Hard News: Spectacular but useless
109 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
a value on whether Johnny would be happier if he didn't do drugs.
I just liked the line so repeated for the hell of it.I hear a tune coming along :-)
Say marijuana was legal to grow and sell, and taxed to keep the price roughly the same as today, just as a for instance. The industry would become a lot more productive (through being able to farm overtly with less people, not needing to evade police, etc). The revenue from this would accrue to the taxpayer and offset healthcare costs.
NZ doc t'other night had Pam Corkery talking with a guy running his private enterprise in a suburb considered "owned" by a gang. After intimidation he realised his taxes and mentioned he pays $6000.00 a week, so legal could also reduce. the stronghold of gangs helping police resources for other crime.All good actually.As you were...
-
"When one talks of consuming tobacco, for most the first thought is a cigarette. Similarly, a joint is the first thought for most when discussing pot. Sorry if I didn't make myself sufficiently clear."
Those things for sale.. they aren't vases..
-
This occurred to me too. I actually know former problem drinkers and alcoholics who now content themselves with a social toke. By any reasonable measure, harm has been greatly reduced, but there's no way of modelling that here.
Use = Abuse! Use = Abuse! (Repeat as necessary until power of rationale thought subsides).
-
Sue,
interting update on my 3 news email
http://www.3news.co.nz/Alcoholandtobaccostillourmostdeadlydrugs/tabid/420/articleID/60605/cat/59/Default.aspx"Jim Anderton said alcohol was “far and away” our most destructive drug.
-
Anyone who's read Ganja in Jamaica, a two year medical anthropological study, would realise its a moot point whether decrimanalising pot would have any significant negative social/health effects. The social and medical outcomes they measured were virtually the same, whether there was pot use or not. Its widely acknowledged by anyone with genuine expertise on the issue that those who are heavy users from a young age are at the highest risk of a negative life/health outcome, although there is some disagreement regards defining 'heavy use'. The NZ 'experts' seem to define mere daily use as heavy use, whereas Australian colleagues appear to consider daily use of up to 20 cones (small pipes) as heavy use.
The countries of the world with the highest pot arrest rate and worst penalties also have the highest youth uptake. Go figure. Russell has nailed the BERL report for what it is. Good luck to the police, I don't begrudge them resources, just part of what they waste it on.
-
Jim Anderton said alcohol was “far and away” our most destructive drug.
He is at least consistent on this. He said (in an email to a friend) that "if I could ban alcohol, I would". I wonder if the drinkers in his constituency are aware of this strict temperance stance, however.
-
If anyone of virtually any age wants to get hold of pot they can already, admittedly sometimes after a bit of faffing around. Removing criminal sanctions surrounding pot use would likely not permanently increase the number of new regular users, though in the short term it may while some indulge their curiousity.
As the breweries are aware, many current users prefer it over alcohol. However booze is still the drug of choice for the vast majority of Kiwis, as Jim Anderton always acknowledges at the beginning of his presentations on substance use/abuse . . . and thats always just before he goes on to talk ad infinitum about illegal drugs.... I've been to a few meetings in his electorate and his voters are definately aware of his view on banning alcohol 'if he could.' They know he can't, so its no matter to them.
-
Those things for sale.. they aren't vases..
Mikee - drug paraphernalia is illegal, and consequently Bad. I'm sure people bear that in mind and use legal rizlas instead.
-
Those things for sale.. they aren't vases..
Yeah, because using a bong just instantly makes it safe to inhale the fumes from burning shit, right? No matter how you do it, smoking stuff is bad for your lungs. Bongs filter some stuff, but a very quick hunt around found several pro-pot sites that warn that although bongs may be safer than a joint but they're far from perfect.
If anyone of virtually any age wants to get hold of pot they can already, admittedly sometimes after a bit of faffing around.
It's that faffing around that keeps some quite irregular users from becoming slightly-more-regular. They can't be fucked finding their own source, so they just toke up when an obliging friend is around and happens to have some. It's probably not a significant number, sure, but it won't be zero or even particularly close to it.
-
Well I could have 100 hits on a vaporizer and get less tar and crap than from a cigarette ................... but vaporizers are illegal .......... in the name of ' harm minimization'.
................ as for young people being unable to score pot.Maybe the tinny shop might offer them some P instead.
I'm sure thats happened but who knows the numbers who have had P because of this.
Also the police probably did not want the drug alcohol included in this ' harm index' crap study that they are pimping around the place.
............ because they sell that drug at private police drug taking dens at some police stations..................... they get their stuff cheap too, the govt shouts them the den.
They're called police bars
-
(Big sigh before I begin)
Look people, and Matthew ;-). It is quite simple. Back in the twenties America decided alcohol was bad so they banned it, prohibition. Don't worry yourselves about the "harm to society" , forget that and look at how it works with society.
When the Americans banned alcohol they, inadvertently, created a black market. That black market existed because we are not all the same, society is made up of individuals living under a commonly accepted collections of rules, laws, regulations, morals, faiths, beliefs and add on top of that peer pressure driven by fashion and fads. No wonder we have problems.
There have always been individuals that experiment with stuff, if that weren't so then we would still be grunting at each other and baying at the moon, some still do, Mr. Dexter are you still with us?.Anypoo, another of the inadvertent repercussions of the prohibition was the growth of "Organised Crime" and once the Genie was put back in the bottle and back on the shelf of a bar near you, these "Organised Crime" guys had an organisation waiting for a crime and the new crime was DRUGS, you know, the stuff certain individuals used instead of the alcohol that they had been deprived of.
Well some of those organised crime guys had organised breweries that were now legal and profitable, you could also buy shares on the new fangled stock exchange thingy, and they paid taxes and became important to the economy.
So there you have it. We have cornered ourselves. As a society we have created a problem that, especially now we are SO concerned about our health, creates a principal, drugs are bad, that is nothing more than another attack on the individual in the name of what is good for society.
Ok, some individuals are really bad, they hurt others, they grossly offend our morals, whatever, but other individuals are the creative, sometimes a little mad, influences that help us all grow and learn and sometimes allow us to step out of ourselves and live a little more. -
to be fair back in prohibition times (up untill the 19070s in some parts of NZ) the new fangled stock exchange was not all that new - though decidedly fangled, especially from about 1929 onwards
-
It's that faffing around that keeps some quite irregular users from becoming slightly-more-regular. They can't be fucked finding their own source, so they just toke up when an obliging friend is around and happens to have some. It's probably not a significant number, sure, but it won't be zero or even particularly close to it.Matthew Poole,
I find that perfectly acceptable, but then I would. Younger people interested in using pot will faff more readily than their elders. Engaging with the wider black market, and those risks, is virtually the norm. I don't find that so acceptable.
Well I could have 100 hits on a vaporizer and get less tar and crap than from a cigarette nz native
I don't know about a 100 but lately I have been seriously thinking of investing in one . . . for my tobacco. I'm far more concerned about that danger than any minor pot use.
-
The police aren't interested in optimising the level of resources committed to policing. They're interested in maximising it. Hence, studies like this.
That may be the case with this study, but not always the case. I've heard senior police officers talk with frustration about how politicians always promise XXX new police officers, when they'd much rather have the money to spend on communication systems, computers, forensic analysis, training etc. Not so sexy on the political soapbox however.
-
The Police are at it again, this time showing pot admissions to hospital.
For the record, I was interviewed about this last night by the NZ Herald, and pointed out that the Police illegal drug harm index showed pot-related hospital costs were lower than those for opiates and speedy drugs. It would be useful for Police to keep one piece of their work in context with another.
Again, for the record, I advised the NZ Herald reporter about their mistreated of the LSD "harm" findings. (Doesn't appear they've corrected that).
Once more, for the record, I provided what I thought was quite a useful critique of the harm index to the Herald yesterday, who were doing a follow up story. My criticisms didn't appear in today's story: that's unfortunate. Its seems discussion and debate about this bit of work will exist in the blogsphere only.
Is it just my imagination, but did the Herald change the headline of yesterday's report online?
As previous commenters has noted, this index needs a better examination - we'll be asking some OIAs about this [we were involved in very early discussions about an index, and were surprised to see how it progressed] and are commissioning our own peer review of the index. So this space.
Ross Bell
NZ Drug Foundation -
Is it just my imagination, but did the Herald change the headline of yesterday's report online?
Yep, they did:
From "$1.3b drugs bill we're all paying" to " Drug use cost NZ society $1.3 bn, index shows"
-
The Police are at it again, this time showing pot admissions to hospital.
Grrrr. Why are they feeding selected parts of this report to the Herald but not publishing it?
-
I think there is something published, I saw it on the NORMLNZ forums last night . . . 92 page report downloadable from this page http://www.berl.co.nz/content/aboutberl/projects/2008/1031/zealand-index.aspx
The NZ Herald's 'Have your say' is 6 pages of interesting comments
http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/your-views/2008/6/24/war-drugs-worth-fighting/?c_id=181#message -
Ross Bell said:
...and are commissioning our own peer review of the index.
That's good to hear Ross. I do wonder what impact this will have in the short term i.e. this budget cycle (and I'm sure you're aware of the seductive power of international benchmarking), but it's only through the approach you're taking that policy will be improved.
I don't know what it's like for you and your colleagues, but I am increasingly wary of the pressure 'keep-up' with other jurisdictions which tends to homogenise policy for the purposes of international comparisons (and, IMO, NZ is often ahead of international policy cycles, so keeping up may mean slowing down).
-
3410,
What a fucking disgrace! I'd like someone to quantify (in dollar terms, natch) the social cost of bogus public policy "research" driven by self-interest and unfounded assumptions.
-
They just about damn well disappear if you remove the rather dubious "harm" of "productive resources diverted due to drug production", which is the largest cost quoted in the index.
....If you add in revenue loss from not taxing currently illegal drugs...
I think that some illegal drug revenue is taxed at the higher end of the food chain (gangs and stuff).
And as tax numbers are fed to Stats to help calculate GDP, it wouldn't surprise me if "productive resources diverted" are being included in the numbers for NZ Ltd...
-
What a fucking disgrace! I'd like someone to quantify (in dollar terms, natch) the social cost of bogus public policy "research" driven by self-interest and unfounded assumptions.
Actually, despite my misgivings about the methodology and some of the assumptions informing the modeling, I don't think this is "bogus". I do think it's partial, but it's damn sight better than "just say no".
-
3410,
Actually, despite my misgivings about the methodology and some of the assumptions informing the modeling, I don't think this is "bogus". I do think it's partial, but it's damn sight better than "just say no".
Sure, but that's setting a pretty low bar, innit?. As purported statistical research, this report would get a fail mark in a 6th form (ie year... um... ) maths assignment. The faulty assumtions are laughably obvious, as is the underlying agenda. So, we agree that the report is "partial'. I say that impartiality is a necessary element of credible statistical analysis, and that the credibilty of the Drug Harm Index, is therefore entirely undermined. It's worse than useless; it's Orwellian in its self-justification, so I remain of the opinion that it's a fucking disgrace.
-
...despite my misgivings about the methodology and some of the assumptions informing the modeling, I don't think this is "bogus". I do think it's partial, but it's damn sight better than "just say no".
I agree, and wish - from both a personal and a normlnz perspective - that more people in that middle ground were prepared to become vocal about it. I'm afraid that instead we'll end up like Fortress New Zealand, polarised to hell and back. This report merely reinforces community division, and enables the police to grow their 'underclass' and protect their resources based on a lie. And the MSM will pass it off as science.
-
As above the full report is posted at www.berl.co.nz
Reviewing it as someone who works in mental mealth, in addictions and from a harm minimisation model, I agree Russell, spectacularly useless, but worringly it also seems shoddy and internally inconsitent.
The ratings that jumped out at me were the high rating of cocaine (38,390) relative to crystal methamphetamine (22,700), which is listed seperatley to amphetamines. Further in the report all stimulants are lumped together. What is uncelar anywhere in the report is how do they categorise the different sub-classes of drugs. On first impressions NZ has a cocaine epidemic, not a 'P' epidemic!
But where does P get classified, technically it isn't crystal methamphetamine, or amphetamine as crystal exists alongside P but is different in its manufacturing process by one step (the crystalisation, obviously.) Overall it left me with a sense of do they know what they are actually looking at here?
Please someone correct me as I actually hope I have read this wrong!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.