Legalise the herb

[Jackrat]

Somebody bought this subject up on an American hunting site I'm on.
It caused such a shit fight I thought it would go down well here.
So how do we all feel about the idea of legalising weed??
I think it's a foolish idea because we have enough problems with Drugs ect now.The pro group on this other site wasted a lot of time compering it to Alcohol and Tabacco.Personaly I can't see the connection.
Just because two bad for ya' drugs are legal,that's reason to legalise another one???
Just in case you wondered I don't care if adults have the odd smoke at home but I do have an issue with all the problems that come from growers and dealers making a living from the stuff.

[Slim]

Just in case you wondered I don't care if adults have the odd smoke at home but I do have an issue with all the problems that come from growers and dealers making a living from the stuff.
I'm sure the government would legalise it ..... if they could figure out how to tax it! :kick:

If it was legalised, then the growers & dealers hopefully wouldn't be the problem that they are today, and, possibly, it wouldn't be as expensive to buy either.


The obvious inbetween step to full legalisation is to follow the Netherlands example & make small amounts for personal use legal.

I'd fully support it, even though I have never had anything to do with the stuff.

[Ms Piggy]

It's kinda one of those situations where I'm not quite sure. I'm not a smoker of it myself but don't judge those that do.

I'm not so sure about legalising it but maybe decriminalising it?

I mean I think once anything is more freely available people who didn't try it before will. Look at what lowering the drinking age did.

My (limited) understanding is it mellows people out but I've also got friends who have become a bit paranoid & aggressive from smoking it.

I really dunno but I'm curious to hear arguments for and against.

[wkid_one]

Yeah - in some areas of the states it is okay to grow for personal supply - but where do you draw the line.

Theoretically, an Adult has the option to smoke, knowing full well the consequences (usually) - however this doesn't always apply to younger folk whereby peer pressure, pop culture etc all influence the decision.

I don't think that they should legalise it - I do think that they should lighten up on the laws surrounding possession for personal use - just a fine etc.....as the legal expense is hardly worth the reward. However - at the end of the day, if you 'condone' personal use, you therefore support the suppliers - catch 22.

I don't think making something illegal is the best way to deal with it tho - there is little if any mainstream education occuring around the (mis)use of drugs in NZ. Most of our education around this is reactionary - when someone has been identified with a problem. When seem to see documentary after documentary about the ill effects of drugs (esp P) - yet little actual informative and educational material about it at the same time.

[SPman]

...possibly, it wouldn't be as expensive to buy either.
. Never had to buy any in m life. If I had to, I wouldnt!....

Ohh...I dont ...

Well, there you go....

Now, where was I...?:doobey:

[wkid_one]

If it was legalised, then the growers & dealers hopefully wouldn't be the problem that they are today, and, possibly, it wouldn't be as expensive to buy either.


It isn;t that expensive??



Is it? I wouldn't know..... :Oops:

[Skyryder]

There is a big difference between legalising and decriminalizing 'the weed.'
So I will answer the question as it is. No, I am not in favour of legalising 'the weed.' However decriminalization is another story.

At present I can be prosecuted under the crimes act for having a 'smoke' on my own property. As can anyone on this board. The only person who I am harming is myself. I can do exactlly the same thing useing tobbaco and again the only person I am harming is myself. One smoke and I am a criminal the other I am a law abiding citizen. The Crimes Act deals with offences that can be coverd in three catorgories, life: you just can not go and kill someone, limb: covers assaults, battery etc. and property; theft, fraud embezzelment etc. or what I call the three D's. Death, damage and done. There is another area under the crimes act and that deals with potential areas, ie drunk driving, conspiracy etc. that come under the the three D's ie manslaughter as in the case of a drunk driver or planing a bank robbery etc. In all crime someone has been put to a disadvantage oneway or another. Not so in the case of drugs. These are self induced, all or them, as is tobacco. Now before anyone goes off on the passive smoking bit I am a non smoker and get more than pissed off when someone lights up in front of me especially at a resturant. In fact I have been known to ask the managment to see that the ciggeratte is put out. If not I walk and do not pay for the meal but that's another issue. The issue of drug taking is one of choice. And yes there are some drugs out there that are cause for concern. I would not advocate the decriminaliastion of 'the weed' where there is potential of injury as in driving under the influence etc. But where there is a case, for what is more commonly known as recreational use, yes I would advocate decriminalization in this area on the grounds that the smoking of 'the weed' does not in anyway come under the three D's.

Skyryder

[spudchucka]

I've seen too many kids at the lowest end of society suffering because of pot to ever support legalising it. On the other hand the time and effort that goes into prosecutions for simple possession is crazy and the penalties are pathetic so I would support decriminalisation for small quantities, (bullets) where perhaps an instant fine might be more appropriate. However if this were to happen I believe the minimum penalties for growing for supply should be stepped right up.

[wkid_one]

I've seen too many kids at the lowest end of society suffering because of pot to ever support legalising it. On the other hand the time and effort that goes into prosecutions for simple possession is crazy and the penalties are pathetic so I would support decriminalisation for small quantities, (bullets) where perhaps an instant fine might be more appropriate. However if this were to happen I believe the minimum penalties for growing for supply should be stepped right up.
Yup that was the gist I was getting to.....

Problem is 'monkey see monkey do' - so while parents sit at home toking, kids follow suit.

[spudchucka]

At present I can be prosecuted under the crimes act for having a 'smoke' on my own property.
The Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 might be more appropriate.

[What?]

It caused such a shit fight I thought it would go down well here.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :first:

[Skyryder]

The Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 might be more appropriate.

Point taken

Skyryder

[riffer]

When I was younger I tried a lot of drugs - now I'm in my late 30s I guess I've either grown up or grown out of it.

15 years ago I would have been saying that there's no problems with dope, that you could smoke as much as you like, blah blah blah.

I don't quite understand the current problem with P - when I was younger we called it crystal meth and it was hard to get, so I guess we could never afford to get addicted to it. Dope was always easy to get, and we tended to use that a lot more. It seemed a lot more innocent then.

Now, I look at my kids and wonder how I am going to feel when they try drugs (which they will, of course). My parents never told me anything about drugs so I had to try as many as I could. Why should my kids be any different? So I will try and educate my kids about drugs as much as possible and hope that they will make a responsible decision about them.

I don't agree with criminalising people for possession of dope - it should be a misdemenour (sp) offence. People who try and make money out of other people by trading in drugs in a bad thing and should be treated as such.

Maybe the Netherlands has the right idea of how to approach the dope problem, but they also have a major problem with hard drugs too.

I'm just glad they aren't making single malt illegal. Then I'd have to go rogue <_<

[Skyryder]

The pro group on this other site wasted a lot of time compering it to Alcohol and Tabacco.Personaly I can't see the connection.


Alcohol, tobbacco, 'the weed.' All three are drugs.

Skyryder

[mangell6]

Alcohol, tobbacco, 'the weed.' All three are drugs.

Skyryder

And that is also the order that causes the most damage. Alcohol causes far more problems in our society than any other substance that is in use today, period.


I've seen too many kids at the lowest end of society suffering because of pot to ever support legalising it.

"How do we escape?"

One other item that is missing from the discussion is the "association" factor. Which is why Alcoholics Anonymous exists.

Personally it should be available for personal use and medical reasons, like it was previously, many years ago.

[jrandom]

This is a bit tangential, but did you know that most of the major 'baccy companies have already registered trademarks (and presumably done a lot of R&D work behind the scenes) in preparation for the day that some country, somewhere, legalises weed?

I don't remember any of the product names, but they were quite catchy and appropriate.

If New Zealand or Canada or the USA or who-knows-else ever *legalises* marijuana, it'll hit store shelves beside the tobacco products, alongside carefully-prepared marketing campaigns, within the month. Don't imagine that it would stay as a cute little backyard industry.

Back to the question, though - I agree with Spud. I've seen people with fried brains and clapped-out lives that can partially be attributed to dope. Smoking the stuff just doesn't do you *any* good at all, in the long term. There's no good reason to legalise it.

Please, nobody bring up the tired old 'alcohol is just as ...' crap. Alcohol can be used moderately without ill effect. It *has* been shown to confer health benefits. Should we ban petrol because it kills brain cells when idiots sniff it from a plastic bag? Nope - it's too useful. Ditto for booze.

The jury is still out on proper proof of the effects of dope, but I think we all know what the verdict should be...

[MikeL]

Now, I look at my kids and wonder how I am going to feel when they try drugs (which they will, of course). My parents never told me anything about drugs so I had to try as many as I could. Why should my kids be any different? So I will try and educate my kids about drugs as much as possible and hope that they will make a responsible decision about them.


There is no sure way to prevent your children from suffering the consequences of drug abuse. What you have described above is a sensible attitude. I would add that it doesn't help to over-dramatize. To rant and rave is always counter-productive, but if you start using labels like "junkie" or predict imminent death from heroin overdose just because your son or daughter has been smoking a bit of pot you lose all credibility.

Note that I used the word "abuse" above. I think there is drug "use" and there is drug "abuse". Where one turns into the other is of course (like many other things!) an arbitrary judgement. I tend to think that some drugs used appropriately can be life-enhancing. The fact that they may have adverse physical or psychological effects is not in itself an argument for banning them.
We do not need to be protected from ourselves. On the other hand there is no doubt that much social misfortune results from the abuse of drugs, so that society has the right to regulate them for the protection of all. Unfortunately when it comes to deciding the level and form of that regulation, logic, reason and scientific fact become hopelessly entangled with emotion, fantasy and political expediency. On the scientific evidence it is impossible to justify criminalizing marijuana use while allowing alcohol and tobacco to be sold freely. Possession of dope for personal use should long ago have been decriminalized. The fact that it has not testifies to the ongoing immaturity of political and social debate in this country, and the degree of hypocrisy and self-interest among our parliamentarians. But then, why is anyone surprised? Consider how long we waited for homosexual law reform, legalization of prostitution, civil union legislation... Not to mention 10 o'clock closing (anyone remember that??)

[Hitcher]

There, I've said it and it wasn't that hard... "I agree with Jackrat!" [Birds fall from the skies, crust of ice forms over Hell]

[Jackrat]

Alcohol, tobbacco, 'the weed.' All three are drugs.

Skyryder
Yeah,but that's not what I ment.
I drink but I don't allow myself to become drunk,I really dislike the Feeling,to the extent were Iv'e practicly given it up all togeather.With weed the whole point is to get stoned.One you can use with out any noticable affects and the other you wouldn't use if you didn't get an affect,so to me they are nothing like one another.
I can't see the logic in legalising one thing just because another thing better or worse is already legal,but that is the logic that the people on this other site were useing.

[MikeL]

JR, just read your post after writing mine. You make some good points about legalizing pot - the commercial exploitation would be a real worry. I agree that smoking pot is unlikely to do most people much good (some medicinal exceptions, perhaps) and if we move down the track of banning both tobacco and marijuana I certainly wouldn't mourn the loss of either.

However your comparison with alcohol, while relevant to some extent, does not tell the whole story. I would like to know, for example, what Spud's view of the relative social dangers of alcohol and pot are. I have a feeling that a cop would rather deal with a spaced out dopehead than an aggressive drunk...

And I also suspect that in the chain of cause and event leading to fried brains and clapped out lives, poor parenting is the real culprit: the drug is in some ways the solution and not the cause.

[Jackrat]

I'm sure the government would legalise it ..... if they could figure out how to tax it! :kick:

If it was legalised, then the growers & dealers hopefully wouldn't be the problem that they are today, and, possibly, it wouldn't be as expensive to buy either.


The obvious inbetween step to full legalisation is to follow the Netherlands example & make small amounts for personal use legal.

I'd fully support it, even though I have never had anything to do with the stuff.

Some one please correct me if I'm wrong(Ten good men die in the rush)
I've always been under the impression that NZ was party to some treaty or agreement with the USA not to legalise.
I'm also dang sure our Gov't could and would find a way to tax it.They seem to have it down to an art with most other things.Big business would take over an that's all she wrote.

[SPman]

Yeah,but that's not what I ment.
I drink but I don't allow myself to become drunk,I really dislike the Feeling,to the extent were Iv'e practicly given it up all togeather.With weed the whole point is to get stoned.One you can use with out any noticable affects and the other you wouldn't use if you didn't get an affect,so to me they are nothing like one another.
I can't see the logic in legalising one thing just because another thing better or worse is already legal,but that is the logic that the people on this other site were useing. Know what you mean, generally. Dont like the "not in control" feeling of being drunk, stoned, whatever. However, I usely see weed being used in social situations as a mild relaxant, like alcohol, not to get stoned, just relaxed. Mild use of alcohol is for the same effect. Prefer alcohol these days, doesnt hang around in the system as long and weed just puts me to sleep!
Would prefer "decriminalisation" for small amounts, rather than legalisation.
You could then hit the big time traders heavier - not that it would do a lot of good - theyre pretty dumb buggers, most of them. I know one who has done 2 stints of 2 yrs each for possesion for supply and he's still no wiser!

[jrandom]

However your comparison with alcohol, while relevant to some extent, does not tell the whole story. I would like to know, for example, what Spud's view of the relative social dangers of alcohol and pot are. I have a feeling that a cop would rather deal with a spaced out dopehead than an aggressive drunk...

Indeed. Of course, I have to admit that my regular (and carefully rationalised...) personal use of alcohol makes it difficult for me to take a truly objective viewpoint.



And I also suspect that in the chain of cause and event leading to fried brains and clapped out lives, poor parenting is the real culprit: the drug is in some ways the solution and not the cause.

Here lies the root of the problem; constructing a society without the *desire* for chemical oblivion is the solution. We can't fix everybody by banning what they use to escape reality; perhaps creating a reality that nobody *needs* to escape from would remove the desire to do so.

Then again, we could always just turn on the showers and fire the ovens.

[riffer]

So really, there are two problems:

1. There will always be some element of society who will abuse anything. The government feels the need to protect a small of society by restricting access of potentially dangerous materials to all.

2. There will always be another element of society who will prey on others weaknesses and abusive tendencies. These people will sell anything to those people without ethical dilemmas.

So those of us who are not of the abusive persuasion agree to give up our freedoms to protect the weak.

[FROSTY]

I dont /wont/never will take recreational drugs -BUt
If dope was legal and grown like tobacco then wouldnt it deprive some of the criminal element of income -put em outa business??

[erik]

...
2. There will always be another element of society who will prey on others weaknesses and abusive tendencies. These people will sell anything to those people without ethical dilemmas.
...

Makes me think of tobacco companies... :angry:

[riffer]

I dont /wont/never will take recreational drugs -BUt
If dope was legal and grown like tobacco then wouldnt it deprive some of the criminal element of income -put em outa business??
Afraid not frosty - they will just move on to something else. See my previous point 2.

This has been proven by the police crackdown on outside dope growing. All it did was make the gangs turn to P and hydroponic dope growing.

[scumdog]

Gangs are already moving onto P as the drug to sell.

Not many full blown brain-dead lazy non-working druggies started off like that, they (just about all) all started with good old weed, if it was legalised the slick marketing of it would lead a lot more people to try it and a percentage of them onto harder stuff, Holland is an example of that.

Leave it as it is, as somebody mentioned earlier look at the lowering of the drinking age follow-on.

I drink (as some may notice!) and it causes heaps of problems for a lot of people, if it and drugs and tobacco ceased to exist, well I wouldn't bat an eye

[spudchucka]

I would like to know, for example, what Spud's view of the relative social dangers of alcohol and pot are. I have a feeling that a cop would rather deal with a spaced out dopehead than an aggressive drunk...

Firstly I'm not advocating prohibition by saying this but if we didn't have alcohol the crime rate would plummet. I don't know if the situation would be any different if we had legalised pot and alcohol was prohibited. It often seems to me that it is human nature, (or perhaps Kiwi culture) to abuse whatever social drugs are available. What I do know is that the social costs associated with cannabis to those at the lowest end of society are enormous.

As a cop dealing with an offender it would make no difference whatsoever to me whether a person was stoned or drunk. If they need to be taken into custody they will be considered a risk until the bracelets go on. People under the influence of any drug can be highly unpredictable. I learnt long ago not to assume that a person isn't effected by drugs or is capable of being an extreme risk to my safety. I treat everyone the same until such time as I know otherwise or they are safely in custody.



And I also suspect that in the chain of cause and event leading to fried brains and clapped out lives, poor parenting is the real culprit: the drug is in some ways the solution and not the cause.

The poor parenting is often a result of the parent being spaced out most of the time and spending all the families money on booze and dope. The dope is an inherent part of the overall problem and the ones that suffer the most are the children. The kids end up doing burglaries just to get food because there is never any money to buy groceries, then the whole crime cycle begins all over again in a new generation. As the kids get older they get into the weed and P etc and end up in debt to dealers, they then start doing their burgs for drugs.

[Coldkiwi]

i bloody hate weed

it makes growing vegetables a pain in the butt and makes the garden look all grotty when its mates turn up!

[Zed]

...it makes growing vegetables a pain in the butt and makes the garden look all grotty when its mates turn up!Lol, all of a sudden you're concerned about the garden!! Sounds like your wife is already having an effect on you in that area? :bleh:


Zed

[James Deuce]

Legalise the whole kit and caboodle, from class A hard stuff to weed.

Remove the possibility of there being any organised crime gain from the drug trade.

Register drug addicts in the same way as paedophiles the moment they end up in hospital as a result of abusing a substance. Refuse them medical care from that point on and let a few junkies rot in the street.

Execute women who kill viable foetuses via drug abuse. Remove children born to junkie women the instant the come out with no recourse EVER to have contact with that child.

Watch how quickly hard drugs disappear from casual use in educated societies.

Watch how the global population reduces to a sustainable level, because all the stupid people who would have been protected from being stupid by the artificial constructs of civilisation do stupid things that kill them. Like in the "good" old days.

I guess I'm saying criminalise the effects of drug use rather than the drugs themselves. After all that is apparently a good enough process for punishing those who misuse alchohol, a la drunk driving.

[Ms Piggy]

After reading all this info I think I'm far more likely to support decriminalisation of dope rather than legalising it.

There will always (sadly) be the abusers of all situations, they types that are more prone to addiction.

I kinda sing between supporting the ideas that Jim2 has put forward & taking a softer line...I mean it's kinda of survival of the fittest and I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing - oh sorry getting off the topic now. :rolleyes:

[El Dopa]

[QUOTE=jrandom]This is a bit tangential, but did you know that most of the major 'baccy companies have already registered trademarks (and presumably done a lot of R&D work behind the scenes) in preparation for the day that some country, somewhere, legalises weed?

I don't remember any of the product names, but they were quite catchy and appropriate. QUOTE]

'Marlys/Marlies' is supposed to be the one Marlboro registered. Now which well-known reggae singer would they be thinking of there?

Bear in mind the following when the Dutch situation is quoted as an example:

1) No other European country has the same sort of freedom.

2) The local population is well enough educated and used to it to leave it to the tourists (mainly).

3) It has land borders and 'porous' border controls with the rest of Europe, and is easy to get to from the rest of Europe.

The point being that it's mainly 'drug tourists' who cause the problems in Amsterdam, cos they can't get it at home and they can easily get it in, and get to, Amsterdam. People predisposed to have problems have naturally gravitated there. If the same conditions applied Europe-wide, they would be more dispersed.

I think there's probably a lot of truth in the 'hard' follows 'soft' argument for some people, because some people have addictive personalities, and will
become hooked on booze, gambling, drugs, infidelity, speed (vehicular kind) etc etc.

But on the other hand, there's plenty of people who'll go and have a glass of wine/beer and use it as a social thing without taking it too far. The UK has a real problem with a macho binge drinking culture because alcohol and getting trollied carries a sort of 'mystique'. It's almost a rite of pasage to wake up covered in your own vomit.

Compare that with France/Italy, where it's common to have watered down table wine available at dinner for young teens, and they grow up thinking alcohol is no big deal. Being so drunk you're unable to stand up is very much frowned upon. It's a different approach and a different culture.

Having said that, I don't think you will ever stop a very significant proportion of the population wanting to get out of their trees, no matter how perfect your society.

In my view a sensible approach to education would be a good start, rather than the semi-hysterical nonsense that gets taken as gospel by both sides. The 'pros' would have you believe that smoking is practically harmless. It ain't. It's a psycho-active substance and if your brain's wired right/wrong when you try it then it's going to hit you where it hurts.

The 'cons' on the other hand ignore the fact that prohibition didn't work for booze in the US, and that booze is not a particularly society-friendly substance, even though it's legal. the US has terrible problems with young binge-drinking, and a legal drinking age of 21.

The 'war on drugs' in the US was/is about as effective as the 'war on terror'. If you make sentencing for pot as harsh as that for heroin, then dealers will switch to heroin because the profits are better. The same argument could be raised for legalising/decriminalising pot (dealers will switch from 'soft' to 'hard' because that's where the money is).

All of this is a long-winded way of saying that the current situation is f**ked. Booze and weed, one legal, the other not, is ridiculous (I make no argument for or against, I simply point out that it is utterly ridiculous and illogical).

I would welcome an intelligent public debate on the subject, nationally or globally, but I won't hold my breath.

With harder drugs, young people (mostly) are going to continue using themselves as guinea pigs, and no amount of prohibition is going to stop them. People want to, and always will want to, get high. In my opinion, the sensible approach would be to demystify and educate. Countries where this sort of pragmatic approach is taken tend to have less problems than those where the 'iron fist' approach is taken. Bear in mind that I'm coming at this from the UK/Dutch angle, where 'recreational' drugs (E, speed, cannabis etc) are much more prevelant. Certainlyin the UK, 'rave culture' has turned a goodly proportion of one generation into guinea pigs. The long-term effects of that have yet to be seen, but there's quite a few young people out there who didn't become drug-crazed killers on taking their first puff, and are wondering what else they were lied to about. and unfortunately quite a few of them will assume it's harmless cos they ain't dead yet, and end up burning their brains to a crisp.

There's plently more I could say, but that's more then enough for now.

[MikeL]

There's plently more I could say, but that's more then enough for now.

Not much that needs to be added to what you have said. It's all sensible, reasonable arguments and I agree with pretty much everything you have written.

[MrMelon]

I think it's all about substance abuse, it's not too important what the substance is, but if you abuse it, bad things are going to happen. I think weed is a lot easier to use responsibly than alcohol though.
Eg. you get really baked, and sit on the couch laughing your ass off to whatever happens to be on tv at the time while munching down on some pizza, then fall asleep. Or you have a few too many drinks, get loud and obnoxious, possibly violent, and generally make anywhere near you, a bad place to be.

I can hardly stand going to most clubs in town any more, because they're mostly filled with drunken rednecks looking for a fight, or trying to slobber all over your girlfriend. However there are other clubs where people might share the occasional joint, have some good conversation and generally enjoy themselves and the music instead of being assholes. I know which one I'd rather be at.

However I've still seen plenty of people get fucked up from smoking too much weed constantly, so if there was a bit more education I think it would help. People have got to be willing to change themselves though, but I spose that's the way it would be with anything.

[MrMelon]

Oh yeah, how about the bzp/tmfpp "herbal pills" (frenzy, exodus, charge etc) you can get now too. They're legal since they're classed as a dietary supplement. You can pick em up for about $2 a pill and 2 of them will get you quite a bit more off your tits than a whole lot of weed will ever get you.

Where do they fit into this little debate?

[Skyryder]

This is a bit tangential, but did you know that most of the major 'baccy companies have already registered trademarks (and presumably done a lot of R&D work behind the scenes) in preparation for the day that some country, somewhere, legalises weed?

I don't remember any of the product names, but they were quite catchy and appropriate. Back in the late sixties and early seventy there was indeed a rumour that the tobbacco cartels had indeed registered the street names of the most potent of 'the weed.' I have no knowledge if this is true but considering the ethics of the tobbacco companies all things are possiable. Mexican Green better known as Acupulco Gold was one. The earliest (to my knowledge) of 'the weeds' to enter into NZ was Durban Poison.

Skyryder

[Drunken Monkey]

Please, nobody bring up the tired old 'alcohol is just as ...' crap. Alcohol can be used moderately without ill effect. It *has* been shown to confer health benefits. Should we ban petrol because it kills brain cells when idiots sniff it from a plastic bag? Nope - it's too useful. Ditto for booze.

Well, in general terms, *anything* can be taken moderately, or perhaps more accurately 'in a controlled' fashion with little or no ill effect and often to confer health. Even outright poisons like datura can be taken in a controlled fashion for medicinal reasons with little health risk (see: Pueblo Indians of the Americas)
Another example is a sizeable movement of Canadian and U.S. Psychiatric doctors who beleive ecstacy has more beneficial effects and less undesirable side-effects than current 'legal' anti-depressants.
Weed does have beneficial medicinal properties, few experts disagree and the chemical properties of THC are not under question (the misinformed public is a different matter all together) - what I don't think has been covered here (I did skim some posts tho) is to what extent are we talking with legalisation, specifically:

1. Legalisation for medicinal purposes, where dosage is metered out by doctor's prescription only.

2. Legalisation for any purpose, especially casual or perhaps social, where anyone who fits the criteria, eg over 18 y.o., may purchase a joint from a licensed premises (or perhaps even the corner shop, if you wish to go that far).

I see absolutely no reason to ban any drugs at all, if controlled under option number 1. Actually, personally I see no reason to ban myself from option number 2, either, but the sad fact is there is a large number of people who just can't moderate themselves.
I do have a problem, a big problem, with people who want to ban shit (like drugs, for example), as much as I have a problem with people who like to censor anything. Personally, I think they should butt the fuck out of other people's lives, but that's just IMHO. In practice, I realise that a lot of people just aren't smart enough to keep themselves out of trouble. Me? I drink, but I never NEED a drink. I gamble, but I never need a FIX, and I have experimented with drugs and have several more to experiment with, but I've never felt the NEED to go back to them. If everyone was like this, we wouldn't need to ban drugs at all. Life wouldn't be as spicy though, as I'd have less people to get pissed off about...

On top of that, we all know prohibition doesn't work, so why waste the energy.

If anyone would like to read more about all drugs from both a biology/chemistry based scientific standpoint as well as a 'street' or personal experience standpoint, you can't go past:

http://www.lycaeum.org/

Thoroughly informative reading.

Sorry about the long post...

[Drunken Monkey]

I can hardly stand going to most clubs in town any more, because they're mostly filled with drunken rednecks looking for a fight, or trying to slobber all over your girlfriend. However there are other clubs where people might share the occasional joint, have some good conversation and generally enjoy themselves and the music instead of being assholes. I know which one I'd rather be at.

You probably listen to the wrong kinda music. I've never had agro problems at house/hard house/trance kinda clubs - I left all that behind when I stopped going to rock/indie type places full of shaven head westies full ot the brim with beer...

[Paul in NZ]

Hey, I'm with Jim2 (jeeze, Jim, I AGREE with you on something? Go figure, perhaps having an 850cc V Twin is making you more cleverer?? (despite the engine being the wrong way around)

Look folks... I'm a hell of a nice guy... I've drunk from lifes cup to the full and experienced a few (um) experiences.....

Now! I'm a rotten drunk! I have a very stressfull life and I self medicate with alcohol... Like a zillion others....

HOWEVER....

I don't work, drive, make love, ride or sign documents with words containing more than 3 sylabyls (see I'm stonkered already) under the influence...

Come up with a decent test for drug and fine the living crap out of folks that mess up while wasted... However, if they want to smoke a doobie and chill out at home with a few nice tracks on the stereo.. Good onya!

Taking responsibility!!! Thats the ticket!!!

Paul in NZ

(hey, I'm ON holiday today)

[MrMelon]

You probably listen to the wrong kinda music. I've never had agro problems at house/hard house/trance kinda clubs - I left all that behind when I stopped going to rock/indie type places full of shaven head westies full ot the brim with beer...
Heh, that was my point.. I'd much rather be at a hard house/trance/dnb club than any of the other regular bars in town.

[MikeL]

If everyone was like this, we wouldn't need to ban drugs at all

Yes, agreed, but this is really the whole problem, isn't it? If we were all the same there would hardly be any need for laws at all. If everybody was honest and peaceful there would be no crime. If everybody was dishonest and violent there would be nobody that needed protection.
So as usual it's a matter of where to draw the line to provide protection for those who need it with the minimum interference in the lives of those who don't. It will always be a compromise.

[scumdog]

Hey, I'm with Jim2 (jeeze, Jim, I AGREE with you on something? Go figure, perhaps having an 850cc V Twin is making you more cleverer?? (despite the engine being the wrong way around)

Look folks... I'm a hell of a nice guy... I've drunk from lifes cup to the full and experienced a few (um) experiences.....

Now! I'm a rotten drunk! I have a very stressfull life and I self medicate with alcohol... Like a zillion others....

HOWEVER....

I don't work, drive, make love, ride or sign documents with words containing more than 3 sylabyls (see I'm stonkered already) under the influence...

Come up with a decent test for drug and fine the living crap out of folks that mess up while wasted... However, if they want to smoke a doobie and chill out at home with a few nice tracks on the stereo.. Good onya!

Taking responsibility!!! Thats the ticket!!!

Paul in NZ

(hey, I'm ON holiday today)

Huh?????????????????????

[El Dopa]

Yes, agreed, but this is really the whole problem, isn't it? If we were all the same there would hardly be any need for laws at all. If everybody was honest and peaceful there would be no crime. If everybody was dishonest and violent there would be nobody that needed protection.
So as usual it's a matter of where to draw the line to provide protection for those who need it with the minimum interference in the lives of those who don't. It will always be a compromise.

The argument neatly summarised to fit into my handy nutshell.

[Drunken Monkey]

Heh, that was my point.. I'd much rather be at a hard house/trance/dnb club than any of the other regular bars in town.

Oh yeah, I see that now...

[What?]

... Not to mention 10 o'clock closing (anyone remember that??)I remeber six o'clock closing. That was seriously ugly.
I did a few things in my younger days, but by 25 I has decided that there was so much to enjoy in life that drugs were not where it was at (sez he with a 7 oz glass of scotch beside the computer...)

[Drunken Monkey]

Forgot my other rant after getting caught up in my last post:

To all those who think a comparison of weed to alcohol is 'not on' (Jackrat, Jrandom, et al):

1. Alcohol alters your state of mind. (eg can make people overly aggressive)
2. Alcohol can kill or seriously maim you if you overdose. (eg severe alcohol poisoning)
3. Abuse of alcohol can cause permanent health damage (eg cirrhosis of the liver)
4. Alcohol can be addictive/abused like many other drugs.

As covered before, there are drugs of all classes that can be shown to be beneficial (perceived or actual). Even with the four points listed above, alcohol can still be bought by any adult without prescription or other form of metering. No other 'drug' leads to as many road deaths and wife/child beatings...

So you're going to have to come up with some seriously good points to convince me that it's a 'no comparison'. This point is only as tired as the rest of this subject is.

There are also cases in point where alcohol was in effect worse than other 'drugs':
Janis Joplin, John Bonham, Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hendrix. Examples of influential musicians who are all dead. In every case, it was the alcohol abuse which lead to their deaths.
Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page, Joe Cocker. Examples of influential musicians that were also Heroin junkies. Yeah they got sick. Yeah they spent time in a clinic. Hey, these guys are still alive.

That reminds me: Beware the Ham Sandwich! (Momma Cass).

[spudchucka]

I think you might find that many of the dead rockers you mention were in fact heavy abusers of many substances, not just alcohol and not just cannabis. Alcohol and drugs combined is worse than one or the other on their own.

[Drunken Monkey]

That's a given that some of them experimented at times, however Jim Morrison's manager on a documentary about Morrison (can't remember what it was called) stated that at that stage jim had given up on the drugs and was heavily into his burbon. John Bonham was a notorious drinker, and died by drowning in his own vomit after a particularly long drinking binge. A docco on Hendrix had a fellow muso say they only worried about Jimmy when he was on the booze, as he couldn't control himself.

Saying that they would be fine and dandy if they did drugs instead of drinking was more a tongue-in-cheek poke at the subject (hence my unscientifically small sample). I'm sure there are many examples people could pull with the opposite results...

I stand by the Ham Sandwich tho... :P

[Jackrat]

DM,
Maybe you should go back and read my post again.
I said people drink but don't get drunk.Now you show me anybody that smokes weed but don't exspect/want to get stoned.
I personaly don't draw any distinctions between a stoned loser or a drunk loser,the end result is the same.
And just in case you totaly missed my point,it was that I can't see the logic in legalising one bad for you thing just because another is already legal.
You can ramble about the evils of alcohol abuse as much as you like,it won't alter the fact that other drug abuse is also bad for you.
Like I said I don't see the logic.
It kind of sounds like Timmys mummy lets him go so I should as well.
Grow up man :rolleyes:

[Drunken Monkey]

DM,
Maybe you should go back and read my post again.
...
And just in case you totaly missed my point,it was that I can't see the logic in legalising one bad for you thing just because another is already legal.
You can ramble about the evils of alcohol abuse as much as you like,it won't alter the fact that other drug abuse is also bad for you.


Just because you can't see the logic, doesn't mean it isn't there. I don't see why it isn't perfectly valid. I don't personally think that it's grounds alone for a law change, but in the context of all the information it's a different story.

I don't and didn't disagree that drug abuse was bad. Just because some people abuse drugs, why should others suffer. Also, to me it's not a legalising something we have been banned from perspective, but giving back a right that has been taken away.

There have been well publicised cases in the past where people have taken small amounts of marijuana purely for medicinal (pain releif) reasons. Not every weed smoker is a stoner because you can't see any other examples.



It kind of sounds like Timmys mummy lets him go so I should as well.
Grow up man :rolleyes:

No, for fucks sake, YOU grow up. There's no need for that kind of public belittling, you self-righteous shit head. If I sit here and tell you I shagged your mum and she screamed your name when I stuck it in her ass, we wouldn't really be having an intelligent discussion now, would we?

[scumdog]

Quote:"There have been well publicised cases in the past where people have taken small amounts of marijuana purely for medicinal (pain releif) reasons. Not every weed smoker is a stoner because you can't see any other examples."

DM, that quote above is relly clutching at straws stuff, I use to use arguments like that when I was at Intermediate school too!

Mama Cass did NOT choke to death on a mythical ham sandwich, it was a heart attack brought on by obesity, you may ahve noticed she was a little plump! (I've heard about a guy who woke up in a bath full of ice and note beside him telling him one of his kidneys had been removed and to get to hospital fast, oh and I know 20 judges who had a daughter killed by a drunk driver, and yeah, if you eat one of those pub urinal deoderant things before a breath test you won't give a reading on the machine..etc) :rolleyes:
I think they are all called urban myths :bleh:

[Drunken Monkey]

Mama Cass did NOT choke to death on a mythical ham sandwich, it was a heart attack brought on by obesity,

No shit sherlock, the levity was obviously lost on you. I've taken from a line from the film 'Austin Powers', it's not some pseudo-fact I decided to make up on the spot.

Again with the child BS. Well sorry! Here, I'll reference my statement like it's a scientific journal because, heaven forbid, I might find someone who disagrees with me, and would just totally offend them for some reason. Are you trying to bait me into degenerating this into another mud slinging match c.f. Rel-Rav? Or are you just trying to insult me outright?

1. House of Lords Science & Technology Committee - Ninth Report
Cannabis: The Scientific and Medical Evidence (November 1998)

2. House of Lords Science & Technology Committee - Second Report
Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis (March 2001)

3. National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine
Marijuana and Medicine - Assessing the Science Base (1999)

And to state the obvious, for those who appear to be ignorant of legal procedure: Law is set by precedent. This is why it's an acceptable reason to compare the plausibility of legalisation of marijuana with the current legal understanding with application to alcohol. In order to set a case, one must put put forth existing points of law that can be compared to.

[toads]

the problem as I see it is all types of drugs appeal to teens, if weed is legal they will still go for whatever isn't plus weed and alcohol, we would be better off making teenagers illegal!! hehehe, there are people who genetically are prone to becoming addicted to substances and habits ie gambling, no matter what the law is this will continue, our main problem is westernised culture and thinking, tribal based societies often incorporate drug use and seemingly suffer no social dysfunction as result, ie tibetans smoking pot, peruvian indians etc, even the kava drinkers in the islands, in their own social environment it seems to be ok, in our society however we have no social taboos and no clearly defined set of rules for behaviour that is enforced by elders, so it gets out of control, lets just make idiocy illegal, problem solved

[toads]

I also want to add, I smoked pot and drank alcohol until I was pregnant with my first child, remained teetotal for 16 years until stress got too much and I tried both again!, got absolutely hammered ,mean hangover, decided it wasn't helping duh! gone back to excercising as a way of dealing with stress, like I said before, it's the way we think as a society that is the problem, whether something is legal has no bearing on it, look at alcohol, and gambling and the devastation those things cause when there are no boundaries in place. Glue sniffing/deodorant sniffing etc, what can you do to prevent that??, if we are lucky enough to have survived our teenage years, we can then get on with the business of growing up and then if we haven't destroyed our brains and we have some clues we can make informed choices, did anyone see 60 minutes the other night?, a doco about p/smoking women with kids?, one female decided to start smoking p when she was 4mths pregnant and then got addicted, please make idiocy illegal!

[James Deuce]

?, a doco about p/smoking women with kids?, one female decided to start smoking p when she was 4mths pregnant and then got addicted, please make idiocy illegal!

That's what prompted my righteous rage in my previous post. Take the kid off her. Sterilise her. Shoot her if she tries to contact the kid.

I'm sick of social workers (sorry CSL) making excuses for these types of people.

I think your comment about elders enforcing standards of acceptable behaviour is on the money. Western civilisation largely devalues the contribution the elderly have to make, especially now as we have become change oriented, and the most noble quest in society is to reach for the latest and greatest constantly. I think Grey Power would be a lot less reactionary if they felt less excluded and I think the concept of the Nuclear family has a lot to answer for. Prior to the Industrial revolution, the whole extended family did the job of raising kids and making sure everyone got by. I think if you had 20 or 30 people breathing down your neck you'd have a better chance of being a functional balanced human being, instead of having to rely on one or two parents who are often stressed beyond reason trying to do the right thing for their kids.

[toads]

I think the concept of the Nuclear family has a lot to answer for. Prior to the Industrial revolution, the whole extended family did the job of raising kids and making sure everyone got by. I think if you had 20 or 30 people breathing down your neck you'd have a better chance of being a functional balanced human being, instead of having to rely on one or two parents who are often stressed beyond reason trying to do the right thing for their kids.
I agree, but have to add that the nuclear family isn't even in vogue these days, there's more often than not a lone parent trying to do the job, the state should never be involved in social policy, they base the rules by whatever theorist is in at the time, we all know that older people know more than younger ones, most particularly in the arena of human relationships. Sadly though some of us have incredibly hopeless older relations, which is why I say that the tribal societies manage better, we are an individualistic society, which essentially means we are left to paddle our moral canoe by ourselves.

[scumdog]

Quote:"No shit sherlock, the levity was obviously lost on you. I've taken from a line from the film 'Austin Powers', it's not some pseudo-fact I decided to make up on the spot." - you mean it was a real-fact? :confused:

Do tell, just as mine was lost on you. ;)

Using the legal status of one evil substance as justification to make another one legal is a somewhat spurious argument, where would you stop?

Status quo is the way to go, any slackening off on MODA would not improve the situation except for the dope-heads getting busted at present.

Chill out man :calm: :beer:

[Drunken Monkey]

Real-fact? No, that's what you seemed to think it was.

Your intermediate-school statement? Levity? Well I'm not going to second-guess your motives there, I'll take that on the chin. Fair cop.

Again, it is not spurious or illogical at all. Precedent is how the law works.

Evil? How can a 'thing' be evil? _People_ can be evil, and people can put things to evil use, but a fifty-bag, sitting in the bottom of a drawer, minding it's own business is neither evil nor good. Labelling things like drugs as 'evil' is the easiest way for people to absolve themselves of their responsibilities to their own health.

It's a fair observation you made about dope-heads, crims are going to be crims and will probably just move into different areas. I think the decriminalists are more worried about the anti-drug legislation being used to effect your average law abiding joe.
Take, example, if someone's flatmate starting growing small amounts of personal use weed in their home. One day, they might get busted. Just from the sheer fact you live with them and didn't report it, you could end up facing charges as well. Even a piddly little C-class drug conviction can mean bye-bye holiday Visa - if you like to travel, this can have bad implications.

[spudchucka]

Even a piddly little C-class drug conviction can mean bye-bye holiday Visa - if you like to travel, this can have bad implications.
Well people should think about that before they engage in that activity not when they are caught and all of a sudden start bleating that "this isn't fair because I want to travel overseas". Next time folks are toking on a doobie or lighting up the P pipe they should ask themselves if the want Mr Customs officer looking up their arse for contraband. If you are happy with that outcome then keep on toking boys and girls and don't moan when you OE turns to shit or you get the rubber glove treatment at the border

[Drunken Monkey]

Indeed, spudchucka, I beleive that is true of every law - people know where they stand and if they knowingly break the law they shouldn't whine about the consequences. That doesn't mean a lobby group can't or shan't push the law makers for a change. As it stands at the moment, the majority rules no. Trends change, and one day things might be different.

[spudchucka]

Well unless Nandor and his mob get in, (Yeah right) I can't see it changing anytime soon. The Nats are pushing for a crack down on law and order and it will be intersting to see how that effects the pollls. I just can't see mainstream NZ ever wanting to soften the drug laws.

[Drunken Monkey]

Agreed, New Zealander's are traditionally a conservative bunch...

[scumdog]

Quote:"Evil? How can a 'thing' be evil?"

Maybe I should have put speech marks around the word evil :confused2

I was meaning because something that has caused a lot of social and economic expense and pain is legal is not a valid argument to legalise another potential pandoras box of trouble. :shit:

At the risk of sounding pedantic (anal?) it's like saying we already have stoats and ferrets here so why not liberate ... (pick your favorite predator with no known natural predators).

The flatmate getting busted scenario is as likely as the passenger in a car being driven by a drunk getting "done" for aiding and abetting,- it is possible but uncommon and unlikely except in exceptional circumstances. :Playnice:

[Drunken Monkey]

Well stoats and ferrets used as rabbit control has been shown time and time again to be more ineffective than effective = there's the precedent, quite a strong precedent too, so that's why we wouldn't even consider introducing another mustalid predator as a form of pest control.

Yes, the bad points of both drugs & alcohol need to be taken in to account. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't have a strong case history in New Zealand for prohibition of marijuana = our current law on marijuana is descended from original English law. The fact that this is a point of contention across the western world is an indication there is more to this than simply being 'bad' for you.

Yeah that was an outlandish example, but just an example. The point was about lessening the legal impact on what would otherwise be a law abiding citizen. In practice I would imagine the charges would be thrown out, if laid at all.

[Drunken Monkey]

In addition:
Legal precedent with respect to sale and consumption of alcohol laws has developed over time, as per the changes from 6pm closing, then 10pm closing, raises and/or reductions in drinking age, etc... These changes are suggested, sometimes applied, sometimes contested in court and/or parliamentary debate, and sometimes removed.
Is it not unreasonable then, if there is enough support shown, to have the prohibition of marijuana laws changed? In the end, we can only make educated guesses about changes to crime, social habbits, etc... It would take actual practice to know in the end what suits us best. We may very well degenerate into a lawless society full of dope-heads. If this were to happen, we'd change the law back and keep it that way for many years until social pressures dictate a change again.

[scumdog]

I guess I'm a bit of a hypocrit, I drink to excess (so they tell me) at times and alcohol used like that ain't good for you but have no time for legalising cannabis, however if both alcohol and drugs vanished overnight I wouldn't lose any sleep,
I guess I see the "shitty" end of the stick too often :(

I gather cannabis WAS legal soe time in the past in NZ, why was it banned and when, anybody know? (too lazy to look it up for myself)

[James Deuce]

I guess I'm a bit of a hypocrit, I drink to excess (so they tell me) at times and alcohol used like that ain't good for you but have no time for legalising cannabis, however if both alcohol and drugs vanished overnight I wouldn't lose any sleep,
I guess I see the "shitty" end of the stick too often :(

I gather cannabis WAS legal some time in the past in NZ, why was it banned and when, anybody know? (too lazy to look it up for myself)

Cannabis was marketed as an asthma remedy in the 1920s, but along the the US we legislated against cropping any and all Hemp products because it threatened the forestry based pulp and paper industry. Hemp has tiny amounts of THC, and to get the effect of a modern cannabis hybrid you have to smoke a 2 tonne doobie. But it makes excellent fabric fibre, and can be used to make excellent quality paper. However, you can hide a pretty big cannabis crop in a field of Hemp.

[Jackrat]

Just because you can't see the logic, doesn't mean it isn't there. I don't see why it isn't perfectly valid. I don't personally think that it's grounds alone for a law change, but in the context of all the information it's a different story.

I don't and didn't disagree that drug abuse was bad. Just because some people abuse drugs, why should others suffer. Also, to me it's not a legalising something we have been banned from perspective, but giving back a right that has been taken away.

There have been well publicised cases in the past where people have taken small amounts of marijuana purely for medicinal (pain releif) reasons. Not every weed smoker is a stoner because you can't see any other examples.


No, for fucks sake, YOU grow up. There's no need for that kind of public belittling, you self-righteous shit head. If I sit here and tell you I shagged your mum and she screamed your name when I stuck it in her ass, we wouldn't really be having an intelligent discussion now, would we?

You still havn't explained why we should legalise one drug just because another is legal.
And by the way,I wouldn't fuck your mother up the ass,if it took we'd just have another version of you. :killingme :tugger:

[Skyryder]

Well people should think about that before they engage in that activity not when they are caught and all of a sudden start bleating that "this isn't fair because I want to travel overseas". Next time folks are toking on a doobie or lighting up the P pipe they should ask themselves if the want Mr Customs officer looking up their arse for contraband. If you are happy with that outcome then keep on toking boys and girls and don't moan when you OE turns to shit or you get the rubber glove treatment at the border

In the first few years of my marriage I knocked round with a large variety of people. Surfers, students, activivists of various persuasion etc. We had some surfer friends who lived in a house near the beach. This was a mixied group of two surfie students and if memory recall correctly four working surfers. They were a bunch of guys who had a common interest and lived down by the beach. On this particular Friday night one of the surfers decided to by himself a new board for his bithday. As a practical joke a couple of them nicked his brand new board from his car. Our birthday surfer thinking that his board had been stolen notified the police, who turned up at his address late in the evening to make further enquires. (this was at time when the police had the time and resources for this) In the course of their enquiries into the stolen surfboard one of the policeman noticed some plants growing in the garden. Well the guy who planted them owned up now here's the 'funny' part the student who had the flat in his name was also charged and convicted. This guy had nothing to do with the growing of the plants or the practical joke but as a result of the current laws on this drug his future carreer was ruined.

Guys you can talk about the why's and the whynot's untill the cow comes home. It is all irrelevent. The law is there for the protection of society and members of. This guy harmed no one, robbed no one, killed no one, but as the law now stands he has a record as a criminal. JUST BLOODY WRONG.

Skyryder

.

[El Dopa]

In the first few years of my marriage I knocked round with a large variety of people. Surfers, students, activivists of various persuasion etc. We had some surfer friends who lived in a house near the beach. This was a mixied group of two surfie students and if memory recall correctly four working surfers. They were a bunch of guys who had a common interest and lived down by the beach. On this particular Friday night one of the surfers decided to by himself a new board for his bithday. As a practical joke a couple of them nicked his brand new board from his car. Our birthday surfer thinking that his board had been stolen notified the police, who turned up at his address late in the evening to make further enquires. (this was at time when the police had the time and resources for this) In the course of their enquiries into the stolen surfboard one of the policeman noticed some plants growing in the garden. Well the guy who planted them owned up now here's the 'funny' part the student who had the flat in his name was also charged and convicted. This guy had nothing to do with the growing of the plants or the practical joke but as a result of the current laws on this drug his future carreer was ruined.

Guys you can talk about the why's and the whynot's untill the cow comes home. It is all irrelevent. The law is there for the protection of society and members of. This guy harmed no one, robbed no one, killed no one, but as the law now stands he has a record as a criminal. JUST BLOODY WRONG.

Skyryder

.

A nice illustration of an answer to Jackrats question which I will now attempt.

Q: Why should we decriminalise/legalise one 'bad thing' just because another roughly equivalent bad thing is legal?

A: Pragmatism, mainly. People smoke. People will always smoke. The genie is out of the bottle and won't go back. Some people smoke to escape miserable circumstances or because they have adictive personalities. I would respectfully submit that the views of the police contributing to this thread may be somewhat skewed by dealing with the fallout from these people who would probably be bad eggs whatever happened to be around to get high on (if there wasn't dope or booze they'd be sniffing glue).

A very large proportion of people in our society smoke, or have smoked, who have come to no great harm, who have done no harm to others, and in all other ways they are model members of society. However, hanging over their heads is always the threat of being busted and then watching their lives get pissed down the toilet.

Certainly, as Mr Spud has pointed out, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. However......

A bad law does no service to society because it encourages those who may break it to hold the law in contempt, and also those who enforce it. A comparison off the top of my head would be speeding. Most people on this forum would agree that doing 80 in a built-up residential zone is a bad thing and that that law should be enforced. Most people on this forum would also agree that being busted for doing 120 on the southern motorway in fine weather and light traffic is harsh, and there are enough people already banging on about 'bloody revenue collectors'. A speeding ticket can be paid off reasonably easily, and the demerits disappear after a while. A drugs conviction on the other hand will hang around forever, affecting your employability, travel opportunities etc etc. You are penalised for the rest of your life for what may be no more than a 'youthful indiscretion'.

To sum up: Why decriminalise it? Because keeping it illegal makes potential criminals of a large segment of society who are otherwise fine, upstanding, law-abiding and contributing taxpayers.

[pete376403]

I gather cannabis WAS legal soe time in the past in NZ, why was it banned and when, anybody know? (too lazy to look it up for myself)
Cannabis hasn't always been against the law in Aotearoa. Our cry to 'legalise' it is in reality a misnomer, when 're-legalise cannabis' would be a far more accurate thing to say. New Zealand followed Britain's lead when, in 1927, the Government passed the Dangerous Drugs Act and outlawed the cannabis sativa plant. http://www.norml.org.nz/article298.html
Lots of drugs were legal once. Guess what the "coca" in Coca-cola originally referred to. Another, Laudanum was another favourite tonic, a wildly popular drug during the Victorian era. It was an opium-based painkiller prescribed for everything from headaches to tuberculosis. Victorian nursemaids even spoon fed the drug to cranky infants, often leading to the untimely deaths of their charges. Laudanum's biggest clam to fame however was its use by the romantic poets. Many of the Pre-Raphaelites (Among them Lord Byron, Shelly and others) were know to indulge. Work such as was produced under the influence of these has not been seen since.

[MikeL]

JUST BLOODY WRONG.
.

Yes. There are good laws and there are bad laws. It is unfortunate when some people feel the need to oppose change because of a misplaced respect for "the law" just because it is the law.

Social progress (that is, better lives) can only come from adopting a critical attitude to the rules and regulations that bind us as well as protect us. How can unjust laws be removed unless brave people speak out against them, and braver people defy them?

Misinformation, expediency and hypocrisy abound in the sordid story of drug legislation and opposition to attempts at liberalization. The misinformation and expediency are bad enough, but the hypocrisy is intolerable. Are we expected to believe that those whose job it is to enforce the law are so convinced by the arguments against cannabis use that they never touch it themselves??

Of course for the police the drug laws are very convenient and arguments about the dangers or otherwise of smoking pot are probably quite irrelevant...

[MikeL]

Laudanum's biggest clam to fame however was its use by the romantic poets. Many of the Pre-Raphaelites (Among them Lord Byron, Shelly and others) were know to indulge. Work such as was produced under the influence of these has not been seen since.

"In Xanadu did Kublai Khan a stately pleasure-dome decree..."

:Oops: my thousandth post... and I was saving it for Zed... Damn!

Talk about premature expostulation...
:bleh:

[Lou Girardin]

Well, prohibition and heavy enforcement has certainly stopped drug use.
Hasn't it?
And those 'killer' party drugs have killed plenty.
At least 5 people.
How many thousands use them every weekend?

[Drunken Monkey]

You still havn't explained why we should legalise one drug just because another is legal.

Now you're the one that can't read. Precedent. Legal precedent. P-R-E-C-E-D-E-N-T. I covered it twice, for slow learners like yourself.

I get right sick of your holier-than-the-rest-of-us attitude, Jackoff. Every bloody subject that comes up you spout off about how much fucken better than everyone else you are (and how you're too bloody good to ride with the rest of us). Get over yourself.

Here's food for thought: After lowering myself to your level and making a cheap crack at your mum, I thought I'd get slammed by the other users...I've had nothing but support all afternoon. Having trouble keeping friends?

[James Deuce]

"In Xanadu did Kublai Khan a stately pleasure-dome decree..."

:Oops: my thousandth post... and I was saving it for Zed... Damn!

Talk about premature expostulation...
:bleh:

Lol congrats, and nicely done :)

[scumdog]

I guess my opinions are tarnished with negative experiences when dealing with heavy smokers combined with the unknown if they legalised smoking, the old "pandoras box" thing :doobey:

[spudchucka]

In the first few years of my marriage I knocked round with a large variety of people. Surfers, students, activivists of various persuasion etc. We had some surfer friends who lived in a house near the beach. This was a mixied group of two surfie students and if memory recall correctly four working surfers. They were a bunch of guys who had a common interest and lived down by the beach. On this particular Friday night one of the surfers decided to by himself a new board for his bithday. As a practical joke a couple of them nicked his brand new board from his car. Our birthday surfer thinking that his board had been stolen notified the police, who turned up at his address late in the evening to make further enquires. (this was at time when the police had the time and resources for this) In the course of their enquiries into the stolen surfboard one of the policeman noticed some plants growing in the garden. Well the guy who planted them owned up now here's the 'funny' part the student who had the flat in his name was also charged and convicted. This guy had nothing to do with the growing of the plants or the practical joke but as a result of the current laws on this drug his future carreer was ruined.

Guys you can talk about the why's and the whynot's untill the cow comes home. It is all irrelevent. The law is there for the protection of society and members of. This guy harmed no one, robbed no one, killed no one, but as the law now stands he has a record as a criminal. JUST BLOODY WRONG.

Skyryder

.
You are talking about an incident that occured in NSW and I don't know their laws in relation to drugs. However from my time living in QLD, (6 years) I was well aware that if a flatmate was into drugs and got busted / raided at the flat then my arse was on the line too. I made bloody well sure that I never flatted with druggies.

Its unfortunate for that guy and to a certain extent I feel sorry for someone in his position but it is up to the individual to be aware of ALL the risks associated with drug offending, direct and indirect. I'm sure the guy knew that the plants were growing on his property, (he was the leasee wasn't he) and did nothing to stop the offending.

Folks interested in this debate might want to make themselves aware of Section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

12.Use of premises or vehicle—

(1)Every person commits an offence against this Act who knowingly permits any premises or [any vessel, aircraft, hovercraft, motor vehicle, or other mode of conveyance] to be used for the purpose of the commission of an offence against this Act.

(2)Every person who commits an offence against this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term—

(a)Not exceeding 10 years where a Class A controlled drug was the controlled drug or one of the controlled drugs in relation to which the offence was committed:

(b)Not exceeding 7 years where paragraph (a) of this subsection does not apply but a Class B controlled drug was the controlled drug or one of the controlled drugs in relation to which the offence was committed:

(c)Not exceeding 3 years in any other case.

(3)Notwithstanding anything in section 7 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, where any person is summarily convicted of an offence against this section the [District Court] may sentence him—

(a)To imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to both where he could have been sentenced under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section if he had been convicted on indictment:

(b)To imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to both where he could have been sentenced under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section if he had been convicted on indictment:

(c)To imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding $500 or to both in any other case.

So under this section the guy you mention could be charged in NZ for knowingly allowing cannabis plants to be grown on his property.

[spudchucka]

Of course for the police the drug laws are very convenient and arguments about the dangers or otherwise of smoking pot are probably quite irrelevant...
Can you please explain further what exactly you mean by that.

[spudchucka]

Here's food for thought: After lowering myself to your level and making a cheap crack at your mum, I thought I'd get slammed by the other users...I've had nothing but support all afternoon. Having trouble keeping friends?
Personally I thought that particular wisecrack was too gross and uncalled for to respond to for fear of an otherwise reasonable discussion getting totally out of hand.

[MikeL]

Can you please explain further what exactly you mean by that.

Certainly. In the first place, it's a bit like enforcing speed limits. Because use of marijuana is so widespread and all this illegal activity is occurring frequently, it gives the police a lot of discretionary power (to increase or decrease the enforcement level) that may be used for various purposes.
Secondly, because people who commit more serious crime are often drug users as well (whether the drug use is directly relevant to a particular criminal act or not), the discovery of an illegal substance on someone's person or property can provide a convenient reason for detention in the absence of evidence of the more serious crime.

Since I'm neither a police officer nor a lawyer nor a criminal I can't speak from personal experience but only theorize. If you can refute the theory, or show that what happens in practice is quite different, I'll gladly shut up.

[spudchucka]

Certainly. In the first place, it's a bit like enforcing speed limits. Because use of marijuana is so widespread and all this illegal activity is occurring frequently, it gives the police a lot of discretionary power (to increase or decrease the enforcement level) that may be used for various purposes.
I think that the police accept that there will always be cannabis in our society, they realise that it will never be wiped out. They tend to deal with each individual case of possession on its merits, some people do receive warnings and it would not benefit the police or society as a whole to prosecute every minor case of possession. Police are more interested in the big commercial operations of cannabis growing and targeting the hard drug scene, like the current focus on P.

Its true that police enforcement is often reactionary and focus will shift from problem to problem depending on which is perceived to be the more serious threat. If there are more commercial growing operations popping up then you will see more resources being targeted at that problem. Its largely about policing the risk.


Secondly, because people who commit more serious crime are often drug users as well (whether the drug use is directly relevant to a particular criminal act or not), the discovery of an illegal substance on someone's person or property can provide a convenient reason for detention in the absence of evidence of the more serious crime.
A large portion of dishonesty crime can be directly linked to drug use and is perpetrated by drug users to fund their habits. I don't know how many times I've listened to a low life defence lawyer trying to convince a Judge that their client is just a victim of thier drug addiction.

If a known criminal were found in possession of drugs they would not receive any discretion, (in all but a few cases). Don't forget that there are statutory requirements that police must observe before they can search a person, property or vehicle for drugs. They can't just search someone because they know them to be a drug user, they still need reasonable grounds to believe the person is in possession.

As far as a convenient reason to detain someone goes I would say that for a simple case of possession of cannabis the person would be arrested, processed and bailed back out to the street in no more than an hour at the most. The only reason to detain them longer would be if there were grounds for obtaining a search warrant for a property or vehicle that related to the original offence or offender.

Unreasonable or arbitrary detention is a breach of a persons bill of rights so if there are no grounds to oppose bail or otherwise legitimately hold a person in custody then they must be released on bail.


Since I'm neither a police officer nor a lawyer nor a criminal I can't speak from personal experience but only theorize. If you can refute the theory, or show that what happens in practice is quite different, I'll gladly shut up.
I hope that helps clear the matter up, if not then just say and I'll have another go at it.

[Jackrat]

Now you're the one that can't read. Precedent. Legal precedent. P-R-E-C-E-D-E-N-T. I covered it twice, for slow learners like yourself.

I get right sick of your holier-than-the-rest-of-us attitude, Jackoff. Every bloody subject that comes up you spout off about how much fucken better than everyone else you are (and how you're too bloody good to ride with the rest of us). Get over yourself.

Here's food for thought: After lowering myself to your level and making a cheap crack at your mum, I thought I'd get slammed by the other users...I've had nothing but support all afternoon. Having trouble keeping friends?
Legal precedent,Yeah right that's some thing double talking lawyers use and most of the population get sick of hearing.It's still not common sence.
My friends??actualy a fair few of them are members of this site and I've known them for 20-30 years.On that front I'm doing quite well thanks.
You don't like my attitude?? I responded to your cheap shot,if you don't like the responce don't take the shot in the first place.
Better still, just put me on your ignore list.Because the more you make it obvious you don't like my opinions the more I'll push them.
Thanks.

[Drunken Monkey]

Alright, fine - that's the way you want to call it. Try and see it from my perspective:

You're either:
a) Raising this subject merely to deliberately bait someone into some sort of fight. If this is the case, then go you. You won. Silly me. You're a winner - the bloody people's champion. Not exactly what a discussion forum is for, and you probably owe the people on this thread who were genuinely contributing to the discussion an apology.

or,

b) Genuinely wanting an open discussion. In which case, your attitude with people who disagree with you, quite frankly, sucks. Last time I checked, people didn't dismiss other's opinions outright before they're even heard in an intelligent discussion. And it's just plain bad forum etiquette to portray yourself as a know-all.

If you're happy with this, then as a peace offering, I retract my uncalled for insult. If not, well...do what whatever you want.

And if you really mean what you just said about arguing with me for the sake of arguing, don't waste your time. Go pick a fight with someone else.

PS - it's not that I don't like your opinions, I don't like the way you deal with other's opinions.

[Jackrat]

I didn't raise the sugject just to bait anybody,that was a TIC comment that at lest one other person did see.
As to the rest of what you say,,,Fair enough.

[Big Dog]

I haven't read the whole thing as I know I don't know enough to contribute anyhting of value, nor will anyone on this site be able to give a fair and accurate picture in an unbiased way (not in the tiny snippets of post that go before any way).

My only problem with Weed being illegal is this makes me feel obliged to try it. "It is so good the government thinks it is bad for me."

My only Problem with decriminalisation is it is still a no no and so it still has that naughty appeal, without the consequenses.

My only problem with legalisation is it is too general. If it is for medicinal purposes vend it from a pharmacy (controlled substance still), if it is to be treated as alcohol surely it will only be legit to sell it from licensed premisis - wait on didn't we just make smoking in bars and restaraunts illegal?
It is not as simple as now its legal, it would require an entire new infrastucture of laws.

On the Pro side I have never seen one person smoke so much that they required hospital or morgue treatment.

Having said all of that My personal opinion is that while it is not for me (tried it, found it an incredible waste of other peoples dope, I can't see the point in paying to be stupider for a while), if it is someone elses bag I won't hold it against them. I may however reserve the right not to spend time with that person when they are stoned if I don't like their behaviour stoned.

I hate smelling like it.
I hate how the smell clings to leather for weeks.
I hate people using it at my house to the point of asking people to leave if they want it.
I dislike SOME people stoned.
I hate the feeling of being stoned.

However SOME people are more interesting stoned.
Some people can relax without getting as violent as they do on alcohol.

I don't think I will ever knowingly partake of the weed or any other illegal substance ever again, but if my children feel compelled to try a drug I would prefer they try weed than coke. :doobey:

[Drunken Monkey]

Cool - as I am keen to continue a healthy discussion :)

I actually do agree with you somewhat about legal precedent being some form of 'law boys society' legalese, but whether one likes it or not, that is how our legal system works. Unfortunately common sense can't be quantifiably measured - you can't really 'police' common sense. Indeed if everyone had a healthy amount of common sense, then we wouldn't need to control substances as people wouldn't abuse them (amongst other things)! Hence, a law is put forward, with varying degrees of thought and research (or lack of). Sometimes they just don't work and a case or cases are ruled on in a particular way = that becomes the precedent. Alcohol is a somewhat controlled substance, hence case studies form alcohol laws can be used as legal precedent.

[Skyryder]

You are talking about an incident that occured in NSW and I don't know their laws in relation to drugs. However from my time living in QLD, (6 years) I was well aware that if a flatmate was into drugs and got busted / raided at the flat then my arse was on the line too. I made bloody well sure that I never flatted with druggies.

Its unfortunate for that guy and to a certain extent I feel sorry for someone in his position but it is up to the individual to be aware of ALL the risks associated with drug offending, direct and indirect. I'm sure the guy knew that the plants were growing on his property, (he was the leasee wasn't he) and did nothing to stop the offending.

No, this was in Kiwi land and in Christchurch. Not to sure of all the details other than those that I posted. Been a long time since I have seen these people and we have all moved onto other things etc. Spud the point I am making, no two points
1 the sentence and subsequent events after the conviction far exceeded the offence. This was at the time of the Mr Asia case and the media promulgations of politicians, social workers and other ill informed people; smoke a joint and you'll be shooting smack etc.
The other point
2 the law is to serve and protect. There are no ifs and buts about this. It is there for the community’s protection as well as the individuals and in the case I mentioned it failed this individual (the commuinty was not being harmed in any way) and to this day is continuing to fail unless the Police exercise their discretionary powers. Under current law in respect to the use or possession of Marijuana, on the whim, of a warranted officer, the Justice system will 'kick into gear,' and if convicted the defendant will be a criminal, along with rapists, burglars, killers, child molesters, etc. The word whim I do not use lightly. I have known people who for no other reason have been busted for posseion simply because of ‘attitude.’ And believe me I walked into a bust one day and I saw more ‘attitude’ from the police.

My position on this is simple. No citizen, of any society that proclaims the values and virtues of the Western democracies, should be convicted of any criminal offence where no other member has been harmed in any way whatsoever. The laws on possession and use of Marijuana fail; in this respect.

Skyryder



1914: Congress passes the Harrison Narcotics Act, its first attempt to control recreational use of drugs.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1910/harrisonact.htm

February 1917: Henry Timken, the wealthy industrialist who invented the roller bearing, meets with inventor George Schlichten to discuss his brilliant yet simple new machine, the "decorticator." Motivated by his desire to halt the destruction of forests for wood pulp, Schlichten spent 18 years and $400,000 developing the decorticator. The decorticator was capable of stripping the fiber from any plant, leaving behind pulp -- making it the perfect tool to revolutionize the hemp fiber/paper industry in much the same way that Eli Lilly's cotton gin revolutionized the cotton industry during the 1820's. After meeting with Schlichten, Timken views the decorticator as a revolutionary discovery that would improve conditions for mankind (with healthy profits for investors), and he promptly offers Schlichten 100 acres of fertile farmland to grow hemp for the purposes of testing the new machine. At anemic 1917 hemp production levels, Schlichten estimated that the decorticator could produce 50,000 tons of paper for $25 per ton -- 50% less than the cost of newsprint.

1937:
The year the federal government outlawed cannabis.
DuPont patents petrochemical manufacturing processes for making plastics, as well as pollution-heavy sulfate/sulfite processes for producing wood pulp. For the next 50 years, these processes are responsible for 80% of DuPont's industrial output.

Yep it took a long time but the laws on Marijuana were promulgated so that DuPont could destroy a competive process.

For further reading on this subject go to
http://www.parascope.com/articles/0897/timeline.htm

Other interesting info on this
http://www.ccguide.org.uk/opinions.html

http://www.ccguide.org.uk/contrary.html


Skyryder

[Jackrat]

Skyryder,your mention of Mr Asia reminders me of an interesting guy that still makes my mind boggle a bit.
This is Mr Greg Newbold.He was one of the Mr Asia dealers that went down for ten years in about 76-77.He even wrote a book about his time in the can called "The big huey".
Anyway he obviously hasn't suffered to much from having been a convicted heroin dealer because today he is one of NZs leading criminologists,you may have even seen him on TV a few times.His studys are used today by our Gov't and I guess in turn by the Police in the way they interpret the law.
What's odd to me about this guy is that he regularly travels to the states and other places,but his conviction for heroin dealing doesn't seem to slow him down any.Maybe the guy your talking about didn't know the right people.
I can see why he was done,but at the same time I also agree it was probably
uncalled for, especialy when compered to Newbold who was busted with an LB
of uncut smack.
Go figure huh.

[spudchucka]

No, this was in Kiwi land and in Christchurch.
Sorry I don't know where I got NSW from.


1 the sentence and subsequent events after the conviction far exceeded the offence. This was at the time of the Mr Asia case and the media promulgations of politicians, social workers and other ill informed people; smoke a joint and you'll be shooting smack etc.
I'm not sure if you mentioned the guys sentence but if it was proportionately harsh then this is probably due to the "media panic" created as a direct result of the Mr Asia reports of that time. If the same situation arose today and he was prosecuted then he would no doubt be found guilty but it would be interesting to compare the sentences that would be / were imposed.


2 the law is to serve and protect. There are no ifs and buts about this. It is there for the community’s protection as well as the individuals and in the case I mentioned it failed this individual (the commuinty was not being harmed in any way) and to this day is continuing to fail unless the Police exercise their discretionary powers.
This debate starts to get quite interesting when you begin touching on these issues. When deciding to prosecute there are a number of issues that are considered.
Evidential Sufficiency. Is there sufficient evidence to support the charge?

The Public Interest - The Public Interest element is looked at in two parts; (i) the public interest requires the prosecution to proceed and (ii) a number of social and personal issues relating to the offence and the offender.

A principal consideration is whether in fact a prosecution will result in a conviction. Are there any matters of law that might result in the prosecution failing?

The seriousness or triviality of the offence.
The prosecution may be counter productive.
The likely length and expense of the trial.
The likely sentence imposed in the event of conviction.
Aggravating circumstances.
The effect of a decision not to prosecute on public opinion.
The prevalence of the alleged offence and the need for deterrence.


Under current law in respect to the use or possession of Marijuana, on the whim, of a warranted officer, the Justice system will 'kick into gear,' and if convicted the defendant will be a criminal, along with rapists, burglars, killers, child molesters, etc.
This arguement could be used for minor shoplifting, disorder offences, minor assaults and a whole range of other "minor" offences. The fact is that the activity was prohibited by law at the time and the person was tried and convicted. End of story. There is of course a strong arguement for the support of the "clean slate bill" for the sake of people like your friend, if he has stayed out of trouble for X amount of years then wiping his slate clean would probably be supported by most New Zealanders.


My position on this is simple. No citizen, of any society that proclaims the values and virtues of the Western democracies, should be convicted of any criminal offence where no other member has been harmed in any way whatsoever. The laws on possession and use of Marijuana fail; in this respect.
What is "harm" can be quite a subjective thing.

Potential harms may be: harms to the individual concerned in terms of living an unhealthy lifestyle, harms to society through a general lowering of moral standards and actual physical harm to individuals engaging in the activity.

By criminalising cannabis society is saying it perceives the harm of this substance / behaviour adversely affects the public interest to a degree that outweighs the interest of the individual.

Some people support the minimum criminalisation approach. Minimum criminalisation advocates that criminal law should only be used where it is vital to safeguard individual autonomy or the social structures that allow that freedom to be implemented.

On the one hand, society has an interest in safeguarding and nurturing the autonomy of individuals. The over proliferation of minor offences is seen as an unnecessary interference in the everyday freedom of individuals.

On the other hand society has an interest in protecting structures that permit freedom to be implemented. In order to safeguard this interest and the freedom of the many, the freedom of the individual must be curtailed to some degree.

[scumdog]

Quote:"I don't like the way you deal with other's opinions"

DM, some may think the same about you treatment of their arguments/opinions.

Healthy discussion is good, manic raving and trite comments are not, we'll all not agree on all things but at least we hopefully discuss our points of view in a seemly manner eh?

Keep you ideas coming anyway, it's good to hear a different perspective :doobey:

[Drunken Monkey]

DM, some may think the same about you treatment of their arguments/opinions.

I'll fully admit to being baited hook, line and sinker sometimes and applying a case of do as I say, not as I do...

Bugger, I'm outta things to say on this subject now.

[MikeL]

On the one hand, society has an interest in safeguarding and nurturing the autonomy of individuals. The over proliferation of minor offences is seen as an unnecessary interference in the everyday freedom of individuals.

On the other hand society has an interest in protecting structures that permit freedom to be implemented. In order to safeguard this interest and the freedom of the many, the freedom of the individual must be curtailed to some degree.

Spud, this is a good description of the dilemma that society faces when trying to set limits. There will never be a full consensus. What interests me is the relationship between law-making and the democratic ideal, and the basis (ideology, pragmatism, expediency, logic, consistency...) on which decisions are ultimately made. What is the role of the government and the governed in implementing or changing laws? Theoretically Parliament responds to the will of the people, but in practice because (in a diverse society) there is no common will, and (in a democracy) ignorance, laziness and prejudice outweigh informed, intelligent opinion, parliamentarians have to exercise more judgement, either collectively in terms of party policy or individually. Being on the whole not much more intelligent or diligent than the people they represent, they in turn delegate the difficult questions to bureaucrats. The bureaucrats are naturally more interested in their own career advancement than in abstract questions of equity, justice or even common sense, so the policies which are formulated tend to have a short-term focus. In turn, the parliamentarians will always have an eye on the next election, so they tend not to be interested in the broader view. The consequence is that rarely in the decision-making arena is anyone willing to tackle honestly the difficult moral questions, and therefore provide any real leadership. There have been notable exceptions (Labour's track record is a lot more impressive here than National's) but all too often sincere attempts at reform get aborted when panicky MPs think the proposal is too far ahead of "public opinion". In fact there is no such thing as genuine "public opinion" - it is created by media, spin-doctors and propaganda. When issues of social justice arise (whether homosexual or prostitution law reform, drug legislation, abortion or whatever) there are two broad approaches:
1. Look at the issues dispassionately, research the scientific evidence carefully and objectively, carefully discern who benefits or is harmed and in what ways, and arrive at the best decision based on that process.
2. Decide what is politically expedient and ensure that whatever enquiries, research or scientific evidence put forward will support that decision, and further justify it by referring to sensationalist media hype (exploiting ignorance and prejudice) as an expression of "public opinion".
Pusillanimous parliamentarians and an easily manipulated populace will ensure that logic and common-sense will have to battle every inch of the way. And 20 years on people will look back, shrug their shoulders and say "It wasn't the end of the world after all..."

[spudchucka]

Mike this is getting into a very interesting but also very complex debate. You have raised an issue that is currently of interest to me in that the media has a great deal to do with how new laws, ammended laws, and new strategies for dealing with complex social issues come into being.

The media in general is a profit driven industry and looks for cheap sources of information, (relating to crime) on which to report. The police and the courts provide a cheap and reliable source of information. There is very little true investigative journalism these days as it is too expensive.

The prime factors that determines newsworthiness are things such as violence, sexual offending, bizarre or strange offending or whether the victim or perpetrator is somehow publicly well known, (like an all black or polititian).

Every now and then the media get stuck into a particular issue for what ever reason they think it will sell papers or gain ratings. Once an issue is picked they will look for more of the same type of offending and publish / broadcast the new extent of this type of offending, indicating to the news watching / reading public that there is suddenly an increase or ground swell that needs to be curtailed. This is called a "media crime wave" and the net result is a moral panic of the general news watching / reading public.

Because people rely so heavily on the media for information they will quickly take on board the issues that are being published. Soon loby groups are on the case and the Govt starts to feel the pressure. The pressure is passed along to the police who react to the pressure by allocating resources to the "new" problem. Before long there are many new arrests relating to whatever the issue was that the media first raised. The increased number of arrests only serves to fulfill the media hype that was created by the media who were looking to raise a controvertial issue in order to gain readership or ratings. Its called "deviance amplification" and is directly linked to the media representation of crime reporting. It is the perfect self fulfilling prophecy.

Going back to Skyriders post about the unfortunate circumstances of his mate getting charged, I can't remember when this happened but I think it was in the mid 70's, around the time of the Mr Asia business, (sorry if I've got that wrong). It is interesting to note that the Misuse of Drugs Act came into law in 1975 and may well have come about due to a "media crime wave" resulting from the massive amount of media attention to the drug issues of this time. I was only about 10 years old but I remember the hype and frantic discussions very well from that time. Skyriders mate may well have been a victim of the moral panic, deviancy amplification that no doubt occurred as a result of the overall attention the issue had received in the media at that time.

Its only speculation but its interesting nonetheless.

I remember a few years ago speaking to a very educated and distinguished Maori gentleman from Ngati Porou who gave a warning about the media, it went something like this;

The bishop of Ngati Porou flew to Hamilton for a hui with the locals. Upon arrival at Hamilton airport the bishop was greeted by a reporter from the local newspaper. The first thing the reporter asked the bishop was, "What do think of the prostituttes in Hamilton"?

The bishop was taken by surprise and remembered what he had been taught in bishop training college, "when asked a difficult question you don't know the answer to you should reply by asking another question yourself".

So the bishop asked the reporter, "Are there prostituttes in Hamilton"?? (in a manner suggesting he had no idea that there would be)

The next day the front page headline of the local paper read, "The first thing Ngati Poruo bishop asks when he gets off the plane at Hamilton airport is "Are there prostituttes in Hamilton"?

The moral of the story is to be very wary of what you say to reporters and even more wary of what you read / view in the media.

[MikeL]

You are right, Spud, to question the value of media reporting. We smugly contrast our "free press" (for which long ago our ancestors fought long and hard) with the manipulation of the media practised in totalitarian regimes, but in fact our freedom is only relative, and constantly under pressure. To the extent that the majority of the messages or information that we receive from the media only exist in order to help sell consumer goods and services we are all being insidiously manipulated whenever we buy a newspaper or turn on the TV. What, after all, is the daily newspaper, but a large collection of advertisements among which there are brief, superficial "news" reports?
And don't get me started on commercial television... Packaging is everything, the medium is the message... It's all so attractive and so insidious. Just turn off the critical faculties, go with the flow, enjoy the ride... And we become willing slaves.
So the point is, don't expect the media to provide a platform for sober, serious, sustained debate. Or to support in-depth, radical, innovative solutions. It can't think outside the square.
Pretty dismal really. As I see it, there are only 2 rays of hope: one, as always, is education. The other is alternative (and truly free) ways of communicating ideas, opinions and experiences: such as the Internet, and in particular, forums like this.

[James Deuce]

You are right, Spud, to question the value of media reporting. We smugly contrast our "free press" (for which long ago our ancestors fought long and hard) with the manipulation of the media practised in totalitarian regimes, but in fact our freedom is only relative, and constantly under pressure. To the extent that the majority of the messages or information that we receive from the media only exist in order to help sell consumer goods and services we are all being insidiously manipulated whenever we buy a newspaper or turn on the TV. What, after all, is the daily newspaper, but a large collection of advertisements among which there are brief, superficial "news" reports?
And don't get me started on commercial television... Packaging is everything, the medium is the message... It's all so attractive and so insidious. Just turn off the critical faculties, go with the flow, enjoy the ride... And we become willing slaves.
So the point is, don't expect the media to provide a platform for sober, serious, sustained debate. Or to support in-depth, radical, innovative solutions. It can't think outside the square.
Pretty dismal really. As I see it, there are only 2 rays of hope: one, as always, is education. The other is alternative (and truly free) ways of communicating ideas, opinions and experiences: such as the Internet, and in particular, forums like this.

Goodness me!!

Someone here knows about McLuhan's dictum! And in truth, the Internet has been subsumed by that particular dictum as much as television was by the 60s and 70s. The information on the Internet has been mistaken for knowledge, and the initial peer review element of the Internet has been replaced by providing a self publishing medium for plausible misinformation.

Education in NZ has been largely subverted by Politically motivated course material right up to Tertiary education. Management has been mistaken for a discipline, when it is in fact a craft based on the shifting sands of economic fortune and the personal styles of Management gurus. The concept of a knowledge worker is a misnomer. Teaching people to manipulate technology doesn't teach people to analyse and interpret information and gain insight to the "Human Condition". The dismemberment of any and every course that looks like a humanities or language programme in happening on a global scale, and this suits mass media and corporate management very well. An ill-educated populace that venerates management and commerce degrees above all else will rapidly approach a decadent critical mass. The disregard for core values certainly helped the Roman Empire to its doom.

We have also collectively allowed our primary and secondary education programmes to progressively dismantle the building blocks of forthright, critical intellectual endeavour and instead focussed on making average and below average students feel good about themselves. Some of those written off by the primary and secondary education systems throughout western history, have gone on to be some of the great figures of our culture. Einstein, Churchill and Hitler (his impact is measured as "Great" IMO. That does not decrease the value of the lesson that National Socialism taught us, though we seem to be forgetting) spring to mind, and they were motivated to a lesser or greater extent by their experiences in the education system. Einstein was very critical of western education systems, and Churchill became an eminent published Historian.

Neither mass media, nor education "hold" in their power a mysterious salvation. Mass media never will. It is shallow, though pervasive, and pushes easy answer "cultural spirituality". Education is in the thrall of a cultural and political revolution, where dissenting views are viewed as reactionary, and a very real dialectic is in operation. The spiritual values that formed our current society (judeo-christianity essentially) have been devalued and diluted, and the process of change will be interesting to follow. Jackrat's post reflects part of this process, spud's pragmatism in relation to society's values is another reflection, and mike's views seem (forgive me if I'm wrong) to have grown from the process of change from a culture whose morality is governed by organised Christian religion to one of secular humanism. Throughly fascinating stuff.

A lot more fun than a bloody Masters level management paper for sure.

[scumdog]

Too many on this thread know too much and write amazingly long and complex sentences - gooD reading though.

The media are easily manipulated by politicians and their spin-doctors and in turn can manipulate the public with what the print, you never know if you are getting the truth and/or the WHOLE truth. Believe most of what ye see, half of what ye hear and nothing that ye read. :sneaky2:

Sad thing is we are CONSTANTLY being influenced/manipulated, we know it and sadly we come back for more.

As my daddy said "they lie son, they all lie"

[MikeL]

Thank you, Jim2, for effectively demolishing the only 2 rays of hope I thought I could perceive. Of course I realize that both education and the Internet have their problems, and I suppose I was looking at the potential rather than the reality. Yours is a truly pessimistic vision...
I think I'll just kill myself now...

[scumdog]

Thank you, Jim2, for effectively demolishing the only 2 rays of hope I thought I could perceive. Of course I realize that both education and the Internet have their problems, and I suppose I was looking at the potential rather than the reality. Yours is a truly pessimistic vision...
I think I'll just kill myself now...

Don't kill yourself because of what Jim2 said, he was just being realistic whereas you and I live in a polyanna fantasy world where things are not that bad -- otherwise we wouldn't bother to get on our bikes <_<

[James Deuce]

Thank you, Jim2, for effectively demolishing the only 2 rays of hope I thought I could perceive. Of course I realize that both education and the Internet have their problems, and I suppose I was looking at the potential rather than the reality. Yours is a truly pessimistic vision...
I think I'll just kill myself now...

Sorry Mike, I'm in the middle of a Communications degree, and it's not pessimism that motivated my post, but genuine fascination with the process of change rippling it's way through tertiary institutions on the back of commercial drivers, and the way the Internet has metamorphised into a giant BS bin.

In the process of researching my last essay, I came across multiple graduate student websites that were 100% plagarised from commercial, government, or university sources. They'd each put their name to the final product and all they'd done was change layout and graphics. There were 6 people claiming authorship to a document originally from the Arpa/Darpa website.

It's all this feel good post-modernism to blame I reckon. Bring back the Enlightenment!!

Scumdog - I ain't THAT miserable. Why do you think I have a bike mate??

[toads]

in my opinion it isn't hugely complicated issue at all, it boils down to whether the govt allows people to make choices for themselves or make it illegal. More and more laws are made to give rights to a few at the expense of the rest of society, and seemingly people are happy for a governing body to tell them what is acceptable or otherwise, we all know that youths will experiment, always have always will, and there are social misfits who can't cope with life's issues and become involved with substances etc, but the majority of us GROWUP!! did anyone read in the news about the author of the dog and lemon guide suggesting that owners of 4wd's should have to get a special licence class to be able to drive them, given the recent deaths on some beach somewhere? For pities sake, we are getting the intelligence and ability to think for ourselves removed from our society on a daily basis, I for one resent the implication that I am so stupid that I need a special licence to drive our hiace van because it's 4wd, more crap, more legalese, more money to find if they go ahead with this #$%@! :brick:

[MikeL]

It's all this feel good post-modernism to blame I reckon. Bring back the Enlightenment!!


It's true that we have taken a wrong turn - the important question is whether it is too late to turn back. I'm only too aware of the problems in the education industry (I use the term advisedly) because I'm involved in it myself. What really worries me is that even if we realize that our education system has been dumbed down, trivialized, commercialized, hijacked or whatever, we will be unable to reverse the trend. Where will the good teachers come from? My generation is the last to have gone through a rigorous university system ("rigorous" = "elitist" for those who espouse a different ideology) and when we retire...
As a matter of interest I left the state secondary education system mainly because of NCEA. I fought it tooth and nail for years, and was labelled a dinosaur...

[toads]

[QUOTE=MikeL]It's true that we have taken a wrong turn - the important question is whether it is too late to turn back. I'm only too aware of the problems in the education industry (I use the term advisedly) because I'm involved in it myself. What really worries me is that even if we realize that our education system has been dumbed down, trivialized, commercialized, hijacked or whatever, we will be unable to reverse the trend. Where will the good teachers come from? My generation is the last to have gone through a rigorous university system ("rigorous" = "elitist" for those who espouse a different ideology) and when we retire...
As a matter of interest I left the state secondary education system mainly because of NCEA. I fought it tooth and nail for years, and was labelled a dinosaur...[/QUOTE

well thankfully some people have made a stand against ncea, and the general dumbing down that has taken place in this country, I guarantee in a few years they will realise ( probably due to international pressure) that the whole thing was a huge mistake and will revert to the good old way of qualifiying exams for everything. I hope they bring back compulsory military training too!!, and apprenticeships ........ sigh...

[spudchucka]

As a matter of interest I left the state secondary education system mainly because of NCEA. I fought it tooth and nail for years, and was labelled a dinosaur...

Good on ya MikeL!!


I hope they bring back compulsory military training too!!, and apprenticeships ........ sigh...

Good on Toads too!!

[scumdog]

Quote:"Scumdog - I ain't THAT miserable. Why do you think I have a bike mate??" - sorry about that Jim2, it wasn't meant to come out as negative as that, it was actually a complement to your intelect. :Oops:

[James Deuce]

Quote:"Scumdog - I ain't THAT miserable. Why do you think I have a bike mate??" - sorry about that Jim2, it wasn't meant to come out as negative as that, it was actually a complement to your intelect. :Oops:

Double :doh:

:Oops:

Cheers.

[Drunken Monkey]

I hope they bring back compulsory military training too!!, and apprenticeships ........ sigh...

sorry about my belatedness, but:

Apprenticeships, yes, but conscription...no. As much as my family tree has a long and proud military service history, and as much as I respect all those who put their lives on the line for their 'king/queen and country', I must say I disagree strongly with the notion of forcing 'everyone' (usually all males of fighting age, unless you're in Israel, then it's all people of fighting age) to do military service.
Conscriptees (and draftees) don't necessarily make professional soldiers (although few may, most won't), and in today's day and age, the army is a professional unit. If I did get my call to duty, I would want to serve with equally patriotic-minded and physically/mentally competent individuals (whom I will be relying on to keep me alive as much as I keep them alive on the battlefield). I would certainly NOT want to serve with lay-abouts, incompentants and people who really had their thoughts elsewhere (if I could help it).
Granted, I realise the point is to kick some shape into people, but there are other ways of doing that, ie at a much earlier age there should be more involvement with youth training corps, like ATC, or even, to a lsesser degree, Scouts (along the lines of Baden Powel's original military scouts).

[duckman]

sorry about my belatedness, but:

Apprenticeships, yes, but conscription...no. As much as my family tree has a long and proud military service history, and as much as I respect all those who put their lives on the line for their 'king/queen and country', I must say I disagree strongly with the notion of forcing 'everyone' (usually all males of fighting age, unless you're in Israel, then it's all people of fighting age) to do military service.
Conscriptees (and draftees) don't necessarily make professional soldiers (although few may, most won't), and in today's day and age, the army is a professional unit. If I did get my call to duty, I would want to serve with equally patriotic-minded and physically/mentally competent individuals (whom I will be relying on to keep me alive as much as I keep them alive on the battlefield). I would certainly NOT want to serve with lay-abouts, incompentants and people who really had their thoughts elsewhere (if I could help it).
Granted, I realise the point is to kick some shape into people, but there are other ways of doing that, ie at a much earlier age there should be more involvement with youth training corps, like ATC, or even, to a lsesser degree, Scouts (along the lines of Baden Powel's original military scouts).

"Youth training corps" - Does this term send a shiver down anyones spine ??
Can you say "Hitler" ughhhhhh :brick:

P.s. I'm only stirring DM - :devil2:

[Drunken Monkey]

"Youth training corps" - Does this term send a shiver down anyones spine ??
Can you say "Hitler" ughhhhhh :brick:

P.s. I'm only stirring DM - :devil2:

Um, yeah. That didn't come out right...I can't recall the correct term for describing ATC, sea scouts, scouts, guides, et al...

(there goes more of that latin again...)

[rodgerd]

The moral of the story is to be very wary of what you say to reporters and even more wary of what you read / view in the media.

Witness the absolute packs of lies the Sunday Star-Times has been publishing of late when it needs a good story.

[spudchucka]

Witness the absolute packs of lies the Sunday Star-Times has been publishing of late when it needs a good story.
I seldom buy that rag for that very reason.

[Timber020]

I have a personal reason for not wanting weed to be any more legal or available, I have had 3 near misses on my bike with the legalise dope van that seems to stalk around island bay. Wankers!

[mikey]

I CAUSE FAR MORE TROUBLE DRUNK THAN STONED

[inlinefour]

in da world wifoutt legalizin that shit. Feck, look att me

[Jamezo]

Um, yeah. That didn't come out right...I can't recall the correct term for describing ATC, sea scouts, scouts, guides, et al...

(there goes more of that latin again...)

let's all join the Hitler Youth! Sieg Heil and all that jazz! we'll give those Aussies the what-for! oh dear, I'm mixing Anglo/Nazi catchphrases...

WFT AM I TALKING ABOUT?

[inlinefour]

let's all join the Hitler Youth! Sieg Heil and all that jazz! we'll give those Aussies the what-for! oh dear, I'm mixing Anglo/Nazi catchphrases...

WFT AM I TALKING ABOUT?

Good reason to keep dope illegal

[moko]

This is only my experiences for what they`re worth.
Among my circle of friends there are 2 definate groups,regular dopers and non-partakers.Those who dont indulge all have steady jobs,sort out problems as they arise and are very much in control of their lives.The others,and I stress these are a few joints a day people and not the more common occaissional toker,are all not only claiming benefits but also defrauding Social Security.All have tried holding down a regular job but after years of losing jobs through poor attendance dont even try any more.All sell contraband tobacco,dodgy DVDs and pirate Cds from different suppliers making money for others and very little for themselves.All sell pot themselves,all consider themselves quite smart because they dont work for a living while wasting their lives away on the Playstation e.t.c.Ask any of them what ambitions they have and their eyes glaze over and they`re stuffed for an answer.All talk big about some mythical future job and all the places they`re "going to go" and things they`re "going to do",none of which will ever happen.None are well-travelled,none have any ambition to travel or indeed see life outside of their immediate locale.We get along but they dont understand me and my determination to find a job a.s.a.p. after getting laid off any more than I understand them being happy to let the state look after their wives and kids.All are also very nervous people and paranoid as well,I dont know whether this is the weed doing it to them or it attracting that kind of personality.What I do know is they`re without fail full of bluster and bravado while being timid and apathetic when it comes down to it,again it`s a chicken and egg situation that I`ve yet to figure out.I also know loads of occaissional users and they`re just that,regular people doing regular things that take a puff now and again,either the "habituals" are life`s losers because they indulge or that`s the kind of person attracted to the stuff.

[XTC]

This is only my experiences for what they`re worth.
Among my circle of friends there are 2 definate groups,regular dopers and non-partakers.Those who dont indulge all have steady jobs,sort out problems as they arise and are very much in control of their lives.The others,and I stress these are a few joints a day people and not the more common occaissional toker,are all not only claiming benefits but also defrauding Social Security.All have tried holding down a regular job but after years of losing jobs through poor attendance dont even try any more.All sell contraband tobacco,dodgy DVDs and pirate Cds from different suppliers making money for others and very little for themselves.All sell pot themselves,all consider themselves quite smart because they dont work for a living while wasting their lives away on the Playstation e.t.c.Ask any of them what ambitions they have and their eyes glaze over and they`re stuffed for an answer.All talk big about some mythical future job and all the places they`re "going to go" and things they`re "going to do",none of which will ever happen.None are well-travelled,none have any ambition to travel or indeed see life outside of their immediate locale.We get along but they dont understand me and my determination to find a job a.s.a.p. after getting laid off any more than I understand them being happy to let the state look after their wives and kids.All are also very nervous people and paranoid as well,I dont know whether this is the weed doing it to them or it attracting that kind of personality.What I do know is they`re without fail full of bluster and bravado while being timid and apathetic when it comes down to it,again it`s a chicken and egg situation that I`ve yet to figure out.I also know loads of occaissional users and they`re just that,regular people doing regular things that take a puff now and again,either the "habituals" are life`s losers because they indulge or that`s the kind of person attracted to the stuff.


Yeah..... What he said..... Well done.

[onearmedbandit]

I would say its the latter, from my own experience anyway. I suppose you could group my circle of friends into smokers and non-smokers as well. All of these people hold down full time jobs, a lot own their own homes (ages 20-45), some have families. The interesting part regarding the smokers within our group, we are all daily users of marijuana, yet we are productive.

However, the loser who would rather not commit him/herself to work instead relying off state welfare will probably find themselves attracted to bud, something to kill the boredome of doing nothing all day.

I feel qualified to comment on this, as I have been a non-smoker, am now and have been for a good number of years a daily smoker (I wont say how much but enough), have flatted with unmotivated unemployed people who I never thought would touch the stuff turn into overnight abusers, and have held fulltime employment (other than after acc pulled me out of my job after the accident) for the last 12yrs. I have travelled to Oz once and Japan twice, touring around most of western and southern Japan, travelled up and down this fine country of ours. I've set goals and achieved them, always in the cloud of some good smoke. (err, except travel overseas, that would be farken stupid.)

Don't judge the smoke, judge the smoker.
Don't judge the drink, judge the drinker.

[Slingshot]

Drugs are bad...because if you do drugs, you're a hippy...and hippys suck!

[moko]

.

As a cop dealing with an offender it would make no difference whatsoever to me whether a person was stoned or drunk. If they need to be taken into custody they will be considered a risk until the bracelets go on. People under the influence of any drug can be highly unpredictable. I learnt long ago not to assume that a person isn't effected by drugs or is capable of being an extreme risk to my safety. I treat everyone the same until such time as I know otherwise or they are safely in custody.


Dope dosnt have the same effect on everybody,my ex-brother in law used to get violent and very,very vicious after smoking and more than one murderer has been convicted after killing someone in a dope-fuelled rage.Unusual i know but I`m sure you all know that different people react differently.
In the U.K. you can get dope anywhere,it`s as hard as asking around any pub,it`s been all but decriminalised here.BUT only today there`s been a report that scientists have found pretty conclusive evidence that weed CAN lead to serious mental illness.As I posted earlier most of the hardcore dopers I know are nervy,apathetic people,one is a registered Schizophrenic but will deny that dope has anything to do with their condition.Because of this the Govt here is coming under heavy pressure to re-categorise Cannibis.
As far as I`m concerned I agree with Paul,as usual it`s down to the individual to be responsible for their own actions.Sadly the evidence is all around,more so in the U.k.,that they aren`t capable of this.Unless you`ve seen it then you may find it hard to envisage but City and town centres up and down Britain are like war-zones at the weekend,you take your life in your hands picking your way through brawling gangs and broken glass.In moderation alcohol is great,in Britain`s"the more you drink the cooler you are" drunken idiots run riot.no doubt you`ve sen the soccer fans on t.v.,well forget the soccer bit,that`s the way they behave out on the booze all over the country.

[spudchucka]

Dope dosnt have the same effect on everybody,
Thats exactly why I posted the message that you just quoted back.

[NC]

What was the thread about again?

[Sniper]

Seems to be about weeds man. I hate them, takes so long to dig out of the garden.

[NC]

Seems to be about weeds man. I hate them, takes so long to dig out of the garden.
Your right, I hate weedy men too.

Eww so creepy! :sick:

[Sniper]

Your right, I hate weedy men too.

Eww so creepy! :sick:

For some unknown reason, the first thing I thought of when I read that was the creepy thin man off Charlies angels.

Not that I have watched the movie, just have been told, umm, yea told. Shit! :thud:

[NC]

For some unknown reason, the first thing I thought of when I read that was the creepy thin man off Charlies angels.

Not that I have watched the movie, just have been told, umm, yea told. Shit! :thud:
LOL Charlies Angles is a kewl movie:D
Ew he is sooo creepy! *shudders*He's so stick figure I could rip his arm off and beat him to death with it...
Even play with the tendons so it looks like he's ripping the fingers... :lol:

[Sniper]

LOL Charlies Angles is a kewl movie:D
Ew he is sooo creepy! *shudders*He's so stick figure I could rip his arm off and beat him to death with it...
Even play with the tendons so it looks like he's ripping the fingers... :lol:

That is very sad and very sick. I hope never to end up on the wrong side of you NC. You are my friend right?? :Pokey:

[El Dopa]

Dope dosnt have the same effect on everybody,my ex-brother in law used to get violent and very,very vicious after smoking and more than one murderer has been convicted after killing someone in a dope-fuelled rage.Unusual i know but I`m sure you all know that different people react differently.
In the U.K. you can get dope anywhere,it`s as hard as asking around any pub,it`s been all but decriminalised here.BUT only today there`s been a report that scientists have found pretty conclusive evidence that weed CAN lead to serious mental illness.As I posted earlier most of the hardcore dopers I know are nervy,apathetic people,one is a registered Schizophrenic but will deny that dope has anything to do with their condition.Because of this the Govt here is coming under heavy pressure to re-categorise Cannibis.
As far as I`m concerned I agree with Paul,as usual it`s down to the individual to be responsible for their own actions.Sadly the evidence is all around,more so in the U.k.,that they aren`t capable of this.Unless you`ve seen it then you may find it hard to envisage but City and town centres up and down Britain are like war-zones at the weekend,you take your life in your hands picking your way through brawling gangs and broken glass.In moderation alcohol is great,in Britain`s"the more you drink the cooler you are" drunken idiots run riot.no doubt you`ve sen the soccer fans on t.v.,well forget the soccer bit,that`s the way they behave out on the booze all over the country.

I'd tend to agree. Most people I knew who smoked used to treat it as if it were harmless. 'Hey, man, The Man is lying to you about the effects of drugs to keep you living in fear. It's cool, have a smoke.' Well, the governmet(s) may indeed be over-reacting to the evils of the weed, but that doesn't make it harmless. You'd have difficulty holding down a job and keeping your life on track if the first thing you did every morning was knock back a triple brandy. Likewise if you're skinning up before you're even out of bed 'just to take the edge off the day' then you've got a problem. Most of the people I knew didn't seem to be able to make that connection though, bcause they all knew weed was harmless and te government was wrong.

What I object to is the occasional or weekend smoker, who is well aware of the effects and the risks, and who is in all other respects a law-abiding, productive member of society, being criminalised and running the risk of having it all come down around their ears if they are unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Certainly there are poeple who shoudn't smoke, for mental health reasons, and people who have turned their brains to quiche though smoking too much.

But there are almost certainly just as many people who shouldn't drink, at all, and people who have slid into a drinking problem through bozing culture, stress or whatever.

The question is: where do you draw the line(s)? in order to stop the sort of behaviour Moko has described? Where do governmental/police controls start impinging unreasonably on the rights of the individual to do what they want?

For this particular situation, I think the line is in the wrong place.

[Blakamin]

My nephew is a bi-polar paranoid shcitzoprhenic with and addiction to dope... not long ago he tried to kill my sister... only takes dope, dont drink, dont touch "P"... he wasnt diagnosed until after smoking for about 4 years....

my brother dealt weed for 10 years.. only job he had.. in 1993 he "discovered" heroin.... he's been a addict ever since.... I tried to help him by giving him a roof when he got out of jail... they only released him coz I owned my house... that little experiment cost me my house, my job, my friends and a fair bit of my sanity for a while....

My cousin is addicted to weed too... as he has one leg he cant go score himself and his connection has changed islands... he went nuts at me last week coz I wont score for him...

I've never been an angel... I've had my problems too and weirdly, dope wasnt one of them... (puts me to sleep)

I dont think it should be decriminalised... nothing changes...
it still causes violence (between dealers, customers and couples)
it causes accidents (best mates brother in Aus got stoned, fell asleep and killed someone)
and it stresses out families that cant afford it....

btw, have also seen heroin and coke addicts hold down high paying jobs (owning BMW's etc in melbourne). It wont last forever tho....

[avgas]

As a ex-dope smoker/grower, i say legalize it. But i think that the shit is bad - so why legalize it?
a) Growers, gangs, dealers etc form power by it being illegal - its the classical economics curve, except in this case since market forces have labelled it illegal, driving the price insanely high, and pushing the market underground where it cannot be controlled. By making it legal, its becomes the same as Cigs and party pills, both cheaper, and less craved for.
b) The only reason it isnt legal is because the government loses money, the cant collect ciggy tax off it, only GST.
c) By making it legal, there will be nothing 'cool' about dope smoking, as this was the lead that sucked me in. It will be consider the same as smoking, shunned by society - and you will be sent outside the pub.

As for making it medicinal, thats bullshit - yes it does work, but the addictive content makes it not worth it. If you really want your body natural, you would build your own tollerance to pain, and take less addictive forms of natural pain killers (yes they do exist - im on them now, and they fucken work). Ive seen too many ACC benificeries using their pain as an excuse to smoke dope - this is bullshit, they are addicted. Come on guys, have some pride in yourself and work towards something, pain is only the way the world tells you that your goal is great, without it you will never succceed.

I mean if you got knocked off you bike, you wouldnt be scared shittless for the rest of you life, you would get your wits together and get back into it.
Same with life.

At the end of the day i think it should be legal, as its peoples choice to fuck up their own life (i mean they can choose to commit suicide if they want).
But if you want to be successful, you wont go near any negatives (smoking dope, smoking cigs, P.....whatever), as these are the vexations of the spirit.

[inlinefour]

My nephew is a bi-polar paranoid shcitzoprhenic with and addiction to dope... not long ago he tried to kill my sister... only takes dope, dont drink, dont touch "P"... he wasnt diagnosed until after smoking for about 4 years....

my brother dealt weed for 10 years.. only job he had.. in 1993 he "discovered" heroin.... he's been a addict ever since.... I tried to help him by giving him a roof when he got out of jail... they only released him coz I owned my house... that little experiment cost me my house, my job, my friends and a fair bit of my sanity for a while....

My cousin is addicted to weed too... as he has one leg he cant go score himself and his connection has changed islands... he went nuts at me last week coz I wont score for him...

I've never been an angel... I've had my problems too and weirdly, dope wasnt one of them... (puts me to sleep)

I dont think it should be decriminalised... nothing changes...
it still causes violence (between dealers, customers and couples)
it causes accidents (best mates brother in Aus got stoned, fell asleep and killed someone)
and it stresses out families that cant afford it....

btw, have also seen heroin and coke addicts hold down high paying jobs (owning BMW's etc in melbourne). It wont last forever tho....

Personally I'm not angel either and have not touched the stuff for over a decade now. I tell you that if I knew half of what I know now, then I would have never touched the stuff. The facts are:
If an individual has the genetic link of any type of thought disorder, then using cannabis is only going to make it worse (the more used the worse it'll get). If someone who does not have the genetic link and somes enough of it, they can become psychotic also. There are more health disadvantages by far than any percieved or actual health benefits from using cannabis.
Now at the risk of getting in more hot water (and you cannot bad rep me at present) I think that only an ignorant individual would want to legalise or decrimalise cannabis. Only a person who is thinking of their own wants would be that low and arrogant. Personally I think that the penalties should be increased (as in any unlawfull act) as to make it undesirable to repeat the action. I would go as far as to say that the Police, in my opinion should continue with their spraying program that NORML is getting so upset with. In that way a deterrant can continue and if your dumb enough to get sick, so be it.
Now, as far as the concept of pain relief and medical use. I don't have a problem with that. However once agin suspect that there will be plenty of individuals that wish to abuse this right, thus making it pointless to persue the option. IF, it was to happen, it would not be the "smoking" kind, but actually in capsule form to swallow. Many of users I suspect would be unimpressed with that and want to smake the contents of the capsule, thus ruining it for all others.
Now for the Netherlands, who have allowed cannabis use with rather loose laws covering the subject. They are and do admit that the whole concept has been less than successfull, with a major hard drug problem as a result. I have even heard of the government wanting to take a reversal in policy and again outlaw the use of cannabis. However so far, they have been unsuccessfull with that attempt, but are still trying.
The problem with this debate that there is much information regarding cannabis, unfortunately alot is not credible as those who what cannabis create their own research to reinforce their opinion. Drug companies have been doing this for along time and the concept is not new. The actual health benefits are there, but the actual amount of cannabis needed is very small per day and would be far less that satisfactory to a regular user along with being the wrong method (i.e. swallowing Vs smoking). It becomes a unhealthy act, using cannabis in larger proportions. I suspect that if I was given one dollar for every service user who has become unwell and presented to the Mental Health Services on each occasion stating that they have been using cannabis (yes there is other factors for their relapse) I would not have long before I could go and pick up a new 2005 CBR1000RR and not that long before I could start buying them for others.
Everyone who does want cannabis legalised or decriminalised, ask yourself why. is it just for your own wants or is it for the better of society. If you choose the latter then please explain why it would be.

[moko]

.
By making it legal, there will be nothing 'cool' about dope smoking, as this was the lead that sucked me in. It will be consider the same as smoking, shunned by society - and you will be sent outside the pub.


That`s an interesting point.Dont know if it`s recieved as much publicity in N.Z. as here but recently smoking in public places has been banned in Ireland,and a couple of British cities are pushing it through ahead of it going national in a few years.All the years of health scares,Government aided anti-smoking programs e.t.c. have never worked.Make it un-cool(and even many smokers were for this legislation)and socially un-acceptable,in public at least,and cig sales have nose-dived in a few months.Probably start a whole new agrument here but cig smokers seem to be those who follow the herd,go into a place where a few are smoking and lemming-like they light up as well.go into a place where no-one is and many wont feel the urge to either.I had this stupid idea a while back when someone was commenting on the number of school-kids hiding around corners and smoking during the school lunch break here.All they`ve got to do is make it law that fags should be pink with daisies printed on them and suddenly they`re not so cool and macho.Same reasoning petty criminals should get the choice of a jail sentence or freedom.......with compulsory wearing of a pink tracksuit with "moron" printed across it for a defined period,cut out the macho image of something and it`ll lose a lot of it`s appeal,especially to the young.

[avgas]

All they`ve got to do is make it law that fags should be pink with daisies printed on them and suddenly they`re not so cool and macho.Same reasoning petty criminals should get the choice of a jail sentence or freedom.......with compulsory wearing of a pink tracksuit with "moron" printed across it for a defined period,cut out the macho image of something and it`ll lose a lot of it`s appeal,especially to the young.
Good point on the cigs (i like your style - but would girls smoke more then?), but the moron comment wouldnt work - as most of the crims you see these days allready look like morons, esp the patch lovers.
Dope smokers allready have this sentence too, :shake: :thud: :sleep: :sunny: :doobey: :stoogie: :wait: :wacko: hehehe

[onearmedbandit]

Well. it would appear as though I'm a victim of my own weakness, probably wont hold down a full time job for much longer, blah blah blah.

Really couldn't give a fark, I'm happy, the people in my life are happy, I'm successful in what I do so life goes on, still in a cloud of smoke.

I realise there will always be differing opinions on a subject like this one, but don't judge me until you know me. (I'm not suggesting anyone here is judging me personally, in fact I noticed no-one replied to my previous post - maybe I'm on everyones 'ignore list', but there is a lot of blind judging going on here.)

[inlinefour]

Well. it would appear as though I'm a victim of my own weakness, probably wont hold down a full time job for much longer, blah blah blah.

Really couldn't give a fark, I'm happy, the people in my life are happy, I'm successful in what I do so life goes on, still in a cloud of smoke.

I realise there will always be differing opinions on a subject like this one, but don't judge me until you know me. (I'm not suggesting anyone here is judging me personally, in fact I noticed no-one replied to my previous post - maybe I'm on everyones 'ignore list', but there is a lot of blind judging going on here.)

I don't think anyone should judge others, not their right to do so. I;'m more interested in educating others and much like my job, give them the ability to make an informed decision. :yes:

[Blakamin]

Really couldn't give a fark, I'm happy, the people in my life are happy, I'm successful in what I do so life goes on, still in a cloud of smoke.


I, for one, am happy for ya, seriously... if you can find something you enjoy that doesn't hurt your family and you can afford it... go for it... I hope nothing in your situation changes and it becomes a problem...
I was just referring to the situations I have seen change... like my cousin... shit, he's been smoking for 15 years and even grew his own but his situation changed... he got sicker with his kidneys failing, moved back to his parents and then lost his leg... his smoking was never a problem for anyone (ok, his parents dont like it) but now it is... now it has affected my relationship with him... he didnt mean it to, but it has... shit, the guy has probably only got a couple of years to live and now that he wont talk to me, that's time wasted... I never said I wouldn't score for him.. I cant... I dont know anybody and, really, I just dont have the time or inclination to be around that scene again (dealers, waiting, credit, undersize etc..)... he can't see it that way... so his smoking is affect people who care without him realising... I think it sux, but de-criminalising it wont change that fact... and as for becoming legal and buying it in shops... aint gunna happen in my lifetime! too much shit involved

[El Dopa]

Personally I'm not angel either and have not touched the stuff for over a decade now. I tell you that if I knew half of what I know now, then I would have never touched the stuff. The facts are:
If an individual has the genetic link of any type of thought disorder, then using cannabis is only going to make it worse (the more used the worse it'll get). If someone who does not have the genetic link and somes enough of it, they can become psychotic also. There are more health disadvantages by far than any percieved or actual health benefits from using cannabis.
Now at the risk of getting in more hot water (and you cannot bad rep me at present) I think that only an ignorant individual would want to legalise or decrimalise cannabis. Only a person who is thinking of their own wants would be that low and arrogant. Personally I think that the penalties should be increased (as in any unlawfull act) as to make it undesirable to repeat the action. I would go as far as to say that the Police, in my opinion should continue with their spraying program that NORML is getting so upset with. In that way a deterrant can continue and if your dumb enough to get sick, so be it.
Now, as far as the concept of pain relief and medical use. I don't have a problem with that. However once agin suspect that there will be plenty of individuals that wish to abuse this right, thus making it pointless to persue the option. IF, it was to happen, it would not be the "smoking" kind, but actually in capsule form to swallow. Many of users I suspect would be unimpressed with that and want to smake the contents of the capsule, thus ruining it for all others.
Now for the Netherlands, who have allowed cannabis use with rather loose laws covering the subject. They are and do admit that the whole concept has been less than successfull, with a major hard drug problem as a result. I have even heard of the government wanting to take a reversal in policy and again outlaw the use of cannabis. However so far, they have been unsuccessfull with that attempt, but are still trying.
The problem with this debate that there is much information regarding cannabis, unfortunately alot is not credible as those who what cannabis create their own research to reinforce their opinion. Drug companies have been doing this for along time and the concept is not new. The actual health benefits are there, but the actual amount of cannabis needed is very small per day and would be far less that satisfactory to a regular user along with being the wrong method (i.e. swallowing Vs smoking). It becomes a unhealthy act, using cannabis in larger proportions. I suspect that if I was given one dollar for every service user who has become unwell and presented to the Mental Health Services on each occasion stating that they have been using cannabis (yes there is other factors for their relapse) I would not have long before I could go and pick up a new 2005 CBR1000RR and not that long before I could start buying them for others.
Everyone who does want cannabis legalised or decriminalised, ask yourself why. is it just for your own wants or is it for the better of society. If you choose the latter then please explain why it would be.

I don't see why anyone would want to bad rep you for stating an opinion. I'm actually bloody pleased that this thread has seen a high level of intelligent, well-thought out arguments for and against. It must be the calming effects of the subject matter......

To address two of your points:

1) OK, there is maybe a small element of selfishness in my desire to see a more logical approach to the global drug problem (and, yes, it is a problem). If, totally hypothetically speaking, I get caught at a party with a joint in my hand, I don't want it to effect the rest of my life, lose me my job etc etc etc. Similarly, if I wished to purchase a small amount in any form (eat or smoke), so I can chill out on a Saturday night, I'd like to be able to do so without 1) giving money to organised crime, 2) possibly buying something that is shit and has been sprayed with toxic weedkiller, 3) I don't want it to effect the rest of my life, lose me my job etc etc. And what is wrong with wanting any of those? I'm hurting no-one but myself (assuming it were legal), and probably doing myself less long-term damage than if I was drinking heavily on a Saturday.

2) Prohibition demonstably doesn't work. It created more long term problems than it solved in the US in the '20's with booze, and the 'war on drugs' continues to be a complete failure. You make a good point about the Dutch experience, but I'd suggest that they might not have so much of a problem if they weren't within easy reach of the rest of Europe, wit porous border, and weren't the only country with such liberal laws.

I'd suggest, crudely speaking, that a much better apprach would be for governments to gain revenue from it, to regulate it, and to use that money to fund education, research, rehabilitation, enforcement etc etc. Rather than spending taxpayers monet tryigng to turn back an unstoppable tide. The only reason there is a supply is because the demand is HUGE. Prohibition is about as effective in dealing with that as it is trying to tell people not to have a sex drive.

[El Dopa]

I'm not suggesting anyone here is judging me personally, in fact I noticed no-one replied to my previous post - maybe I'm on everyones 'ignore list', but there is a lot of blind judging going on here.

I think everyone incorporated their replies into more general posts. I doubt you're on anyone's ignore list.

[avgas]

I don't think anyone should judge others, not their right to do so. I;'m more interested in educating others and much like my job, give them the ability to make an informed decision. :yes:
Yeh too right, sorry if people thought i was judgeing them - cos im not that way.
I believe its up to one'self to judge themselves. I did, found my life to be shit, and turned it around. Anyone else here reckon adrenillin rushes are the best drug? I decided that if i were gonna die, i wasnt going to be slowly for a boring addiction. Out with a bang i say.

[avgas]

just reflected on all the post's here and came across a good point in my head.
If motorcycling became illegal:
a) how many of you would stop riding?
b) how dangerous would riding become?
c) how much would you all risk for riding?
I know this sounds rediculous, but it places you into the shoes of a dope smoker
and for them it is illegal and real.

[Blakamin]

just reflected on all the post's here and came across a good point in my head.
If motorcycling became illegal:
a) how many of you would stop riding?
b) how dangerous would riding become?
c) how much would you all risk for riding?
I know this sounds rediculous, but it places you into the shoes of a dope smoker
and for them it is illegal and real.
a bit different as it was legal in the first place...
if it was never legal, I dont think that many would be doing it without being caught

so from those views it is toatally impossibe to relate the 2... most people cant ride a motorcycle in their own home... or in their cage... or at a concert......


do I have to write "piss take"?

[spudchucka]

What was the thread about again?
Has your short term memory gone to pot?? :stoogie:

[spudchucka]

My nephew is a bi-polar paranoid shcitzoprhenic with and addiction to dope... not long ago he tried to kill my sister... only takes dope, dont drink, dont touch "P"... he wasnt diagnosed until after smoking for about 4 years....

my brother dealt weed for 10 years.. only job he had.. in 1993 he "discovered" heroin.... he's been a addict ever since.... I tried to help him by giving him a roof when he got out of jail... they only released him coz I owned my house... that little experiment cost me my house, my job, my friends and a fair bit of my sanity for a while....

My cousin is addicted to weed too... as he has one leg he cant go score himself and his connection has changed islands... he went nuts at me last week coz I wont score for him...

I've never been an angel... I've had my problems too and weirdly, dope wasnt one of them... (puts me to sleep)

I dont think it should be decriminalised... nothing changes...
it still causes violence (between dealers, customers and couples)
it causes accidents (best mates brother in Aus got stoned, fell asleep and killed someone)
and it stresses out families that cant afford it....

btw, have also seen heroin and coke addicts hold down high paying jobs (owning BMW's etc in melbourne). It wont last forever tho....

The voice of experience always speaks the wisest words. Its funny how our experiences shape our attitudes.

[Drunken Monkey]

a bit different as it was legal in the first place...[/SIZE]


avgas' example was extreme, but his point is valid. Smoking/posession of marijuana (and opium) were _not_ always illegal, although they have been for quite some time. Marijuana was made illegal across the USA in 1937 (www.marijuana.com et al) . I can't find the data for GB, but I recall Marijuana and Opium were both still legal drugs during Victorian times.


As for making it medicinal, thats bullshit - yes it does work, but the addictive content makes it not worth it. If you really want your body natural, you would build your own tollerance to pain, and take less addictive forms of natural pain killers (yes they do exist - im on them now, and they fucken work). Ive seen too many ACC benificeries using their pain as an excuse to smoke dope - this is bullshit, they are addicted. Come on guys, have some pride in yourself and work towards something, pain is only the way the world tells you that your goal is great, without it you will never succceed.

Well I can assure you that humans are much more physiologically at risk of developing addictions to Morphine and Codeine than they are to THC (www.pharmacy.umaryland.edu et al), but that doesn't stop doctors prescribing either of these day to day.


Well. it would appear as though I'm a victim of my own weakness, probably wont hold down a full time job for much longer, blah blah blah.

Some anti-drugs people are as much a victim of 'peer pressure' as some drug takers. They're just as incapable of seeing a moderate middle ground. I even get attacked and labelled as a druggie/stoner just because I show some academic support for legalisation, despite the fact the number of times I've been stoned can be counted on both hands. Just mention in passing you've smoked weed, and the image you've described will pop into people's heads because that is what has been drilled into them.

[Drunken Monkey]

...Same reasoning petty criminals should get the choice of a jail sentence or freedom.......with compulsory wearing of a pink tracksuit with "moron" printed across it for a defined period,cut out the macho image of something and it`ll lose a lot of it`s appeal,especially to the young.

It would be a funny sight, indeed. That might work work for a little while, then one day all the kiddies will see the bad-ass criminals wearing their pink frocks and moron name tags and want to be like them. Then it will become fashion. Ugh, scary stuff...

[Sniper]

It would be a funny sight, indeed. That might work work for a little while, then one day all the kiddies will see the bad-ass criminals wearing their pink frocks and moron name tags and want to be like them. Then it will become fashion. Ugh, scary stuff...

You just had to go and say something like that.

Now I wont be able to sleep for a week for fear of the evil leprechauns in pink frocks and fashion trend setters will sodomize me in my sleep :thud: :ar15:

[Biff]

As a Jonny foreigner far be it for me to tell you what and would not be legal here. But I'm going tell you what I think, know and have observed anyway, even though most have already been covered:

1. Cannabis is harmful. Smoking it is bad for your lungs. Ingesting it by any means numbs your brain, causes short term memory loss and lethargy. This can be very bad, particularly for youg uns as they can lose the will to get off their arses and make a life for themselves. However, if an adult choses to smoke cannabis then I think it's ridiculous to do so makes them a criminal. (I have and I enjoyed it). Everything in moderation.

2. Decriminalising the consumption of cannabis makes far more sense to me than legalising it. The laws of the land have many functions, one of those functions is to reflect what the majority of the population find socially acceptable. Groups of kids stoned out of their tree's, sitting at home and playing their X-Boxes all day is not socially acceptable. Get them out, get them a job, then when they've grown up they can have a little toke at the weekends or maybe instead of a beer when they get home at night if they so desire.

3. My UK cop buddies love patrolling the areas surrounding those nightclubs/pubs associated with drug taking. Because there is very rarely any fights and everybody is either "loved up" on E's or too stoned to be arsed to do anything remotely energetic.

3. Cannabis does not push you on to harder drugs, unless you count tobacco. Socialising and coming into contact with the more unsavoury members of society that sell cannabis might.

4. Where can I buy some?

[Midnight 82]

:angry: I to are an x user. But you cant blame dope or what ever on someone doing bad things. If someone does that type of thing there is an illness or what ever you wont to call it. The drugs do inhance it but they dont cause it. Personaly I feel people blame drugs for to much. :bash:

[inlinefour]

:angry: I to are an x user. But you cant blame dope or what ever on someone doing bad things. If someone does that type of thing there is an illness or what ever you wont to call it. The drugs do inhance it but they dont cause it. Personaly I feel people blame drugs for to much. :bash:

But at the end of the day the cannabis is a contributing factor that has resulted in whatever issue/crisis that an individual is experiencing. I get to see it far too often in my job. I think of it this way. Would the individual have been better off without the contributing factor of cannabis? The answer is generally yes, they would have better off without the cannabis. Financial/social/legal/work and health problems are often identified as a result. Now I know alot of people like using it and some are even lucky enough for it to not be a problem in their life. But others do have problems and it is these individuals that I'd like to think are being protected by the laws governing cannabis (the fact that they might not be is completely another issue) :disapint:

[Yokai]

3. Cannabis does not push you on to harder drugs, unless you count tobacco. Socialising and coming into contact with the more unsavoury members of society that sell cannabis might.

Ah - one of the cannabis + tobacco crowd - trust me - the waccy is nicer without the baccy.

[Biff]

Ah - one of the cannabis + tobacco crowd - trust me - the waccy is nicer without the baccy.

No - why should I trust you. Prove it. Roll me a fat juicy one and Courier Post it to me. I'll pay the freight. Please :niceone:

[toads]

I see in the news today some guy got sentenced for having a cake with weed in it that landed a couple of youngish kids in hospital, after they ate some of it,15 and 11 if I remember correctly.They apparently suffered hallucinations etc. He could get as much as 8 years imprisonment as a result.
I think the weed today is far stronger than it used to be, when I was a teenager, it's often doctored with other substances too.
The same thing is true of tobacco,which if used in its un-adulterated form has far fewer side effects. I have a friend who grew her own tobacco and she had to smoke 3 times as much in order to be sated.
The problem isn't with the drugs themselves but rather with our culture.
A lot of people feel the need to use drugs of all sorts in order to cope with issues in their lives, I don't see too much problem with legalising marijuana, and it would certainly stop some of the low life profiteering, but they would find another illegal substance to sell in its stead. The youth of the day would continue to abuse substances and so forth, and no matter what the laws of the land are, there will never be a law against stupidity, and sadly the large majority of us have all been stupid at least once in our lives. I know plenty of otherwise upstanding citizens that smoke weed regularly and it works for them, so they would stand to benefit from decriminalising it. But personally I think the main benefit for decriminalising it would be the freeing up of police time and resources for other matters, such a methamphetymine labs etc

[Midnight 82]

But at the end of the day the cannabis is a contributing factor that has resulted in whatever issue/crisis that an individual is experiencing. I get to see it far too often in my job. I think of it this way. Would the individual have been better off without the contributing factor of cannabis? The answer is generally yes, they would have better off without the cannabis. Financial/social/legal/work and health problems are often identified as a result. Now I know alot of people like using it and some are even lucky enough for it to not be a problem in their life. But others do have problems and it is these individuals that I'd like to think are being protected by the laws governing cannabis (the fact that they might not be is completely another issue) :disapint:

:unsure: I think you need to look at the % of people that have trouble with the drugs with out casting a bad rap for the ones that dont have trouble.
I hear what you are saying but you can not blame weed or other things for making someone do bad things. The drugs the doctor and hospitals give to some people dont help if combined with weed or what ever so its an on going problem that will never be fixed with blame. :ride:

[Mongoose]

:unsure: I think you need to look at the % of people that have trouble with the drugs with out casting a bad rap for the ones that dont have trouble.
I hear what you are saying but you can not blame weed or other things for making someone do bad things. The drugs the doctor and hospitals give to some people dont help if combined with weed or what ever so its an on going problem that will never be fixed with blame. :ride:


Trouble is in the self medication, some is good LOTS MUST be better. That applies equaly to all drugs that are self medicated.

[inlinefour]

:unsure: I think you need to look at the % of people that have trouble with the drugs with out casting a bad rap for the ones that dont have trouble.
I hear what you are saying but you can not blame weed or other things for making someone do bad things. The drugs the doctor and hospitals give to some people dont help if combined with weed or what ever so its an on going problem that will never be fixed with blame. :ride:

Its the combination of mental illness plus cannabis that causes the relapse of their condition resulting in any unusual behaviour.

[onearmedbandit]

Off track, but I have to laugh when I read/hear of reports from the media talking about a rapist/murderer/armed robber who had smoked marijuana in the 12hr period before the crime was committed. Got to get me some of that 'Longer Lasting(tm)' weed.

(Disclaimer - - I know they're just reporting the facts, and maybe it was 10 minutes before the crime was committed and may have contributed, just reads funny. I'm like, "whats up with that?? My guy's holding the good stuff out on me!")

[El Dopa]

The voice of experience always speaks the wisest words. Its funny how our experiences shape our attitudes.

Yeah but....

There's a lot of good reasons not to smoke weed, the same as there are a lot of good reasons not to drink.

But one is legal and the other isn't.

As a cop, can you honestly say that what the police are doing in terms of enforcement is making any difference at all. A few suppliers get jailed for a few years (which generally 'pauses', but doesn't stop, their activity).

And a lot of small users get ground up in the wheels of justice, whether rightly or wrongly.

Wouldn't it be a bit more logical for the government to make a bit (a lot) of money from it, instead of spending a lot of our money doing fuck all.

All I'm saying is, prohibition ain't working, same as it didn't work in te '20's in the US. And it's ahving the negative efect of hurting quite a few otherwise innocent people.

Isn't it time for a rethink?

[spudchucka]

As a cop, can you honestly say that what the police are doing in terms of enforcement is making any difference at all. A few suppliers get jailed for a few years (which generally 'pauses', but doesn't stop, their activity).Succesful racovery operations can really put a dent in the local market. Prosecuting small timers, (users & growers) is predominantly futile in terms of stopping the trade but is still a deterant to anyone that actually might care about having a criminal record.

The black market for drugs and stolen property are very tightly linked so keeping pressure on drug dealers does help reduce property crime. The point being that from a policing point of view there are more reasons to target cannabis than just preventing Joe Stoner from getting high simply because it is illegal.


And a lot of small users get ground up in the wheels of justice, whether rightly or wrongly.I'm afraid my attitude to that is the same as the whole traffic debate. People know the risks when they start smoking pot so they just have to accept all the consequences of getting caught.


Wouldn't it be a bit more logical for the government to make a bit (a lot) of money from it, instead of spending a lot of our money doing fuck all.The costs of all the social and health problems that would ensue would far outweigh the revenue collected. Look at cigarette smoking and heart disease, despite the huge tax haul from fag smoking we'd still be better off if we didn't have tobacco at all.


All I'm saying is, prohibition ain't working, same as it didn't work in te '20's in the US. And it's ahving the negative efect of hurting quite a few otherwise innocent people.

Isn't it time for a rethink?
While I can see some sense in your arguements I simply can't agree with legalisation. I guess I've seen too many of the negative consequences of smoking pot.

[Midnight 82]

Its the combination of mental illness plus cannabis that causes the relapse of their condition resulting in any unusual behaviour.

:yes: Hey HONDA have you ever tried weed. I do agree but its a very few that have that trouble. My wife is a nurse and I get the storys.
OOps did I say that. Anyway weed used once and a while for socail is not a problem for most people. But yes all the time is not good it is very disruptive to routine. Makes and effects alot af people in many different ways. :rockon: :2thumbsup

[Mongoose]

:yes: Hey HONDA have you ever tried weed. I do agree but its a very few that have that trouble. My wife is a nurse and I get the storys.
OOps did I say that. Anyway weed used once and a while for socail is not a problem for most people. But yes all the time is not good it is very disruptive to routine. Makes and effects alot af people in many different ways. :rockon: :2thumbsup


Agree to a certain extent, but the younger a person starts, and starts to abuse dope the worse the results are, not just as far as mental illness goes but genral lack of enthusiasm for life.

[El Dopa]

Succesful racovery operations can really put a dent in the local market. Prosecuting small timers, (users & growers) is predominantly futile in terms of stopping the trade but is still a deterant to anyone that actually might care about having a criminal record.

The black market for drugs and stolen property are very tightly linked so keeping pressure on drug dealers does help reduce property crime. The point being that from a policing point of view there are more reasons to target cannabis than just preventing Joe Stoner from getting high simply because it is illegal.

I'm afraid my attitude to that is the same as the whole traffic debate. People know the risks when they start smoking pot so they just have to accept all the consequences of getting caught.

The costs of all the social and health problems that would ensue would far outweigh the revenue collected. Look at cigarette smoking and heart disease, despite the huge tax haul from fag smoking we'd still be better off if we didn't have tobacco at all.


While I can see some sense in your arguements I simply can't agree with legalisation. I guess I've seen too many of the negative consequences of smoking pot.

Good arguments.

Let me go away and think for a while.

[inlinefour]

:yes: Hey HONDA have you ever tried weed. I do agree but its a very few that have that trouble. My wife is a nurse and I get the storys.
OOps did I say that. Anyway weed used once and a while for socail is not a problem for most people. But yes all the time is not good it is very disruptive to routine. Makes and effects alot af people in many different ways. :rockon: :2thumbsup

I can neither confirm nor deny this. But ask anyone who knew me over 10 years ago and they'll know that answer :sly:

[MikeL]

The costs of all the social and health problems that would ensue would far outweigh the revenue collected. Look at cigarette smoking and heart disease, despite the huge tax haul from fag smoking we'd still be better off if we didn't have tobacco at all.


While I can see some sense in your arguements I simply can't agree with legalisation. I guess I've seen too many of the negative consequences of smoking pot.

1 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that the revenue the government collects on tobacco is greater than the cost of health care associated with its use. I realize that indirect costs borne by society or the economy but not paid for directly by the tax-payer change the overall equation, but the fact remains that the Treasury's bottom-line is healthier if people smoke (and drink, and speed...)

2 As a policeman you naturally see more negative consequences of most human activities than the layman. How many instances of beneficial use of illegal drugs are you likely to encounter?? Although you are certainly qualified to offer an opinion based on your experience, it would be wise not to draw too broad a conclusion from them.
How many people on this forum would you guess have smoked pot? How many of them are living useful lives as well-adjusted, responsible, otherwise-law-abiding citizens?

3 As I see it the one convincing argument for legalisation of pot is the hypocrisy involved in outlawing it when both tobacco and alcohol are legal and widely used. The abuse of both these substances results in individual and social costs far higher than the known costs of marijuana abuse, if we remove from the equation those factors resulting directly from the illegality of pot.

[spudchucka]

1: I haven't seen the actual Govt figures on tax take versus social / medical costs borne by society. So I'm generalising, having a guess, I'll admit, but I think that the true costs to society are largely unknowable.

2: Its true, people in my line of work see far more of the negative consequences of drug abuse than probably any other profession. But I've had plenty of contact with people who smoke it casually and swear it is harmless.

Its easy for these people to form that opinion from their safe middle class world where they just want to be left alone to enjoy a quiet doobie. They go down to the local tinnie house and buy their weekend supplies, hand over their money and blissfully smoke themselves to whatever happy place turns their crank.

They don't see and they don't want to know about the kids of the drug dealers or the hard core addicts that can't feed their children because they are smoking away the weeks budget.

Then our white middle class pot smoker gets all upitty when his place gets burgled. The worst thing is that his PS2 got flogged and thats what he enjoys doing while he's spinning out. What he doesn't realise is that he's probably just been ripped off by another drug user who took his PS2 straight round to the same tinnie house and traded it for another bullet or P bag.

By the way Mike, I haven't always been a policeman, I was a human once and did human things and had human friends, so don't assume that my opinions are based solely on my experiences as a policeman.

3: So because we already have several socially accepted harmful drugs we should legalise other harmful drugs simply because it would be hypocritical of us to not legalise it. Phooey!! Thats liberal lefty sandle wearing teacher talk.

The known costs of cannabis use? What are they? How can it be estimated what the costs would be if it was legalised?

[Drunken Monkey]

1 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that the revenue the government collects on tobacco is greater than the cost of health care associated with its use. I realize that indirect costs borne by society or the economy but not paid for directly by the tax-payer change the overall equation, but the fact remains that the Treasury's bottom-line is healthier if people smoke (and drink, and speed...)

That was me, on this thread:

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=118656&postcount=128

Based on 2002 figures, total tax revenue from tobacco was 895.3 million (1.9% of the total tax revenue), healthcare cost for smoking related diseases was 230.5 million, from WHO and MOH.

[MikeL]

Thats liberal lefty sandle wearing teacher talk.



Guilty as charged. Except for the sandal-wearing...

But would you accept that other than liberalization the only morally consistent approach is to ban tobacco and alcohol as well?

Would you accept prohibition? If not, why not?

[scumdog]

Guilty as charged. Except for the sandal-wearing...

But would you accept that other than liberalization the only morally consistent approach is to ban tobacco and alcohol as well?

Would you accept prohibition? If not, why not?
I would accept the prohibition - even though I drink a little too much at times.

They cause so much heart-ache and financial problems plus they're not the best for the average guys health either.

It would make my job a lot easier too. :niceone:

Don't hold with the sorry arsed argument that "look at the problems alcohol causes, they might as well legalise cannabis", it is not a valid reason to legalise anything just because another negative item is already legal :wacko:

[Midnight 82]

1: I haven't seen the actual Govt figures on tax take versus social / medical costs borne by society. So I'm generalising, having a guess, I'll admit, but I think that the true costs to society are largely unknowable.

2: Its true, people in my line of work see far more of the negative consequences of drug abuse than probably any other profession. But I've had plenty of contact with people who smoke it casually and swear it is harmless.

Its easy for these people to form that opinion from their safe middle class world where they just want to be left alone to enjoy a quiet doobie. They go down to the local tinnie house and buy their weekend supplies, hand over their money and blissfully smoke themselves to whatever happy place turns their crank.

They don't see and they don't want to know about the kids of the drug dealers or the hard core addicts that can't feed their children because they are smoking away the weeks budget.

Then our white middle class pot smoker gets all upitty when his place gets burgled. The worst thing is that his PS2 got flogged and thats what he enjoys doing while he's spinning out. What he doesn't realise is that he's probably just been ripped off by another drug user who took his PS2 straight round to the same tinnie house and traded it for another bullet or P bag.

By the way Mike, I haven't always been a policeman, I was a human once and did human things and had human friends, so don't assume that my opinions are based solely on my experiences as a policeman.

3: So because we already have several socially accepted harmful drugs we should legalise other harmful drugs simply because it would be hypocritical of us to not legalise it. Phooey!! Thats liberal lefty sandle wearing teacher talk.

The known costs of cannabis use? What are they? How can it be estimated what the costs would be if it was legalised?

;) :yeah: Hey I totaly agree with you all. Im just saying from my point of view. So what can be done?????????

[**R1**]

Would you accept prohibition? If not, why not?
I would...i smoke but i recon if the govmnt gave a fuck about our health they would just outlaw it....then i wouldnt have to pay huge tax on it and i would have no choice but to give up...but theres no money in that now is there??....as for alcohol, i cant stand drunkn bums in town on the weekend, and my missus works in a mental hospital and the problems that alcohol has caused she said is unbeliveble....funny not the same with pot she rekons. so bring back prohibition i say(and i'll buy a stil and become rich)

[scumdog]

Problems I see with cannabis:

People who are slightly unmotivated become really unmotivated after using it for a while, don't have a job.

No job = no money? no problem, - tick it up with the nice dealer!.

Can't pay dealer? - get a beating/property 'taxed' by him for the debt.

Still can't pay off the debt? Steal an X-box/PS2 and trade/sell that.

Need to get around town to the dealer and got no dollars? Get a $150 dollar P.O.S. car, get bulk tickets for no WOF/Reg etc.

Can't pay fines? Never mind, a bit of P.D. will do the trick?

Can't get to P.D. cos the P.O.S. car don't go? -Court and threat of jail.

Oh yes, SOME may be able to toke-up, pay for it, still perform at work etc but for some it's a slippery slope to being a "go nowhere nuff-nuff". who well may end up doing harder drugs - just like the alkie who starts off on beer and ends up on sherry.

It's a crying shame to visit a place every few months and see it and the occupants going downhill - still got a P.O.S. car, a mangy mutt or two, a poorly made Harley wall hanging (nearest they'll get to one) a Jack Daniels mirror, a rented PS2, an unwashed smell, final demands for electricity, no food in the cupboards, - oh yes, they sure know how to live it up, not like those dumb-arsed straights that go to work and pay they're bills, no sir, we're doing our own thing - and ten years later they're still doing they're own thing living "Ground-Hog Day" same thing day after day over and over and over........ :brick:

I don't feel too sorry for them but they breed and it's the kids why I feel sorry for - what chance of getting anywhere have they with that home background? (and the fetal alcohol syndrome/ADHD etc)

[**R1**]

Problems I see with cannabis:

People who are slightly unmotivated become really unmotivated after using it for a while, don't have a job.

No job = no money? no problem, - tick it up with the nice dealer!.

Can't pay dealer? - get a beating/property 'taxed' by him for the debt.

Still can't pay off the debt? Steal an X-box/PS2 and trade/sell that.

Need to get around town to the dealer and got no dollars? Get a $150 dollar P.O.S. car, get bulk tickets for no WOF/Reg etc.

Can't pay fines? Never mind, a bit of P.D. will do the trick?

Can't get to P.D. cos the P.O.S. car don't go? -Court and threat of jail.

Oh yes, SOME may be able to toke-up, pay for it, still perform at work etc but for some it's a slippery slope to being a "go nowhere nuff-nuff". who well may end up doing harder drugs - just like the alkie who starts off on beer and ends up on sherry.

It's a crying shame to visit a place every few months and see it and the occupants going downhill - still got a P.O.S. car, a mangy mutt or two, a poorly made Harley wall hanging (nearest they'll get to one) a Jack Daniels mirror, a rented PS2, an unwashed smell, final demands for electricity, no food in the cupboards, - oh yes, they sure know how to live it up, not like those dumb-arsed straights that go to work and pay they're bills, no sir, we're doing our own thing - and ten years later they're still doing they're own thing living "Ground-Hog Day" same thing day after day over and over and over........ :brick:

I don't feel too sorry for them but they breed and it's the kids why I feel sorry for - what chance of getting anywhere have they with that home background? (and the fetal alcohol syndrome/ADHD etc)

yeah same goes for any substance, not just pot......and there are an aweful lot of people i know that smk pot and are doing pretty dam well for them selves....i cant say its not the pot but the people your describing i think would be exactly where they are with or without the pot. they are whats known as loosers and keeping them down there is what keeps us up here :shit: . i realise its your job to deal with them and you see all the adverse effects but what about the tens of thousands that are un effected?? there's probly not too many on here who will openly admit to smking pot but 80% of the people i know do and they all have jobs, bikes, kids, houses, etc. me included.

in my life i have been arrested 4 times 3 times i was drunk the other time was on my bike(long story)...so should we ban motorcycles an alcohol??? i dont think anyone on here will agree to that,

well thats my 2cents........its one of those subjects that we will all have to agree to disagree on i cant see any right or wrong....just like jappa's are hot and harleys are not :yeah:

[scumdog]

Aaron, you will have noted I DID say that there are a lot of people out there for whom pot does not cause any problems, I was commenting on the ones that do have problems (my 80% is the ones whose life IS shit and it has direct links to there 'lifestyle - including overuse of 'recreational drugs', - the exact opposite of your 80% you have had contact with).

You may have also noted I was not crusading to ban the stuff but just giving a perspective of MY experiences with life losers and their links with pot, A side of life that an awful lot of the public (pot users included) are blithely unaware of. :unsure:

Except when they get ripped off by somebody that needs money for a visit to the tinny-house. :disapint:

[MrMelon]

Wouldn't making it legal to grow small amounts for personal use take the criminal element out of the equation? That way penalties for gangs who are growing and selling huge quantities could be stepped up.

It's not like everyone would suddenly go out and start growing pot just because it's legal to do so either, but in theory it would dry up a lot of illegal income and reduce crime related to that.

With the society the way it is I still don't think it would work though.

[**R1**]

Aaron, you will have noted I DID say that there are a lot of people out there for whom pot does not cause any problems, I was commenting on the ones that do have problems (my 80% is the ones whose life IS shit and it has direct links to there 'lifestyle - including overuse of 'recreational drugs', - the exact opposite of your 80% you have had contact with).

You may have also noted I was not crusading to ban the stuff but just giving a perspective of MY experiences with life losers and their links with pot, A side of life that an awful lot of the public (pot users included) are blithely unaware of. :unsure:

Except when they get ripped off by somebody that needs money for a visit to the tinny-house. :disapint:

Fair.........we should just lock em up and giv em all the P they want then eh? J/K

do people realy steal just to buy pot???? or is it for harder drugs, and if it was legal would they still have to steal?? or would they then move on2 the heavy stuff??
a tiny is only $20 why do they even need to steal?
I must have led a shelterd life i guess :baby:

[spudchucka]

Guilty as charged. Except for the sandal-wearing...

But would you accept that other than liberalization the only morally consistent approach is to ban tobacco and alcohol as well?

Would you accept prohibition? If not, why not?
Why do you always like to take the moral high ground? Your views are obviously those of an idealist, not a realist.

I smoked cigarettes for about 10 years of my life. Giving them up was the best thing I have ever done. I like a drink but really wouldn't care too much if alcohol was no longer available.

I don't see the cannabis debate as being about morals and I don't see why consistency has to be a consideration either. To me its about reducing the ways in which young people can fuck up their lives.

The fact that NZ has huge problems with drug & alcohol abuse, binge drinking in young people, cigarette smoking and gambling suggests to me that large portions of our population have highly addictive personalities and are incapable of controlling themselves. Why give them another legal substance to abuse?

Domestic violence, property crime, car crime, violent robberies, rapes, murders etc etc, they are all linked to drug use and cannabis is the entry level drug of choice. Its fair to say that alcohol abuse contributes to all of the above as well but in the case of property crime & violent robberies the drug abusers feature a lot more regularly.

They don't get published much anymore but the old Court reports in the newspapers were always full of bleeding heart stories about how "my client couldn't help himself because of his drug addiction, your honour". Thankfully a lot of judges are refusing to take this BS as any sort of mitigating factor these days.

[spudchucka]

Wouldn't making it legal to grow small amounts for personal use take the criminal element out of the equation? That way penalties for gangs who are growing and selling huge quantities could be stepped up.
The criminals who are making $$$ out of cannabis will simply move on to the next easiest & most lucrative black market commodity.

Its not like they will suddenly decide, "shit I better go get me a job". Is it?

[riffer]

The criminals who are making $$$ out of cannabis will simply move on to the next easiest & most lucrative black market commodity.

Its not like they will suddenly decide, "shit I better go get me a job". Is it?

No, but there will always be people in society who will prey on others in this way. It should not be a factor in the decriminalisation issue.

These buggers also spend their ill-gotten money on Harleys. Should we ban Harleys? (sorry WT - just a hypothetical argument here)

[spudchucka]

No, but there will always be people in society who will prey on others in this way. It should not be a factor in the decriminalisation issue.

These buggers also spend their ill-gotten money on Harleys. Should we ban Harleys? (sorry WT - just a hypothetical argument here)
No, we shouldn't ban Harleys but we should be able to strip drug dealers of their assests.

[MrMelon]

The criminals who are making $$$ out of cannabis will simply move on to the next easiest & most lucrative black market commodity.

Its not like they will suddenly decide, "shit I better go get me a job". Is it?

That's fair enough, but the market for cannabis is much bigger than for any other currently illegal substance isn't it? If the illegal supply of cannabis was stopped, then that doesn't automatically mean that there's going to be all of these people who were previously buying it hanging out for their next black market fix of whatever was being sold.

[Blakamin]

Leagl to grow 2 plants for personal in Adelaide and Canberra... doesn't change anything..... people think "I'll grow 5 and give it to my mates" then people grow 20 etc.... they still sell the shit and get done for cultivation...

[MrMelon]

You can probably fit that one under natural selection then. If they're going to be greedy like that even after there's an allowance in the law for it, then maybe they need to get their asses busted!

[MikeL]

Why do you always like to take the moral high ground? Your views are obviously those of an idealist, not a realist.


I think I wrote once that you need a few idealists in society. I got a rather sneering reply, and of course I know that for many people "idealist" is just a synonym for impractical dreamer. But your comment about preventing young people from mucking up their lives shows that behind your actions is an ideal (a better society). Without ideals (which are based on moral principles) the law is just about power and control. And without ideals as a benchmark, theoretical though it may be, realism can become simple pragmatism, and the justification for policy and procedures is forgotten in the nitty-gritty of achieving a practical result. It's not a bad thing to stop from time to time and ask questions about why we do things. I asked the question about prohibition because it seems a logical consequence of your ideal. Your answer surprised me more by what you omitted than by what you stated: you didn't acknowledge the enormous practical difficulties in enforcing a total ban. I would have thought that a realist would have immediately rejected it as unworkable.

[Drunken Monkey]

Don't hold with the sorry arsed argument that "look at the problems alcohol causes, they might as well legalise cannabis", it is not a valid reason to legalise anything just because another negative item is already legal :wacko:

Now we're going around in circles again. Control of Alcohol law _is_ a valid reason to legalise marijuana because is sets a legal precedent. It is not " :wacko: . Go and learn how our legal system works. It's also not the only precedent = you have to factor in other items, such as dealing, health care, etc - you will find other law(s), current and historical, which sets a good precedent to maintain the current class c status of marijuana - I'm not saying they don't exist.
It just annoys me that we've been over this in great length and detail at the start of the thread, including some pointless mud-slinging, only to have you come up with that rather un-thought-through statement again.

[spudchucka]

I asked the question about prohibition because it seems a logical consequence of your ideal. Your answer surprised me more by what you omitted than by what you stated: you didn't acknowledge the enormous practical difficulties in enforcing a total ban. I would have thought that a realist would have immediately rejected it as unworkable.
Firstly you didn't ask me to comment on the practical difficulties of enforcing prohibition, history has documented that well enough.

Secondly if you had asked me was prohibition workable then you might have gotten the answer that you say I have omitted.

If you want specific answers then ask specific questions.

Prohibition is not a logical consequence of my ideal, its simply your idealistic view of how my ideal must appear to me! In other words, an assumption, which is what most of your last post consisted of.


Would you accept prohibition? If not, why not?

Just in case you forgot what you asked in the first place.

[bluninja]

I know it's not the herb, but this might is related to this topic...wow...why not legalise everything NOT

Controlled heroin use is 'possible' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4230985.stm)

[onearmedbandit]

Some interesting points have been made here, from both sides of the arguement. However, most who have an opinion on this 'oh-so-touchy' subject will be firm in their beliefs, whether they are from personal experience or pre-conceived perceptions. So I see this debate going nowhere, as it has done for the last 60-70yrs. Not to say we shouldn't discuss it, the airing of new ideas is of benefit for all.

So I will probably continue to have a quiet smoke after work, thats all I want, for the time being anyway. I'm not harming anyone else, nor anyones property.

[scumdog]

Now we're going around in circles again. Control of Alcohol law _is_ a valid reason to legalise marijuana because is sets a legal precedent. It is not " :wacko: . Go and learn how our legal system works. It's also not the only precedent = you have to factor in other items, such as dealing, health care, etc - you will find other law(s), current and historical, which sets a good precedent to maintain the current class c status of marijuana - I'm not saying they don't exist.
It just annoys me that we've been over this in great length and detail at the start of the thread, including some pointless mud-slinging, only to have you come up with that rather un-thought-through statement again.

It's still a sorry-arsed bit of logic that was not thought up by me but just a quote from others - not my "un-thought-through statement".

If cannabis was to be considered for 'legalisation' then it should stand alone - not be judged in comparison to something like alcohol.

Leave it as a class 'C' imho.

[wari]

:spudbooge :spudguita ... AHh see fields of GREEn ...

REd rosees tooo ... ...

DA da da da ... FUrr me 'n you .... :spudguita ...

ANd ah fink to mah-self ....

whatta wundrrfull weed ... I mean werld ... ohhh yeaarrrrh ... :yeah:

:spudwave: :sunny:

STeady as she goes cap'n ... :niceone:

[scumdog]

:spudbooge :spudguita ... AHh see fields of GREEn ...

REd rosees tooo ... ...

DA da da da ... FUrr me 'n you .... :spudguita ...

ANd ah fink to mah-self ....

whatta wundrrfull weed ... I mean werld ... ohhh yeaarrrrh ... :yeah:

:spudwave: :sunny:

STeady as she goes cap'n ... :niceone:

StEer cleaR oF tHe DRugs Wari :blink: :laugh: :spudwave:

[wari]

I DOnt do druggs ..

BUtt whilst grazing ... one does o-ccasionally munch da odd weed ... :thud:

[Joni]

:spudbooge :spudguita ... AHh see fields of GREEn ...

REd rosees tooo ... ...

DA da da da ... FUrr me 'n you .... :spudguita ...

ANd ah fink to mah-self ....

whatta wundrrfull weed ... I mean werld ... ohhh yeaarrrrh ... :yeah:

:spudwave: :sunny:

STeady as she goes cap'n ... :niceone:

Over worked I see....
:killingme :killingme :moon:

[Lou Girardin]

Isn't it interesting that some of these 'dangerous' drugs were once legal; cocaine, marijuana, morphine, etc.
Who stood to profit from the banning of these substances?
Because they sure as hell weren't a threat to society when they were banned.

[Deano]

Each to their own, provided they have things under control and it doesn't have a negative impact on others.

What annoys me though is people who are dead against any form of 'illegal' drug taking, then go home or the pub, get tanked as a mother fucker, possibly even bash the wife, abuse the kids.......bloody hypocrits.

Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, and the war on drugs in America for example isn't working either.

[MikeL]

Isn't it interesting that some of these 'dangerous' drugs were once legal; cocaine, marijuana, morphine, etc.
Who stood to profit from the banning of these substances?
Because they sure as hell weren't a threat to society when they were banned.

A good point, Lou. However, the standard answer (which satisfies all but the cynical or possibly paranoid) is that the subsequent criminalization of these substances was the result of greater awareness of their dangers and greater social responsibility...

The role of the American pulp and paper industry, threatened by competition from hemp, in the criminalization of marijuana in the 1920s raises awkward questions that defenders of the status quo prefer to ignore...

[Hitcher]

The role of the American pulp and paper industry, threatened by competition from hemp, in the criminalization of marijuana in the 1920s raises awkward questions that defenders of the status quo prefer to ignore...
It's hard to imagine a pulp and paper industry being threatened by hemp.

Forests, particularly renewable forests, produce considerably more fibre per hectare a lot easier than can hemp crops. Hemp is an annual crop that requires harvesting, resowing and all of the agriculture associated with this. "Optimum" yields are rarely reached, because of bird damage (birds love the stuff) and assault from a range of other pests that are rather partial to hemp.

Hemp is also a comparatively coarse fibre, best used for linen-type fabrics. Pulverising it to a form that would allow it to be used for paper manufacture would require additional processing.

"Commercial" hemp production is largely a third-world venture, assisted by low labour costs and minimal controls on sustainable land use.

Also commercial hemp contains extremely low levels of THC -- the "active" ingredient in marijuana. Your average reefer-head would soon lose interest in trying to get a rush from inhaling hemp smoke.

[spudchucka]

Isn't it interesting that some of these 'dangerous' drugs were once legal; cocaine, marijuana, morphine, etc.
Who stood to profit from the banning of these substances?
Because they sure as hell weren't a threat to society when they were banned.
Are you talking in riddles or just being a butt head again?

[Midnight 82]

:doh: How did it get the name weed, is it because it is a weed or what :lol:

[wari]

:doh: How did it get the name weed, is it because it is a weed or what :lol:

WHat are you on dude ... :spudwhat:

WE'ere tryin' tohava seriouse conservation here ... :yeah:

:sunny: ...

I See fields of GREEen ... REd roses too .... ladada daahh ... bubbubbabahh ...

THats gonna stickin someones head now initt ... :spudbooge :spudguita :spudbooge

[Midnight 82]

WHat are you on dude ... :spudwhat:

WE'ere tryin' tohava seriouse conservation here ... :yeah:

:sunny: ...

I See fields of GREEen ... REd roses too .... ladada daahh ... bubbubbabahh ...

THats gonna stickin someones head now initt ... :spudbooge :spudguita :spudbooge

Dude cant be as good as what ur on :doobey: :doobey: :yes: :2thumbs HEHE its a legal here my friend :blank:

[El Dopa]

I would accept the prohibition - even though I drink a little too much at times.

They cause so much heart-ache and financial problems plus they're not the best for the average guys health either.

It would make my job a lot easier too. :niceone:

Don't hold with the sorry arsed argument that "look at the problems alcohol causes, they might as well legalise cannabis", it is not a valid reason to legalise anything just because another negative item is already legal :wacko:

So where would you draw the line? Somone says 'lets ban alcohol and tobacco cos they impose a cost on society'.

Someone else is going to say 'ban guns for the same reasons, cos they cause problems, too'. Are you going to allow that? It's for the greater good, after all.

Perhaps we should ban motorbikes. Lots of people die on those, and it imposes a cost on society.

and I don't hold witht the 'lets all accept the status quo' argument. Things do change slowly over time, including peoples attitudes. If they didn't we'd still be burning witches at the stake and bear-baiting. Laws and attitudes that are incompatible with majority thinking do eventually get kicked to the kerb.

[El Dopa]

I think I wrote once that you need a few idealists in society. I got a rather sneering reply, and of course I know that for many people "idealist" is just a synonym for impractical dreamer. But your comment about preventing young people from mucking up their lives shows that behind your actions is an ideal (a better society). Without ideals (which are based on moral principles) the law is just about power and control. And without ideals as a benchmark, theoretical though it may be, realism can become simple pragmatism, and the justification for policy and procedures is forgotten in the nitty-gritty of achieving a practical result. It's not a bad thing to stop from time to time and ask questions about why we do things. I asked the question about prohibition because it seems a logical consequence of your ideal. Your answer surprised me more by what you omitted than by what you stated: you didn't acknowledge the enormous practical difficulties in enforcing a total ban. I would have thought that a realist would have immediately rejected it as unworkable.

Second that.

[El Dopa]

Isn't it interesting that some of these 'dangerous' drugs were once legal; cocaine, marijuana, morphine, etc.
Who stood to profit from the banning of these substances?
Because they sure as hell weren't a threat to society when they were banned.

I read somewhere recently that cocaine was banned in the UK about the same time (and for similar reasons) that they brought in the 11.00 PM closing of pubs. That is, to stop WW1 munitions workers getting pissed. Even though the reasons have long since faded away, the prohibition still exists.

Cocaine was widely used up until this point as a pick me up. Shakelton and his men used it to give them stamina to march around on the antarctic ice.

[spudchucka]

I read somewhere recently that cocaine was banned in the UK about the same time (and for similar reasons) that they brought in the 11.00 PM closing of pubs. That is, to stop WW1 munitions workers getting pissed. Even though the reasons have long since faded away, the prohibition still exists.

Cocaine was widely used up until this point as a pick me up. Shakelton and his men used it to give them stamina to march around on the antarctic ice.
Adolf Hitler was apparently an amphetamine addict, so I guess you could blame the war in europe and the holocaust on drug abuse.

[Blakamin]

Adolf Hitler was apparently an amphetamine addict, so I guess you could blame the war in europe and the holocaust on drug abuse.
I'll tell ya now... speed fucks with ya head!!!!

[spudchucka]

I'll tell ya now... speed fucks with ya head!!!!
Seen it too many times myself.

Pulled about 100 big stinky plants today.

[onearmedbandit]

Seen it too many times myself.

Pulled about 100 big stinky plants today.

Must have got a good yield from that lot then SC? Tell me, are you 'bagging' it up or was it all for perssie? Did you use lights and go indoors or did you go outdoors? I must say, very brave being a police officer and talking about your 'activities' on the net.




















Taking the piss. (thats for those who might say 'oh oh, don't get him in trouble by making remarks about him growing pot, his superiors might stumble across this').

[Blakamin]

Must have got a good yield from that lot then SC? Tell me, are you 'bagging' it up or was it all for perssie? Did you use lights and go indoors or did you go outdoors? I must say, very brave being a police officer and talking about your 'activities' on the net.







Taking the piss. (thats for those who might say 'oh oh, don't get him in trouble by making remarks about him growing pot, his superiors might stumble across this').
:2thumbsup :2thumbsup
hehehe... well done OAB.... :banana:

[spudchucka]

Must have got a good yield from that lot then SC? Tell me, are you 'bagging' it up or was it all for perssie? Did you use lights and go indoors or did you go outdoors? I must say, very brave being a police officer and talking about your 'activities' on the net.




















Taking the piss. (thats for those who might say 'oh oh, don't get him in trouble by making remarks about him growing pot, his superiors might stumble across this').

Bloody hell, you don't work for the Sunday News do ya?

[jrandom]

I'll tell ya now... speed fucks with ya head!!!!

"It's a speed thing. You wouldn't understand."

:2thumbsup

[El Dopa]

Adolf Hitler was apparently an amphetamine addict, so I guess you could blame the war in europe and the holocaust on drug abuse.


Not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here.

If you read my posts carefully you'll see that I'm not actually arguing that it's 'harmless' (cos it isn't). What I am trying to argue FOR is that both our laws and our enforcement of them should be logical and consistent. At the moment they aren't. Bad laws and indifferent enforcement breed contempt for the system and the people that enforce them.

Comparing alcohol/tobacco with pot is crude and imperfect, but it is the only real comparison we have available. The government taxes the first two to death and makes a few half-arsed attempts to 'educate' people away from them (half-arsed because they gain far too much filthy lucre from them).

With pot on the other hand, the prevaling education/enfocement is, in my opinion, heavy-handed and OTT for the average user.

I accept all arguments about funding organised crime, and that the average user in conveniently 'morally blind' to the end location of their money when they pay for the stuff (which is one reason I don't smoke it).

I also accept all health related arguments.

However,the genie is out of the bottle and ain't going back. The current situation is completely daft and needs a major sea-change in attitudes/law/enforcement. I don't know quite what, but Im' opn to suggestions.

For the record, I don't smoke (too much to lose/better things to do with my time than talk about how great '70's kids cartoons were).

However, if I was at a party and a doobie came round, I'd probably be inclined towards taking a hit. I'd hate to see my life go down the shitter if, by some insanely unfortunate coincidence, I got busted just at that point in time.

Agreed, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. But someone who loses their licence by accumulating too many points is unlikely to be barred from their chosen profession. I would be if I was busted for drugs (and so would a lot more people, proportionally speaking, using the speeding/drugs comparison). And I think that's using an awfully big hammer to crack a small nut.

[MikeL]

And I think that's using an awfully big hammer to crack a small nut.

Very good points, El Dopa. Some won't agree that it's a "small nut". Some would argue that it's better to kill a small nut because it may lead on to bigger nuts.
The fact that there is no easy, obvious answer doesn't mean that the status quo is best. Many strident voices were raised against the legalization of prostitution, yet the previous status quo was manifestly unsatisfactory both on practical grounds (public health, exploitation by pimps...) and because of the hypocrisy involved (not only were the clients - without whom prostitution could not exist - not subject to prosecution, but the IRD insisted on its share of earnings from a business which in law could not exist!). Now that the law has changed, has the sky fallen in?
A bit of thinking outside the square might come up with something better than the cannabis law status quo...

[spudchucka]

Not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here.

No point, just stirring the Pot.

[El Dopa]

No point, just stirring the Pot.

Ah. Let me know when you've got a good blend. i'll come round and 'help you dispose of it in a sensible manner'.