Should we end the drug war in NZ?

[alanzs]

Recently, it was announced that 42% of the population in NZ smoke cannabis, second only to the US. Today, in the Los Angeles Times, there was an article calling for the end of the War on Drugs. The parallels between NZ and the US can't be ignored. Here's the article. Hope you enjoy the read. What do you think about this?

This is the U.S. on drugs
Only cops and crooks have benefited from $2.5 trillion spent fighting trafficking.
By David W. Fleming and James P. Gray
July 5, 2008

The United States' so-called war on drugs brings to mind the old saying that if you find yourself trapped in a deep hole, stop digging. Yet, last week, the Senate approved an aid package to combat drug trafficking in Mexico and Central America, with a record $400 million going to Mexico and $65 million to Central America.

The United States has been spending $69 billion a year worldwide for the last 40 years, for a total of $2.5 trillion, on drug prohibition -- with little to show for it. Is anyone actually benefiting from this war? Six groups come to mind.

The first group are the drug lords in nations such as Colombia, Afghanistan and Mexico, as well as those in the United States. They are making billions of dollars every year -- tax free.

The second group are the street gangs that infest many of our cities and neighborhoods, whose main source of income is the sale of illegal drugs.


Third are those people in government who are paid well to fight the first two groups. Their powers and bureaucratic fiefdoms grow larger with each tax dollar spent to fund this massive program that has been proved not to work.

Fourth are the politicians who get elected and reelected by talking tough -- not smart, just tough -- about drugs and crime. But the tougher we get in prosecuting nonviolent drug crimes, the softer we get in the prosecution of everything else because of the limited resources to fund the criminal justice system.

The fifth group are people who make money from increased crime. They include those who build prisons and those who staff them. The prison guards union is one of the strongest lobbying groups in California today, and its ranks continue to grow.

And last are the terrorist groups worldwide that are principally financed by the sale of illegal drugs.

Who are the losers in this war? Literally everyone else, especially our children.

Today, there are more drugs on our streets at cheaper prices than ever before. There are more than 1.2 million people behind bars in the U.S., and a large percentage of them for nonviolent drug usage. Under our failed drug policy, it is easier for young people to obtain illegal drugs than a six-pack of beer. Why? Because the sellers of illegal drugs don't ask kids for IDs. As soon as we outlaw a substance, we abandon our ability to regulate and control the marketing of that substance.

After we came to our senses and repealed alcohol prohibition, homicides dropped by 60% and continued to decline until World War II. Today's murder rates would likely again plummet if we ended drug prohibition.

So what is the answer? Start by removing criminal penalties for marijuana, just as we did for alcohol. If we were to do this, according to state budget figures, California alone would save more than $1 billion annually, which we now spend in a futile effort to eradicate marijuana use and to jail nonviolent users. Is it any wonder that marijuana has become the largest cash crop in California?

We could generate billions of dollars by taxing the stuff, just as we do with tobacco and alcohol.

We should also reclassify most Schedule I drugs (drugs that the federal government alleges have no medicinal value, including marijuana and heroin) as Schedule II drugs (which require a prescription), with the government regulating their production, overseeing their potency, controlling their distribution and allowing licensed professionals (physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, etc.) to prescribe them. This course of action would acknowledge that medical issues, such as drug addiction, are best left under the supervision of medical doctors instead of police officers.

The mission of the criminal justice system should always be to protect us from one another and not from ourselves. That means that drug users who drive a motor vehicle or commit other crimes while under the influence of these drugs would continue to be held criminally responsible for their actions, with strict penalties. But that said, the system should not be used to protect us from ourselves.

Ending drug prohibition, taxing and regulating drugs and spending tax dollars to treat addiction and dependency are the approaches that many of the world's industrialized countries are taking. Those approaches are ones that work.

David W. Fleming, a lawyer, is the chairman of the Los Angeles County Business Federation and immediate past chairman of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. James P. Gray is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court.

[Luckylegs]

Fark me, sounds like whoever was collating the results of that study (poll) might have used a few "Important" pages to Roll up, cos...... That cant be right surely... "You big bunch of Stoners"

[Mikkel]

Interestingly a recent survey found that the country in the world where the least people have tried cannabis is Holland. One of the few countries where it's legal - funny that eh.

I suppose is has always just been a matter of time before people started pulling their heads out of their arses and started thinking about such issues in a rational and informed manner. Hopefully that time is near.

Information not prohibition is the answer.

[RC1]

DRUGS ARE GOOD :cool:

[Reckless]

Its a little hard to believe 42% of our total population, are regular smokers!! That's just under 1/2 the population (men, women and children), "ye right"! I can accept 42% have used at one time or the other!!

But that said? Make it legal, produce what we need, tax the shit out of it, and lessen the tax on petrol!!!

[mowgli]

42%!!! Really? Perhaps that many have tried it at least once in their mis-spent youth but to call them 'users' is a bit rich. This argument comes up regularly in various guises.

Another interesting version is that all traffic laws should be abolished. No road markings either. Everyone taking responsibility for their safety with no assumptions as to what other road users might/might not do. Apparently this has actually been done in some towns.

The social consequences of drug abuse are too great for decriminalisation IMO. I think the NZ approach is too slanted towards policing and agree with Mikkel that education/information is the key to balancing the scale.

[alanzs]

Information not prohibition is the answer.

I couldn't agree more...:msn-wink:

[slofox]

"Recently, it was announced that 42% of the population in NZ smoke cannabis"

This should read HAVE SMOKED cannabis.....which may have been only once....

[alanzs]

42%!!! Really? Perhaps that many have tried it at least once in their mis-spent youth but to call them 'users' is a bit rich. This argument comes up regularly in various guises.

According to the esteemed NZ Herald,
8:22AM Wednesday July 2, 2008
Updated: 10:56AM Monday July 7, 2008

A recent World Health Organisation survey using data from 17 countries found cannabis use was highest in the United States, at 42.4 per cent, closely followed by New Zealand at 41.9 per cent.

The study also found New Zealand ranked second behind the US in terms of cocaine use, with 4.3 per cent of participants reporting having used the drug, compared with 16.2 per cent in the States.

You are correct, 42% is a bit rich. It was only 41.9%. Prohibition doesn't work. Personally, I don't smoke cannabis, but feel like we are spending too much time on policing those NZ'ers who do. My uncle died a horribly painful death due to pancreatic cancer and was able to smoke medicinal cannabis, recommended by his oncologist, in his last dying days. It was the only thing that helped the nausea. He was being treated at a hospital in Los Angeles. Why would anyone want to deny someone who is dying relief, no matter what chemical form it takes? Compassion is what it's about.

Maybe the police should focus on real criminals, those that make people live in fear of their property or lives being harmed, not those smoking pot. Grow it for personal use, tax it when grown/sold commercially, use the tax money for rehab/treatment/education, let the police put away real criminals. :2thumbsup

[alanzs]

"Recently, it was announced that 42% of the population in NZ smoke cannabis"

This should read HAVE SMOKED cannabis.....which may have been only once....

Criminal activity nonetheless, according to the law. :cool:

[Flatcap]

Despite my slightly right wing leanings, I think Cannabis should be legalised and regulated like alcohol. The policing dollars would be better spent on the likes of P, and the income stream needs to be taken away from gangs

[madandy]

I'd be interested to hear how things have worked in South Australia where they decriminalised pot and allowed 3 plants per household a decade or more ago.

I agree that regulating the drug industry would solve a few problems.
I wouldn't like to see Heroin made mnore easily available. Addicts are already catered to [mediaclly] in prison.

A lot of people that get hooked on the hard drugs do so because the people they go to for the dak often suplly the hard stuff and they push that shit to the pot heads and create terrible addictions.

P should remain banned though!!!!

[mowgli]

What about party pills? Have gangs gone into supplying these now that they are outlawed?

[Flatcap]

What about party pills? Have gangs gone into supplying these now that they are outlawed?

Nah - the formula was changed

[alanzs]

I'd be interested to hear how things have worked in South Australia where they decriminalised pot and allowed 3 plants per household a decade or more ago.

I agree that regulating the drug industry would solve a few problems.
I wouldn't like to see Heroin made mnore easily available. Addicts are already catered to [mediaclly] in prison.

A lot of people that get hooked on the hard drugs do so because the people they go to for the dak often suplly the hard stuff and they push that shit to the pot heads and create terrible addictions.

P should remain banned though!!!!

I agree that drug abuse has had significant costs to society. But, if a shot of heroin or P was a dollar, people sick enough to use those chemicals wouldn't have to rip off our houses or kill our elderly to get the money to use it. I think that would make more sense. I realize it is a stretch for many people, myself included, to put aside the moral certainty that we should tell others what to do with their bodies, but drug addiction is an illness. Making it criminal just seems to have made its effects on society worse, as the article in the LA Times stated.
Even the DEA, the largest drug enforcement agency on the planet, in their own studies have debunked the gateway theory of drug use, i.e., that smoking pot leads to other drug use. Even if it was true, that would make the argument of legalization even more compelling. Do we want our 18+ year old youth going to the gang tinny house to get their pot, where they are exposed to many nasty things, or to the local "coffee shop" like in Holland?

By the way, Charlton Heston died this year as I recall.... :hug:

[scumdog]

Despite my slightly right wing leanings, I think Cannabis should be legalised and regulated like alcohol. The policing dollars would be better spent on the likes of P, and the income stream needs to be taken away from gangs


"Regulated like alcohol"

Oh how my sides hurt when I read that...regulated like alcohol - oh that's working SO well eh!!:rolleyes:

THE worst drug we have.....:(

I wonder if the 'other' drugs were legalised and 'regulated' if we would have the same chaos??.

[dhunt]

After we came to our senses and repealed alcohol prohibition, homicides dropped by 60% and continued to decline until World War II. Today's murder rates would likely again plummet if we ended drug prohibition.

After we came to our "sensors" or lack thereof a few years ago and lowered the drinking age to 18 what have been the effect. More drunken and disorderly behaviour of younger and younger kids. Surely legalising drugs would have the same sort of effect?

[scumdog]

DRUGS ARE GOOD :cool:

For what? - making a profit???

[dhunt]

Interestingly a recent survey found that the country in the world where the least people have tried cannabis is Holland. One of the few countries where it's legal - funny that eh.

Maybe they are just more intelligent over there and understand the effects/consequences of drugs??? :eek:

[alanzs]

Maybe they are just more intelligent over there and understand the effects/consequences of drugs??? :eek:

Through accurate information, education and treatment not self serving political propaganda pushed by the media. And, take away the thrill factor of it being illegal. It's not so rebellious to drink when you are allowed to legally or smoke pot for that matter.

In California, and 16 other states in the US, you can ask your doctor to recommend cannabis to treat a zillion symptoms; stress, depression, tension headaches, cancer, whatever. There are hundreds of shops that will sell cannabis to you if you have the recommendation. You can legally grow up to 12 plants and have up to a pound of pot, if you are a medicinal user. Police tend to focus on more important things, like the 25 (mostly drug related) murders that happen on average every weekend in LA. The sky hasn't fallen, people still go to work, it's just not a big deal as the scare mongers would have everyone believe. :Police:

Thanks for the great responses by the way. :yes:

[mowgli]

Maybe they are just more intelligent over there and understand the effects/consequences of drugs??? :eek:
Not surprising with all the dumb tourists coming through to provide examples.

[madandy]

I agree that drug abuse has had significant costs to society. But, if a shot of heroin or P was a dollar, people sick enough to use those chemicals wouldn't have to rip off our houses or kill our elderly to get the money to use it. I think that would make more sense. I realize it is a stretch for many people, myself included, to put aside the moral certainty that we should tell others what to do with their bodies, but drug addiction is an illness. Making it criminal just seems to have made its effects on society worse, as the article in the LA Times stated.
Even the DEA, the largest drug enforcement agency on the planet, in their own studies have debunked the gateway theory of drug use, i.e., that smoking pot leads to other drug use. Even if it was true, that would make the argument of legalization even more compelling. Do we want our 18+ year old youth going to the gang tinny house to get their pot, where they are exposed to many nasty things, or to the local "coffee shop" like in Holland?

By the way, Charlton Heston died this year as I recall.... :hug:

Are you a drug user? :shifty:

You go make P or Heroin $1 a shot and there'll be a LOT MORE addicts. It's too dear and too hard to get for most and beleive me, most drug users will try anything once for a laugh if its cheap enough and avaliable. :Pokey:

I totally agree that decriminalising some drugs would work if appropriate regulation were put in place. People are always going to get, and try drugs legal or not so the minor 'offenders' should not be treated like criminals.

The 'gateway theroy' is correct. A % of people do try hard drugs due to the circles they become involved with in their quest for a solid supply of pot.

Decriminalising pot and making it an acceptable recreational drug for private use is in my opinion a posisive step but needs to be handled very carefully.

I would much rather my son one day visit a 'coffee shop' than a gang run tinny house.

In my short time I have known quite a few bad people and drug users. Seen illegal guns and 'deals' go down. I have never known a wife beating, child abusing person with an alcohol problem so as I see it from my experience there may be a greater drug problem in NZ than Alcohol problem but the Alocolics are doing more physical harm to the ones they love.

[MisterD]

"Regulated like alcohol"


Well at least tax-take covers some of the damage that it does...but consider the Euro 2000 Football championships.

England played Portugal in Eindhoven, (Netherlands, pot widely available) and lost...no violence. England played Germany in Charleroi (Belgium, strong beer widely available) and won...English and German fans fought running battles, riot squads, water cannon, etc etc.

[mowgli]

A high percentage of NZer's regularly break the speed limit. Would increasing the speed limit reduce the number of speeders? I doubt it. Motorists would still push the bounds. So what about having no speed limits at all? Would that make roads safer? Definitely not, because too many people (esp young) lack the experience and/or maturity to operate safely in an unregulated environment.

I reckon it's the same with drugs. What we're eally trying to do here is protect our kids from something which they lack the experience and/or maturity to deal with themselves. Once they get to our age then it's up to them. I don't care if my neighbour is a pothead so long as it doesn't have a detrimental effect on others. But while our kids are young and vulnerable they deserve protecting.

So how do you protect the young while letting the adults exercvise their own discretion? I'm sad to say but it sounds like regulation might just do it. The big question remains: what regulation? Alcohol regulations are a very poor example. Tobacco, not much better. I know there's an answer out there somewhere, but I can't see it yet.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Well at least tax-take covers some of the damage that it does...but consider the Euro 2000 Football championships.

England played Portugal in Eindhoven, (Netherlands, pot widely available) and lost...no violence. England played Germany in Charleroi (Belgium, strong beer widely available) and won...English and German fans fought running battles, riot squads, water cannon, etc etc.

doesnt that say more about the english and belgian fans than it does about the availability of like, you know, drugs and stuff.?

[alanzs]

Are you a drug user? :shifty:

You go make P or Heroin $1 a shot and there'll be a LOT MORE addicts. It's too dear and too hard to get for most and beleive me, most drug users will try anything once for a laugh if its cheap enough and avaliable. :Pokey:

I totally agree that decriminalising some drugs would work if appropriate regulation were put in place. People are always going to get, and try drugs legal or not so the minor 'offenders' should not be treated like criminals.

The 'gateway theroy' is correct. A % of people do try hard drugs due to the circles they become involved with in their quest for a solid supply of pot.

Decriminalising pot and making it an acceptable recreational drug for private use is in my opinion a posisive step but needs to be handled very carefully.

I would much rather my son one day visit a 'coffee shop' than a gang run tinny house.

In my short time I have known quite a few bad people and drug users. Seen illegal guns and 'deals' go down. I have never known a wife beating, child abusing person with an alcohol problem so as I see it from my experience there may be a greater drug problem in NZ than Alcohol problem but the Alocolics are doing more physical harm to the ones they love.

I don't do drugs, other than drinking a few beers now and then. :rolleyes:

I agree with you that I'd want my son and daughter to go to the coffee shop, as opposed to the tinny house. The DEA in the US, the largest drug enforcement agency in the world, has said, very quietly, in their own studies that the gateway theory; use pot, you'll do other drugs, is not accurate. I do agree that going to the gang tinny house would probably lead people to be more exposed to other drugs though. That's location oriented as opposed to chemical.

I personally think that being addicted to drugs isn't something I would ever want to be a slave to and, other than being an illness, can't understand why someone would do that to themselves. Look at the shitty teeth on those dope fiends! GROSS! :eek5: But, that said, I'd rather the addicts get it for free or super cheap so that they aren't ripping us all off to get their money to score. Not everyone who uses addictive drugs becomes an addict. Apparently, 20% will. Thats why every person in hospital and on morphine doesn't get addicted.

As bikers, we need to remember that some people think motorcycles (and rugby for that matter) should be outlawed, due to the high cost of the treatment required for accidents, etc. I had read that ~40% of all ACC claims were sports related. Ever gone to the A and E on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon? Full of broken, bruised sporties. There is a certain logic, albeit twisted at times, to it all, but I think it gets down to personal responsibility.

Trans fats and sugar kill millions of people every year through heart disease, diabetes, etc., but McDonald's and the local fish and chips are alive and well. When do these real killers become outlawed? Food for thought (pun intended). It will never happen, but as people are better educated, they choose to eat better. Thats why McDonald's promote their "healthy" foods, not their burgers, fries and super duper sized cokes... Most of us chose not to do drugs, even though we could, because we know better, legal or not.

All this talk of food has me hungry, maybe a Big Mac and a beer would suffice? :doh:
Again, great responses. :2thumbsup

[firefighter]

"Regulated like alcohol"

Oh how my sides hurt when I read that...regulated like alcohol - oh that's workign SO well eh!!:rolleyes:

THE worst drug we have.....:(

I wonder if the 'other' drugs were legalised and 'regulated' if we would have the same chaos??.

I'm on the fence pretty much here, obviously I don't smoke and it doesn't at all bother me that I can't, but I have to ask, in all honesty, why is weed worse than tobacco??? because you sit around laughing until your sides hurt?

[MisterD]

doesnt that say more about the english and belgian fans than it does about the availability of like, you know, drugs and stuff.?

England fans not trashing the place after losing...no, I'd say that speaks volumes for the effects of cannabis. There probably wasn't a mars bar for 100 miles in any direction either:2thumbsup

[scumdog]

I'm on the fence pretty much here, obviously I don't smoke and it doesn't at all bother me that I can't, but I have to ask, in all honesty, why is weed worse than tobacco??? because you sit around laughing until your sides hurt?

Meh, I wasn't comparing the two dude, I was talking about alcamahol, 'the cause of and the answer to all of our problems' as a certain gentleman once said... :apint::drinkup:

[madandy]

A high percentage of NZer's regularly break the speed limit. Would increasing the speed limit reduce the number of speeders? I doubt it. Motorists would still push the bounds. So what about having no speed limits at all? Would that make roads safer? Definitely not, because too many people (esp young) lack the experience and/or maturity to operate safely in an unregulated environment.

I reckon it's the same with drugs. What we're eally trying to do here is protect our kids from something which they lack the experience and/or maturity to deal with themselves. Once they get to our age then it's up to them. I don't care if my neighbour is a pothead so long as it doesn't have a detrimental effect on others. But while our kids are young and vulnerable they deserve protecting.

So how do you protect the young while letting the adults exercvise their own discretion? I'm sad to say but it sounds like regulation might just do it. The big question remains: what regulation? Alcohol regulations are a very poor example. Tobacco, not much better. I know there's an answer out there somewhere, but I can't see it yet.

Tobacco and alcohol require nothing but ID and money to purchase.
An endoresment to use pot/alcolhol/cigaretes, like a license may one day be employed to restrict the puchase of said drugs. That would push problem drinkers and smokers underground but then that underground already exists.


doesnt that say more about the english and belgian fans than it does about the availability of like, you know, drugs and stuff.?

It says to me that the Poms and Germans still hate each other after all these years.


I don't do drugs, other than drinking a few beers now and then. :rolleyes:

I agree with you that I'd want my son and daughter to go to the coffee shop, as opposed to the tinny house. The DEA in the US, the largest drug enforcement agency in the world, has said, very quietly, in their own studies that the gateway theory; use pot, you'll do other drugs, is not accurate. I do agree that going to the gang tinny house would probably lead people to be more exposed to other drugs though. That's location oriented as opposed to chemical.

I personally think that being addicted to drugs isn't something I would ever want to be a slave to and, other than being an illness, can't understand why someone would do that to themselves. Look at the shitty teeth on those dope fiends! GROSS! :eek5: But, that said, I'd rather the addicts get it for free or super cheap so that they aren't ripping us all off to get their money to score. Not everyone who uses addictive drugs becomes an addict. Apparently, 20% will. Thats why every person in hospital and on morphine doesn't get addicted.

As bikers, we need to remember that some people think motorcycles (and rugby for that matter) should be outlawed, due to the high cost of the treatment required for accidents, etc. I had read that ~40% of all ACC claims were sports related. Ever gone to the A and E on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon? Full of broken, bruised sporties. There is a certain logic, albeit twisted at times, to it all, but I think it gets down to personal responsibility.

Trans fats and sugar kill millions of people every year through heart disease, diabetes, etc., but McDonald's and the local fish and chips are alive and well. When do these real killers become outlawed? Food for thought (pun intended). It will never happen, but as people are better educated, they choose to eat better. Thats why McDonald's promote their "healthy" foods, not their burgers, fries and super duper sized cokes... Most of us chose not to do drugs, even though we could, because we know better, legal or not.

All this talk of food has me hungry, maybe a Big Mac and a beer would suffice? :doh:
Again, great responses. :2thumbsup

It goes way past visiting a tinny house. People after a frequent supply go beyond the $20 foil and head to the suppliers for larger amounts.
Addiction is what keeps people coming back for more and becoming more and more desperate.
Cigarette smokers know the feeling.

I don't think you get a very big dose of Morphine in Hospital do you. And the treatment is kept as brief as possible as long term use is addictive. My partner was on Morphine afer her C section last year and felt only mild pain releif. The druggies take much larger doses too.

It may be hard to understand as you've been smart enough not to walk that path but making hard drugs more available to those with habits is not going to solve anything at all. OK maybe they'll back off the crime to fund their habits but I beleive we'd have a larger number of people in the dire straights of drug hell.

[alanzs]

England fans not trashing the place after losing...no, I'd say that speaks volumes for the effects of cannabis. There probably wasn't a mars bar for 100 miles in any direction either:2thumbsup

One of the scariest things I've ever seen are the mobs of drunken British tourists outside the pubs in the Red Light district in Amsterdam, screaming, fighting in hordes, barfing and pissing on the ground.

Go near the coffee shops, everyone is mellow, no problems. :sleep:

[HenryDorsetCase]

DRUGS ARE GOOD BUT PEOPLE ARE FUCKING STUPID :cool:


There ya go, fixed that right up for you ;)

[slofox]

Criminal activity nonetheless, according to the law. :cool:

Not talking about criminality alanzs - merely correcting the language usage so that it says what it should say - coz I'm a picky bastard when it comes to linguistics.....

[slofox]

[QUOTE=alanzs;1637788]



"I had read that ~40% of all ACC claims were sports related. Ever gone to the A and E on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon? Full of broken, bruised sporties."

I had a major collision with another couple on the dance floor at Saturday night's competition - took all the force on the back of my neck - might have to get some treatment at the expense of ACC....maybe we should ban ballroom dancing as well.........:dodge:

[Flatcap]

"Regulated like alcohol"

Oh how my sides hurt when I read that...regulated like alcohol - oh that's working SO well eh!!:rolleyes:

THE worst drug we have.....:(

I wonder if the 'other' drugs were legalised and 'regulated' if we would have the same chaos??.

Nothing wrong with booze - it clears my arteries and makes me feel good.

[scumdog]

Nothing wrong with booze - it clears my arteries and makes me feel good.

Riiigghhhtttt......

[alanzs]

Not talking about criminality alanzs - merely correcting the language usage so that it says what it should say - coz I'm a picky bastard when it comes to linguistics.....

Yo bro, me be rather pedantic bout me usage of the lingo as well.
Does "anal retentive" have or need a dash? I always ponder that one.... :doh:

[Flatcap]

Riiigghhhtttt......

My point being there are positives and negatives of alcohol consumption.

For a few it causes problems and even death - the government attempts to cover this cost through excise.

The other side of the coin is that for the majority of alcohol consumers there are both physical and psychological health benefits of moderate consumption.

Booze isn't inherently evil

[alanzs]

Tobacco and alcohol require nothing but ID and money to purchase.
An endoresment to use pot/alcolhol/cigaretes, like a license may one day be employed to restrict the puchase of said drugs. That would push problem drinkers and smokers underground but then that underground already exists.

It says to me that the Poms and Germans still hate each other after all these years.

It goes way past visiting a tinny house. People after a frequent supply go beyond the $20 foil and head to the suppliers for larger amounts.
Addiction is what keeps people coming back for more and becoming more and more desperate.
Cigarette smokers know the feeling.

I don't think you get a very big dose of Morphine in Hospital do you. And the treatment is kept as brief as possible as long term use is addictive. My partner was on Morphine afer her C section last year and felt only mild pain releif. The druggies take much larger doses too.

It may be hard to understand as you've been smart enough not to walk that path but making hard drugs more available to those with habits is not going to solve anything at all. OK maybe they'll back off the crime to fund their habits but I beleive we'd have a larger number of people in the dire straights of drug hell.

I truly don't advocate drug abuse. I just think that prohibition isn't the answer as it just hasn't worked, as the gentleman in the article so eloquently stated. If people want to use addictive drugs knowing the dangers and get addicted, that's their (mental?) health issue. Just like people choose to ride two wheeled vehicles amongst crowded streets full of significantly larger four wheeled vehicles, even though they know it is life threatening.

With everything we know about tobacco addiction, being more addictive than heroin apparently, why would anyone in their right mind ever start? Maybe they are not in their right mind. There must be other issues which drive them to do it. Low self esteem, wanting to be accepted, I don't know, as addiction is not logical to me. Nobody forces someone to pick up and light that first smoke, or do heroin or P, but they do.

I agree that the thought of addiction is hell, but we all have to make personal choices. We are able to make choices through responsible information and education. The addicted already have the drugs they want, lets just take the profit out of it, so people (gangs, mafia, al qada, etc.), don't prey on their addiction. I am sure the international drug cartels which supply the heroin and other drugs don't want it to be legalized. A heroin addict is fully capable of working and living a "normal" functioning life, when they aren't robbing houses everyday to get the money they need to buy their medicine. This has been proven for years with methadone (heroin replacement) and heroin maintenance (where they are given their heroin by the government) programmes throughout the the world. Lets take the law enforcement and its ancillary industries out of it, so they can focus on other more substantial crimes.

Great responses! :clap:

[peasea]

DRUGS ARE GOOD :cool:

Some are excellent.

[alanzs]

Some are excellent.


I forget which ones though. I used to know, I think? Hmmm.... :shit:

[firefighter]

My point being there are positives and negatives of alcohol consumption.

For a few it causes problems and even death - the government attempts to cover this cost through excise.

The other side of the coin is that for the majority of alcohol consumers there are both physical and psychological health benefits of moderate consumption.

Booze isn't inherently evil

I dunno mate I wanted to die on thursday morning! I thought booze was pretty evil then!!! (obviously with shift work my weekends change days)

[scumdog]

I forget which ones though. I used to know, I think? Hmmm.... :shit:


I got as forgetful and as mad as I am completely without drugs - imagine what I'd be like if I'd used heaps of 'em??

[peasea]

I forget which ones though. I used to know, I think? Hmmm.... :shit:

Oh that forgetful thing is quite natural, it's called....um....

[alanzs]

I got as forgetful and as mad as I am completely without drugs - imagine what I'd be like if I'd used heaps of 'em??

I, obviously, enjoy a good discussion. Between work, wife, ex-wife, kids and their ongoing dramas, home, bikes, my life is complicated enough without using drugs.

Everyone talks about how easy they are to get. Back in California, I used to see cannabis dispensaries, but here, hell I wouldn't know where even start to look to get illegal drugs, but maybe I'm just square and old, I dunno? I'm a primary school teacher, so I guess I'm out of the loop drugwise. I do see some hot mums though, who get incredibly friendly at times. One asked me for private tutoring at her home just recently. :laugh:

I have the utmost of sympathy for those who are addicted and the families involved. There was a time when the person made a choice to start taking them, and they made the wrong choice. :doh:

[alanzs]

Oh that forgetful thing is quite natural, it's called....um....

See, I'm not, not.... whatever? What were we talking about anyways?

[rachprice]

I think the main issue is lack of ACCURATE education
Contrary to popular belief cannabis does NOT kill brain cells (although alcohol does) yet every time we were talked to about drugs at school it was pushed on us that weed kills brain cells.
A lot of people who talk about drugs don't have accurate knowledge of them.
I dont pretend to know what the answer is but surely there is something better than the current legislation?
And there are many medical uses for cannabis, I think that AT LEAST it should be available for medicinal use. You can get little devices that monitor the dose and frequency of use, that contain concentrated THC (active ingredient in cannabis), now where is the harm in this?
Oh and nicotine is not chemically more addictive than heroin though has massive psychological component.

[alanzs]

I think the main issue is lack of ACCURATE education
Contrary to popular belief cannabis does NOT kill brain cells (although alcohol does) yet every time we were talked to about drugs at school it was pushed on us that weed kills brain cells.
A lot of people who talk about drugs don't have accurate knowledge of them.
I dont pretend to know what the answer is but surely there is something better than the current legislation?
And there are many medical uses for cannabis, I think that AT LEAST it should be available for medicinal use. You can get little devices that monitor the dose and frequency of use, that contain concentrated THC (active ingredient in cannabis), now where is the harm in this?
Oh and nicotine is not chemically more addictive than heroin though has massive psychological component.

I agree with you 100%. Besides, at it's most basic level, freedom really is the issue. If I want to stick a needle full of poppy juice in my arm and get all fucked up, as long as I am not harming anyone or being a burden to society, why should anyone think that they have the "moral right" to tell me I cannot? Who made them GOD, the ever knowing, omnipotent one? Like they know what's best for me? How arrogant is that? But, we put up with it all the time. We so willingly go along with what the "authorities" say. There are people who will argue things which just are not true, but they don't take the time to think for themselves.

I tend to think the whole drug issue is nothing more than another method that we allow others to control us, and impede our ability to think, and forbid, dissent.
The "drug war" was started as a reaction to Mexican workers in the US who would come to the US and work for low wages back in the 1920's (the Bracero program). After alcohol prohibition failed miserably, giving rise to organized crime, the US government had thousands of Prohibition agents who would have been unemployed. Amazingly, marijuana (a term used by the Mexican workers), cocaine and heroin were made illegal and rigorously enforced, ensuring more employment, and arrests of the Mexicans and other ethnic groups. The Cannabis plant itself wasn't made illegal until the Nixon administration in the 1970's. Most people have no clue why all the drugs are illegal. Most don't think about it.

Back then, like now, creating fear in the populace is a sure fire way of staying in office. Nobody will vote for someone who is soft on crime. Fear, exploited masterfully by the current US administration, does keep you in office. Ask GW Bush if he agrees on that one.


Why is it that the drugs that make you "dumb" like alcohol, valium, prozac, are all legal, but the drugs that may make you think; Cannabis, LSD, MDMA (Ecstasy), Mescaline are all illegal? I believe that a controlling government can't have its citizens thinking too much, or they'd lose power.

"You may call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..."

[Bikernereid]

So many people would be so fookin dull if they or you weren't on drugs!!

[firefighter]

I agree with you 100%. Besides, at it's most basic level, freedom really is the issue. If I want to stick a needle full of poppy juice in my arm and get all fucked up, as long as I am not harming anyone or being a burden to society, why should anyone think that they have the "moral right" to tell me I cannot? Who made them GOD, the ever knowing, omnipotent one? Like they know what's best for me? How arrogant is that? But, we put up with it all the time. We so willingly go along with what the "authorities" say. There are people who will argue things which just are not true, but they don't take the time to think for themselves.


Are you a teenager? people on drugs DONT leave others alone, never have, never will, they nearly always lead (i'm talking hard drugs here) to crime, be it theft or whatever, to help support the habit, according to your logic, we may as well be able to kill each other, God apparently gave us weapons too....., it's endless, the reason drugs are illegal is because people on hard drugs effect others 99% of the time, and I may or may not know this from 1st as well as 2nd hand experience :shutup:, same reason drink driving is illegal, there's a good chance you'll get home safely, also a good chance of killing someone, the drugs are the same, they totally ruin lives, and theyr'e illegal, imagine if they weren't, imagine how f*d our society would be then, the powers that be generally aren't out there to ruin things, or take away fun, laws are made to protect us from some asshole with a machette cutting off our hands because some dickhead decided it would be cool to not sleep for a week.....

[firefighter]

I think the main issue is lack of ACCURATE education
Contrary to popular belief cannabis does NOT kill brain cells (although alcohol does) yet every time we were talked to about drugs at school it was pushed on us that weed kills brain cells.
A lot of people who talk about drugs don't have accurate knowledge of them.
I dont pretend to know what the answer is but surely there is something better than the current legislation?
And there are many medical uses for cannabis, I think that AT LEAST it should be available for medicinal use. You can get little devices that monitor the dose and frequency of use, that contain concentrated THC (active ingredient in cannabis), now where is the harm in this?
Oh and nicotine is not chemically more addictive than heroin though has massive psychological component.

Yep, but it has been proven to have twice the amount of tar in it compared with tobacco, i'm not for or against the stuff, just know whats in it, check it on google.It's not nearly as innocent as I at a younger age percieved it to be, and I saw one of my stoner mates from high school recently, still on it, thick as shit, and when I took it so was I.you can't tell me the shit doesn't hurt your brain at all.....just because there's no "scientific" evidence, doesn't mean you ignore what's right in front of your face, it does make people simple.

[jrandom]

Most people have no clue why all the drugs are illegal. Most don't think about it.

Best point so far in this thread.

Most people, without realising it, reason along the line "Things are the way they are because that's how they are".

Also, to paraphrase the cop who ticketed me yesterday for doing 120kph along the plains on the Napier-Taupo road, "Doesn't matter whether or not it's safe; it's illegal."

Good luck getting the Average Citizen to consider the merits of social policies independently from the current legal situation. Most people aren't capable of questioning authority to that extent.

Now, to all of you reading this thread and feeling righteously indignant, yet impotent, might I direct you to the only political party (http://www.alcp.org.nz/) in New Zealand advocating sensible cannabis law reform?

Labour's a bunch of corrupt slimeballs, and National's a bunch of bumbling fools. Consider giving your party vote this election to an organisation that fights (when it's not sitting around baked) for a clear goal that you agree with.

:niceone:

[RC1]

must be time to ROLL up me thinks :banana:

[scumdog]

Now, to all of you reading this thread and feeling righteously indignant, yet impotent, might I direct you to the only political party (http://www.alcp.org.nz/) in New Zealand advocating sensible cannabis law reform?

:niceone:

I'd give 'em more time if they foccused on the alcohol related problems instead of wanting to have cannabis 'legalised'

As I've said before: We have a shark in the pool and somebody wants to release a barracuda as well? -Because it's not as dangerous as the shark??:blink:

[jrandom]

I'd give 'em more time if they foccused on the alcohol related problems instead of wanting to have cannabis 'legalised'

Maybe if cannabis was legal, commercially quality-controlled, and cheaper, folk would spend more time baked and happy and less time drunk and angry?


As I've said before: We have a shark in the pool and somebody wants to release a barracuda as well?

Flawed analogy.

The barracuda's already in the pool, and it'll always be in the pool - this is a question of taming it, fencing it off and selling tickets to see it instead of pretending that it's not there and then making futile posturings about getting rid of it every time people go swimming and get bitten.

[scumdog]

Flawed analogy.

The barracuda's already in the pool, and it'll always be in the pool - this is a question of taming it, fencing it off and selling tickets to see it instead of pretending that it's not there and then making futile posturings about getting rid of it every time people go swimming and get bitten.

OK, just to make it simple - there a CAGED barracuda in thepool and some people get into the cage with it with quite a few being bitten......and certain people want to release it.

And a shitload of my experiences with hooter-users is that a lot of 'em cuddle up to Mr Beams product when they get stoned, it's not often "I do weed so I don't touch alcamahol" old boy..

[jrandom]

And a shitload of my experiences with hooter-users is that a lot of 'em cuddle up to Mr Beams product when they get stoned, it's not often "I do weed so I don't touch alcamahol" old boy..

Well, I suppose so.

Personally, if I mix 'em, it's a fast half-hour countdown to spending the rest of the night getting nudged in the ribs for snoring too loudly.

:pinch:

Do you think that allowing more personal responsibility and ensuring swift and fair penalties for abuse of that responsibility would be a good approach?

One imagines violent, abusive drunk-and-stoned sorts quickly ending up out of circulation in more efficient prisons than we have at the moment, and useless layabout wastrels quickly discovering that drugs imply starvation.

Unfortunately, it seems almost impossible to find a political party that combines the above approaches without also advocating freakish and unworkable economic policy fantasies (Libertarianz, of course, being Exhibit A).

[Mikkel]

I'd give 'em more time if they foccused on the alcohol related problems instead of wanting to have cannabis 'legalised'

As I've said before: We have a shark in the pool and somebody wants to release a barracuda as well? -Because it's not as dangerous as the shark??:blink:

So you'd propose prohibiting alcohol?

The main underlying problem with these things, as I see it, is that by prohibiting a commodity which is desired by many and needed by a few you create an oppotunity for the black market economy.

There's no doubt whatsoever that those who fear legalisation of drugs the most would be criminals who make their living by providing a service - that the lawabiding society does not - and charges a premium for it.

You cannot prevent the population from taking drugs through prohibition. Consider a place like Thailand where some of the most draconian laws regarding drug trafficking are in place. Still, I don't think anyone who has actually travelled in Thailand would disagree with me if I state that, it is actually easier to get just about any drug, you could imagine, there.

Furthermore - when we're talking drugs (alcohol included) distributed by a blackmarket network you run the additional risk of impure goods. In the case of alcohol you may risk methanol traces, when it comes to ecstacy you face the risk of dubious chemical compounds in the pills, etc, etc. This fact helps to make the drugs much much more dangerous than if you actually knew what was in them and thus able to make an informed choice about what you consume.

Ultimately, drug distribution by a blackmarket network causes the price of the drugs to go up. The manufacturers and distributors are taking inherent risks and expect to be compensated for this. As such the market price for illegal drugs is much higher than it would have to be. A person who is addicted to a substance will still find a way to pay the price for the needed drugs - elevated prices just means that the addict has to commit more crime to fund the habit. I don't think that there's a clear picture of how much petty crime is related to drugs in one way or the other - but you can be certain it's a lot!

Education,
Information
and openmindedness - with that we might be able to solve the problem.

[alanzs]

Are you a teenager? people on drugs DONT leave others alone, never have, never will, they nearly always lead (i'm talking hard drugs here) to crime, be it theft or whatever, to help support the habit, according to your logic, we may as well be able to kill each other, God apparently gave us weapons too....., it's endless, the reason drugs are illegal is because people on hard drugs effect others 99% of the time, and I may or may not know this from 1st as well as 2nd hand experience :shutup:, same reason drink driving is illegal, there's a good chance you'll get home safely, also a good chance of killing someone, the drugs are the same, they totally ruin lives, and theyr'e illegal, imagine if they weren't, imagine how f*d our society would be then, the powers that be generally aren't out there to ruin things, or take away fun, laws are made to protect us from some asshole with a machette cutting off our hands because some dickhead decided it would be cool to not sleep for a week.....

Be honest, did you even take the time to read the first post of this thread? What about it isn't clear to you? What part doesn't make sense?

I'll quote part of the article for you:
The mission of the criminal justice system should always be to protect us from one another and not from ourselves. That means that drug users who drive a motor vehicle or commit other crimes while under the influence of these drugs would continue to be held criminally responsible for their actions, with strict penalties. But that said, the system should not be used to protect us from ourselves.

Ending drug prohibition, taxing and regulating drugs and spending tax dollars to treat addiction and dependency are the approaches that many of the world's industrialized countries are taking. Those approaches are ones that work.

And, no, I'm not a teenager, but even as a teenager, I was taught to think and take responsibility for my actions. :calm:

[scumdog]

Why should my tax-dollars be spent 'helping' addicts who (mostly) knew the possible outcome of the soiree into the drug-world???

I doubt many will have thought "Shit, I never knew THAT was a possible outcome" as their life goes down the gurgler and their hand is constantly being held out..

[jrandom]

I doubt many will have thought "Shit, I never knew THAT was a possible outcome" as their life goes down the gurgler...

Now, now, let's not get carried away.

Most would, I think, agree that legalising drugs like heroin and methamphetamine would be a very dodgy idea.

It's a shame when people use that as a strawman argument against cannabis law reform, though.

:nono:

[alanzs]

Maybe if cannabis was legal, commercially quality-controlled, and cheaper, folk would spend more time baked and happy and less time drunk and angry?

Flawed analogy.

The barracuda's already in the pool, and it'll always be in the pool - this is a question of taming it, fencing it off and selling tickets to see it instead of pretending that it's not there and then making futile posturings about getting rid of it every time people go swimming and get bitten.

Great discussions this thread has provoked. I think a lot of people probably didn't read the first post of the thread, they just saw the sensational title of the post and have reacted.

The issue of drugs is like the emperor who has no clothes on. We all can see it, we all know it's not working, but nobody wants to say anything to stop it.

There is an interesting book about the "drug war," called "The Emperor Has No Clothes" by Jack Herer, a famous pro-sense approach activist rallying against the no-sense approach most governments have taken in the challenge of drug abuse.

Thanks for your comments.... :niceone:

[rachprice]

Yep, but it has been proven to have twice the amount of tar in it compared with tobacco, i'm not for or against the stuff, just know whats in it, check it on google.It's not nearly as innocent as I at a younger age percieved it to be, and I saw one of my stoner mates from high school recently, still on it, thick as shit, and when I took it so was I.you can't tell me the shit doesn't hurt your brain at all.....just because there's no "scientific" evidence, doesn't mean you ignore what's right in front of your face, it does make people simple.

Where is the evidence that it makes you thick as shit though? He could just thick as shit naturally! Things may be associative but not causative. It has however been proven to affect the short term memory with heavy use, though this is reversible.
I tend to base my opinions on facts and not perceptions
And by the way google isn't the most reliable source in the world
And yes it does have alot of tar and if but if you take out the smoking route it actually has anti-cancer properties.

[rachprice]

Great discussions this thread has provoked. I think a lot of people probably didn't read the first post of the thread, they just saw the sensational title of the post and have reacted.

The issue of drugs is like the emperor who has no clothes on. We all can see it, we all know it's not working, but nobody wants to say anything to stop it.

There is an interesting book about the "drug war," called "The Emperor Has No Clothes" by Jack Herer, a famous pro-sense approach activist rallying against the no-sense approach most governments have taken in the challenge of drug abuse.

Thanks for your comments.... :niceone:

I admit that was probably me :whistle:! Just reacted...i did kind of skim first though. Its one of those topics though that divides people!

[98tls]

Now, now, let's not get carried away.

Most would, I think, agree that legalising drugs like heroin and methamphetamine would be a very dodgy idea.

It's a shame when people use that as a straw man argument against cannabis law reform, though.

:nono: Yea legalise why not,whilst we are at lets look after all the bludgers and get Social Welfare (or has it had yet another name change) to hand out bags to the underpriviledged,you can bet your boots in many cases there (our) money wouldnt go on meat and veg if they could buy a bag of dope down the local 4 square for medicinal/spiritual purposes.

[ambler]

OK, just to make it simple - there a CAGED barracuda in thepool and some people get into the cage with it with quite a few being bitten......and certain people want to release it.
But let's remember that even after the barracuda is released from the cage, it can't just go swimming around the pool and bite people as you're implying. Sensible people who keep their distance from it will remain as safe as they were when it was caged.

[rachprice]

Yea legalise why not,whilst we are at lets look after all the bludgers and get Social Welfare (or has it had yet another name change) to hand out bags to the underpriviledged,you can bet your boots in many cases there (our) money wouldnt go on meat and veg if they could buy a bag of dope down the local 4 square for medicinal/spiritual purposes.

If it were to be allowed for mecidinal purposes I doubt you could get it at a 4 square, it would be strictly controlled!
But I agree that the dole/social welfare needs to be re-addressed, my mum taught at/I went to, a decile one (poorest you can get) school in levin and on dole day you would see the parents carrying 24 packs of booze yet their children wouldn't have breakfast or lunch all week!
Im not sure changing legislation on cannabis would alter the patterns of the people you mention though, they are probably using it no matter what the legislation is.

[Mikkel]

Yea legalise why not,whilst we are at lets look after all the bludgers and get Social Welfare (or has it had yet another name change) to hand out bags to the underpriviledged,you can bet your boots in many cases there (our) money wouldnt go on meat and veg if they could buy a bag of dope down the local 4 square for medicinal/spiritual purposes.

Are you implying that only those who are underpriviledged are doing drugs?

[98tls]

Are you implying that only those who are underpriviledged are doing drugs? Never,it seems lazy fuckers get the same rights in this country as the rest of us,it would be so un pc for one group to miss out and as social welfare dishes out for everything else they might just as well give out free bags with the weekly dole check that way it wouldnt eat into there booze money.

[Niterider]

Original quote from Alanzs :"The mission of the criminal justice system should always be to protect us from one another and not from ourselves. That means that drug users who drive a motor vehicle or commit other crimes while under the influence of these drugs would continue to be held criminally responsible for their actions, with strict penalties. But that said, the system should not be used to protect us from ourselves."

I agree. Just as no one can ban or stop or punish :spanking: suicide, it is as stupid to try and protect people from themselves. I would add though - bring back death penalty for murder or if a druggie kills any person by any means, weather by driving a car into a croud or whacking someone over the head. That will cause lots of people thinking twice before they buy the crap and we won't need to sponsor their jail life until they die of old age. If there are no buyers, problem solved!!!!:niceone:

[Niterider]

Oh , btw, as soon as you have a criminal record, NO MORE HUMAN RIGHTS FOR YOU!!! You screwed your chances yourself!!!!!

I say, let's vote Leighton Smith from NewstalkZB into power and see a few things change BIG TIME in this country. I don't agree with all his ideas, but definately far more than the pc government.

[Mikkel]

Never,it seems lazy fuckers get the same rights in this country as the rest of us,it would be so un pc for one group to miss out and as social welfare dishes out for everything else they might just as well give out free bags with the weekly dole check that way it wouldnt eat into there booze money.

Are you, by this statement, implying that "lazy fuckers" shouldn't have the same rights as everybody else?

[scumdog]

But let's remember that even after the barracuda is released from the cage, it can't just go swimming around the pool and bite people as you're implying. Sensible people who keep their distance from it will remain as safe as they were when it was caged.

Hah!
Your argument fell over as soon as I saw the word 'sensible'.!!

Sadly the world ain't overburdened with 'sensible' people - especially when it comes to drug consumtion..

[slofox]

I do see some hot mums though, who get incredibly friendly at times. One asked me for private tutoring at her home just recently. :laugh: :

Damn! That never happened to me when I was teaching.......

[alanzs]

Damn! That never happened to me when I was teaching.......

Times they are a changing....<_<

[candor]

The state of the law seems to be academic. Drug problem in countries waging full on war on drugs. Drug problem of equal size also in countries like ours with official harm minimisation policiies.

Comparing NZ to the States is invalid. Their Ministry of health would not put out how to do it safely guides entitled variously
"P - its your choice"
"cannabis - its your choice"
"heroin - its your choice" .... but ours would and does - seeming to have little awareness of the law of the land. What next "rape - it's your choice

My cousin here with dreads has never been hassled. When he moved to the States he was told by many concerned people he had to change his look... or there would be heat. NZ is liberal, with an official policy not to prosecute for small amounts of dope. IMO legalisers (especially angry young university men) need to do some volunteer service abroad to get some perspective on what social issues actually are big deals.

[Toaster]

"Regulated like alcohol"

Oh how my sides hurt when I read that...regulated like alcohol - oh that's working SO well eh!!:rolleyes:

THE worst drug we have.....:(

I wonder if the 'other' drugs were legalised and 'regulated' if we would have the same chaos??.

Agreed and well said, if some of these critics got off their armchairs and came out with the cops on the wee hours of the drinking nights, they'd realise just how much crime e.g. disorder, assaults, robberies and domestic violence are as a direct result of the "regulated" drug called alcohol. It's a huge cost to the taxpayer through time in the courts, police time, hospitals, ACC and insurance claims (which pushes up everyones premiums) etc etc.

I am sure everyone can name many a time they have done really stupid things when they had a few drinks too many. I sure have!

[davereid]

As long as there is a demand, there will be supply.

And the tighter the restrictions, the more profit to be made by the suppliers, so the inevitable will (has ?) occured.

We are sensibly ignoring the question as to "WHY there is a demand" - ie why do some humans need to be stoned to enjoy life.

The next question has to be "How can we minimise risk to the non drug taking section of the community"

The last question to ask is "how do we reduce risk to the drug user"

Reducing the risk to the non drug taking section of the community has been attempted by prohibition.

Predictably it has backfired.

"P" exists as a direct result of prohibition. Its a nasty drug, both for the user, and the community its made in.

The reason its made, is simple. Its very easy to make.

The process is childs play. Obtain ephedrine or a close relative. Mix with phosphorus, or phosphoric acid or even match heads, and iodine. Heat, dry, go and kill people.

You will also make hydroiodic acid, phosphine gas and an explosive called diphosphine.

The point is, if safer drugs that gave the same buzz were legally available there would be NO DEMAND for the real nasty ones.

I don't care if you want to drink/smoke/snort your way to heaven.
I do care when you exhibit your addiction in front of my grandkids.
I really care when you commits crimes to afford your habit.
I really care when criminal gangs get rich because of your habit.

IMHO the solution to at least the last two is legal access to less dangerous drugs.

[scumdog]

The point is, if safer drugs that gave the same buzz were legally available there would be NO DEMAND for the real nasty ones.

Rubbish.

People will always want to 'explore' and young people revel in doing stuff that is 'dangerous' and illegal.

So if you could find a 'safer' drug that gave the same buzz (as 'P'?) legally you would have even more people using that drug than would normally take any drug.

And you would still end up with a fair proportion using 'P' because of the perceived 'coolness' of it for the reasons I mentioned in my first paragraph.

After all, when Party Pills were legal there were shitloads of kids taking them - but there were also the hardcore ones still using Ritalin, 'P' and whatever else they could get their hands on - and some were shooting up with the 'safe' BZP too.

[alanzs]

Just tick the leaf!

[carver]

we should toatally end it.

its your body, its your life

[alanzs]

Mexico and Argentian recently legalized possession of very small amounts of ALL drugs. The Argentina supreme court said that to deny a person the right to use substances they chose to use is a violation of their rights, as a human being. Good on them! Maybe this will be the beginning of the end of the US led, never ending war on drugs. Personal freedom is the issue...

[paddy]

Wow, that was a thread dredge. But seeing as the thread is dredged - why is everything a "War" nowadays. Except for the things that could rightly be called a "War" which now seem to be called "Conflicts". Somebody answer me that. :-)

[Laxi]

Wow, that was a thread dredge. But seeing as the thread is dredged - why is everything a "War" nowadays. Except for the things that could rightly be called a "War" which now seem to be called "Conflicts". Somebody answer me that. :-)

would you prefer we go back to "police actions"? :bleh::rofl:

[paddy]

would you prefer we go back to "police actions"? :bleh::rofl:

LoL. I don't think we need "Proper Nouns" for everything. Lets use verbs: policing. Or, the police are focusing on drugs. Or we've formed a department to specialise in drug interdiction. Anyway, this is a "War On Semantics" that I will never win so I should just quit while I'm behind. :-)

[Indiana_Jones]

Triumphs rock.

-Indy

[Laxi]

Triumphs rock.

-Indy

random:first:

[Tone165]

As long as there is a demand, there will be supply.

And the tighter the restrictions, the more profit to be made by the suppliers, so the inevitable will (has ?) occured.

We are sensibly ignoring the question as to "WHY there is a demand" - ie why do some humans need to be stoned to enjoy life.

The next question has to be "How can we minimise risk to the non drug taking section of the community"

The last question to ask is "how do we reduce risk to the drug user"

Reducing the risk to the non drug taking section of the community has been attempted by prohibition.

Predictably it has backfired.

"P" exists as a direct result of prohibition. Its a nasty drug, both for the user, and the community its made in.

The reason its made, is simple. Its very easy to make.

The process is childs play. Obtain ephedrine or a close relative. Mix with phosphorus, or phosphoric acid or even match heads, and iodine. Heat, dry, go and kill people.

You will also make hydroiodic acid, phosphine gas and an explosive called diphosphine.

The point is, if safer drugs that gave the same buzz were legally available there would be NO DEMAND for the real nasty ones.

I don't care if you want to drink/smoke/snort your way to heaven.
I do care when you exhibit your addiction in front of my grandkids.
I really care when you commits crimes to afford your habit.
I really care when criminal gangs get rich because of your habit.

IMHO the solution to at least the last two is legal access to less dangerous drugs.

Couldn't have put it better!

If half the money wasted by authorities making drug trade more profitable was spent on education and treatment.........there might not be such a problem!

[SPman]

. Why would anyone want to deny someone who is dying relief, no matter what chemical form it takes? Compassion is what it's about.

I had a friend whose father was dying of cancer (many years ago) and the doctor wouldn't even prescribe morphine for the pain! He might become an addict, he says!!!! Callous prick! The poor sod died of a heart attack from the immense pain he was suffering! May the Dr writhe in hell for eternity!
Governments and most authorities will mouth off about compassion but only apply it, if votes or positive approval ratings are involved! Otherwise, they couldn't give a shit about you, me, morality, compassion, truth, getting along together or most any sensible rules of living!
Generally, they are self centred, egotistical, common sensically bereft, shit heads!
eg, Singapore & Malaysia, where they execute small time drug pushers, but the big boys involved in the real money have government connections and get away scot free! - ie seem to be "tough on drugs" by picking on small time, easy targets,whilst those who do the real damage and make the big money carry on , untouched!
Compassion? From Governments? Fat fucking chance!

[Pixie]

Its a little hard to believe 42% of our total population, are regular smokers!! That's just under 1/2 the population (men, women and children), "ye right"! I can accept 42% have used at one time or the other!!

But that said? Make it legal, produce what we need, tax the shit out of it, and lessen the tax on petrol!!!

I can.It explains why Kiwis are a bunch of hippy fuckwits

[scumdog]

Mexico and Argentian recently legalized possession of very small amounts of ALL drugs. The Argentina supreme court said that to deny a person the right to use substances they chose to use is a violation of their rights, as a human being. Good on them! Maybe this will be the beginning of the end of the US led, never ending war on drugs. Personal freedom is the issue...

Good on them:rolleyes:.

And they can pick up the pieces of their own fucked-up lives when it all turns to crap.

Cos buggered if I want to see taxes getting used to 'rehabilitate' some tosser that wanted to excercise their 'human rights' and try the drugs that fucked them up.:Pokey:

[paddy]

I had a friend whose father was dying of cancer (many years ago) and the doctor wouldn't even prescribe morphine for the pain! He might become an addict, he says!!!! Callous prick!

Firstly, I'm sorry to hear about your fathers friend. Secondly I have some thoughts about the doctors behaviour:

* It's very common practice to give high dose Morphine to cancer patients in palliative care.
* If you are going to die - who cares if you are addicted to Morphine.
* There's plenty of research that demonstrates that, even in very high doses, where the Morphine dose is titrated (matched) to the level of pain there is minimal physiological addiction.

I'd want the Morphine myself. Doesn't sound like a brilliant doctor. There may be more to the story - but I would complain to the Health and Disability Commissioner. It doesn't cost you anything. He will investigate and take any necessary prosecution steps. Sort of like he was your "free" lawyer (except his interest is the truth rather than proving your case at all costs).

[Spyke]

Rubbish.

People will always want to 'explore' and young people revel in doing stuff that is 'dangerous' and illegal.




if a drug that was legal and really good no kid in their right mind would go against the law just for the sense of rebelling when they could have a better drug without the hooks.

It is funny though, we have a drug (alcohol) causing sooooo many problems in society, and its accepted as legal. I don't believe because its legal that it makes it any better, i believe its because of how the drug effects you. We have a legal drug that can make you really irrational, act out your emotions plus alter them and make you do stuff you wouldn't. You can OD on it easily (well if your a binge drinker which is perfectly acceptable in a legal status atm) and yet they say its fine to use when ever you want once your 18! sick just sick. A bad choice of a legal drug maybe?

While on the other hand you have a drug thats calms you and brings out the funny and it's completely illeagal meaning you can get a criminal record for using a less dangerous drug that causes less greif to others and if 42% of nz have used it, comparing it to alchol crime stats (if it effected people the same way as alcohol which it doesn't obviously) would mean that pot related offences should account for around half the amount of offences that alcohol does, but it doesn't. yet its illegal and alcohol is legal.

I've tryed both amazingly :spanking: I'm not 18, and comparing the two I was a lot more "wild" drinking alcohol than smoking pot, in fact i wasn't wild at all on pot but more aware of my surroundings and took everything with caution plus a very amazing awareness for nature, there was a chainsaw working away causing noise pollution to the lovely sounds of the tui and the bell bird. Hmmmmm I think I'll join a bird watching group and save the kakapo instead of throwing bottles in the gutter and becoming a thug.

pot may effect people differently but so does alcohol so at this time in my life I see this comparison as amazing and funny at the same time. Saying that why don't we all live without drugs and get on the natural highs of life, way betterer. :headbang:

long live freedom, i'm off for a ride :cool:

FTUL (Fuck the useless laws)? :rolleyes:

yours truely

spyke

[Hans]

The social consequences of drug abuse are too great for decriminalisation IMO. I think the NZ approach is too slanted towards policing and agree with Mikkel that education/information is the key to balancing the scale.

The social consequences mostly are the result of criminalisation. That's the issue.

[peasea]

Good on them:rolleyes:.

And they can pick up the pieces of their own fucked-up lives when it all turns to crap.

Cos buggered if I want to see taxes getting used to 'rehabilitate' some tosser that wanted to excercise their 'human rights' and try the drugs that fucked them up.:Pokey:

Unless your quack administers them right?
Ask MJ about that.

[Hans]

Good on them:rolleyes:.

And they can pick up the pieces of their own fucked-up lives when it all turns to crap.

Cos buggered if I want to see taxes getting used to 'rehabilitate' some tosser that wanted to excercise their 'human rights' and try the drugs that fucked them up.:Pokey:

Like that doesn't already happen now.

[onearmedbandit]

Good on them:rolleyes:.

And they can pick up the pieces of their own fucked-up lives when it all turns to crap.

Cos buggered if I want to see taxes getting used to 'rehabilitate' some tosser that wanted to excercise their 'human rights' and try the drugs that fucked them up.:Pokey:

I take it you're talking about alcohol. Must be cos most of the violence I read about in the paper seems to be "alcohol-fueled".

[scumdog]

I take it you're talking about alcohol. Must be cos most of the violence I read about in the paper seems to be "alcohol-fueled".

Not QUITE 100% true, quite a few have also consumed 'something else' as well as the booze. (from my experience)

So imagine 'recreational drugs' being allowed out there at the same level of 'control' that is on alcohol.

Some people are fuckwits BEFORE drinking/smoking whatever so it would only enhance the carnage.

Ban alcohol AND drugs and I'd wouldn't give a shit.

[onearmedbandit]

True, the combination of recreational drugs can cause some people to lose it. However I myself in my extensive experience have never come across someone violent solely from smoking weed. Alcohol on the other hand...

[scumdog]

True, the combination of recreational drugs can cause some people to lose it. However I myself in my extensive experience have never come across someone violent solely from smoking weed. Alcohol on the other hand...

I agree, if they only had weed - they don't get stroppy. (hungry and lazy maybe but not violent)

[Jonno.]

A large number of New Zealanders smoke pot. It's a fact.
Here is my arguement

Currently:
Drugs from gangs -> people
Money to gangs <- people

How it could be
Drugs from govt -> people
Tax and money to govt <- people

No one (sane) wants to legalise meth or heroin.

Why are we putting money in the hands of gangs and people who do illicit things for a living (ie growing marijuana)? Obviously there is a lot more to it than that but to me an increase in pot smokers is a lot better for this country then continue to fund gangs/drug dealers. I think you'll also find if you do this you will see a reduction in harder drugs due to people not going to drug dealers.

Alcohol was once prohibited. Does anyone want that to come back?

[P38]

Interestingly enough a recent survey has found that most recent surveys cannot be trusted because they are


Made Up!

[Brian d marge]

there is a government place in england producing high grade hydroponics , something like 65 tons a years

oooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh h

:doobey::drinknsin

Stephen

[gatch]

The "war on druuuuugs" is making everyone money, the people are getting shafted but the cats in charge don't give a fuck, same old story..


If half the money wasted by authorities making drug trade more profitable was spent on education and treatment.........there might not be such a problem!

Spot on my man. You can't make a rational decision when you don't have all the facts, being lied to about why its bad and why its still illegal doesn't do anyone any favors except for those profiting from its continued trade.


there is a government place in england producing high grade hydroponics , something like 65 tons a years

oooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh h

:doobey::drinknsin

Stephen

65 billion foils.. Puts the local tinny houses to shame aye :D