Speaker: Towards a realistic drug policy
385 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
Irrational old naysayers like Dunne will die eventually.
We could get Dr Haywood onto him ;)
I'd mention Anderton as well. Because it personally effected his family, he finds it very hard to accept law reform. -
Now you are sounding paranoid
Oh spare it! Where in my posts have I laid out a belief in a great pothead conspiracy to recruit and corrupt NZ youth?
Norml is a collection of enthusiasts as much as a lobby group, so excuse me if I call bullshit on how they frame their arguments - I'd probably feel the same way if the Auckland Car Club was leading the debate on the country's transport infrastructure.
-
will die eventually
In the meantime, I'm unconvinced that pegging the argument against the hypocrisy of our society's position on legal lethal drugs will work, despite the appeal of fairness.
I likewise doubt the relevance of hippie fantasies about responsibility-free hedonism, or that we can predict substitution patterns that may or may not happen. However I am confident the sky wouldn't fall, as Russell says.
Reform done properly does seem to offer opportunities to educate and enforce non-usage amongst under 18s and to remove the dealer connections with more harmful substances. Nandor spoke persuasively about the age thing, but then look where that got him.
-
Reform done properly does seem to offer opportunities to educate and enforce non-usage amongst under 18s and to remove the dealer connections with more harmful substances.
Like she said.
-
Danielle: sure! And never mind enhancing the Muppet Show, there's sex!
And the dishes. Actually, especially the dishes.
-
Like she said.
Sacha's not a lady. He's a sensitive new-age guy ;-)
-
3410,
Irrational old naysayers like Dunne will die eventually.
It's more than irrationality that drives Dunne. Libel laws prevent me from being specific, but - as I understand it - the guy has certain "interests."
-
never mind enhancing the Muppet Show, there's sex!
For some reason, the furries scene in Entourage came to mind. Can't show you because sensitive yanks have deemed it too adult for Youtube despite the tameness. That's what we're up against.
-
Opps - sorry Sacha. The drugs have obviously impaired my judgment :)
-
Sacha's not a lady
I welcome confusion - most of the time
He's a sensitive new-age guy
Not helping
-
As someone with a gender-ambiguous first name myself, I can relate.
-
Shay, still within the 15 minute Edit window if you really want to confuse people by removing one letter..
-
Oh spare it!
Sweet, each to, but by saying "wont somebody please think of the children" which da is obvious to most and belittling ( utopian paradise)what some may find isn't very helpful either. IMHO and from experience .
-
R65 - that's local body elections isn't it?
-
One point that hasn't been discussed, and correct me if I'm wrong, well no, don't come in here telling me I'm wrong, who the hell do you think you are? It could send me on a Drug and Alcohol fuelled retribution binge and you wouldn't like me if I were...
Well anyway. The fact that Cannabis is Illegal is part of the attraction for te rebellious yoof [citations coming out of my butt here so go and have a look and use your own] and such things are the norm. Telling your rebellious teenager that they are 'Grounded" somehow translates as "Do you think you could leave by the window" and saying things like "Let's have a grown up talk about stuff" turns into ""Don't try and wriggle out of those straps, you might dislodge the electrodes"
It's the norm, perhaps if we put the drinking age back up to...
All they do is tinker round the edges, MPs don't have the courage to do a damned thing, perhaps they should try PCP?. -
Irrational old naysayers like Dunne will die eventually.
He's not being irrational at all. Politically savvy is what he is. Very, very savvy.
Libel laws prevent me from being specific, but - as I understand it - the guy has certain "interests."
Don't know about that, but just take a look at his consistant track record as an MP on voting against anything which may harm alcohol sales (label warnings, etc) and supporting measures which help the industry (Lowering the drinking age).
-
the furries scene in Entourage came to mind
That scene was both hilarious and disturbing in more or less equal measure. That which has been seen cannot be unseen.
Anyway, on topic: I'm mildly surprised that most of the arguments in this thread have crystallised around health and harm reduction, rather than practicality.
In a practical sense, is the current law and the related enforcement strategy working? Clearly not.
Therefore, maintaining the status quo is not an option.
So do we make the law and enforcement strategy harsher, or do we look at relaxing it?
In my opinion, and there is a ton of evidence for this (we could use any number of examples from the US), a harsher regime would be extremely counter-productive. And would also not work.
Therefore, the only sensible option is to look at relaxing the current law. And if we're going down that road, the government may as well make some money out of taxing it. So make it legal.
-
-
We've got 30yr old grandparents and 45yr old G/grandparents, so I'm pretty sure that's already happening.
Edit: smoking dope that is.
-
Don't know about that,
The "Reserve Bank Annual 2010." would be of help there. A must read.
-
And imagine how popular its going to be when granddad comes out and says its his big buzz.
Exactly,"You smokin' that old man shit bro? Have an Apple instead"
-
Somebody asked why I think regulating sales of cannabis will lead to a decrease in alcohol and tobacco use:
"Marijuana is becoming increasingly popular with teens in the US, as they smoke less cigarettes and slow down on binge drinking and the use of methamphetamines, according to a survey released Monday by White House drug expert Gil Kerlikowske." (Dec 15, 2009)
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1799342/marijuana_more_widely_used_among_us_teens/
I believe this supports the 'balloon theory' I posited earlier about patterns of drug use.
Also note the recent turnaround in US teen pot smoking rates, after a long period of declining use. Ross Bell is absolutely correct: the law has very little - if any - influence over trends in use of particular drugs. Young people, in particular, are more influenced by friends and the media in the choice of intoxicants they take.
And imagine how popular its going to be when granddad comes out and says its his big buzz.
In addition to the survey which found declining rates of teen use in US states which had enacted medical marijuana programs, I recall reading that one reason cited for this phenomena was that young people's attitudes towards cannabis were changing because of its association with the sick and the dying.
-
3410,
Don't know about that
Well, yes, when I said "[l]ibel laws prevent me..." I should perhaps have explained that I meant that I was not sure enough to make any bold accusations (hence "as I understand it".) Nevertheless, I feel safe in suggesting that his nickname "Peter Dunhill" is no accident.
___
As mentioned the last time we discussed this issue, should I ever find myself charged with possession, I'll be challenging the prosecution on Bill of Rights grounds. :) -
Anyway, on topic: I'm mildly surprised that most of the arguments in this thread have crystallised around health and harm reduction, rather than practicality.
While I recognise your point, I don't like the argument "we should give up on fighting this wrong, because it's not working". If something is wrong, I'd like to think we'd find alternative ways of dealing with it better.
To me the answer remains, "this isn't as bad as it should be for these laws, nor relative to these other substances" - the 'wrong' is relatively small. Then the side effects of trying to damage the trade in actually bad drugs, get people into treatment where they have problems, tax it, make it less likely that kids will get their hands on it just add additional reasons so that it makes even more sense.
-
I'll tell you what muddles your brain more than marijuana. Texting and email.
I say we make them restricted substances, only available to those over 18.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.