Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Cabinet and the Reeferendum

123 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

  • Joe Boden, in reply to steven crawford,

    And among other things, I wonder how exactly the regulation is going to stop children from smoking dope. Will it be more or less a cut and paste of the regulation currently in place to reduce alcohol harm on children?

    The Canadian idea is control of the supply chain. Currently, any 15 year old in NZ who wants to buy weed can get it. With control of the supply chain, that gets harder. The question is whether that can be achieved.

    As for alcohol regulations, we pretty much don't have any (apart from age of purchase, which is broken).

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 87 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    I see what you are saying. And controlling the supply chain makes sense,. That will take the criminal element out, which is itself not good for young people. Personally, I think it’s important not to let it be glamorous in the eyes of young people. That’s going to be something for adult dope smokers to be considerate about.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4327 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    And as an example: "I smoked dope while I was at university"

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4327 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Young,

    I didn't. In fact, I never have used recreational drugs, but I am a strong believer in evidence-based research and public policy based on it across the board, as opposed to junk science. I believe in harm minimisation and risk reduction. When it comes to premature use, we will need to do considerably better than we have when it comes to preventing susceptible young folks preloading and binge drinking.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 566 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    I’m less of a believer in anything than cynical, sceptical and inquisitive of nearly everything. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have a substantial believe system, just like everyone else, and I am aware it needs constant maintenance.

    evidence-based research and public policy based on it across the board, as opposed to junk science.

    I am starting to see this line of attack being used on twitter more frequently as a political tool. It’s an effective way to ignore the nuance of other points of view.

    “Legalising, taxing and regulating," and if we all say that in concert, it becomes clearly and loudly what we all believe is the only correct thing, and anything else is wrong. Its a polarising style of politics and its counter productive in a referendum context.

    I’d like to know what plan-B is if the polling booth says leave the law as it is, because the Greens or what ever just piss us off. Not everyone only thinks with their high level tertiary education Y’know, just saying.

    Call it the Trump hypnosis, that has no rhyme or reason but yet it’s evidently real.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4327 posts Report Reply

  • andin, in reply to steven crawford,

    I think it’s important not to let it be glamorous in the eyes of young people.

    Completely ban any advertising industry input funnel all information thru scientific channels and informed parents. TELL 'EM...Your messing with your minds, kids, try and show a bit of respect for yourselves, do that and you might be able to enjoy the mind altering aspects of the drug. And dont endanger others please.

    the Trump hypnosis

    Its going to take a while for that to peter out in society if ever. We're always going to have stupid with us

    raglan • Since Mar 2007 • 1882 posts Report Reply

  • Moz, in reply to Craig Young,

    I never have used recreational drugs

    Can you just clarify whether that includes legal psychoactive substances like alcohol and caffeine? Remember the laughter when the UK proposed to outlaw *all* psychoactive substances, and the horror when they did?

    Sydney, West Island • Since Nov 2006 • 1198 posts Report Reply

  • linger,

    At this point I would like to direct you towards the episode of Andrew Maxwell’s Public Enemies on the drugs trade (first broadcast in 2013, but recently rebroadcast on BBC Radio 4 Extra, so currently available for streaming until the end of July 2019).
    “I’m not going to ask if you’ve used drugs; I’ll just tell the jokes, and I’ll know from your reactions.”
    On ignoring alcohol, Maxwell comments (9 minutes in): it’s like “a government [that was] officially vegetarian, [and] used all the power of the state to go after steak restaurants, but instead of shutting down meat, they had a war on condiments.”

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1890 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    Attachment

    Redlining. This is the graphic picture to help identify the “war on drugs”.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4327 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    Point of information? Is the well known and popular celebrity psychotherapist, Kyle MacDonald, also a qualified psychiatrist?

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4327 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Boden,

    The NZMJ has accepted our letter responding the FF's press release. If you'd like a copy email me at joseph.boden@otago.ac.nz. I can't post it here due to copyright restrictions.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 87 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    Russell Brown

    @publicaddress
    Jul 3

    In theory the “just consume less” thing works, but higher THC also tends to mean a lower CBD ratio. It would actually be really nice to have access to higher-CBD strains.

    In theory, yes. And this is where we depart from alcohol as a comparison. The chemistry is different.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4327 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to steven crawford,

    Is the well known and popular celebrity psychotherapist, Kyle MacDonald, also a qualified psychiatrist?

    No. And I suspect he’d chuckle at ‘celebrity’. :)

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19688 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    Kyle MacDonald
    @kylemacd

    Replying to @publicaddress @David_Cormack and 2 others

    A number of us have.

    Fear is a powerful motivator though, and prevents facts having the impact they should, especially when deliberately enflamed by the hysterics of B*b McFamily and Hosking et. al.

    I know, Twitter looks like machine code language when you take it out of the lab.

    Whats happening here, is Kyle twittering his expert opinion as part of his campaign to legalise and regulate cannabis because thats his gig.

    What he is saying is profound. Fear is a strong motivator.

    I think he might also be saying that anyone with reservations about ticking the yes box in the up coming referendum, is not thinking rationally.

    What I think is that machines operate on facts alone, Human beings are obviously more creative and intuitive. Which is what Kyle is also saying, but from a different platform and status.

    My intuition tells me that B*b McFamily and Hosking et. al are to be ignored. I never ever fact check what these people say. I use my efficient internal bullshit detectors instead.

    Regarding algorithms of facts, evidence-based decision making and “harm reduction”. Until I start reading tweets from high profile cannabis legalise and regulate campaigners talking about tightening up the regulations around the advertising and marketing of alcohol, I’m going to listen to my intuition, and call bullshit your not going to introduce another mind fucking addictive drug to the supermarket shelves.

    Please convince me you truthfully care about harm reduction.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4327 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    @_chloeswarbrick

    Here’s the thing about common-sense, evidence based legal regulation: it means we have control over a substance, and can ensure community well-being.

    But here’s the thing. Why not have a read of this, real "evidence based" recommendation, and maybe explain why your “common-sense” approach to regulation can’t be applied to alcohol.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4327 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    News from Twitter.

    Russell tweeted, and it’s good to see some sobriety in all this.

    Pro-reform people seem to be universally applauding the PM’s decision to ask the Chief Science Advisor to report to the public ahead of the cannabis referendum. But no word from Bob McCoskrie et al. Can’t think why.

    Most of the thread conversation is about Bob is a dick, but Kyle tweeted a zinger.

    @kylemacd
    Replying to @publicaddress

    Like when Nigel Latta reviewed the “smacking bill” and stopped the conversation.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4327 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4327 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    And there is plenty to discuss. Tax, could it create a perverse outcome for example?

    Is this process of cannabis reform by referendum also an opportunity to take stock and look at our democratic health? How sophisticated is contemporary propaganda if there is even any at play?

    And I like how Portugal didn’t just make cannabis reform the cool hipster thing to twitter about. They had a go at proper drugs law reform.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4327 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Boden, in reply to steven crawford,

    And there is plenty to discuss. Tax, could it create a perverse outcome for example?

    Is this process of cannabis reform by referendum also an opportunity to take stock and look at our democratic health? How sophisticated is contemporary propaganda if there is even any at play?

    And I like how Portugal didn’t just make cannabis reform the cool hipster thing to twitter about. They had a go at proper drugs law reform.

    It's worth noting that Portugal's problem was primarily linked to opiate addiction. One of the things that we have not done well so far in the debate on drug law reform is being able to articulate clearly what problem we are trying to solve.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 87 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to Joe Boden,

    One of the things that we have not done well so far in the debate on drug law reform is being able to articulate clearly what problem we are trying to solve.

    It could be that which is causing those disappointing resent poll results. I’ve been keeping up as best I can, by reading twitter and glancing at the news papers occasionally. I still can’t figure out if we would vote to prevent unnecessary criminal convictions or create a regulated industry like the alcohol industry, but more like the tobacco industry and maybe a bit like the coffee industry. I really genuinely have know idea what the point even is anymore.

    It doesn’t help that the pharmaceutical industry, if you can call it that, is heavily promoting its own purely commercial interests with billboard stunts at the same time.

    Its no wonder the polls are not looking good. Not enough truth. Not enough proper debating. Too much condescending rhetoric.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4327 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/115853060/parliament-cancer-fundraiser-slammed-by-experts-over-link-to-alcohol-industry

    This is what regulation of the “worse than cannabis drug” looks like today. Its so obvious than cannabis needs to be legalised, regulated and on Facebook.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4327 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4327 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    Colorado is loosening up its alcohol regulations. You still need to be 21 to buy alcohol in Colorado, probably so you can get thru university without vomiting up too much on the sidewalk.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4327 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.