Does drug prohibition put the police in danger and harm the public?

[Edbear]

agreed... but that's not the sort of education I was talking about... those that are already out of school and using/abusing will find their own path... like you say there's fook all we can do about that and agree that you can't fix everyone over night... I wouldn't dare try it... and if they're enjoying it that much, TV ain't gonna make a difference... need a few xbox games to get the idea across lol...

The education i'm talking about is 13:30 on a friday afternoon, skin up, get the kids round the back of the bikeshed, quick smoke (Cannabis only for now, an experiment as to the effectiveness of the education if you like) and then back into the classroom for Whiteys, giggles and a discussion to acsertain what was here before space existed , ok a discussion as to what they're feeling... When it comes to "drugs", there's no substitute for experience (personal experience that is)... but that's what i'd like to see happen...

I would hope that real life education would allow for better judgement calls...

Everyone knows smoking is bad for your health...

I guess what REALLY gets me confused is that if I consume any drug, then go on to harm nobody other than myself, what reason is there to say I've done wrong?

That is the bit I really struggle with when it comes to drug laws, similarly to how I struggle with speeding rules. I can't feel bad about breaking them, as I am hurting no-one in the process, unlike say, if I stole something, or hurt someone.

If I was under the influence of something and caused harm, then that would be a different story however, but then I've hurt/harmed someone.

See my post 112 above. It explains your reasoning.

[=cJ=]

Everyone knows smoking is bad for your health...



See my post 112 above. It explains your reasoning.

Yep, so you're saying laws are made for some "greater good". I'll assume this is the case, then run with why I disagree with this.

Firstly, and I guess at the core of why I don't like a lot of laws is that they require some trust in a politician (or political system, albeit with "expert" advice) who has drawn an arbitrary limit on a value (e.g. speed, level of intoxication, relative harm of a substance) which is then enforced in a draconian manner (e.g. our current speeding, drug, or alcohol laws).

Firstly, this requires trust in politicians to make decisions, and I am deeply uncomfortable with leaving decisions in my life up to someone I have no trust in. However, putting this personal dislike aside for a second, there are other (I hope more rational) reasons I am uncomfortable with drug, speeding and similar laws.

I guess I fail to see how the arbitrary enforcement of any variable factor can be regarded as successful. As a personal example, I wouldn't put myself in control of a vehicle after more than a can of beer, although I would to the best of my understanding, be under the legal limit for alcohol. Am I committing a crime by driving after drinking a can of beer?

I see a system which tolerates the harm of consuming alcohol and tobacco yet prosecutes and persecutes the (arguably) less harmful consumption of cannabis as one which is at worst hypocritical, at best, flawed or misguided.

Is this flawed thinking?

Would having a system which prosecutes consequences rather than actions be more effective?

[mashman]

Everyone knows smoking is bad for your health...

a schmorgers board of choice then, including cookies and cakes. healthy of course who knows, you may cut out smoking completely? tis ALL in the education no?

[Edbear]

Yep, so you're saying laws are made for some "greater good". I'll assume this is the case, then run with why I disagree with this.

Firstly, and I guess at the core of why I don't like a lot of laws is that they require some trust in a politician (or political system, albeit with "expert" advice) who has drawn an arbitrary limit on a value (e.g. speed, level of intoxication, relative harm of a substance) which is then enforced in a draconian manner (e.g. our current speeding, drug, or alcohol laws).

Firstly, this requires trust in politicians to make decisions, and I am deeply uncomfortable with leaving decisions in my life up to someone I have no trust in. However, putting this personal dislike aside for a second, there are other (I hope more rational) reasons I am uncomfortable with drug, speeding and similar laws.

I guess I fail to see how the arbitrary enforcement of any variable factor can be regarded as successful. As a personal example, I wouldn't put myself in control of a vehicle after more than a can of beer, although I would to the best of my understanding, be under the legal limit for alcohol. Am I committing a crime by driving after drinking a can of beer?

I see a system which tolerates the harm of consuming alcohol and tobacco yet prosecutes and persecutes the (arguably) less harmful consumption of cannabis as one which is at worst hypocritical, at best, flawed or misguided.

Is this flawed thinking?

Would having a system which prosecutes consequences rather than actions be more effective?

What I do agree with you on is the current status of alcohol which continues to lead the way as far as harm to everyone is concerned and there is no political will to ban alcohol for obvious reasons, so the only option with it is to prosecute consequences.

Can I ask you, would you drive after smoking Cannabis?

[Edbear]

a schmorgers board of choice then, including cookies and cakes. healthy of course who knows, you may cut out smoking completely? tis ALL in the education no?

Ah I question the healthy claim. What is the reason and purpose for drinking or taking drugs? Both have a detrimental effect on the body and mind, are depressants and diminish the taker's ability to focus and think clearly. Both, like nicotine also fool the body into believing it has a benefit. Note how people claim to need a cig to calm the nerves? Cigarettes, in fact cause nervous tension.

[=cJ=]

What I do agree with you on is the current status of alcohol which continues to lead the way as far as harm to everyone is concerned and there is no political will to ban alcohol for obvious reasons, so the only option with it is to prosecute consequences.

Can I ask you, would you drive after smoking Cannabis?

No, I wouldn't, as the consequences of it for me would be that I would probably fall off my bike and hurt myself or someone else, which pretty much breaks my core value of doing my best to not go hurting anyone.

This is where again I struggle, as the obvious answer that I would give to what I've said is to go "ah-hah, you've admitted you wouldn't drive/ride stoned, so it must be bad and must be banned!".

This fails to take into account I am pretty much a "soft-cock" (read: fairly susceptible) when it comes to any chemicals/drugs, as evidenced by my doubting my driving after one standard drink.

I guess I've extrapolated from this to conclude I'm going to be similar on other drugs, and hence stay clear of them if I'm going to drive/ride/put myself in a position I could do harm.

Problem is, and I'll go digging for the article, but I recall there has been research done on levels of blood alcohol and it's relationship to impairment that indicate there is very little relationship between the two, beyond a broad "if you drink more, eventually, you will be impaired more" kind of relationship. By extrapolation, this should be similar for cannabis.

From this, it would be reasonable to say that the presence of a drug in my system should not in itself be a crime, but rather the effects or impairment that drug has on my behavior and/or abilities. For example, if I was severely stoned and sat and stared at a wall for a few hours, does that matter? As another example, if I was to get mildly drunk, get violent and assault someone, I would argue it DOES matter.

In my best case scenario, I would argue that if no harm was done, then no crime was committed, however, as an intermediate position, I would be far more comfortable with (for example) a system where driving while impaired was based on an impairment test rather than a test for impairing substances.

Again, all this leads back to the argument that the drug cannabis itself is not the problem, rather it is the effects that drugs have on people that need to be looked at. In the case of cannabis, I can't see it as any more dangerous than other, currently legal drugs, and see it as possibly less harmful than alcohol. Given this I find it somewhat hypocritical that we persecute one, yet permit and promote the other.

[Edbear]

No, I wouldn't, ...(SNIP),... I can't see it as any more dangerous than other, currently legal drugs, and see it as possibly less harmful than alcohol. Given this I find it somewhat hypocritical that we persecute one, yet permit and promote the other.

I understand your reasoning, however I would say that while legal, the current state of things sees alcohol being branded for what it is, that of a burden on society that is proving very difficult to deal with. The authorities are coming down ever harder on its abuse but there is no quick fix and if we do use alcohol as an example, should we also free up Cannabis use lest it become the "new alcohol"?

It has been noted that hemp and Cannabis have perfectly legitimate uses and may have significant benefits in medicine yet to be fully explored. Alcohol has very little to recommend it at all. I do love a cold beer on a hot day after mowing the lawn, but the effects of too much on my system are not desirable as far as I am concerned.

Like I said about speed limits, you may be perfectle safe above the legal limit yet we know many, if not most drivers on the road are unsafe at speeds far lower. Who decides the limit for everyone since it is impossible to have variation for individuals?

[=cJ=]

Like I said about speed limits, you may be perfectle safe above the legal limit yet we know many, if not most drivers on the road are unsafe at speeds far lower. Who decides the limit for everyone since it is impossible to have variation for individuals?

Heh, not at all, I rode the Napier-Taupo the other day and the legal speed limit was way above what I was safe at, drizzle plus night made sure I really didn't have a hope of going anywhere near 100km/hr, so for me there's times and places for appropriate speeds.

Perhaps we need higher barriers for entry to our roads? Perhaps we need a graduated plate/license system where as you get better (with PROPER car/bike control tests) you are proven capable of higher speeds?

Perhaps we need sane speed limits on roads, where some are under 100, others are over depending on the quality of the road?

Anyways, we're going to be getting off topic here :-) I'll drag it back to our original drug laws/ruling/alcohol stuff.

I agree the ideal solution would be that we would have a bunch of people with the responsibility and self control to drink and use substances, erm, responsibly?

I accept fully your statement about alcohol being a burden on society as it stands, and that we don't want to replace one burden with another, that's a waste of time :-) I wonder if we replaced alcohol with cannabis as our society's drug of choice would we have the same problems that we have with alcohol?

Would another option be to take away ALL rules associated with alcohol, so no limits on drinking age? My reasoning behind this is that then people will have bad experiences younger, hopefully conditioning them to behave more responsibly later in life? I remember most of my defining education about what to touch and not touch had happened by the time I was old enough to legally drink, so I wonder if having bad experiences earlier in life have taught me to respect alcohol more?

[scissorhands]

So i went to The Daktory last night, first time in ages and hung out with 'the family'

As you might expect, these people consume ENORMOUS QUANTITIES OF DAK really!!

So, if you were new to the effects of cannabis, consuming as much as they do, it would be like having 50 plus standard drinks over an evening.

50 drinks over a few hours would kill most people. Yet, many of these hardened activists and cannabis culture people, DO THIS EVERY NIGHT!!!

Cannabis is safer than alcohol.
It is very popular.
By this token, replacing alcohol use with cannabis use, though not ideal ..... is a good thing.

When I see such high consumption by heart goes out to those who repeatedly do it, from a self care and self love point of view. They cant be happy, without it, and many have reliance on cannabis.....

But when I see the effect on themselves and those around especially society and community, its hard for me to judge their actions as 'harmful'..........because the harm is so minimal

And, they all drove home afterwards as per normal

(basicly they consume the strongest cannabis in ridiculous amounts and appear like a sober person because they have tolerance, this fact alone makes the safety of cannabis, worthy as a replacement to constant need of society to 'have a few', as this urge will not diminish overnight, and may probably never will!)

Prohibition and the creation of black markets, is harmful to society and criminalises people who have health issues, not legal ones, except in prohibition...

[mashman]

Ah I question the healthy claim. What is the reason and purpose for drinking or taking drugs? Both have a detrimental effect on the body and mind, are depressants and diminish the taker's ability to focus and think clearly. Both, like nicotine also fool the body into believing it has a benefit. Note how people claim to need a cig to calm the nerves? Cigarettes, in fact cause nervous tension.

I understand what you mean Ed. But alcohol and Cannabis grow in nature and have always been used by the population... so who cares why people use them as those who will partake, wil and those who won't, won't... theory is useless as it very rarely mimics the practical... I'd rather the next generation were instructed on the pros and cons and then discovered it for themselves in a "safe" environment... hell it can be a parent and kids day ...

[davereid]

This weeks "Kapiti Chronicle" adds another side to this debate.

It would appear that police, and licensed liquor outlets are being very careful at applying the law. The under 18s are finding it harder to buy alcohol from legal sources.

So a youngster has obtained some "home-made hooch." and made himself very very ill indeed.

Police are claiming this to be "wood alcohol" or methanol. (Personally, I think the police are wrong here.)

The issue is not so much the actual type of alcohol.

What we are seeing, is the effect of a tightening of supply, without a reduction in demand.

This youngster wanted a drug. He inevitably found someone who would supply, without regard to the consequences. This particular supplier doshed out homemade alcohol. But it could have easily have been any other drug.

Prohibition creates a high profit market for those prepared to sell in contravention of the law. Far from restricting access, it virtually ensures uncontrolled access to poor quality product.

[Edbear]

...SNIP...
I agree the ideal solution would be that we would have a bunch of people with the responsibility and self control to drink and use substances, erm, responsibly?

I accept fully your statement about alcohol being a burden on society as it stands, and that we don't want to replace one burden with another, that's a waste of time :-) I wonder if we replaced alcohol with cannabis as our society's drug of choice would we have the same problems that we have with alcohol?

Would another option be to take away ALL rules associated with alcohol, so no limits on drinking age? My reasoning behind this is that then people will have bad experiences younger, hopefully conditioning them to behave more responsibly later in life? I remember most of my defining education about what to touch and not touch had happened by the time I was old enough to legally drink, so I wonder if having bad experiences earlier in life have taught me to respect alcohol more?

This weeks "Kapiti Chronicle" adds another side to this debate.

It would appear that police, and licensed liquor outlets are being very careful at applying the law. The under 18s are finding it harder to buy alcohol from legal sources.

...SNIP...

This youngster wanted a drug. He inevitably found someone who would supply, without regard to the consequences. This particular supplier doshed out homemade alcohol. But it could have easily have been any other drug.

Prohibition creates a high profit market for those prepared to sell in contravention of the law. Far from restricting access, it virtually ensures uncontrolled access to poor quality product.

Herein really lies the problem. Too many have no regard for consequences, have no self-control and no ambitions beyond their next fix. This example of alcohol tells the truth. Even a legal drug will be abused and no amount of control or regulation will make a difference to this type of person. So prohibition or not, we are still going to be faced with abuse and crime.

Unless we can educate from youth and provide an environment conducive to a work ethic no amount of regulation will make a difference for a significant proportion of the population.

I have received acknowledgement of my requests for feedback from the Minister of Health and Police and should receive something from them shortly as to their views. Perhaps Scummy and Patrick could let us know how it affects their job for better or worse?

[Edbear]

So i went to The Daktory last night, first time in ages and hung out with 'the family'

As you might expect, these people consume ENORMOUS QUANTITIES OF DAK really!!

So, if you were new to the effects of cannabis, consuming as much as they do, it would be like having 50 plus standard drinks over an evening.

50 drinks over a few hours would kill most people. Yet, many of these hardened activists and cannabis culture people, DO THIS EVERY NIGHT!!!

Cannabis is safer than alcohol.
It is very popular.
By this token, replacing alcohol use with cannabis use, though not ideal ..... is a good thing.

When I see such high consumption by heart goes out to those who repeatedly do it, from a self care and self love point of view. They cant be happy, without it, and many have reliance on cannabis.....

But when I see the effect on themselves and those around especially society and community, its hard for me to judge their actions as 'harmful'..........because the harm is so minimal

And, they all drove home afterwards as per normal

(basicly they consume the strongest cannabis in ridiculous amounts and appear like a sober person because they have tolerance, this fact alone makes the safety of cannabis, worthy as a replacement to constant need of society to 'have a few', as this urge will not diminish overnight, and may probably never will!)

Prohibition and the creation of black markets, is harmful to society and criminalises people who have health issues, not legal ones, except in prohibition...

Another fallacy here. Many who drink also believe they are fine to drive, but the medical evidence is very plain. One cannot consume any amount of drugs or alcohol without effect and the more you consume the greater the effect. So to consume such large amounts of Cannabis and then drive, no matter how sober they may seem, (how much had you consumed as an observer that may have clouded your judgement regarding their sobrierty?), is a callous disregard for the safety of both themselves and others.

[scissorhands]

If a policeman or another sees someone who appears to be sober, they generally are sober. Being impaired and not appearing impaired is difficult, because you are impaired..... Being dangerously affected by a drug is easy to see in another. One there last night was that way, impaired and a dangerous driver. He had been drinking. Your drug of choice.

Like having a bad cold, the person next to you can usually tell whats up when they talk with you.

Most of the callous disregard for safety, that of the safety of NZers AND NZ police....lies elsewhere I think.....

The point of me starting this thread was to highlight the flawed thinking of prohibition, that many intellectuals including Albert Einstein, feel the need to speak up against because of the harm it causes people and communities. Laws put forward for corporate interests.... not that of the people. Your defending the assumption that prohibition is a good thing, is wrong, and harmful to NZers. Bottom line.

My honesty regarding driving and cannabis, then to have it thrown back in my face in a threatening manner, is up to you, but I hope others avoid haranguing people unfairly, when they make themselves vulnerable, stick their neck out, to make a point, for the common good

And for me, being unable to appreciate these learned opinions from respected philanthropists, Judges, scientists and even the NZ Police Association have given tacit approval toward ending cannabis prohibition, and the democratic mandate of the people............. I'm sorry dude.

[Edbear]

If a policeman or another sees someone who appears to be sober, they generally are sober. Being impaired and not appearing impaired is difficult, because you are impaired..... Being dangerously affected by a drug is easy to see in another. One there last night was that way, impaired and a dangerous driver. He had been drinking. Your drug of choice.

Like having a bad cold, the person next to you can usually tell whats up when they talk with you.

Most of the callous disregard for safety, that of the safety of NZers AND NZ police....lies elsewhere I think.....

The point of me starting this thread was to highlight the flawed thinking of prohibition, that many intellectuals including Albert Einstein, feel the need to speak up against because of the harm it causes people and communities. Laws put forward for corporate interests.... not that of the people. Your defending the assumption that prohibition is a good thing, is wrong, and harmful to NZers. Bottom line.

My honesty regarding driving and cannabis, then to have it thrown back in my face in a threatening manner, is up to you, but I hope others avoid haranguing people unfairly, when they make themselves vulnerable, stick their neck out, to make a point, for the common good

And for me, being unable to appreciate these learned opinions from respected philanthropists, Judges, scientists and even the NZ Police Association have given tacit approval toward ending cannabis prohibition, and the democratic mandate of the people............. I'm sorry dude.

I appreciate your honesty and didn't consider my post to be throwing it back in your face in a threatening manner, so sorry if it came across that way.

The problem is that dugs do affect the user and even prescription drugs carry warnings to that effect and it would be irresponsible for anyone to drive after taking anything that adversely affects their ability to the extent it places others at risk. Now for alcohol there are legal limits many argue are not realistic, but for drugs, prescription or not, there are no measures as to els for driving.

http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm
Here is a link to Cannabis that should give you pause for thought and an exerpt from that link.


How does marijuana affect driving ability?
Driving experiments show that marijuana affects a wide range of skills needed for safe driving -- thinking and reflexes are slowed, making it hard for drivers to respond to sudden, unexpected events. Also, a driver's ability to "track" (stay in lane) through curves, to brake quickly, and to maintain speed and the proper distance between cars is affected. Research shows that these skills are impaired for at least 4-6 hours after smoking a single marijuana cigarette, long after the "high" is gone. If a person drinks alcohol, along with using marijuana, the risk of an accident greatly increases. Marijuana presents a definite danger on the road.