You're allowed to share seed, you're not allowed to sell them without licence and if you have that licence you can't then gift or discount them.
Giving away plant matter from your personal stock is limited to 14g dry per person per day, and probably seeds will go in there at some equivalent weight.
You’re allowed to share seed, you’re not allowed to sell them without licence and if you have that licence you can’t then gift or discount them.
Well thats pretty much the king hit on the “Gangs”. The ominous amount of pidantic paper work is going to put them out of business for good! It wouldn’t however, hurt to thru a bit of health and safety regulation in there as well, just for good measure.
And so what’s going to happen when one dope grower, proudly with two big plants, discovers the neighbour growing a male plant over the fence, and its pollinating all over the place?
I’ve just recently traveled back from Santa Barbara and had the experience of purchasing products from an up market dispensary ( https://www.thefarmacysb.com ). I thought I’d share the retail experience, which was certainly different from Amsterdam coffee shop.
I’ll say up front that the whole experience was great. To enter, you had to provide ID to a security desk before you were buzzed into the secure retail space.
Processed cannabis products (edibles, tinctures, oils, etc) were on shelves around the store perimeter. In the middle of the store were 4 glass lidded cabinets containing 6-8 jars of (organic) flower each. Each jar had a weight, description of effect, strain information (Sativa, Hybrid, Indica) and THC/CBD (and sometimes terpine) percentage. You could smell the flower, but a staff member would hold the jar. You weren’t allowed to touch. They also stocked pre-rolled joints for some of the strains, but not all.
If you decided to buy something you informed one of the staff and they would assemble your purchase behind the counter, which you then pay for and leave. They were not allowed to sell any paraphernalia. Not even matches.
I visited twice. The first visit I purchased two pre-rolled joints (Sativa – Acapulco Gold, Hybrid – Jillybean), $13 dollars each and a bag of 20 (5 mg) Nelson orange gummies for $25. The second visit I purchased one pre-rolled joint (Indica – can’t remember the name) $13 and a 5 gram of cannabis jar (Sativa – can’t remember the name) for $32. Each pre-rolled joint required 2-3 evenings for 2 adults to finish. We didn’t finish the jar (I was there for 8 weeks) All of the effects were as stated.
For the quality and potency the price was extremely reasonable. Especially if I know exactly what I’m getting. Assuming everything goes well next year, I look forward to a similar experience here.
I am trying to work out what will and will not be criminal.
IANAL so I am hazy even on the precise definition of criminality.
But criminal/non-criminal is quite a divide. It is the speeding ticket Vs drunk driving divide.
And so what’s going to happen when one dope grower, proudly with two big plants, discovers the neighbor growing a male plant over the fence, and its pollinating all over the place?
Low grade leaf from male plants is more suitable for elderly (and young people for that matter) so you will want to live well away from any retirement villages.
Low grade leaf from male plants is more suitable for elderly...
I'm not certain that subjecting the elderly to such knowing indignity would serve much purpose. Watching a room full of oldies all saying, "It has no effect on me either" might be funny, but anything from male plants is not low grade anything. It's compost.
As a recently ratified old person I can attest that when it comes to strains and terpene appreciation, age really is no barrier. And regardless of age, nobody should be subjected to either male plants or bad bush weed. Life's too short for that sort of nonsense.
Yup, laughing at complete nonsense sharing a big fat joint of (properly dried) cabbage with nerd friends are some of my favourite memories of a very uncool youth.
Do you have a link for that graph?
I’m curious to know how harm was defined. I find it hard to believe the harm from meth use is less than that for heroin.
Also if that harm takes into account fetal alcohol and P babies.
A relative who works in a school observed the increasing number of P babies coming through schools, for which there is no plan for, and also the increased number of very expensive Harleys on the streets.
The school’s in Flaxmere.
Physiological harm from heroin, excluding fatal OD, is transitory and minor whereas from P it’s major and irreversible.
That graph came from twitter, so it must be true : https://twitter.com/_chloeswarbrick
I think the point of it being used on twitter is to argue that criminalising and putting people in prison when they have a drug overuse problem, does serious damage, and not only to the person who has the drugs use problem. It actually traumatises and impoverishes people who are most likely already traumatised impoverished.
One thing that isn’t explicit in those sorts of graphs, is the danger of mixing drinks.
The room could start to spin before you vomit your dinner all over your friends and family’s carpet.
Thats what the graph means by harm to others. not just your self.
My Uber car is an ex-taxi so I left the sticker that says it’s illegal to bring alcohol into the car.
Possibly also included in "harm to others" is theft committed to fund a drug habit, which is a "harm" that might be expected to be higher for more expensive drugs -- which maybe helps explain heroin's ranking?
Heroin in the New Zealand context. actually means ‘any opiates a junky can get their hands on’. During the home-bake epidemic of the late eighties early nineties there where news articles about chemist shops being burgled for packets of Panadeine. I remember also reading that people where being handed lengthy prison sentences for conspiring to make home-bake because they where buying packets of Panadeine from mutable chemist shops in one day. And of course there has historically been the armed robberies of chemist shops for opiates.
I never read much of that stuff in the news these days. It’s mainly the dairies getting robbed and burgled for tobacco nowadays.
The regulated and legalised supply of narcotics; the methadone program, might have reduced lots of those criminality related harms , but the graph hasn’t been updated yet?
Or the harm of one overdose death gets a high data count for both the user who died and everyone who has to deal with the aftermath.
And heroin probably renders people emotionally unavailable and generally unreliable. A bit like an alcoholic with out all the drama.
A little Googling finds a more detailed version of the graph on p24 of this report (PDF) — Global Commission on Drugs (2019), Classification of Psychoactive Substances
which further subclassifies the harms into
Crime and injury : Crime committed in order to acquire the substance, or increased risk of e.g. domestic violence, traffic accidents
Environmental and international damage e.g. discarded needles, chemicals used in production, deforestation, international crime
Family Adversities e.g. family breakdown, child neglect
Community and economic cost e.g. Health care, prisons, loss of productivity, decline in social cohesion, neighborhood reputation
The largest contribution to harms to others from heroin is, as expected, in the "Crime and injury" subcategory. Admittedly, that turns out to be quite a broad subcategory.
Meanwhile, on the dork side of the debate, FamF seems to be pontificating about nothing else. It seems to have concluded that they'll be heavily defeated when it comes to the decriminalisation of abortion and euthanasia referendum, so for once they're actually focusing on a specific issue. Supporters of reform might want to complain to the companies that own any such billboards, particularly if you're business owners and currently have accounts with them. Or contact businesses that do advertise with the billboard companies and state that you won't buy their products or services.
This is what I mean: http://www.familyfirst.org.nz
> I wonder how many people will actually cast their votes on this basis? My pick is, not many. It certainly hasn't helped the Greens in the past.
In their first MMP election after leaving the Alliance the Greens only just scraped in over the 5% threshold on special votes, thanks to getting a large chunk of the votes the Cannabis Party got in the previous election. Jenny Shipley publicly lambasted the Greens for their cannabis decrim policy, thinking it would hurt them. She couldn't have been more wrong.
The Greens have also regularly attracted votes from young libertarians who understand that the Greens are actually much more sincerely libertarian than ACT, and cannabis policy has been an important test of that for them.
> I hope its lower than that! $100 for 14g seems more reasonable to me
Regulated cannabis businesses - both cultivation and retail - will have to start paying normal business taxes (income, GST, PAYE for employees etc), and possibly a further luxury tax (like that on alcohol and tobacco), so it's unlikely that the price will drop at all. On the other hand, they will be competing with both the remaining black market (in the shorter term), and home growing (in the longer term), so that will put a ceiling on the retail price the new, legal market will bear. Overall, it seems likely that prices will stay pretty close to what they are now.
> there needs to a substantial concurrent increase in mental health funding for areas which deal with the mental health issues associated with marijuana.
I agree that funding for mental health needs to increase, and some of the tax take from regulated cannabis businesses can and should be deployed that way. But to the degree that cannabis use increases with the end of prohibition, it will be displacing drugs like synthetics and P, which people end up using when their dealers can't get cannabis, and which are much more harmful to mental health. So the net effect of cannabis legalization would be an improvement in overall mental health outcomes, even before you factor in the funding it makes available to government.