Hard News: Sorting out our thinking on drugs
213 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Email
Most cynical piece of electioneering I’ve seen in a long, long time
True! So Dunne isn't really serving 'the people' is he...
It's like he pulled his head out of the sand, but may have left his brain behind.Dunne said a "mad rush" to bulk-buy synthetic cannabis before it's pulled off the shelves lay squarely at the feet of the Opposition....
...He admitted his decision to bring the announcement forward was a political one, sparked by Labour's planned announcement.from The Press
I don't agree with the statement in the article that:
...Labour had been spurred on by media coverage of the issue and had "decided to jump on the bandwagon"..
Opposition has to do what Opposition has to do to keep the Gov't on track, that's their seemingly thankless task and they're finally getting the hang of it...
:- ) -
Email
I can't decide whether to send the bill for a new transistor radio to Dunne or Espiner - patronising pricks!
-
Email Twitter
It's interesting that Dunne is the only one from the government fronting this. I wonder if he decided unilaterally to announce it, just to pre-empt Labour, and didn't tell his colleagues until after the event.
-
Email Twitter
It’s interesting that Dunne is the only one from the government fronting this.
It will be to keep distance on this between the Government and the issue.
It occurs to me that if you’re an actual illegal drug dealer selling marijuana and/or other drugs, then you’re going to see a surge in custom in about a month.
-
Email
How will the cops/customs prove a random substance found in someone's possession is psychoactive?
-
Presumably by relying on existing pharmacological guidelines about psychoactive or toxicological properties, Rich? If they exist?
-
George Darroch, in reply to
Email Twitter
Seize on suspicion, test.
The time, effort, and cost required to do this are considerable. Which means it is likely that only those who are in possession of quantities for supply, or who have other already illegal drugs, would be tested and then charged.
-
I've posted some info on maximum penalties relating to synthetic cannabinoids once they're de-approved on the new thread.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Email
Seize on suspicion, test.
The time, effort, and cost required to do this are considerable. Which means it is likely that only those who are in possession of quantities for supply, or who have other already illegal drugs, would be tested and then charged.
Yes, it's quite simple. With respect to drugs, the presumption of innocence, that golden thread in our legal system, is finished. This is the very same bunch of policies that not 3 days ago were being heralded on this very thread as amazingly progressive.
Whoever thought that got played. It was never about making some drugs legal or decriminalized based on harm. It was about making all drugs illegal. The only thing that's surprising in this move is that anyone would not have seen it coming. That a whole lot of really intelligent people didn't is actually astonishing. I guess the genius was the allure of "incremental" policy. It sound soooo scientific, so reasonable. Doesn't matter that every increment was predicated on the elephant in the room every time, so that no meaningful increments could be made, indeed only bad increments with a very slow dripfeed of increasing harm, could be.
Here we are now. Prohibition is back. Nice one.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
That a whole lot of really intelligent people didn’t is actually astonishing. I guess the genius was the allure of “incremental” policy. It sound soooo scientific, so reasonable.
I do understand your argument, but I’ve always been pretty clear that the PSA on its own and as it stands was never enough. I want to see drug use decriminalised but I’m also fine with the state having a regulatory role the way way it does with the food we eat.
It’s worth noting that had Labour’s proposed amendment to the PSA succeeded last year there would have been no penalty for possession of unapproved substances. None. As things stand -- and even with what's happened -- prosecution will be merely unlikely.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Email
I want to see drug use decriminalised but I’m also fine with the state having a regulatory role the way way it does with the food we eat.
A regulatory role, sure. But this regulatory role, no. I'm very much not fine with that.
I’ve always been pretty clear that the PSA on its own and as it stands was never enough
I know. It's not your fault. To me it's like refusing to fight someone who is pushing you into a corner, yelling in your face, and lining you up for the big shot. At no point did you ask for the big shot. But pardon me for not being surprised to see it coming.
-
I have always thought that it helps in English speaking countries that the word "drugs" is also the word for medicine. In the Netherlands where I live we use the word drugs for everything illegal and criminal and the word medicine (medicijn) for the legal distribution. I believe it helps for people that most common and I think 80% of medicine is the same as the drugs sold for recreational use.
It is all about your approach, just let people experiment with safe and clean drugs and make everything legal. Let's just see what happens! -
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Email
There's still a big hypocritical gap, even amongst educated professionals. It's ok to have paracetamol (quite risky, high incidence of accident and suicide deaths, limited treatment, low therapeutic index) sold in supermarkets to deal with a hangover, but not MDMA, which is of at least comparable risk, because it's just there to make life more amusing. (One solution to this is to medicalise human mood and personality such that a 'medicine' is needed to 'cure' them).
Post your response…
You may also create an account or retrieve your password.