 | Elections: United Future's drugs policy costly, ineffective |
 Gearing up for the election, United Future have released a new drugs policy. And it makes scary reading, it suggests:
- harsher penalties for dealing, for dealing to "young people", for driving under the influlence, and for receiving income from the proceeds of drugs.
- drug testing of all offenders and all workplaces to be encouraged, with mandatory drug testing of all prisoners, people on parole, car accident drivers and suicides
- mandatory treatment for all drugs offenders, including those not convicted, also for all people that fail a drugs test
- confiscation of money and property for "suspected" drug dealers with the onus of proof shifted onto the suspect, and
- make drug dealers an accomplice to any crime committed by their 'customers'.
There has been lots of reaction around the web, most notably Russell Brown's Hard News, see read more for more!
It is clear that another Labour-Progressive-United government will be a disaster for law reform. Only a Labour-Green government will deliver change. Make sure you are registered to vote, and when the time comes, make sure you get out and vote.
 09/06/05 United PR: UF lays down drugs challenge to Labour, Nats
09/06/05 United PR: UF to keep cannabis illegal
 09/06/05 Green PR: United hypocritical and ill-informed on drugs
10/06/05 United PR: Drug-driving deaths study backs UF testing policy
13/06/05 ALCP PR: United Future Ostrich approach to drug policy
Extract from Hard News by Russell Brown:
You may foolishly believe you'd rather be in a pub alongside a bunch of potheads, as opposed to a crowd of dead-eyed pokie junkies, but clearly, you are not a United Future MP.
I mean, their drug policy … what are they smoking?
But by means of introduction, let's start with UF's "role of government" policy, which leads their 2005 policy page.
United Future would undertake an immediate review of all legislation and regulations that impose coercive powers and administrative burdens on businesses to ensure the impact on business is minimised, consistent with the overall public interest.
So: sort of harm minimisation for business. But if you're just a private citizen, you can confidently expect to be coerced and burdened every whichway.
Most notably, anyone on a first-time drug offence would be "required to undergo treatment whether they receive a custodial sentence or not." Exactly what would "treatment" of a 20-year-old caught with a joint comprise? And by what public health reasoning would you justify "treatment" for as many as 10,000 people a year who overwhelmingly are not actually sick?
The obsession with poking, pricking and re-educating doesn't stop there. What do you make of "encourage comprehensive employee assistance programmes in return for reduced ACC levies, to ensure there are no barriers to implementing testing"? Does that mean financial incentives for employers to drug-test their staff? It would appear so.
Peter Dunne completely lost the plot on Checkpoint, telling Mary Wilson that teenagers caught with a joint could expect a prison sentence (as noted, the actual policy only mandates the dreaded compulsory re-education) if United Future got its way. It would, he maintained, teach people that drugs are bad. It is more likely to teach them that the law is an ass.
Here's the relevant part of the most recent Drug Use In New Zealand survey conducted by the Alcohol & Public Health Research Unit at Auckland University. It demonstrates, as previous surveys have, that a little over half of New Zealanders will try marijuana, and that most of them will stop using it. By far the most common reason for people stopping is that they actually don't like it any more. By comparison, the law barely figures.
Other gems from the UF policy:
Regularly review the classification of drugs to ensure that they accurately reflect their health, behavioural and social effects, and only allow them to move upwards into more serious classes of drugs.
So, gather evidence, but only accept that which fits our pre-existing view. Not yer scientific types, then …
Alcohol does make the occasional appearance in the policy:
Institute a zero blood alcohol level for all drivers under the age of 25.
So the majority of New Zealand's rugby players won't be allowed to have a single beer after the game - even a light beer - and legally drive home. Gee, that'll go down well …
The total effect of UF's proposed policies is to establish them as the most interfering, censurious, morally prescriptive party ever to have a place in the New Zealand Parliament. And quite mad too: their hilarious proposal to fund tax cuts by "selling down" 40% of key SOEs completely ignores everything we have learned about privatisation. Propose selling an SOE altogether if you wish, but please, don't pretend that an attempt at a 40% privatisation would be anything other than a bloody debacle.
|
|
|
|
| |
| Login |
|
You can register for some special extra features. | |
| Article Rating |
Average Score: 5
Votes: 1
| |
|
