the negative sides honestly.

I'm genuinely happy for you that you've not experienced this in the circle of people that you know and who choose to Smoke and again, the majority of people who I have known to enjoy the occasional smoke fall into the category of either yourself or OAB, just like the majority of people can enjoy a Beer at the end of the day or a Glass of Wine. To discuss that reality without honestly discussing the other reality or stating that since you've never experienced it, it's an exaggeration or not really true isn't right.

[Katman]

Only that I know several people whose lives were the cliche of drop-kick stoners.

Or maybe they were just drop-kicks waiting for an excuse to come their way.

[onearmedbandit]

I don't think anyone is saying that certain people do not work well with weed. Certain people don't work well with alcohol. Or gambling. Or fatty foods. But only one of them is currently illegal, despite them all having a single common denominator...

Justify that. And yes you could extend that argument to all drugs right? Well it's well know the 'war on drugs' was a total failure...

[Katman]

Justify that. And yes you could extend that argument to all drugs right?

Yes, you certainly can.

There's no shortage of people who abuse prescription drugs as well.

(And before anyone jumps on me, I'm not suggesting that prescription drugs have no use - just that plenty of people are known to develop a psychological dependency on them).

[TheDemonLord]

Or maybe they were just drop-kicks waiting for an excuse to come their way.

No.

Please stop trying to make excuses for a situation you have no clue about.

[TheDemonLord]

I don't think anyone is saying that certain people do not work well with weed. Certain people don't work well with alcohol. Or gambling. Or fatty foods. But only one of them is currently illegal, despite them all having a single common denominator...

Justify that. And yes you could extend that argument to all drugs right? Well it's well know the 'war on drugs' was a total failure...

For the latter half - it actually raises a very interesting Debate.

If you take Meth as an example - Should we keep it illegal?

My Libertarian leanings say that we should legalize it, let people make their own decision etc.

My Pragmatic leanings say that there are too many negatives, both in the short-term and the long-term associated with it.

[Paul in NZ]

And that right there is one of the very real problems.

A great many people choose not to take advantage of any benefit they might gain from cannabis simply because of an archaic law.

Look I agree - a conviction would put an end to my employment. I would like to see what effect it has on say Vickis FTD as alcohol is strictly limited to a glass of wine. However quite frankly I'm not expecting anything of it so I really don't have a strong opinion on this.

[onearmedbandit]

For the latter half - it actually raises a very interesting Debate.

If you take Meth as an example - Should we keep it illegal?

My Libertarian leanings say that we should legalize it, let people make their own decision etc.

My Pragmatic leanings say that there are too many negatives, both in the short-term and the long-term associated with it.

And this is why it's a very difficult question to answer. And one to which I have no answer for. Social harm is one consideration, but it's clearly ignored in the case of alcohol and tobacco, not for weed. As an example it's often quoted that burglaries are committed so people can fence items to buy weed. Some people also do the same to buy alcohol. Or food. Dairies get knocked over not for cash so much these days but for cigarettes. Where do we draw the line on social harm?

[TheDemonLord]

And this is why it's a very difficult question to answer. And one to which I have no answer for. Social harm is one consideration, but it's clearly ignored in the case of alcohol and tobacco, not for weed. As an example it's often quoted that burglaries are committed so people can fence items to buy weed. Some people also do the same to buy alcohol. Or food. Dairies get knocked over not for cash so much these days but for cigarettes. Where do we draw the line on social harm?

With Alcohol, we've got Prohibition in the US (The only Amendment to be Amended), whereby the sheer number of people willing to break the law (and the associated networks and enterprises that sprung up to support the breaking of said law) caused additional Social Harm, to the existing Social Harm that Alcohol causes.

As much as I wouldn't mind seeing Cigarettes no longer available, I suspect we would see the exact same thing.

[onearmedbandit]

With Alcohol, we've got Prohibition in the US (The only Amendment to be Amended), whereby the sheer number of people willing to break the law (and the associated networks and enterprises that sprung up to support the breaking of said law) caused additional Social Harm, to the existing Social Harm that Alcohol causes.

As much as I wouldn't mind seeing Cigarettes no longer available, I suspect we would see the exact same thing.

This in itself is the perfect reason to legalise all drugs then. It's proven by prohibition in the US (that was one of the big factors in organised crime exploding in America - Capone's speakeasys for example) that the social harms of consumption still existed, people will get what the want however they can but that was then compounded by the criminal network that arose from the illicit trade.

Education is key. I'll never touch meth because I'm informed, even if it were made legal. Some people fear education is seen as condoning something. Such as some Catholic schools don't teach safe sex practices for fear of condoning premarital sex. Because young adolescents will only discover natural sexual urges if you educate them about it. Same with drug use. Kids will discover it. And indulge. Better education surrounding the possible effects and consequences will make for more informed decisions being made by these kids.

[TheDemonLord]

This in itself is the perfect reason to legalise all drugs then. It's proven by prohibition in the US (that was one of the big factors in organised crime exploding in America - Capone's speakeasys for example) that the social harms of consumption still existed, people will get what the want however they can but that was then compounded by the criminal network that arose from the illicit trade.

Education is key. I'll never touch meth because I'm informed, even if it were made legal. Some people fear education is seen as condoning something. Such as some Catholic schools don't teach safe sex practices for fear of condoning premarital sex. Because young adolescents will only discover natural sexual urges if you educate them about it. Same with drug use. Kids will discover it. And indulge. Better education surrounding the possible effects and consequences will make for more informed decisions being made by these kids.

Not quite - if you compare Alcohol (in the US)

70% have tried it, over 50% regularly consume it. I'd normally be happy to factor in a marked decrease if it was made illegal, but again - Prohibition....

Whereas with Meth, it's only 0.3% of the population regularly use it.

You could probably express it as some abstract Math formula where:

if Social Harm + associated costs > Cost of enforcement + rate of non-compliance = Legal
if Social Harm + associated costs < Cost of enforcement + rate of non-compliance = illegal

When I've got a way to accurately calculate all the variables in that equation, I'll let you know, claim my Nobel prize and be the lord-high (heh) Arbiter of what should and should not be legal.

[onearmedbandit]

When I've got a way to accurately calculate all the variables in that equation, I'll let you know, claim my Nobel prize and be the lord-high (heh) Arbiter of what should and should not be legal.

And therein lies the rub. We most likely will never have those variables correct as you point out. I wasn't really suggesting that we should legalise all drugs because of how Prohibition failed, more pointing it out as a good argument against the criminalisation of something that has a relatively low social harm factor. Before anyone tries to raise 'well what are the social harms?' may I remind you of the well documented social harms associated with the legal use of alcohol and tobacco, arguably much higher than the consumption of cannabis. And yes you can then say 'well just because we have those in society doesn't mean we should add more', to which I say that's a very poor argument taking into account the context of what we are talking about specifically. Phew.

[Katman]

No.

Please stop trying to make excuses for a situation you have no clue about.

Well you might not like me saying it but I refuse to believe that cannabis turns people into 'dope-heads' or 'drop-kick stoners' (as you so eloquently put it) unless there's a psychological predisposition that allows that to happen.

[onearmedbandit]

Well you might not like me saying it but I refuse to believe that cannabis turns people into 'dope-heads' or 'drop-kick stoners' (as you so eloquently put it) unless there's a psychological predisposition that allows that to happen.

From my own experience I have to agree. No one I personally know fits the stereotypical 'dope-head' description, rather they're just normal everyday people.

[Katman]

It's the same as people claiming that cannabis can create psychosis in some people.

I don't believe it 'creates' psychosis but rather, that it could possibly bring an existing psychosis to the surface.

[skippa1]

The thing I am most interested in is how workplace drug testing will be managed, current testing is for the presence of only and in no way lets them know the level of impairment
For me this is the only way this legislation will be beneficial. Legal doesnt equal ability to indulge. There needs to be a detection level that can be measured and impairment established. Presence proves nothing.

[Katman]

For me this is the only way this legislation will be beneficial. Legal doesnt equal ability to indulge. There needs to be a detection level that can be measured and impairment established. Presence proves nothing.

And I would suggest that the only reason no amount of effort really seems to have gone into figuring out an adequate impairment test is that businesses have been quite happy to take advantage of the illegal status of cannabis and therefore take the easy option of simply testing for presence.

[Viking01]

Alcohol (ethanol) is “well-studied “, and its intoxicating effects are quite well known (i.e. predictable). Even so, there are variations in the “level of effect” upon individuals (due to factors such as rate of consumption; a person’s body mass; effect of food upon rate of absorption).

Based on what we know (from human studies about its rate of absorption and lab tests on effects of intoxication on motor skills), the legal authorities set “legal limits and penalties” (e.g . fines, confiscation, jail) for its use when driving.

Impairment tests are simply another mechanism for road-side Police to try and determine whether a driver (seen to be driving in an irregular manner) - and who does not "fail" a standard breath alcohol test - may still be "impaired" (by other drugs) in their execution of driving a vehicle. It may not be precise, but the goal is to remove such drivers off the road while they are in that state.

This “framework” may not be “perfect”, but they are accepted by the powers-that-be and most of the general population when out driving.

What businesses do - to protect their workers safety as well as their own livelihood – is up to them. Urine test regimes are often imposed as conditions of (ongoing) employment.

The assumption of many will be that cannabis (its “intoxicating” components) behave in a very similar manner to alcohol, and that it is easy and cheap to test for and quickly determine levels. And that such levels are easily related to a level of impairment.

And herein lies the challenge for the powers-that-be.

But I would imagine that when such “hurdles” have been overcome, you could expect to see a comparable framework being rolled out for cannabis (both for drivers on the open road and for workers within businesses). Including the physical impairment test.

My expectation would also be that certain prescription drugs will also come into purview as well.

Just saying.

[skippa1]

And I would suggest that the only reason no amount of effort really seems to have gone into figuring out an adequate impairment test is that businesses have been quite happy to take advantage of the illegal status of cannabis and therefore take the easy option of simply testing for presence.

Agreed...simple option to suppress the demon weed and the dropouts in society. Old fashioned thinking. I am not too bothered other than the hypocrisy in approach. If there was an impairment test that worked and implemented I would consider the odd spliff but I tend to go a bit doughy in the brain on it.

[Kickaha]

If there was an impairment test that worked and implemented I would consider the odd spliff but I tend to go a bit doughy in the brain on it.

As would I, in the mean time I can just take prescription drugs with no fear of persecution

[Drew]

I want to vote against it, because of the hypocrisy in not allowing me to enjoy the drugs I like to take.
But it will be good for the country to get the tax from it.

[ellipsis]

I want to vote against it, because of the hypocrisy in not allowing me to enjoy the drugs I like to take.
But it will be good for the country to get the tax from it.


...I'll just abstain...it's all just a game...it doesn't have wheels or a funny shaped ball... therefore, it can't be real...

[Oakie]

The thing I am most interested in is how workplace drug testing will be managed, current testing is for the presence of only and in no way lets them know the level of impairment

I don't think it'll make any difference but it will depend on how the employment agreement is worded. My previous and current job have zero tolerance for the presence of alcohol and drugs and that'll continue. If the employment agreement says employees cannot be 'impaired by the presence of' that'll be problematical.

[Bonez]

...I'll just abstain...it's all just a game...it doesn't have wheels or a funny shaped ball... therefore, it can't be real...Typical kiwi response.:blink:

[ellipsis]

Typical kiwi response.:blink:

...I love you...:rolleyes:...

[Bonez]

...I love you...:rolleyes:...
Sorry deary LaaVa bet you to it.

[Katman]

Last thing I want is coming toward me in the same machine with a driver 16m up in his cab making a mistake because he's stoned.

If the vote passes it will still be illegal to operate that machinery while under the influence of cannabis.

[Katman]

This referendum is non-binding anyway so it's a 100% chance it won't go through.

There's only a 100% chance of it not going through if National win the election.

Good luck with that.

[Katman]

Really ? Thanks for that.

Well how is your situation any different now?

[Bonez]

Really ? Thanks for that.Common sense is not your forte is it?

[onearmedbandit]

I work at the Port . Last thing I want is someone coming toward me in the same machine with a driver 16m up in his cab making a mistake because he's stoned.



How about if they're drunk?

[Bonez]

Stupid question. When was last time you went to work drunk ? Or, one of your workmates turned up drunk ?That is two stupid questions.:bash:

[Katman]

Stupid question. When was last time you went to work drunk ? Or, one of your workmates turned up drunk ?

Happens every day I guess give me a break.

Why would you think that your co-workers would suddenly start operating their machinery while stoned if the vote passes?

[scumdog]

[QUOTE=Stylo;1131166147

This referendum is non-binding anyway so, not much chance . Just saying.[/QUOTE]

It's just a pre-election distraction and as useful as the Key flag referendum - actually the Key one was even more useless waste of time and money.

[Stylo]

Why would you think that your co-workers would suddenly start operating their machinery while stoned if the vote passes?

It's not a vote, Its a referendum. It won't pass as it's non binding mate. Fact.

Think Flag change, Smacking bill. Give me a break.

[Katman]

It's not a vote, Its a referendum.

You should probably look up the definition of the word 'referendum'.

A referendum is a vote.


referendum
/ˌrɛfəˈrɛndəm/

noun
noun: referendum; plural noun: referenda; plural noun: referendums
a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision.

[nzspokes]

Stupid question. When was last time you went to work drunk ? Or, one of your workmates turned up drunk ?

Happens every day I guess give me a break.

More common than you would think.

Great time to test is just after lunch as well.

[Stylo]

You should probably look up the definition of the word 'referendum'.

A referendum is a vote.

Votes mean nothing when they are non binding. As this one is.

[onearmedbandit]

Stupid question. When was last time you went to work drunk ? Or, one of your workmates turned up drunk ?

Happens every day I guess give me a break.

No, not at all. If any stupidity is attributable it's to your assumption that if it were to be legalised people would be smoking it before or during work. There is no basis for that assumption other than to draw on the fact that maybe a few already do despite its current legal status. I'll give you that. But only if you give me that people have caused workplace accidents under the influence of alcohol, legally obtained prescription pills etc.

[Stylo]

No, not at all. If any stupidity is attributable it's to your assumption that if it were to be legalised people would be smoking it before or during work. There is no basis for that assumption other than to draw on the fact that maybe a few already do despite its current legal status. I'll give you that. But only if you give me that people have caused workplace accidents under the influence of alcohol, legally obtained prescription pills etc.

Leave you to it then Oab, no assumption forwarded or garnered. Remember talking to you at the Drags at Ruapuna a few years ago. Black Gen 2 Hayabusa.

Good day, managed a low 10 next to a ZX14. I won. My Birthday too.

[onearmedbandit]

Leave you to it then Oab, no assumption forwarded or garnered. Remember talking to you at the Drags at Ruapuna a few years ago. Black Gen 2 Hayabusa.

Good day, managed a low 10 next to a ZX14. I won. My Birthday too.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Why assume that all of a sudden people are going to be smoking weed at work or before just because it's legalised? You had a point when you said ' When was last time you went to work drunk ? Or, one of your workmates turned up drunk?', most people don't (some idiots do however). So why the different expectation on marijuana consumption?

I remember the day, was my first time at the drags. Managed a 10.6 at 133mph so was chuffed with that.

[Scuba_Steve]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Why assume that all of a sudden people are going to be smoking weed at work or before just because it's legalised? You had a point when you said ' When was last time you went to work drunk ? Or, one of your workmates turned up drunk?', most people don't (some idiots do however). So why the different expectation on marijuana consumption?


I personally would expect a spike as it's "new & exciting" & people are coming to terms with what you can/can't do etc but then I expect it to drop back to booze type levels maybee slightly above given the ease of carry/use but not substantial as I expect like booze most will know when to partake.

[FJRider]

Why would you think that your co-workers would suddenly start operating their machinery while stoned if the vote passes?

The key word there is "Start" ... and how many NZ wide are operating "Machinery" now ... Drunk (or 'Under the influence") .. ??

The time of the day matters little. As the saying goes ... "Some results (of alcohol and/or drug use) may vary" ...

And if you think it's not happening now ... your world must be very small ...

[FJRider]

... most people don't (some idiots do however). So why the different expectation on marijuana consumption?

Ask an idiot ... and their numbers seem to be growing ... ;)

Increased drug testing (as well as the breath test) roadside will naturally occur (with more positive results found) ... and THAT will soon be "News" (surprise surprise) ... :lol:

[FJRider]

... Great time to test is just after lunch as well.

Management personnel first ... the one's that make all the important decisions ... :devil2:

[nzspokes]

The key word there is "Start" ... and how many NZ wide are operating "Machinery" now ... Drunk (or 'Under the influence") .. ??

The time of the day matters little. As the saying goes ... "Some results (of alcohol and/or drug use) may vary" ...

And if you think it's not happening now ... your world must be very small ...

After any incident in some workplaces, Drug and Alc testing is mandatory.

Have investigated things like dropping full pallets of 1L bottles of drinks from 2 bays high. They didnt pass testing.

[FJRider]

After any incident in some workplaces, Drug and Alc testing is mandatory.

Have investigated things like dropping full pallets of 1L bottles of drinks from 2 bays high. They didnt pass testing.

I have seen such/similar "Accidents" occur ... and I also have seen drug/alcohol use before/during a work day ... with NO incidents.

My current workplace is in an area with plenty of natural hazards. Somebody with a drug or alcohol impairment might simply endanger my life ... with just a simple mistake in judgement (as if they don't already) ... ;)

Some days the weather is my biggest worry.

Attached are a few images of my workplace.

[jellywrestler]

I have seen such/similar "Accidents" occur ... and I also have seen drug/alcohol use before/during a work day ... with NO incidents.

My current workplace is in an area with plenty of natural hazards. Somebody with a drug or alcohol impairment might simply endanger my life ... with just a simple mistake in judgement (as if they don't already) ... ;)

Some days the weather is my biggest worry.

Attached are a few images of my workplace.

whether it becomes legal or not does your work not have guidelines to what is acceptable at work?

[jellywrestler]

it's not to long ago we had 'legal highs' around, how much carnage did that create?

[FJRider]

whether it becomes legal or not does your work not have guidelines to what is acceptable at work?

There are existing RULES ... as there are in most workplaces. No changes in any workplace rules ... ANYWHERE ... will be made if the drug legislation changes. At this stage ... any changes are only proposed.

But could you be certain those workplace rules would never be broken ... in ANY workplace .. if the drug laws were relaxed ???

[FJRider]

it's not to long ago we had 'legal highs' around, how much carnage did that create?

Apparently ... if there is no law to say "You can't" ... then ... yes you can.

I'm sure there will be wording in any legislation changes to cover this scenario. Maybe ... :pinch:

[Laava]

it's not to long ago we had 'legal highs' around, how much carnage did that create?
Yep, they were fucking awful! Several linked deaths to that shit as well. If weed is more available and stamps that shit out altogether, then that is probably a society win.

[jellywrestler]

Yep, they were fucking awful! Several linked deaths to that shit as well. If weed is more available and stamps that shit out altogether, then that is probably a society win.

depends what people lace their weed with

[Laava]

Yeah, sadly true. Shame that most people still won't grow their own tho I'm betting...

[Katman]

If the vote passes, any cannabis sold through a licensed supplier won't be 'laced' with anything.

And by the way, over the past 40 years I've never been given cannabis that's been 'laced' with anything.

[scumdog]

it's not to long ago we had 'legal highs' around, how much carnage did that create?


According to Katman apparently you can't blame the drug - only blame the user for lack of self control.;)

[onearmedbandit]

According to Katman apparently you can't blame the drug - only blame the user for lack of self control.;)

That was in reference to natural marijuana though, not a concoction of drugs put together in someones kitchen.

[scumdog]

That was in reference to natural marijuana though, not a concoction of drugs put together in someones kitchen.


I did not consider it was so specific?

[Katman]

I did not consider it was so specific?

Post #110 was quite specific.

[Naki Rat]

......I'd be surprised if consistency was really an issue, especially when you consider that homegrown tomatoes taste much better than commercial grown tomatoes for some reason(s). .....Much of the difference in taste quality between commercially grown tomatoes and ones from the back garden is due to most commercial tomatoes being grown hydroponically.

In hydroponics one of the major production costs is in supplying the plants with fertilizer inputs (as salts in the hydroponic solution), so cheaper tomatoes have less of these inputs and more water. The salts are what impart sugars and acids in the tomato fruit and gives them their taste. So cheap hydroponic tomatoes = tasteless tomatoes.

[mashman]

Much of the difference in taste quality between commercially grown tomatoes and ones from the back garden is due to most commercial tomatoes being grown hydroponically.

In hydroponics one of the major production costs is in supplying the plants with fertilizer inputs (as salts in the hydroponic solution), so cheaper tomatoes have less of these inputs and more water. The salts are what impart sugars and acids in the tomato fruit and gives them their taste. So cheap hydroponic tomatoes = tasteless tomatoes.

Minimal care and even less love... I reckon the tomatoes are just sad.

I may well test that if I ever get the garden up and running again. I don't like tomatoes, but I reckon the missus will happily tomato test. Anyhoo, pretty much anything that contains tomatoes contains so many other bloody flavours that most pallets wouldn't notice the lack of tomato flavour unless they were critiquing food. Do the tomatoes still produce similar "benefits" (vits/mins etc...)?

[Drew]

. Anyhoo, pretty much anything that contains tomatoes contains so many other bloody flavours that most pallets wouldn't notice the lack of tomato flavour unless they were critiquing food. Do the tomatoes still produce similar "benefits" (vits/mins etc...)?

I'm not sure about that.

In pasta sauces, tomato and the acid therein are what combine everything. You'd need to replace them with something else for it to work, and I bet a million dollars that everyone would taste the lemon or whatever else you could use.

Same with salsa and the like.

At the most basic level, tomato is even important in a 'dagwood' sammich.

[Bonez]

I always thought "tomato" was a code word form dope plants any way....:Police:

[Viking01]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.13087

A very recent review paper on the cannabis legalisation challenge. About 8 pages A4. Might be of interest to a few.

Provides a little history, as well as comment on the experience within several overseas jurisdictions.

[jellywrestler]

I always thought "tomato" was a code word form dope plants any way....:Police:

is that cause a lot of people called you tomato over the years?

[mashman]

I'm not sure about that.

In pasta sauces, tomato and the acid therein are what combine everything. You'd need to replace them with something else for it to work, and I bet a million dollars that everyone would taste the lemon or whatever else you could use.

Same with salsa and the like.

At the most basic level, tomato is even important in a 'dagwood' sammich.

Fair points. It was a gross generalisation in ways. I've heard people say that they can taste that lemon zing in something, but I've yet to hear anyone wax lyrical about the tripiness of the tomato, unsung hero or not. By the looks of things sugar content has a massive effect of flavour in sauces, hence we buy not "lite" versions of everything, if not out of stock, coz sugar = not yuck. And were sugar fails, the smart boys in the lab have created flavour enhancers. Mother fuckas are putting real tomatoes out of work. Grades of food eh.

[Kickaha]

At the most basic level, tomato is even important in a 'dagwood' sammich.

I've always found tomato to be tasteless slush, I cant eat them

[Bonez]

is that cause a lot of people called you tomato over the years?Nah. No one has done that. Usually carrot top or ginga which I can live with.

[Laava]

I always thought "tomato" was a code word form dope plants any way....:Police:
This kind of does just confirm that you have been taking the wrong drugs.
Be sure to stay away from those "pumpkins!"

[george formby]

Fair points. It was a gross generalisation in ways. I've heard people say that they can taste that lemon zing in something, but I've yet to hear anyone wax lyrical about the tripiness of the tomato, unsung hero or not. By the looks of things sugar content has a massive effect of flavour in sauces, hence we buy not "lite" versions of everything, if not out of stock, coz sugar = not yuck. And were sugar fails, the smart boys in the lab have created flavour enhancers. Mother fuckas are putting real tomatoes out of work. Grades of food eh.

Stuff that is labelled low sugar is usually sweetened with artificials which can be quite nasty. Aspartame :sick: Like licking freshly polished aluminium.

Low fat is usually flavoured with sugar to compensate. Chubbers beware.

Tom's are usually quite acidic hence the acid free plum tom varieties. The wee cherry ones are usually very sweet, particularly if they get lots of sun, great for making pizza sauce.

Bog standard tomatoes need honey or sugar to help us get the full flavour. Or dry / slow roast them. Intensify me, Inxs, I think.

Sugar does not change taste it just makes our taste buds more receptive. Same as salt, acid ect.

Amazingly, my tomatoes are pumping! :cold:

[Laava]

Strange year alright! We harvested our pineapples and some bananas last weekend.

[george formby]

Strange year alright! We harvested our pineapples and some bananas last weekend.

When did you move to Raro?;)

[mashman]

Stuff that is labelled low sugar is usually sweetened with artificials which can be quite nasty. Aspartame :sick: Like licking freshly polished aluminium.

Low fat is usually flavoured with sugar to compensate. Chubbers beware.

Tom's are usually quite acidic hence the acid free plum tom varieties. The wee cherry ones are usually very sweet, particularly if they get lots of sun, great for making pizza sauce.

Bog standard tomatoes need honey or sugar to help us get the full flavour. Or dry / slow roast them. Intensify me, Inxs, I think.

Amazingly, my tomatoes are pumping! :cold:

I've never licked freshly polished aluminium... but I can grasp what ya mean. Had a mate who grew Stevia, but whilst it got close to tasting like sugar, it just missed the same payoff in terms of flavour, ending with a more saccharine taste... you know, cardboard.



Sugar does not change taste it just makes our taste buds more receptive. Same as salt, acid ect.

So when you put a sugar cube in your mouth, you're simply tasting what your mouth tastes like at that time, and not the sugar?

[rastuscat]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.13087

A very recent review paper on the cannabis legalisation challenge. About 8 pages A4. Might be of interest to a few.

Provides a little history, as well as comment on the experience within several overseas jurisdictions.

Facts? Facts? Are you mad? This is KB, facts are of little relevance on here.

[Viking01]

Facts? Facts? Are you mad? This is KB, facts are of little relevance on here.

I didn't make a mistake and say it was factual, did I ? All it had to be was "convincing".

[FlangMasterJ]

More like reeferendum amirite guys?

[george formby]

So when you put a sugar cube in your mouth, you're simply tasting what your mouth tastes like at that time, and not the sugar?

:blink: I have students that ask questions like that, annoying wretches.:love:

Describe the taste of the sugar and we will converse. :oi-grr:


Foreshore, sugar, salt, acid, umami, bitter, cause a "taste" but they are rarely dominant unless you put in too much, then they overwhelm the other compounds which is when they become apparent. If you sucked a box of sugar cubes the taste would peak, your taste buds are saturated. Same with eating spoonfuls of salt. Don't do it!

When you use seasonings on food it's a bit like a Russian doll, the receptiveness off the taste buds can detect layers of compounds, becoming more refined and subtle as you chew. Without seasoning flavour can be flat, you get the initial taste but nothing more. Lion Red is a good example.

I demonstrate this with pumpkin soup. We make a really nice soup, good stock, roast butternut, mirepoix, bay leaf and a touch of cinnamon, smells delicious. Once the soup is ready we taste. It's flat, a slightly pumpkin / cinnamon dominant, nicely textured, ambiguous orangeness. Sad faces all round. Add sugar, vinegar and salt. Boom. Lingering, rich pumpkin and layers of spice, mirepoix, herbs and cream. Woo hoo, happy faces.


More pertinent to the thread.. I was accosted by an arthritis burdened elderly lady today. Haven't seen her for 18 months, before even a hello, she grabbed me and said you must vote yes in the referendum.
I knew she had been self medicating for a couple of years with the help of a green fairy but it turns out she is now a home grower. She looked the best and most mobile I have ever seen her, sharp as a tack compared to 18 months ago in a supermarket car park, a bit stoned waiting for her husband to finish the shopping.
She makes edibles and topical salves using the whole plant to help with her pain. Her transformation has turned her friends, her husband and family members into yes voters from an unequivocal anti weed, traditional conservative view.
At the moment she is a criminal. That's not right.

[Katman]

Her transformation has turned her friends, her husband and family members into yes voters from an unequivocal anti weed, traditional conservative view.

I suspect the Grey vote will be significant.

[Kickaha]

I suspect the Grey vote will be significant.

I tend to agree, it would be interesting to see the demographics after the vote

[jellywrestler]

I suspect the Grey vote will be significant.

even more so with the referendum to kill old people in there

[Kickaha]

even more so with the referendum to kill old people in there

Dad said it's a pity it's not already in so he could take that option

[ellipsis]

So when you put a sugar cube in your mouth, you're simply tasting what your mouth tastes like at that time, and not the sugar?

...having been told by my pancreas that my penchant for custard square, apple pie and cream, black forest gateau, hot pikelets and butter and jam, beer, bread and mashed spuds and gravy and, pies, and the forecast result of me continuing to indulge in such stuff was, death, I kinda took note and have cut out the sugar to the extent that refined sugar now has the sensation of an unpleasant burn...this is with any processed food...such as jellybeans or the odd sweet thing I sometimes have to dive on when my sugar levels drop to near death experiences...sugar actually tastes like the death it can unleash...

...just sayin...

[pete376403]

even more so with the referendum to kill old people in there

:shutup:

Not just old people - young people get terminal diseases too.

[jellywrestler]

Dad said it's a pity it's not already in so he could take that option

heard two coherent words out of my partners mother in six years, if i kept a cat or dog like that i'd be in a court of law.... i'll be ticking yes

[mashman]

:blink: I have students that ask questions like that, annoying wretches.:love:

Describe the taste of the sugar and we will converse. :oi-grr:

Which variety sugar? :bleh:



Foreshore, sugar, salt, acid, umami, bitter, cause a "taste" but they are rarely dominant unless you put in too much, then they overwhelm the other compounds which is when they become apparent. If you sucked a box of sugar cubes the taste would peak, your taste buds are saturated. Same with eating spoonfuls of salt. Don't do it!

When you use seasonings on food it's a bit like a Russian doll, the receptiveness off the taste buds can detect layers of compounds, becoming more refined and subtle as you chew. Without seasoning flavour can be flat, you get the initial taste but nothing more. Lion Red is a good example.

I demonstrate this with pumpkin soup. We make a really nice soup, good stock, roast butternut, mirepoix, bay leaf and a touch of cinnamon, smells delicious. Once the soup is ready we taste. It's flat, a slightly pumpkin / cinnamon dominant, nicely textured, ambiguous orangeness. Sad faces all round. Add sugar, vinegar and salt. Boom. Lingering, rich pumpkin and layers of spice, mirepoix, herbs and cream. Woo hoo, happy faces.

When is too much too much if ones taste buds, and potentially physiology, have been used to it since the sippy cup?



More pertinent to the thread.. I was accosted by an arthritis burdened elderly lady today. Haven't seen her for 18 months, before even a hello, she grabbed me and said you must vote yes in the referendum.
I knew she had been self medicating for a couple of years with the help of a green fairy but it turns out she is now a home grower. She looked the best and most mobile I have ever seen her, sharp as a tack compared to 18 months ago in a supermarket car park, a bit stoned waiting for her husband to finish the shopping.
She makes edibles and topical salves using the whole plant to help with her pain. Her transformation has turned her friends, her husband and family members into yes voters from an unequivocal anti weed, traditional conservative view.
At the moment she is a criminal. That's not right.

Good on her. Without question a large number of people receive mental and physical comfort from the plant. Makes one wonder why it was banned in the first place (oil). Heard of a guy recently, on older fella, that grew his own. I say grew, because his dog alerted him to 3 guys helping themselves to his plants one evening. He was roughed a little but was also stabbed in the hand. He can't even go to the cops and report that there are people out and about doing this tooled up without incriminating himself. All because some people are scared that the world will suddenly self-implode because weed becomes legal. Madness that's been going on for far too long innit.

[mashman]

...having been told by my pancreas that my penchant for custard square, apple pie and cream, black forest gateau, hot pikelets and butter and jam, beer, bread and mashed spuds and gravy and, pies, and the forecast result of me continuing to indulge in such stuff was, death, I kinda took note and have cut out the sugar to the extent that refined sugar now has the sensation of an unpleasant burn...this is with any processed food...such as jellybeans or the odd sweet thing I sometimes have to dive on when my sugar levels drop to near death experiences...sugar actually tastes like the death it can unleash...

...just sayin...

That answers that question then. That doesn't include booze right?

[Scuba_Steve]

heard two coherent words out of my partners mother in six years, if i kept a cat or dog like that i'd be in a court of law.... i'll be ticking yes

It's still ironic we use the word "humane" when putting down pets - "we did the humane thing & had them put down"
It's not "humane" to put them down, currently the "humane" thing to do is leave them alive & suffering; Not the good, nice, or right thing to do but definitely the humane thing by definition.

[Viking01]

Makes one wonder why it was banned in the first place (oil).

I can't find the particular references that I had in mind, but the following might do.

If you want a list of countries and dates of prohibition, you can look at the Wikipedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cannabis_law

You'll see that cannabis was not prohibited in NZ until 1965 (under the Narcotics Act).

Some of the literature I've read recounted that the prohibition of cannabis was essentially a worldwide initiative, but driven primarily by the US temperance movement. Fervour peaked following a 1921 US Conference (and a drug scandal that year), resulting in prohibition within various other jurisdictions soon after (e.g. Canada; several EU countries) .

United States
In the case of the US, it was prohibited effectively on a preventative basis, from fear that it might become a substitute for alcohol which had been banned under Prohibition legislation.

While the role of the US temperance movement was widely acknowledged, I've also seen anecdotal mention of several other contributory drivers
e.g.
1. Anti-Mexican xenophobia (in the 1910's and 1920's)
2. Post WW1 fear of Negroes (coupled with the Jazz era of the 1920's)
3. Suppression of hemp growing (use as a possible fibre for newsprint)

The following two links might be of general interest:

http://origins.osu.edu/article/illegalization-marijuana-brief-history

Article 2: See Summary and Notes from page 32 onwards.

https://www.canorml.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/caloriginsmjproh.pdf

[mashman]

I can't find the particular references that I had in mind, but the following might do.

If you want a list of countries and dates of prohibition, you can look at the Wikipedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cannabis_law

You'll see that cannabis was not prohibited in NZ until 1965 (under the Narcotics Act).

Some of the literature I've read recounted that the prohibition of cannabis was essentially a worldwide initiative, but driven primarily by the US temperance movement. Fervour peaked following a 1921 US Conference (and a drug scandal that year), resulting in prohibition within various other jurisdictions soon after (e.g. Canada; several EU countries) .

United States
In the case of the US, it was prohibited effectively on a preventative basis, from fear that it might become a substitute for alcohol which had been banned under Prohibition legislation.

While the role of the US temperance movement was widely acknowledged, I've also seen anecdotal mention of several other contributory drivers
e.g.
1. Anti-Mexican xenophobia (in the 1910's and 1920's)
2. Post WW1 fear of Negroes (coupled with the Jazz era of the 1920's)
3. Suppression of hemp growing (use as a possible fibre for newsprint)

The following two links might be of general interest:

http://origins.osu.edu/article/illegalization-marijuana-brief-history

Article 2: See Summary and Notes from page 32 onwards.

https://www.canorml.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/caloriginsmjproh.pdf

All very lovely, but none of that explains why the Male was banned too, until Oil joined the party. Until Oil joined the party, the prohibitchin movement weren't asking for the Male of the species to be banned. That transition caused the Wall Street Crash, and rendered millions of the Owners of Production to employee or to change business in favour of monopoly that went on to set the tone for the education systems of the world etc... But hey, your picture looks nice too.

[Viking01]

All very lovely, but none of that explains why the Male was banned too, until Oil joined the party. Until Oil joined the party, the prohibitchin movement weren't asking for the Male of the species to be banned. That transition caused the Wall Street Crash, and rendered millions of the Owners of Production to employee or to change business in favour of monopoly that went on to set the tone for the education systems of the world etc... But hey, your picture looks nice too.

Evening.
I'm not quite clear on exactly what question you're trying to answer, but the following link might provide some more information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States#

It might not be the temperance movement that was directly responsible for the action you refer to in your last post ( #222 ). I point to the following sections:

1. The Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act (1925-32) appeared to restrict itself to only those parts of the plant which had recognised intoxicating properties (as known at that time). See and read Reference 28 , Appendix 1, p321

2. However, there appeared to be a "sea change" with the creation of the National Bureau of Narcotics in 1930, and the opinions of its head, Harry Anslinger. See Reference 34.

3. The US Marijuana Tax Act 1937. From doing some further background reading, I cannot add anything else to what already appears in this section - re (i) proposed taxation (ii) hemp processing.

With the authorities seeming intent to stamp out "cannabis" (usage) in all shape and form, I can only suggest that the justification for such action perhaps lies in the last paragraph of this section (i.e. the difficulty that authorities experienced in consistently identifying exactly which parts of the plant were primarily responsible for intoxicating effects) as well as the personal beliefs of Harry Anslinger himself. See References 43, 44.

No more information to offer you.

[mashman]

Evening.
I'm not quite clear on exactly what question you're trying to answer, but the following link might provide some more information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States#

It might not be the temperance movement that was directly responsible for the action you refer to in your last post ( #222 ). I point to the following sections:

1. The Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act (1925-32) appeared to restrict itself to only those parts of the plant which had recognised intoxicating properties (as known at that time). See and read Reference 28 , Appendix 1, p321

2. However, there appeared to be a "sea change" with the creation of the National Bureau of Narcotics in 1930, and the opinions of its head, Harry Anslinger. See Reference 34.

3. The US Marijuana Tax Act 1937. From doing some further background reading, I cannot add anything else to what already appears in this section - re (i) proposed taxation (ii) hemp processing.

With the authorities seeming intent to stamp out "cannabis" (usage) in all shape and form, I can only suggest that the justification for such action perhaps lies in the last paragraph of this section (i.e. the difficulty that authorities experienced in consistently identifying exactly which parts of the plant were primarily responsible for intoxicating effects) as well as the personal beliefs of Harry Anslinger himself. See References 43, 44.

No more information to offer you.

The question I have answered is the why it all came about. Without Big Oil the argument was going to go nowhere given that a simple spliff test would have solved all problems i.e. go smoke Industrial Hemp strength "bud"/leaf v's the Female bud/leaf and tada, one gets you smashed v's one doing nothing noticeable given its lack of THC and therefore earning it its classification of Industrial grade Hemp. This involved weeding, snigger, out the Female plants to make harvesting and processing easier... and so on. There is no logic in killing off an entire industry simply to stop people from doing something that has always been impossible to police. Oil tipped the scales, because it came with political leverage and the money to pay for it, as well as the media and the money to pay for them, as well as a plan for a future with regards to how to keep everyone rich, and provide more jobs coz oil was less efficient to produce and needed more people and new technology to produce for our ever insatiable desires, and maybe even benefit mankind along the way yada yada yada.......... 42 = Oil.

[Viking01]

The question I have answered is the why it all came about. Without Big Oil the argument was going to go nowhere given that a simple spliff test would have solved all problems i.e. go smoke Industrial Hemp strength "bud"/leaf v's the Female bud/leaf and tada, one gets you smashed v's one doing nothing noticeable given its lack of THC and therefore earning it its classification of Industrial grade Hemp. This involved weeding, snigger, out the Female plants to make harvesting and processing easier... and so on. There is no logic in killing off an entire industry simply to stop people from doing something that has always been impossible to police. Oil tipped the scales, because it came with political leverage and the money to pay for it, as well as the media and the money to pay for them, as well as a plan for a future with regards to how to keep everyone rich, and provide more jobs coz oil was less efficient to produce and needed more people and new technology to produce for our ever insatiable desires, and maybe even benefit mankind along the way yada yada yada.......... 42 = Oil.

Morning.

Most of the material I have read has focused on the "health related" aspects. I had seen only very limited mention of other industries (e.g. petrochemical and cotton) arguing against hemp.

There was mention of petrochemical companies (e.g. du Pont) having an interest in this area, due to hemp being a potential competitor for the newly developed nylon (or rayon). Which puts the petitioning of Anslinger by du Pont - as well as the implementation of the hemp taxation regime - in further context.

Demand for nylon sky-rocketed in the period 1940-1945, due to the demand for cord to be used in the making of parachutes. Du Pont was unable to produce nylon in sufficient volumes, so the US Government did resort to commissioning farmers to grow hemp (in order to meet the demand).

There is some mention of Anslinger's motivations made in the following article (see paragraph 6):

https://www.quora.com/Why-was-hemp-made-illegal-in-1937-and-why-were-all-forms-of-cannabis-added-to-the-schedule-1-list-in-1970

Hemp fibre was also seen as a competitor to cotton, in terms of producing a fibre able to be woven and made into cloth suitable for wearing. I'd read that the US cotton industry had also petitioned Anslinger, but I can't find the references.

[FJRider]

There is some mention of Anslinger's motivations made in the following article (see paragraph 6):

https://www.quora.com/Why-was-hemp-made-illegal-in-1937-and-why-were-all-forms-of-cannabis-added-to-the-schedule-1-list-in-1970

Hemp fibre was also seen as a competitor to cotton, in terms of producing a fibre able to be woven and made into cloth suitable for wearing. I'd read that the US cotton industry had also petitioned Anslinger, but I can't find the references.

As for Anslinger's "Motivation" ... " A Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men." Harry J. Anslinger, U.S. Narcotics Comissioner.

https://www.greenlifeorganics.com/blog/why-was-hemp-outlawed

I like the comment ... "Conspiracy Theorists believe these industries funded misinformation campaigns to make a way for these new technologies to replace Hemp" ... ;)

[mashman]

Morning.

Most of the material I have read has focused on the "health related" aspects. I had seen only very limited mention of other industries (e.g. petrochemical and cotton) arguing against hemp.

There was mention of petrochemical companies (e.g. du Pont) having an interest in this area, due to hemp being a potential competitor for the newly developed nylon (or rayon). Which puts the petitioning of Anslinger by du Pont - as well as the implementation of the hemp taxation regime - in further context.

Demand for nylon sky-rocketed in the period 1940-1945, due to the demand for cord to be used in the making of parachutes. Du Pont was unable to produce nylon in sufficient volumes, so the US Government did resort to commissioning farmers to grow hemp (in order to meet the demand).

There is some mention of Anslinger's motivations made in the following article (see paragraph 6):

https://www.quora.com/Why-was-hemp-made-illegal-in-1937-and-why-were-all-forms-of-cannabis-added-to-the-schedule-1-list-in-1970

Hemp fibre was also seen as a competitor to cotton, in terms of producing a fibre able to be woven and made into cloth suitable for wearing. I'd read that the US cotton industry had also petitioned Anslinger, but I can't find the references.

Hi there.

I love the irony of reverting to Hemp to keep up with demand given that war was a thirsty business and oil was relatively young. The thing is, there is a place for oil, as there is a place for cotton and a place for Hemp, just not in business, and therein lies the problem. The Owners of Production shape the future, which, by default, shapes education across virtually all fields of human endeavour to be limited to that which is required to inhabit that future. Hemp was not a part of that future, else it would exist in vast quantities given its versatility and lower costs of production. Kind of ironic that competition needs to be kept out of markets.

[FJRider]

... Hemp was not a part of that future, else it would exist in vast quantities given its versatility and lower costs of production. Kind of ironic that competition needs to be kept out of markets.

With greater costs of production ... greater wealth is spread around.

Different times meant different attitudes. But to date ... Hemp is still not part of the future.

Competition expects a winner. With the relaxation / reform of the drug laws (this threads topic) ... will there be a winner .. ??

And if everybody wins ... was it really a competition ??

[Katman]

But to date ... Hemp is still not part of the future.

But it could be.

https://hempplastic.com/

[mashman]

With greater costs of production ... greater wealth is spread around.

Different times meant different attitudes. But to date ... Hemp is still not part of the future.

Competition expects a winner. With the relaxation / reform of the drug laws (this threads topic) ... will there be a winner .. ??

And if everybody wins ... was it really a competition ??

There's very little other reason for things to have turned out the way they have. Wealth creation is a stupid reason to do anything, but hey.

The "winners", people who benefit, will be those who no longer have to look over their shoulder if they fancy a quick smoke for whatever reason (lage demographic), be it for medication purposes or purely for the pleasure of getting wankered. The legal status of the plant is testimony to just how stupid this world is and just how dangerous doing something for wealth creation reasons is, but again, hey.

Is it really winning when someone takes something from you and then gives it back to you? Is it really competition when the game was written over a hundred years ago and is going to plan?

[FJRider]

There's very little other reason for things to have turned out the way they have. Wealth creation is a stupid reason to do anything, but hey.

The "winners", people who benefit, will be those who no longer have to look over their shoulder if they fancy a quick smoke for whatever reason (lage demographic), be it for medication purposes or purely for the pleasure of getting wankered. The legal status of the plant is testimony to just how stupid this world is and just how dangerous doing something for wealth creation reasons is, but again, hey.

Is it really winning when someone takes something from you and then gives it back to you? Is it really competition when the game was written over a hundred years ago and is going to plan?

Wealth is the basic purpose of Business.

The Hemp being referred to was the product that is NOT smoked. The hemp used for rope and clothing etc. Not the stuff smoked.

[FJRider]

But it could be.

https://hempplastic.com/

Invest in it yourself then. What could possibly go wrong ... ???

I'm guessing you won't though ... <_<

[mashman]

Wealth is the basic purpose of Business.

The Hemp being referred to was the product that is NOT smoked. The hemp used for rope and clothing etc. Not the stuff smoked.

QED.

I know, but that's not on the referendum is it :bleh:

[Katman]

Invest in it yourself then. What could possibly go wrong ... ???

There are plenty of hemp related opportunities for people to invest in - if investing in things is your thing.

https://bioplasticsnews.com/2019/09/12/what-is-hempcrete/

[Swoop]

even more so with the referendum to kill old people in there
This is the law that passed through parliament and the legal process, but politicians whimped out on by wanting a referendum on, before enacting.

[rastuscat]

This is the law that passed through parliament and the legal process, but politicians whimped out on by wanting a referendum on, before enacting.

Thus stalling the outcome.

If you don't have the nuts to be a leader, consult.

[scumdog]

This is the law that passed through parliament and the legal process, but politicians whimped out on by wanting a referendum on, before enacting.

They funnily enough didn't wimp out on the (UN directed) banning of semi auto firearms, the govt just pushes populist law changes, anything that might make them look bad/unpopular to Joe Average they quickly side step.

[Swoop]

They funnily enough didn't wimp out on the (UN directed) banning of semi auto firearms, the govt just pushes populist law changes, anything that might make them look bad/unpopular to Joe Average they quickly side step.

Weird that they continually tell us all to "not judge a group by the actions of a minority". Dog owners, muslims, etc but expect the exact opposite when firearm's owners are involved.

[R650R]

Well the voters have spoken, hopefully this is the deathnell for about half the Green Party vote base.
Quite an interesting result given that just about EVERY user would have dragged themselves in to vote yes, and a lot of non users wouldn’t have been worried about it either way as there were major pros and cons both ways.
Has saved a lot of people their jobs as most employers were not going to be changing their policy’s as just like alcohol you can’t define a safe level of impairment.

[FJRider]

... Has saved a lot of people their jobs as most employers were not going to be changing their policy’s as just like alcohol you can’t define a safe level of impairment.

Most companies require a zero percentage of impairment ... and will continue with this policy. Regardless of the legality of the substance used.

Under the influence ... is not the same as any legal limit to drive.

[FJRider]

Weird that they continually tell us all to "not judge a group by the actions of a minority". Dog owners, muslims, etc but expect the exact opposite when firearm's owners are involved.

You left out "Motorcyclists" ... your point is ... ??


Just saying ...

[F5 Dave]

Weird that they continually tell us all to "not judge a group by the actions of a minority". Dog owners, muslims, etc but expect the exact opposite when firearm's owners are involved.

Question: how many non gun owners have shot people?

[F5 Dave]

Well the voters have spoken, hopefully this is the deathnell for about half the Green Party vote base.
Quite an interesting result given that just about EVERY user would have dragged themselves in to vote yes, and a lot of non users wouldn’t have been worried about it either way as there were major pros and cons both ways.
Has saved a lot of people their jobs as most employers were not going to be changing their policy’s as just like alcohol you can’t define a safe level of impairment.

Did you not notice the results? It was pretty close to 1/2. I'd not be betting the same results in 10 years when the churches money is greatly reduced as more people stop giving money to a dopey religion of hatred.

Thats all they believe in. Hate.

And more brown people will be prosecuted in that time.


And I've never smoked. I'm just not as closed minded.

[caseye]

Question: how many non gun owners have shot people?

A better question, how many people Have been illegally shot by licenced firearms owners?
:corn::not:

[FJRider]

A better question, how many people Have been illegally shot by licenced firearms owners?
:corn::not:

51 recently ... have you forgotten already ??

If even one Licensed firearms owner can ... there is a chance another may do so.


And ... as I understand ... it's still illegal to shoot anybody in New Zealand. Having a firearms license (and shooting somebody) does not reduce the resulting sentence in any way.

[F5 Dave]

A better question, how many people Have been illegally shot by licenced firearms owners?
:corn::not:
That isn't a better question at all. Answer my first one.

[caseye]

That isn't a better question at all. Answer my first one.

Simple, Shit Loads, who actually believes that the scumbags that shoot at police have ever had a firearms licence.
FJ, was not saying it doesn't happen, it does, shouldn't,, but it does. Numerically though almost all of the reported shootings we've seen year in and year out have been criminals/unlicensed users, using guns to kill people without remorse or thought for consequence, while those of us who take care of our equipment and cherish our privilege to own and use firearms are forever bing bashed over the head with govt directives to hand in otherwise perfectly safe firearms.:oi-grr:

[R650R]

Did you not notice the results? It was pretty close to 1/2. I'd not be betting the same results in 10 years when the churches money is greatly reduced as more people stop giving money to a dopey religion of hatred.

Thats all they believe in. Hate.

And more brown people will be prosecuted in that time.


And I've never smoked. I'm just not as closed minded.
What are you smoking? Religion doesn’t come into this debate at all. And you thrown in the race card which is not a factor in the vote either, lots of them at our local churches too FYI

According to popular opinion lots of people in NZ smoke weed at times. Very few of them come to the attention of the police. Like everything else it’s the attitude test and what else you doing at time.

[R650R]

Question: how many non gun owners have shot people?

Lots as most illegally acquired/stolen so not really legal owners

[R650R]

Weird that they continually tell us all to "not judge a group by the actions of a minority". Dog owners, muslims, etc but expect the exact opposite when firearm's owners are involved.

That’s the paradigm of the extreme left virtue signalling to buy votes from minorities.