Cannabis legalisation

[idleidolidyll]

Geeze....Nurse bashing now 1pack......you are stooping low and it's only 7.34am.................

I welcome the commets from the nurse but I stll consider the three government investigations far more thorough.
I noted some cause/effect issues in the nurses post (just because patients smoke dope does NOT mean that's the CAUSE of their problems) but they were posted in an honest and reasonable manner and are welcome in this discussion as far as I'm concerned.

If you really want to be informed on this subject, download the latest (2003) Government Select Committe Inquiry into cannabis, it's dangers, the policing and recommendations: http://www.clerk.parliament.govt.nz/...2531_23991.pdf

If you cruise the smarter cannabis law reform websites in NZ, you'll see that most suggest decriminalisation rather than legalisation. Those that do favour legalisation also suggest eduaction, laws and policing that aim at prevention of harm and restriction to kids and teens as their brains are not formed fully yet (note: pharmaceuticals and alcohol are equally nasty to young brains)

The report finds that: "The Government's policies on cannabis are not working and should be reviewed, says a parliamentary committee. The health select committee is also repeating its call for the Government to reconsider the illegality of the drug."


Government again failed to act of course. Their reply sidestepped the issue and it's clear that prohibition of cannabis is a political issue not a health or safety issue. Here's the Govt reply to the Select Committe Inquiry that suggested they rethink cannabis law and rethink the lagal status of the plant: http://www.beehive.govt.nz/Documents...20Response.PDF


Here's Nandor's response to the Govt reply to the committe: http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/pr6880.html


Now rather than post non expert personal opinion, scaremongering or context free anecdotes, I suggest you read the three items thoroughly and come to some informed opinions.


The last two inquiries can also be located but obviously the latest one is usually the most valuable. However, the earlier ones also suggested that the law was an ass and that it should be changed because POLICING IS DOING MORE HARM THAN THE DRUG.

[scumdog]

Six and Scummy... please dont extend this arguement to other threads as well.

Keep it to the cop thread please! The rest of KB dont want to watch the 2 of you go head to head in every thread.

If you have such a serious issue with each other, the ignore feature on KB is a wonder...

No worries Joni - just that SPB is my No.1 "trolling target/fish in the barrel to shoot" type person.

And I didn't think of it as an 'argument', more of a refuting of comments sent my way by SPB in his attempts to quell my exuberance...or something

[terbang]

Our society is getting dumb enough by itself without the help of NZ Green..!

[Teflon]

I more worried about the depressed Kb people going postal.. than some stoner smoking a joint and then eventually falling a sleep..

[idleidolidyll]

and here's another reply identifying the governments cowardly rejection of the Health Committe Inquiry:

Govt cannabis response loathsome & mealy-mouthed

Monday, 3 November 2003, 9:10 am
Press Release: Mild Greens
Govt’s cannabis response ‘loathsome and mealy-mouthed’Mild Greens say that government ministers, instead of receiving fat and unearned pay increases, deserve to be tried and condemned for perpetuating human rights abuses as a matter of policy.
Ass. Health Minister Jim Anderton’s formal response to the Health Select Committee cannabis inquiry is typically shallow and manipulative. It sends a crude message to young NZers in particular that our leaders are still fobber-offers, bullies and hypocrites, pretending there is no issue with 300,000 being falsely accused as criminals.”
Anderton, in downplaying any need to look further at law reform (as recommended 3 months ago), states that govt. has taken the lead in education programmes to alert young people to the dangers of cannabis use.
Seemingly long forgotten, however, is the 1998 Parliament's crucial recognition that the double standards surrounding marijuana [viz. alcohol and tobacco] are an impediment to effective, credible anti-drug education.
“Prohibition has not been shown to be safe, precautionary nor credible - nor effective, appropriate, nor reasonable – nor mandated.”
Moreover, the persecution regime fails all ethical and quality standards under the Government's official Harm Minimisation criteria (principles which include cost effectiveness, equity, harm-reduction, and 'upholding individual rights where these do not unreasonably impinge on others'…)
But Labour Party ministers, conspicuously silent about their still unresolved 1998 commitment to responsibly review the legal status, are hedging on minnow-progressive-leader Anderton's ‘views’ as the de-facto policy standard by which we measure good community outcomes.
"So much for evidence-based best-practice harm minimisation - and so much for good governance".
The Mild Greens say politicians whose own political parties score well below 5% of the general election vote should be banned from saying the word “mandate”.


"And is important to note that Jim Anderton is not exactly a success story when it comes to kids nd drugs, mental illness, suicide etc."
Mr. Anderton, more than most New Zealanders should know the ultimate harms that can befall families under the prohibition, but the same failed and non-credible regime is all he has to offer other New Zealanders.
Any young NZ'er who does a school project on cannabis policy in NZ will discover very quickly that there is a track record of Government and other community leaders pretending that criminalising is righteous, despite all the evidence demonstrating the Law is held in contempt as a stupid, unjust and costly crime-creating failure. (No doubt the teacher will require that the student rewrite the report to ‘focus on the harms of cannabis’…)
Mild Greens recommend that adults should continue to use marijuana as safely as possible under the circumstances (e.g. by eating or vaporising), and tell the police in no uncertain terms to ‘butt out and go solve some real crime’ if hassled.
“Standing up for what we believe works for us.”
According to the reformers, conscientious objection to the policy crock & subversion-of-democratic-process is an entirely plausible defence for justifying cannabis cultivation and use, under the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (freedom of religion/ manifestation of ethical belief).
”New Zealanders are entitled to a harm reduction context and legal age limit CONSISTENT with alcohol and tobacco, as heard by the Health Select Committee up and down the country in 2001, and in line with the 27-year Dutch precedent for a non-coercive and tolerant approach.”
N.B. The Annual Mild Greens “toilet brush” award goes to former Health Select Committee chair and ex-Otaki MP. Judy Keall, who having heard evidence which by her own admission convinced her ‘all drugs should be legalised’ turned around and ensured that her committee was too busy and disorganised to write up the truth they witnessed at the 2001 inquiry hearings...

[scumdog]

If you cruise the smarter cannabis law reform websites in NZ, you'll see that most suggest decriminalisation rather than legalisation. Those that do favour legalisation also suggest eduaction, laws and policing that aim at prevention of harm and restriction to kids and teens as their brains are not formed fully yet (note: pharmaceuticals and alcohol are equally nasty to young brains)
.

The cynic in me feels that the above "education, laws and policing that aim at prevention of harm and restriction to kids and teens" will have the same effect on the young users of cannabis that it is having on the young users of alcohol... virtually none....

[idleidolidyll]

I more worried about the depressed Kb people going postal.. than some stoner smoking a joint and then eventually falling a sleep..

rotflmfao! yep, anger is more an issue than passivity. THAT is one of the reasons alcohol is a far more dangerous drug (apart from the fact that alcohol kills as a direct result of an overdose while cannabis has never been conclusively proven to have killed anyone)

[idleidolidyll]

The cynic in me feels that the above "education, laws and policing that aim at prevention of harm and restriction to kids and teens" will have the same effect on the young users of cannabis that it is having on the young users of alcohol... virtually none....

One of the most ridiculous pieces of legislation in recent years was the lowering of the drinking age. All that did was make it easier for those most at risk to get their drug.

That however, is nothing compared to the harm cannabis laws continue to do to society. At least because alcohol is legal, there can be good advertising and education programs on how to manage it's use and on the harm that it does to youth in particular.

My bet is that most people opposed to cannabis use a far worse drug: alcohol. Of those people, I also suggest that most use it responsibly. There would be no difference if cannabis was legal; most would use it responsibly and a few would abuse it. However, the big difference is that abuse of cannabis is nowhere near as harmful as abuse of alcohol, prescription drugs etc, you know; the ones the politicians, priests and cops use.

[Patrick]

Don't like the the idea of legal. Do that and the whole thing becomes commercial. I have supported de-criminalization for some time now. I fail to see how someone having a smoke in their home is acting in the same manner as burgler, or any other acts of a criminal nature. If someone wants to grow and give away I have no problem but to sell that's a commercial act as it is now. Take away the money and you destroy a lot of problems.

Skyryder

Take away the money and they move on to something else... They are moving on to "P" now as there is more $$$ to be made... its called a "progression."

De-criminalise and issue an instant fine ticket could work... wonder if there would be quotas involved?

[idleidolidyll]

For those interested in facts instead of uninformed opinion, scaremongering and context free anecdotes, New Scientist has a good resource on actual scientific research into drugs and alcohol, including of course, cannabis.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/.../drugs-alcohol

[Patrick]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=3]As long as the evil tobacco and alcohol are legal so should all drugs, hell they should be commercialised.

Yep... that'll work.... NOT!!!!!!!!!

"P" for free... catchy marketing slogan perhaps?

[Patrick]

Besides decriminalising cannabis would remove another benign group for the cops to harass and tazer. Decriminalising or legalising in any form effectively decreases workload for the pigs, naturally they will never agree to any moves that may threaten jobs.

Guess they could always reinforce highway patrol giving speeding tickets, now thats REAL crime

I doubt many, if any, stoners get Tazered... way too mellow usually...

[Patrick]

just saw this thread.

trouble with a poll like this is it is NOT absolutely confidential and we all know there are cops lurking on KB.
I wouldn't expect those who do use to answer in the affirmative in NZ given that our prisons are full of victimless criminals already.

So it does make you paranoid after all?????????

"Prisons are FULL of VICTIMLESS CRIMINALS?????" What have you been smoking?????

[Patrick]

Scummy both you and the police are not even remotely attached to reality.

Must be all the piss you consume huh?

I take you still don't understand what Scummy is saying??? He was agreeing with you on the alcohol thing... adding another bad thing to the pool is not a good thing. Get it now?

[Krusti]

My bet is that most people opposed to cannabis use a far worse drug: alcohol. Of those people, I also suggest that most use it responsibly. There would be no difference if cannabis was legal; most would use it responsibly and a few would abuse it. However, the big difference is that abuse of cannabis is nowhere near as harmful as abuse of alcohol, prescription drugs etc, you know; the ones the politicians, priests and cops use.

As I have said earlier, it is socially acceptable for me to be physically addicted to a perscription pain killer. I have not met many people who have even batted an eyelid when told by me.

It is not a problem for me personally because at this point in time I need to take something on a regular basis but as an experiment and to prove to my doctor that I was right I took myself off these pills a few months ago. I lasted one and a half days! My body went into withdrawl and it was not pleasent.

Will have to wean off them slowly when I need to but it proved to me that, as I had suspected, my body had a physical need for these pills.

My point is that if I had told these same people that I was smoking dope as a pain reliever then they would have been mortified.

I don't, I won't but I probably should smoke instead.