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: Dec 01, 2003 Posts: 2991 Location: Christchurch, NZ
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:21 pm
Greebo, we're all aware of LEAP and what they say. It makes sense, but even they say that the practical side of making such drug policy changes will be a tricky one and not to be rushed (unlikely though that is).
We believe that pot should be considered on its own merits, not lumped in with all the others. Possibly it could be viewed as an indication of what might happen if other drugs are decriminalised, but there really should be a lot of research first, ie. between decrim of pot and decrim of any other drugs.
Joined: Aug 24, 2008 Posts: 16 Location: home is where ur happy
Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:33 pm
LEAP are advocating laws that would be the possible 'final step' in minimising harm from all drugs.. which is miles away from the current law format. The small steps in between are nessecary for the large percentage of the population that have small brains...
Cannabis is by far the least harmful and the most beneficial and should be regulated first, not alongside crack.
I think all drugs should be legalised and controlled in much the same way as cigarettes are, except they should imported and distributed by a government agency and not a corporation trying to make money. Except for cannabis (or mushrooms or anything else that just grows) of course, which doesn't have the purity/addiction/etc issues than many other drugs have. As long as people are going to use drugs (always) we should be making sure the drugs are as safe as possible and people are always warned of the associated risks.
LEAPs arguments seem more relevant to the what were traditionally "hard" drugs. As the argument is strongly oriented to high prices resulting in nasty turf protection and need to offend to foot the bill.
Cannabis is cheap - in some places even free! Also I think we will find that a larger amount of police time and resource is frittered policing methamphetamine than pot - especially given the local discretionary typical non enforcement policy.
The arguments against this illegalityof hard are already bought by many policy people and Governments. For example opiates are legalised - in the form of "for taxable profit" methadone.
And in Oz and the U.S. the Governments are looking to legalise amphetamines for addicts - the US Govt is I believe already running trials of "for taxable profit" amphetamine substitution treatment (weaker form than P) - whereby the Govt supplies the drug under medical supervision. Saw the studies ages ago (each involving maybe only 100 subjects) so am sorry but can't provide links.
Also I don't get the LEAP argument that legalising drugs would reduce turf war type violence - when this argument is applied to cannabis. As the model in the Netherlands does not make it legal to grow commercially - only to sell or use, per the response to a question I asked Jerry Paradis.
? result on turf violence.
Which leaves the major argument left that I can see in the NZ context as a human rights based one ie that users are stigmatised and may suffer discriminatory application of the law by the possibility of a conviction - althoughthat prob seems largely eliminated underthe defacto legal system we run here.
Whereas this scenario for the unlucky or folk who've irritated Police or not narced on demand would not happen with alcohol... unless they did something under influence - in which case that would be the thing penalised rather than just plain use.
Our human rights legislation says the State can not treat 2 similar classes of people differently. Alcohol addicts apparently alter the endogenous opioid system in the brain, so do cannabis users. Hmmm.
So it doesn't seem a matter of seperating pot out to be the first class of drug decrimed. It is already lagging behind the "hard" drugs in this respect (2 main psychoactive classes now legal or pending to be in some form for dependents). Likely this State funded provision/ substitution of illicits made licit is due to the acknowledged greater harm potential of opiates (more easily fatal) and of amphetamines (problem use fast does permanent damage and is linked to crazy crimes). It seems to figure.
Maybe if you guys could change tack and assert that cannabis is truly harmful and causing lots of crime, family destruction and wasted police resource then nanny Govt might offer to maintain you or wean you off on a licit cabbage prescription - whilst allowing pharms to take what is rightfully their dollar off the dealers .
Anyway it all seems academic debating this stuff, as it seems the Govt has "parked" all real drug policy debate and bills as too controversial. Disgusting when drug issues are a core issue here. Why tell the P cooks the State has been surveilling for several weeks while his kids languish in a gun infested P lab... not to smack. That'll really work for society long term.
Under the neglected / parked category I include medpot bill, drug driving bill, review of Act re A&D treatment is not scheduled for several years. All energy into alcohol and ciggys with policy and law reviews as a means to look concerned, and no direct discussion of drug issues and intricacies, let alone updated action plans allowed -apparently taking aim with big blunt sledge hammers like anti gang and antismacking legislation is a rational specific enough response to illicit drug issues.
The multi million message to teens - don't smoke or drink but lets just not talk pot, ghb, P, solvents etc etc. Its lopsided so will fall over.
Joining the prohibition mentality re alcohol seems to only aid Govts distraction technique. "Other drug" issues need to be profiled before they can be prioritised for attention, but the smoking and alcohol predominance in debate has the intended effect of keeping critical thinking re other drug policy in the shadows. In promoting that "alcohol is much worse than cannabis" I think you guys inadvertently undermine your cause, sending peoples minds off on contemplating other clearly "more significant" matters. People who need to be thinking on drug policy broadly. It shouldn't just be all about alcohol and tobacco.
Although you could well be right about a certain sympathetic non enforcement of lower level cannabis offenses , NZ still has more than its far share of convictions for minor grows and possession.. And still jails those able to establish medpot use.So although there is a general perception low level cannabis is near ignored , there are still far too many people suffering .
I also agree , too much time is spent comparing cannabis and alcohol , the reality is there is such a vast difference and we could well be inclined to give people the impression cannabis was in the same harmful , toxic and negative league as alcohol.Well the abuse of alcohol .
I don't go along with the removal of prohibition of all drugs.. It has been the prohibition of a near harmless drug , cannabis , basically under false pretenses , that has undermined both drug education and control. Cannabis prohibition may well be stimulating and compounding the meth situation , and even perhaps the abuse of alcohol by kids.
The young and vulnerable doing a bit of exploring try illegal but readily available cannabis , after the misleading drug education they expect the worst and in fact find it tame but enjoyable.. But the systems has already given it the same scare factor as the other drugs so they must be much more OK than the drug educators have told them as well. And since the likes of meth is often sold by other than safe cottage growers along side cannabis , now more often than not a sort of lost leader .. the kids get exposed to hard stuff. For others thinking because alcohol is legal its safe.. its not for many.. cannabis is illegal so it dangerous , its not .. The chance of harm from abuse of alcohol is far more likely than harm from abuse of cannabis ... its not the combination of alcohol and cannabis either that is a concern , remove the alcohol aspect and little problem..so its education .
Moderation and don't mix your pleasures .
In the same breath I don't think Jail is a remedy for addicts , that only appeases society , If they commit a crime as a result of drug use , let them do the time , but otherwise support and treatment ..
With the exception of course of the cannabis dealers (not the organized multi drug dealers who also sell cannabis ) Dealers , importers , cooks and resellers should be the focus . Maybe if the resource's being devoted to cannabis by the cop's , customs, courts and jails were redirected , just maybe they might start to get on top of things .Maybe they could then also focus on crimes and antisocial behavior committed under the influence and impaired by any drug be it social , legal pharmaceutical or herbal .. Including drug driving ..
Joined: Jan 15, 2006 Posts: 603 Location: zealandia
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:13 pm
Greebo's item from Norm Stamper in the Seattle Times, very much has the same message as a Cheif Constable in North Wales in Great Britain.
Good stuff to read though, the occassional ray of sunshine and enlightenment in the doom and gloom.
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
.
