Speaker: Towards a realistic drug policy
385 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
I still find it odd that normally intelligent people still consider that the correct response to someone using drugs is to punish then to the point of locking them up and depriving their children of a parent or two. The whole "Drugs leads to Crime" is, almost 100% an affect of drugs being illegal. Sure, someone totally off their trolley can be a danger to themselves and others whether what got them into that state was legal or not is just not relevant, it is the danger itself that is relevant.
There are few that would say drinking and driving does not endanger innocent people but to then use that as an excuse to imprison people for selling alcohol would be preposterous. Some say that people who take drugs will take up crime to pay for their habit. Well, perhaps if their company hadn't sacked them after a drug test and they could pop down to the chemist to get their medicine they would have no need of criminal enterprise.
The History of illegitimisation of drugs is bound more to Racial and Political agendas than to any moral stance, in fact I would go as far as saying that the morals behind banning drugs are the more repugnant.
The British used Opium to finance trade with the Opium Wars China had banned the sale of Opium but the British found a ready and lucrative market. Now we have a situation with the Chinese sending us their Pseudo-ephedrine, not Officially of course but...
And do I have to mention Al Capone?. He would not have existed as such an animal without Prohibition and soo many hired Goons to boot.
I really can't believe I'm having to say any of this on PAS
The "War on Drugs" is a war on the people, the people "who don't count" for the advancement of "the haves and the have mores" as George Bush called them. We are just the fodder of a "War Machine" "War on Terror", "War on Drugs", "War on Fiscal Irresponsibility" oh, forget that one "War on Poverty" one we should, maybe, worry about, how are they going to "Win " that one?. -
And then there was...
-
"we should give up on fighting this wrong, because it's not working"
Well, I never used the word 'wrong'. That was your interpretation.
But since that where we're at: in my opinion, current policy and enforcement does far, far more harm than good, for example by giving organised crime an easy source of funds and therefore power. There is no 'right' way of dealing with this, just degrees of 'wrong'. And prohibition is a far greater 'wrong' than legalisation would be.
So.
If something is wrong, I'd like to think we'd find alternative ways of dealing with it better.
We keep returning to alcohol because it's an easy comparison, and does have relevance. Alcohol is enjoyed responsibly by many people, and also abused heavily by many. Prohibition in the US showed that people won't stop drinking if selling it is illegal.
So the government licences alcohol for sale, and gains tax in return. Part of that tax is used for harm reduction strategies. Whether those licencing laws and harm reduction strategies are effective or not is arguable, and needs discussion, but that is the way in which we (society) deal with the 'wrong' aspects ofalcohol. We recognise that we can't outright ban it (ineffective), so we choose to get revenue from the sale of it, and then try to deal as best we can with the after-effects. Minimise the 'wrong'.
Certainly we should argue about who we sell alcohol to and when, and how to deal with binge brinking, drunk driving, etc, but effectively, we have taken the path of the lesser 'wrong'.
Yet with weed, it seems to me that we continue to take the path of the greater 'wrong'.
-
I still find it odd that normally intelligent people still consider that the correct response to someone using drugs is to punish then to the point of locking them up and depriving their children of a parent or two.
Can't be bothered finding the link now, but the American Bar Association's report on America's judicial gimmickry (three strikes etc) was particularly scathing on that issue.
The number of families damaged by the punitive incarceration of (often gainfully employed) men on drugs charges is a matter for shame.
-
I think Eric Schlosser's Reefer Madness is the definitive look at the social wreckage caused by US drug policy. And things have got worse since he wrote it, as far as I know.
Our local situation looks rather saner by comparison, but only by comparison. I agree with everything Rich just wrote.
-
7. "3 Strikes" Will Have a Disproportionate Impact
On Minority Offenders--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Racial bias in the criminal justice system is rampant. African American men, in particular, are overrepresented in all criminal justice statistics: arrests, victimizations, incarceration and executions.
This imbalance is largely the result of the "war on drugs." Although studies show that drug use among blacks and whites is comparable, many more blacks than whites are arrested on drug charges. Why? because the police find it easier to concentrate their forces in inner city neighborhoods, where drug dealing tends to take place on the streets, than to mount more costly and demanding investigations in the suburbs, where drug dealing generally occurs behind closed doors. Today, one in four young black men is are under some form of criminal sanction, be it incarceration, probation or parole.
Because many of these laws include drug offenses as prior "strikes," more black than white offenders will be subject to life sentences under a "3 Strikes" law.
-
@3410 - Do you refer to communications like this one, from the CEO of BAT to Dunne:
Dear Mr Dunne,
Paul Adams has asked me to send you the enclosed £100 to help pay for your "Awayday". I do hope you will enjoy yourselves.
If at all possible, I should be grateful if you could get receipts for your expenses and pass them on to the driver - even large companies have to account for their money!
Enjoy your visit to England.
Yours Sincerely,
Jean Macy
Secretary to Paul Adams[edit: Stephen, hadn't noticed you already linked this, but I think it deserves to be inline]
-
@Stephen Judd
Thanks a bunch for the link to Rat Park, I was unaware of it. I agree that if you are happy then you can easily reject drugs. I have always been perfectly happy in my own skull. I don't even like being drunk, I stop at 'fairly merry'. That doesn't make me censorious of others who do decide to indulge. I am after all addicted to my own endorphins as distance runner (though that is not the prime reason for running).
I don't understand those who go out of a Fri or Sat night with the express intention of getting rat arsed. I have worked with people who consider a night they have little memory of to have been a good one and I do not exaggerate.
I have gradually over the years come to agree that drug prohibition is the biggest source of harm wrt drugs. Bigger than the harm done to addicts because it makes those harms much worse.
As to the idea that we cannot experiment with society, not even when some aspect can be shown not only to be ineffective and even counter productive but actually, demonstrably harmful?
When he have the Dutch experience and for eg Swiss shooting galleries for heroin users showing that harm reduction works I think we then have a moral responsibility to at least trial them carefully. It can't be any worse than legalising prostitution. Harm reduction was the raison d'etre there, so why not wrt drugs?
-
What do these blokes have in common?Bush W, Clinton and Obama.
Answer: All young druggies.
-
3410,
@3410 - Do you refer to communications like this one, from the CEO of BAT to Dunne:
Yes. Where there's smoke, there's fire. ;)
[edit: Stephen, hadn't noticed you already linked this, but I think it deserves to be inline]
I too didn't see that until after I'd posted.
-
Racial bias in the criminal justice system is rampant. African American men, in particular, are overrepresented in all criminal justice statistics: arrests, victimizations, incarceration and executions.
From the Report of the NZ Health Select Committee, August 2003:
"In New Zealand, Maori would appear to be at greater risk of harm resulting from the criminalisation of cannabis. Maori convictions for cannabis offences are disproportionate to the Maori percentage of the population and Maori cannabis use rates.
In 2001, Maori made up 14.5 percent of the NZ population, but received 43 percent of the convictions for using cannabis and 55 percent of the convictions for dealing in cannabis." (p. 28)
-
cannawater on the supermarket shelf? marijuagum from the bottleshop? article in viva with the best cookie recipes?
How about Martha Stewart's pot brownies? See
Martha Stewart and Snoop Dogg Bake Brownies -
Shay walker wrote:
My problem is with the way in which you have presented your argument - painting a picture of cannabis as a benign drug by constantly comparing it to alcohol and tobacco.
Shay I realise you support decriminalisation (or legalisation) and you are just applying some constructive criticism to Stephen's arguments, which is welcome.
However this comment is misrepresenting what Stephen wrote. Cannabis is not a benign drug and NORML does not go around saying this. Stephen's pointed out the relative safety and effects of consuming cannabis compared to alcohol and tobacco. That is not to say that it is harmless, which is what you seem to think NORML is saying.
Regarding your rejection of Amsterdam: why should we dismiss anything learned there simply because it is another country? Why not apply some of what works here? We are not saying let's replicate their policy with no changes at all for New Zealand. Having said that, it is clear what has worked in the Netherlands:
* separating the sale of cannabis from the supply of hard drugs has resulted in the lowest heroin use rate in Europe. Rates of opiate addiction have fallen every year since coffeeshops were officially tolerated in 1976. [compare to New Zealand, where tinnie shops were used to create demand for, and facilitate the distribution of, methamphetamine]
* enforcing a legal age limit of 18 years to purchase cannabis has made it a lot more difficult for them to access compared to here. I have visited Amsterdam many times and have yet to see a teenager even appear interested in the coffeeshops, let alone set foot inside one.
* banning the advertising of cannabis is very effective in not creating new users. Dutch coffeeshops are not allowed to call themselves cannabis cafes or display any weed leaves on the exterior of the building. Meanwhile, we have alcohol pushed on us all every time we turn on the tv or open a magazine.
* not arresting drug users has made access to education and treatment much easier: not only are there far more resources (it is very expensive to imprison even a non-violent drug user), but users are way more likely to sign up to treatment, or believe education messages when they are not being persecuted by police. Surveys here show the No.1 reason for not seeking treatment is a fear of the law.
* one of the main rules the coffeeshops must operate within is "no overlaast", meaning no nuisance. They cannot be noisy, generate any litter or graffiti, or create any other disturbances or else their license may be taken away. This rule keeps them all acting very responsibly - imagine if all pubs in New Zealand had to operate this way!
* a big lesson from the Dutch is that organised crime is still somewhat involved, because they only legalised the front end retail sale and not the cultivation or wholesale supply to the shops. So all coffeeshops must break the law and illegally purchase their cannabis from organised crime (including smugglers) or must organise their own grow operations (also illegal). Because it is not properly legalised the Dutch do not collect any excise taxes on cannabis sales.
With the Law Commission finally reviewing the long-outdated Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, New Zealand has an opportunity to learn from our failed experiment with cannabis prohibition, take the best of what has worked overseas, and come up with a new drug policy that leads the world. With new governments here and in the White House, there has never been a better time.
Chris
-
because they only legalised the front end retail sale and not the cultivation or wholesale supply to the shops.
There's a law with one eye closed. "You can sell it, but it has to appear by magic, OK?"
-
This rule keeps them all acting very responsibly - imagine if all pubs in New Zealand had to operate this way!
Which is an interesting point; why should we expect legal intoxication venues here to be like Dutch legal intoxication venues and not, er, NZ legal intoxication venues?
I am also unsure of the economics of coffee shops; I get the impression they don't need to advertise because, dude, Amsterdam! Everybody interested already knows, including middle-aged non-stoner New Zealanders, who must be getting close to being the antipodes of the target market. That wouldn't be the case so much over here.
-
There's a law with one eye closed. "You can sell it, but it has to appear by magic, OK?"
The Dutch, not being anal retentive wowsers (they exported those) are fine with that. Sure, it's illegal to wholesale weed, but the cops have many greater priorities, like murder and bicycle theft, and never quite get around to enforcing that law.
-
the cops have many greater priorities, like murder and bicycle theft, and never quite get around to enforcing that law.
I, personally, would like to put my hand up and say that I would be happy for a surprisingly large range of substances to be legalised if it freed up police resources to cut down the rate of bicycle theft.
-
It would have the added bonus of reducing the output of neorealist filmmakers.
-
Though nothing wrong with a little postneorealism.
-
The Dutch, not being anal retentive wowsers (they exported those) are fine with that. Sure, it's illegal to wholesale weed, but the cops have many greater priorities
This style of insurance legislation doesn't seem to have caught on in N (to the letter of the law) Z much.
On a recent visit to Chch, our group of 5, 30+(aged) citizens , were stopped on otherwise empty streets (on the way to bar not 50 metres yonder) by police who informed us we needed to empty our open vessels or we would be arrested. Having lived offshore, I naturally assumed this kind of law was in place merely as a prosecution option against unruly hooligans, but New Zealand hasn't quite reached that plateau of civility. Or at least in this case the law is clearly designed by the Gov to keep the peace and clearly enforced by old gov to keep the alcohol companies turnover ticking.
Chch though.."How was New Zealand dude?"
- "Oh I got stopped by police and threatened with arrest if I didn't empty out my bottle of beer."
tourism destination par excellence.
Crime R US
-
Though nothing wrong with a little postneorealism.
It's a lovely film that.
-
Al Capone's Guns don't argue:
(But I can't help thinking Price Buster copied the use of a machine gun cocking as percussion from M.I.A.)
-
Ah yes the alcohol ban areas.
The head cop (I do lose track of them) a yr or so ago, claimed to be policing a "broken windows" policy.
I would be happy with that, could be a real tool for urban renewal and rental housing standards.
He later contradicted himself (must be sizing up to be a Politican).
But this is discharging a liquid into a stormwater or onto land and requires a Resource Consent.
Just do a quick calculation of say 4 boy racer cars stopped to check WOFs and found with alcohol in the car (this constitutes an illegal search). There are 3 yoffs with 1Doz each of DB or JD poppiss. They're then told to pour it all out. This is all illegal but the community law centre is full of these reports.
Approx 50L of alcohol into one stormwater drain and then into the Avon. -
Surely this ancient herb is so literally in the public now (to the point that the last 3 american presidents have been in different social situations where it just turned up and was consumed by said president) that regulation is not so much debatable but outrageously overdue.
Any other market would have recieved certificates by now.The hedonistic aspect of this debate is what slows it. Heaven forbid if people enjoy themselves too much. Society will crumble. -
@Chris
Here in Dundee Scotland you cannot drink in public either in much of the city. In the US there is the hypocrisy of bottles in brown paper bags. I think it is quite civilised in both UK and NZ, I don't see the point of laws that are not enforced. That encourages too much discretion in the police which leads to arbitrariness in the application of the law and the opportunity for corruption.
I don't know where you are from, but I wouldn't think of walking a street carrying an open bottle of alcohol.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.