Friendly warning and disclaimer: These forums are provided for the thousands victims of prohibition who form the pot community of Aotearoa for discussion of marijuana-related issues. NORML reserve the right to delete off-topic posts. The views expressed in any forum are solely those of the contributor and not necessarily approved or endorsed by NORML New Zealand Inc.
Joined: Feb 19, 2004 Posts: 1344 Location: Nelson area
Do you want to be a criminal? Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:53 am
All you young guys, at the moment, if you get caught with cannabis you will have a conviction, or you'll have a mark on your police record 4 life. Do nothing and this will remain the same.
If you encourage friends over 18 to VOTE for Aotearoa Legalise cannabis Party we are pushing for REGULATION which will heavily punish people who supply cannabis to under 18's but will not cause the under ager to be criminalised .
Also the Police use the misuse of drugs act to harass and intimidate young males (white & brown). They use this act to illegally search your person, backpack or car. Voting for Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party will effectively remove this weapon that the police use. They can't say "I smell speed! I'm going to search you under the misuse of drugs act", can they?
Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party will also get all passed cannabis convictions wiped totally.
SO protect yourselves by getting as many people as possible to get out of bed on election day and VOTE on mass Collectively we all can change the law.
Steven _________________ Regulation will set cannabis free
Freedom's just a TICK away - VOTE Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party 2008 then everyone's a winner
Contact me: steven@alcp.org.nz Party website http://www.alcp.org.nz
Joined: Dec 01, 2003 Posts: 2996 Location: Christchurch, NZ
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:13 pm
Quote:
All you young guys, at the moment, if you get caught with cannabis you will have a conviction, or you'll have a mark on your police record 4 life. Do nothing and this will remain the same.
Good initiative stevoh, but lets not overstate the facts. Stats show that many will only get their pot confiscated, particularly if they're pakeha 'middle-class upward' young guys. But things might change with the new drug-driving law, we shall have to wait and see.
Quote:
we are pushing for REGULATION which will heavily punish people who supply cannabis to under 18's
Heavily punish ? They're not kiddie rapists or murderers. The law as it already stands allows plenty of penalty. Let's also remember to focus on and acknowledge the reason why many young kids want to use pot: they feel screwed over : domestic violence, parental neglect = alienation (but of course some of them are just extremely curious or want to keep up with their elders).
Quote:
Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party will also get all passed cannabis convictions wiped totally.
ALCP will try, but that one might be a very hard sell. Minor pot convictions are already covered under the Clean Slate law.
Joined: Dec 01, 2003 Posts: 2996 Location: Christchurch, NZ
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:15 pm
Do 17 year olds realise they can register to vote now if they'll be turning 18 just before the election ?
Actually any 17 year old can register, but they can't vote until 18.
Joined: Feb 19, 2004 Posts: 1344 Location: Nelson area
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:18 pm
paula wrote:
ALCP will try, but that one might be a very hard sell. Minor pot convictions are already covered under the Clean Slate law.
The clean slate bill only hides your conviction to prospective employers. But if a cop pulls you over or you want a government job, or want to travel to the States, then suddenly you an't got a clean slate.
ALCP's 2005 electorate pamphlet given to me by ALCP to use clearly states under "Policy Minimum Programme" I quote: Expunge all unfair cannabis convictions. I see nothing wrong for ALCP to have this as part of their policy.
I live in an area with a large young pakeha population, and its not about getting your "pot" confiscated, but the police using the act to intimidate and harass young men. That was the issue I was bring forward.
Also for people (non-smokers) to support regulation, they NEED to see that its protecting young people. So when I say "heavily". Thinking about it, I'd assume that it would be in line with penalties for an adult selling under 18's alcohol.
Steven _________________ Regulation will set cannabis free
Freedom's just a TICK away - VOTE Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party 2008 then everyone's a winner
Contact me: steven@alcp.org.nz Party website http://www.alcp.org.nz
Joined: Dec 01, 2003 Posts: 2996 Location: Christchurch, NZ
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:48 pm
Expunge all unfair cannabis convictions is not expunge all cannabis convictions I think it was in either the police submission or the final report to the legal status Health Select Committee 2001 that 42% of pot convictions were detected as a result of other criminal acts, so I'd say the 58% that weren't are the unfair ones. But thats just my opinion, I guess we should try to iron that one out at the meeting this weekend.
I understand about the intimidation, I didn't question that. I nearly posted saying 'yes its all about intimidation, which starts in the playground and carries on right through life,' but didn't because it was a tad negative.
Do you know what the penalty is for supplying pot to a minor ? (I can't recall right now).
we are pushing for REGULATION which will heavily punish people who supply cannabis to under 18's
Heavily punish ? They're not kiddie rapists or murderers. The law as it already stands allows plenty of penalty. Let's also remember to focus on and acknowledge the reason why many young kids want to use pot: they feel screwed over : domestic violence, parental neglect = alienation (but of course some of them are just extremely curious or want to keep up with their elders).
paula,
Thanks for posting your comment as I also had concerns about that statement but didn't reply yesterday in case I got mistaken for playing the devil's advocate.
My concern was that the youngsters might have obtained the cannabis from their own parents without them knowing and I couldn't see how the youngster would benefit if their parent(s) were heavily punished for such an offence.
In reply steveoh wrote:
Also for people (non-smokers) to support regulation, they NEED to see that its protecting young people. So when I say "heavily". Thinking about it, I'd assume that it would be in line with penalties for an adult selling under 18's alcohol.
steveoh,
"Regulation" (eg making cannabis use R18) doesn't actually protect young people (children, adolescents) from cannabis as such.
After all, alcohol and tobacco are both R18 and yet many under-18s use & abuse both of those drugs, probably as a result of the fact that prohibiting drug use does not work and is usually counterproductive (an R18 age limit is basically a mini-prohibition).
Instead, legalising or decriminalising cannabis use protects young people from the negative consequences of prohibition.
That is advantageous because the negative consequences of being punished for cannabis use are worse than the negative effects of the cannabis use itself (ie the cure is worse than the disease).
Young people would (hopefully) no longer be treated as misfits and criminals for experimenting with cannabis, and those that do develop problematic cannabis use would (hopefully) be able to get medical/psychiatric help if necessary.
paula also wrote:
Expunge all unfair cannabis convictions is not expunge all cannabis convictions I think it was in either the police submission or the final report to the legal status Health Select Committee 2001 that 42% of pot convictions were detected as a result of other criminal acts, so I'd say the 58% that weren't are the unfair ones. But thats just my opinion, I guess we should try to iron that one out at the meeting this weekend.
Another advantage of a moritorium on the arrests and prosecutions of "unfair" cannabis convictions, or partial prohibition (aka the grow-your-own system), is that it gives the police a "carrot" for tempting criminals away from a life of crime by offering real criminals a choice between their cannabis use and their other criminal activity (ie the police won't bust people whose only "crime" is cannabis use or cultivation for themselves but they will bust a person for cannabis possession/cultivation if they are investigating them for some other crime).
"we are pushing for REGULATION which will heavily punish people who supply cannabis to under 18's"
may well be a the sort of approach that is needed .
If there is going to be any hope of convincing the masses as to the merits of CLR, boundaries and controls are going to be essential . There may well be a number of areas compromise will be essential .
As well simplistic , easy to understand criteria that may well be a lesser position than we would consider sensible could be the best move as well.
Those who already have a fuller understanding of cannabis are already sold on it.. its those more unaware who have after years of brain washing with anti pot bullshit we need to focus and find find away of giving them confidence that any change is not going to increase problems..
Once CLR is introduced with the tough boundaries and the aftermath is not the predicted disaster then more liberal changes can be introduced..
The more restrictive and control policy ALCP proposes the more warm fuzzies it will encourage .. and more votes..
Joined: Dec 01, 2003 Posts: 2996 Location: Christchurch, NZ
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:39 pm
Do you know the penalty for supply to under 18s tony ? If it is increased would you support 18 year olds being heavily criminalised for slipping their 17 year old sibling a puff ? It would be too open to abuse. I think its the police culture that will have to change the most, not the public (back to what steveoh said about intimidation).
Paula,
I consider the Police are told what to think . Other than the expectation some cops will think for themselves at times and not enforce the law to its full extent .
We can only change the police minds via the great unwashed, forcing a change on the politicians who pull the strings..
The question I was asked today is what do we do with 15 yr olds who sell to 15 yr olds.??
I won't go into my suggestions to penalties and the like , I have some views that would be at odds with too many on this forum.. in fact might even have Jim Anderton shuddering..
But in saying that I do differentiate considerably between situations such as a brother / friend sharing to a 17 yr old and a commercial dealer selling to 12 and 14 yr olds..
And you sure don't want to hear what I would have done to dealers selling P to kids..
I watched today as a car parked in the Airport Foodtown car park serviced cars full of kids in school uniforms . The cars just pull up next to them in a remote spot, money changed hands and off the original car driver or one of his passengers goes into Foodtown, comes out with a trolley of booze that goes into the kids car.. In the 15 mins I watched I saw 4 carloads happen..
I consider that drug dealing as well.. so much so if I was not so scared and hell bent on keeping clear of cops I might have made a phone call.
Make the cost price of the actual production cost of cannabis the retail price plus GST would make scenarios like that disappear, sure there will still be those who will deal to those who can't obtain it retail but with penalties if caught similar to what they are working on with alcohol would make them think twice. _________________ A pain free day the marijuana way.
Make the cost price of the actual production cost of cannabis the retail price plus GST would make scenarios like that disappear, sure there will still be those who will deal to those who can't obtain it retail but with penalties if caught similar to what they are working on with alcohol would make them think twice.
Trouble is , and its an argument I get from even those who support CLR , how to avoid cottage growers becoming a source to kids.. Theft as well as family /friends having access .
Its actually a stumbling block for may supporters who consider the potential down side too great ..
Joined: Nov 16, 2005 Posts: 437 Location: New Zealand
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:12 am
Tony wrote:
MrNiceGuyNZ wrote:
Tony,
Make the cost price of the actual production cost of cannabis the retail price plus GST would make scenarios like that disappear, sure there will still be those who will deal to those who can't obtain it retail but with penalties if caught similar to what they are working on with alcohol would make them think twice.
Trouble is , and its an argument I get from even those who support CLR , how to avoid cottage growers becoming a source to kids.. Theft as well as family /friends having access .
Its actually a stumbling block for may supporters who consider the potential down side too great ..
tony
It seems we are forced to work with the feeble minded.
Trouble is , and its an argument I get from even those who support CLR , how to avoid cottage growers becoming a source to kids.. Theft as well as family /friends having access .
Its actually a stumbling block for may supporters who consider the potential down side too great ..
Tony,
A good idea in those situations is to turn the argument around by asking a question like "But how does prohibition prevent kids getting hold of cannabis?" (it obviously doesn't when 9 year-olds are being caught with it).
Or ask "How does treating young cannabis users as criminals and excluding them from school help them?" (point out that kids regularly using cannabis is a sign that they have other problems that need addressing).
Rather than a stumbling block for CLR, it is an opportunity to educate those "supporters" that prohibition just makes the so-called cannabis problem much worse.
Tony also wrote:
The question I was asked today is what do we do with 15 yr olds who sell to 15 yr olds.??
What would you like done with your dealer?
Often "dealers" are friends doing other friends a favour, even though that very transaction can test the best of friendships as a result of cannabis' prohibition.
Again try to rephrase the question eg "What would you do with a 15 year-old who sold another a cigarette?"
Finally, Tony wrote:
I think Steveoh in suggesting
"we are pushing for REGULATION which will heavily punish people who supply cannabis to under 18's"
may well be a the sort of approach that is needed .
If there is going to be any hope of convincing the masses as to the merits of CLR, boundaries and controls are going to be essential . There may well be a number of areas compromise will be essential .
As well simplistic , easy to understand criteria that may well be a lesser position than we would consider sensible could be the best move as well.
Those who already have a fuller understanding of cannabis are already sold on it.. its those more unaware who have after years of brain washing with anti pot bullshit we need to focus and find find away of giving them confidence that any change is not going to increase problems..
Once CLR is introduced with the tough boundaries and the aftermath is not the predicted disaster then more liberal changes can be introduced..
The more restrictive and control policy ALCP proposes the more warm fuzzies it will encourage .. and more votes..
In my opinion that approach (especially the last sentence) exposes the weakness of chasing votes for the ALCP as the main objective as opposed to trying to use the election as an opportunity to educate people about the need for cannabis law reform.
After all, wouldn't the ALCP simply be following the Greens in "moderating" its cannabis policies in order to appeal to the masses?
That's a slippery slope to be avoided, I reckon.
Barack Obama had success by attacking Hillary Clinton with his "We can't just tell people what they want to hear, we need to tell them what they need to hear" so I see no reason why we should compromise our own credibility when the truth is on our side.
Anyway, the weakness of the regulation-will-solve-the-problem-of-kids-using-drugs-by-heavily-punishing-their-suppliers argument is obviously that alcohol and tobacco use is both regulated and R18 with punishements for supply to minors, yet minors can still get hold of those drugs.
Why should it be any different with cannabis if it were regulated and R18?
It probably wouldn't be any different.
However, what could change is our attitude to kids using drugs, hopefully away from the outrage and desire to punish towards a situation where the bigger picture is seen and the kids get help for their problems rather than their drug use being a covenient scapegoat for avoiding the more serious issues like family problems, mental health etc.
Having said all that, I would like to point out that I am not advocating that the ALCP should ditch its R18 age limit for cannabis use policy as I think that having an R18 age limit is necessary.
However, I also think that society in general needs to realise that such a measure will not stop under-18s using drugs, no matter what punishments are involved.
Anyway, the weakness of the regulation-will-solve-the-problem-of-kids-using-drugs-by-heavily-punishing-their-suppliers argument is obviously that alcohol and tobacco use is both regulated and R18 with punishements for supply to minors, yet minors can still get hold of those drugs.
Why should it be any different with cannabis if it were regulated and R18?
It probably wouldn't be any different.
The argument of course is if cannabis is regulated like alcohol and cigs , cottage / home growers will increase considerably , increasing the potential risks of kids getting hold of it.. why introduce another drug we can't control any better than the others..??
I know at one stage there was a suggestion that cannabis could only be home grown in secure areas , an over sized gun cabinet sort of thing .. with security locks.. registered and inspected..But it was decided it would be too expensive both to construct and police..
As you rightly say its an objection we just have to overcome..but as cannabis gets more public debate , its an argument that will get trotted out even more...
hmmm we do already have cottage distillers out there, yet alcohol is still legal, how about those who control us stop being such a bunch of hypocrites.... _________________ A pain free day the marijuana way.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
.
ALCP's 2005 electorate pamphlet given to me by ALCP to use clearly states under "Policy Minimum Programme" I quote: Expunge all unfair cannabis convictions. 
