Legalise the herb

[Jackrat]

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

[spudchucka]

No, this was in Kiwi land and in Christchurch.

Sorry I don't know where I got NSW from.

1 the sentence and subsequent events after the conviction far exceeded the offence. This was at the time of the Mr Asia case and the media promulgations of politicians, social workers and other ill informed people; smoke a joint and you'll be shooting smack etc.

I'm not sure if you mentioned the guys sentence but if it was proportionately harsh then this is probably due to the "media panic" created as a direct result of the Mr Asia reports of that time. If the same situation arose today and he was prosecuted then he would no doubt be found guilty but it would be interesting to compare the sentences that would be / were imposed.

2 the law is to serve and protect. There are no ifs and buts about this. It is there for the community’s protection as well as the individuals and in the case I mentioned it failed this individual (the commuinty was not being harmed in any way) and to this day is continuing to fail unless the Police exercise their discretionary powers.

This debate starts to get quite interesting when you begin touching on these issues. When deciding to prosecute there are a number of issues that are considered.
Evidential Sufficiency. Is there sufficient evidence to support the charge?

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

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

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

Under current law in respect to the use or possession of Marijuana, on the whim, of a warranted officer, the Justice system will 'kick into gear,' and if convicted the defendant will be a criminal, along with rapists, burglars, killers, child molesters, etc.

This arguement could be used for minor shoplifting, disorder offences, minor assaults and a whole range of other "minor" offences. The fact is that the activity was prohibited by law at the time and the person was tried and convicted. End of story. There is of course a strong arguement for the support of the "clean slate bill" for the sake of people like your friend, if he has stayed out of trouble for X amount of years then wiping his slate clean would probably be supported by most New Zealanders.

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

What is "harm" can be quite a subjective thing.

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

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

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

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

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

[scumdog]

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

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

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

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

[Drunken Monkey]

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

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

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

[MikeL]

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

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

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

[spudchucka]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its only speculation but its interesting nonetheless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MikeL]

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

[James Deuce]

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

Goodness me!!

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

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

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

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

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

[scumdog]

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

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

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

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

[MikeL]

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

[scumdog]

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

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

[James Deuce]

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

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

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

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

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

[toads]

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

[MikeL]

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

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

[toads]

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

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