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

[YellowDog]

Well it has alreday been said that education is indeed the answer.

Empowering the young to make better choices and to understand the consequenses associated with some specific actions is critical to all our futures.

If kids know what they are doing is wrong, then at least they have a chance with their futures.

I have mates who are daily canabis users for recreational/relaxation purposes. Their fine and not harming anyone.

I have other friends whom I avoid because they have undergone an unpleasant personality transformation IMO due to their over intoxication of canabis.

I can say the same about other friends with alcohol.

The fact is that many are affected in different ways, which makes it very difficult to pass laws that all can relate to or understand.

"why should I not be allowed to drink a beer in public just because some some can't handle their alcohol and don't know when to stop drinking?"

I don't have all of the answers however IMO many of such problems begin at home.

[blackdog]

Majority of drugs including marijuana is HIGHLY illegal here and carries very stiff penalties. That said I'm not sure what kind of education methods are in place to inform people the effects of drug use. I have seen more news stories recently about the increased use of Meth here, which worries me as not only is the consumption dangerous but the production as well.

Why would you be concerned? You ride like you are drug-fucked anyway.

[scissorhands]

The problem with this reasoning is that it is not the teenagers doing the shooting, it is the older one's in their 30's+ who are heavily armed and shooting the cops.

Recent news showed the number of teenagers smoking has dropped markedly, and this surely is due to education, can anyone find figures for drug use?

Pot is so 90's, most of my surfing buddies that grew up around pot have kids which cant be bothered with it. Most are fairly good parents though (and they are still stoners sometimes!!)

We can argue the harm used by consumption of drugs and alcohol forever.

The question I put here after the CH Ch shooting this week is, 'Are the police and public put in danger by prohibition?'

[scumdog]

BUT. I am not sure the cure is to remove all constraints. Judging by the way we in NZ abuse alcohol, I doubt we would have enough self-restraint to stay out of the cactus with other drugs.
.

Could not agree with that statement more, very very true!!

[blackdog]

Could not agree with that statement more, very very true!!

I believe alcohol is the more insidious drug of the two by far.

Removing all constraints may not be the answer, but by softening some cannibis restrictions I sincerely think that the impact alcohol has on society can be measurably reduced.

[slowpoke]

emotive emotive lol

Only 6% of Dutch now use Cannabis. It use has gone down after decriminalisation, not up as you postulate incorrectly. Much of the above rhetoric has no basis in fact. Sorry, but Albert Einstein is right and followers of cult religious groups are wrong...

High dose and heavy consumption causing health, safety and social problems are not authentic to any substance but the compulsive obsessive tendencies of the user. As with dogs that scratch themselves raw, battery chickens that peck their cage mates....once their needs are meet they become happy animals, we can too....

So you think Dutch culture and people are the same as New Zealand's? I don't think you'll find many people agree with that lil' gem. I'm not even gonna go into the stats that can be made to read virtually anything, especially with a topic like drug use that many people would be reluctant to admit to.

And you think that heroin, cocaine, opium, P, tobacco, alcohol etc etc "addiction" is all in the users head? There's nothing related to the actual substance that is addictive? Good luck making that one fly with health professionals. Even cigarette companies have admitted using additives that increase the addictive properties of it's product, so I'm afraid it is very much a substance issue, and not just in the head of the user.

You are basically preaching self restraint with substances that by their very nature remove restraint. Doesn't sound too smart to me but I'm just an Amish farmer so what would I know............

[golfmade]

Why would you be concerned? You ride like you are drug-fucked anyway.

Troll elsewhere.

[blackdog]

Troll elsewhere.

Merely an observation. I put your comments into context with what I already know about you.

[scissorhands]

So you think Dutch culture and people are the same as New Zealand's? I don't think you'll find many people agree with that lil' gem. I'm not even gonna go into the stats that can be made to read virtually anything, especially with a topic like drug use that many people would be reluctant to admit to.

And you think that heroin, cocaine, opium, P, tobacco, alcohol etc etc "addiction" is all in the users head? There's nothing related to the actual substance that is addictive? Good luck making that one fly with health professionals. Even cigarette companies have admitted using additives that increase the addictive properties of it's product, so I'm afraid it is very much a substance issue, and not just in the head of the user.

You are basically preaching self restraint with substances that by their very nature remove restraint. Doesn't sound too smart to me but I'm just an Amish farmer so what would I know............

I agree in principal but dont see the situation as fixed.

When people think addiction, obesity seldom comes to mind but going by the amount of lardarse riders and Joe Q's out there, I would personally put it ahead of tobacco and alcohol, then P then cannabis.

True, addiction is complicated, every astrological aries/rooster or virgo/tiger I have known, has had addiction problems. Their star given qualities make them more prone to addiction (duck for cover)

I still think if we were happy free range animals instead of conditioned cage kept production units, our level of addictive behaviours would reduce markedly. There is no reason that with education that we cannot become like the Dutch in sophistication. They have many Africans Turks etc who sound and think like any other Dutchman

Can anyone say yes or no as to whether prohibition puts police and the general public at risk? RIP Len Snee...

[piston broke]

prohibition only causes more problems,black market e.t.c.
i think decriminalise all drugs,but,
only chemists allowed to supply,only with a script from your doc.
and 18+yrs.
harsh sentences for under age and black market sellers.
education is the key

[Paul in NZ]

Thats odd - I have a friend thats a Dutch narcotics squad member... They have a view of dutch society that is not quite as generous.... I think we should outlaw alcohol - especially Vodka... (groan)

[Dadpole]

prohibition only causes more problems,black market e.t.c.
i think decriminalise all drugs,but,
only chemists allowed to supply,only with a script from your doc.
and 18+yrs.
harsh sentences for under age and black market sellers.
education is the key

Then the Govt says it is better handled by the free market. McDonalds could branch out into a very profitable area indeed.

[scissorhands]

Googled alcohol prohibtion and wowsers in NZ and first hit was this little gem, lol

There have always been the wowsers and the boozers. John de Bueger looks at alcohol abuse in New Zealand.

The School-College rugby match between Christchurch Boys' High School and Christ's College has long been a highlight of the Christchurch winter season.

During my school days, the crowd was swollen by hundreds of old boys from both schools, along with a few posers at this important milestone on the social calendar for Canterbury's elite.

Imagine one's surprise to learn that this year both headmasters have decreed that nobody under 22 will be admitted - in an effort to curb the drunken mayhem that has marred recent encounters.

This is just a further minor example of the misuse of alcohol by a minority impacting on what was traditionally a boisterous, good-natured affair, and flags a pressing need for reform of our liquor laws.

The Law Commission's recent report was thus timely, and given the public interest, the media had a field-day trying to double-guess both the recommendations - and what the Cabinet will eventually sign off on.

On Afternoons with Jim Mora, a panelist made the salient point that the anti-booze brigade must have orchestrated their networking.

The airways were saturated with their slant: Monday the wowsers, Tuesday the police, Wednesday a doctor from A& E, Thursday Alac, etc, - but then, home-grown prohibitionists have long been numerous, vocal and media-savvy.

Given our hard-drinking colonial legacy, public opinion has wavered ever since between two permanently entrenched extremes: the boozers and the wowsers.

Only the votes of overseas servicemen prevented the temperance movement forcing United States-style prohibition on this country at the end of the World War 1 - with all the opportunities that offered for organised crime.

Given the damage caused by the misuse of booze, and particularly, highly visible teenage binge-drinking, there is widespread acceptance that the system needs tweaking.

The grab-bag of measures available to this end include increased excise duty, statutory minimum prices, a raised drinking age, restricted opening hours, hammering alco-pops, curtailing advertising, and a drastic cut in the number of liquor outlets.

Most of the population can enjoy a social drink without making a nuisance, and any attempt to change deeply ingrained cultural attitudes because of loutish teenage behaviour is doomed.

Prohibition does not work, has never worked, and can be confidently predicted to fail in the future.

No amount of propaganda will ever convince the law-abiding majority that there is anything wrong with having a beer when you get home followed by a couple of glasses of wine over dinner.

Unpalatable as fundamental home-truths might be to wowsers, the fact remains that mankind seems hard-wire programmed to befuddle the brain as an escape from everyday reality - and the worse real or imagined horrors are, then the harder the drugs that get used.

It is a market that has proved impossible to stamp out.

Making booze illegal just drives it underground, and banning it for religious reasons results in hordes of Muslims heading for Dubai or Europe.

When subjects like ameliorating teenage excess arise, one invariably reflects back on one's own youth - and I'm afraid few of us will be bereft of distant memories that cannot be recalled with pride.

When my generation was at university, the minimum drinking age was 21 - and the 6 o'clock swill reigned supreme.

Out of sheer practicality, most undergraduates were obliged to break the law twice - by consuming not inconsiderable quantities of Speight's, both under age and after hours.

This behaviour met with little public opprobrium, because there has long been widespread societal acceptance that carousing was normal (under-21) student behaviour.

In Hamlet, 400 years ago, Shakespeare has a university student saying, "We will teach you to drink deep ere you depart . . ."

Most us, reflecting on past misdemeanours, eventually grew out of what were mainly youthful high jinks - and furthermore, confidently expect the same process to repeat itself in today's young.

So while we can flag away raising the drinking age above 19, the same logic does not apply to the ridiculous 24-hour availability of booze, and particularly in lower socioeconomic areas.

Booze problems only spiralled out of control when alco-pops were targeted at underage drinkers, supermarkets (and superettes) started selling the stuff (with discounts), and liquor outlets were allowed to proliferate.

These are the three areas where the clock needs turning back.

[scissorhands]

Next google hit

The Law Commission proposals on alcohol

The Government is releasing a 500 page report next Tuesday from the Law Commission which makes scores of recommendations of changes to alcohol laws and policy.

The report was commissioned by the former Labour Government, and the primary author is former Labour Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer – who is also the Law Commission President.

Details of the report have leaked out, and I can exclusively reveal some of these. They represent a nanny state mindset which I doubt even the last Government would have ever gone along with. It stops short of prohibition and six o’clock closing, but represents a huge step backwards. Fundamentally the report fails to propose measures that target the minority of people who cause problems of crime and violence when under the influence of alcohol, and instead it has gone for a one size fits all approach which punishes millions of responsible drinkers, and especially 130,000 18 and 19 year olds.

I understand the Palmer Report proposes:

1. A massive 50% increase in the excise tax on alcohol. This would result in an extra $500 million of revenue to the Crown at the expense of everyone who drinks.
2. Banning the sale of liquor at off licenses after 10 pm. So if you pop into New World at 10.30 pm to do your shopping (which I often do), you won’t be able to buy a bottle of wine.
3. Forcing bars and nightclubs to refuse to allow people to enter after 2 am.
4. A nationwide closing time for all outlets, probably at 4 am.
5. An increase in the purchase age for alcohol from 18 to 20, criminalising 130,000 18 and 19 year olds if they buy alcohol.

As I said, this is nanny state unleashed. What is most disappointing is the failure to come up with measures that might actually target those causing the problems such as a drinking age (instead of a purchase age), increased penalties for alcohol related crime, and a one size fit all approach.

I would not necessarily be against allowing local communities through local Government able to (for example) set a closing time for their local neighbourhood. But a nationwide closing time that treats Ponsonby and Courtney Place as the same as (say) Wainuiomata is a bad thing.

I am sure there are some useful recommendations in the Palmer Report, but its main recommendations represent the worst excesses of nanny state and punishes all New Zealanders, rather than targeting problem drinkers and the associated violence and crime they cause.

I hope the Government, and in fact all parties in Parliament, reject any wholesale adoption of the report’s recommendations.

[Milts]

I have absolutely no opinion on this issue. However...