Hard News by Russell Brown

Sigh …

This is the study that Chloe mentioned was forthcoming: a big meta-analysis that finds that tougher policies do not deter young people from using cannabis.

Seventy five scholars and clinicians have signed a letter condemning the “junk science” in ‘Tell Your Children’, Alex Berenson’s alarmist new book about cannabis.

Family First has been bragging that it's bringing Berenson to New Zealand.

It's certainly true that Colorado collected more tax revenue than they expected... and the conundrum of federal banking legislation prevented small business retailers from commercially banking their proceeds.

But revenue collection is surely a consequence rather than an aim of the legislation?

But revenue collection is surely a consequence rather than an aim of the legislation?

I think so too. But it's also a consequence of shifting the trade away from the black market, which seems to be what's not happening in California.

I watched that Garner/Swarbrick interview live. I strongly recommend it as Exhibit A every time somebody says that Chloe is too young to understand stuff and has no real life experience and we should only have MPs who have "lived", because obviously extra decades outside the womb automatically leads to wisdom. (However, I don't recommend watching it if you don't enjoy shouting at the screen. Trust me, there will be shouting).

Duncan Garner is 45.

I dont know or want to know Duncan Garner’s age, tho I’m sure wisdom has never, nor will ever come knocking on his doorstep, judging by the drivel that pours forth from his mind.
Dammit now i know!

Perhaps Graeme Hill could explain Headband's 'The laws must change to' Duncan

That 'break' from ~8.40 in the clip

re Duncan Garner/Chloe S'brick 'clash'

Clarity around this issue, while well argued from a political dimension (tx. Chloe) often misses the point when old information (Duncan's research) isnt clearly explained such as that around young people and mental health risks associated with cannabis. The pretence given legs by MSM that pro-reform means 'there are no harms' - needs to be tested too, when clearly no one is advocating youth uptake. So lets put that in a New Zealand context. 80% of the youth (18-25) have tried cannabis more than 5 times. (It couldnt be more popular than if it was made compulsory).... and THAT is under prohibitions watch. But when we examine that data (Joe Boden, CHDS, 2010) and consider youth uptick, there is a lot to be learned from current research from other jurisdictions. This is the latest on that subject and it informs the youth 'usage' debate as it addresses concerns about post illicit status adult access as well as the here and now. We couldn't do worse. We can only do better is the meme. This research is explored well here.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/18/cannabis-policies-young-people

<snip>

“Countries that have ended criminal sanctions for possession of drugs have shown they have better health, social and economic outcomes, yet the UK government continues to have an evidence-free approach when it comes to the law around drugs.”

Ian Hamilton, a lecturer in mental health and addiction the University of York, said young people were unlikely to be dissuaded from using cannabis whether it was legal or not.

<end snip>

Anyone interested in correcting a wrong, please pass on to Duncan.

Anyone interested in correcting a wrong, please pass on to Duncan.

That would assume that Duncan actually reads anything other than his producer's bullet points. When you're shafting your producer on air because you don't know what you're talking about, you've really lost the "debate" right there.

Family First has been bragging that it’s bringing Berenson

The author of a factually incorrect book on a contentious topic is coming to talk, I imagine, to people who are looking to have their bias confirmed. The author's previous contributions to literature consists of spy fiction. I dont know whether to laugh or shake my head in disbelief!

Off topic, but I think Farrar must have found that "stealth" polls well because it's slipped into a number of different National Party attacks recently.

"stealth” […] slipped into a number of […] National Party attacks

Sneaky word, acting by itself, by stealth!

I get the idea that the ebb and pull of a tax on ganja would need to keep it relatively expensive (a.) for public health by limiting intake economically (b.) to keep the legislators sweet by providing enough tax to pay for mental health services and pop up music festivals. My question is what will happen to the street price of marijuana; will it go up, down or stay the same? The sting here being the potential for a prohibition on home growing (similar to the prohibition on growing tobacco)to keep the tax take high and a free market profitable.

and then there’s this:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/110703699/referendums-provide-balance-in-a-democracy

OPINION: While New Zealand may indeed be one of the most democratic nations in the world, there is always room for improvement. Surely, as a society, we must strive to improve our democracy and encourage more involvement in the decision-making process from as many New Zealanders as possible.
In a country like New Zealand, where citizens are far better informed and far better educated than ever before, but where trust and confidence in the political elite is continually waning, referendums are one of the few tools available to voters to balance political elitism.
And, if we have any doubts about the referendum system, we need look no further than Switzerland which, by and large, has used the referendum process wisely and successfully for well over 160 years. …

‘Far better informed and educated’!
‘Political elite’?

Interesting to go look at what the Swiss referendums were and what succeeded and what didn’t and the varying turn outs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Swiss_referendums
(other years are at the bottom)

From ‘The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer’

ps:
I take it this is the same Steve Baron (Direct Marketing Agency owner) who last year wrote in The Whanganui Chronicle:

"In 1841, Charles Mackay wrote a very famous book that is mandatory reading for anyone in the investment industry.
It was called Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds and was a study of crowd psychology and mass mania with classic swindles, schemes and scams.”

- Public referendums (and elections) can be skewed in the same way – both processes are equally open to disinformation attacks, and I would contest his assertion that we are better informed and educated – it doesn’t always show in Stuff comment sections…

My question is what will happen to the street price of marijuana;

Thats called putting the cart before the horse.

prohibition on home growing (similar to the prohibition on growing tobacco)to keep the tax take high and a free market profitable.

They can always try it. But whos going to enforce it?
And your going back a few years there a pack of cigs was what $3-5, maybe $10?And cigarettes have always been profitable even back then despite a high tax, cause of the tabacco co's world wide distribution. Is that what you mean by "free market"?

Is that what you mean by "free market"?

I'm just tired of putting speech marks around every euphemism.

Thats called putting the cart before the horse.

The idea is that a black market charges more because the illicit nature of the activity comes with high risks, so a legal/decrim paradigm would assume a drop in price. However the trope that people smoke dope regardless of the legislation surrounding it becomes a bit weak if the country is flooded with budget buds. Then the tax becomes a health mechanism, so anybody voting for law change expecting a price drop bonanza might be in for a surprise. What is the price of an ounce of heads these days?

You appear to have it all worked out so whats the point. Predicting the future is not my forte. Let us all know when that flood of "budget bud" arrives would ya.
And you said free market I was just quoting you. If its become a euphemism, its because no such thing exists.

I don't think I deserve that response.

Speculation about price doesn't seem a major part of the “reeferendum” campaign so far; the focus is much more on harm reduction (compared to harm resulting from criminalisation). Andin’s “cart before the horse” comment seems correct insofar as the shape of the potential decriminalised market is still up for debate (as on this thread).

Steve Baron comes across as a right dick.
The last sentence has some very telling language.

“In 1841, Charles Mackay wrote a very famous book that is mandatory reading for anyone in the investment industry.

In 1843 a more famous book was published that had longer lasting consequences, but looking at todays world the author's intent has been turned on its head. The attitudes of the wealthy back then were similar to those being exposed today.

ps Sorry you feel that way William.

McCoskrie does this, though. He wouldn't know mainstream professional expertise and evidence-based substantive science if he tripped over it in the dark.

Why does the raving right have so much contempt for substantive representative democratic institutions? And the concept of a written constitution, too.

The prison abolitionist group People Against Prisons Aotearoa is holding a symposium on drug policy reform:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1903/S00014/expert-panel-holding-public-discussion-of-drug-law-reform.htm

The panel will be on the top floor of the Auckland Central Library from 1pm, on Sunday 3rd of March. MP Chlöe Swarbrick of the Green Party and Sandra Murray of the Cannabis Referendum Coalition will join PAPA Research Coordinator Ti Lamusse.