|
Are you a This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| homeowner |
|
39 | 22.41% |
| renter |
|
69 | 39.66% |
| stupid peace of poo poo |
|
66 | 37.93% |
| Total: | 174 votes | ||
|
Lancelot posted:it was because of a "cannabis recovery operation". the amount of manpower the nz police seems to spend on weed is really astonishing Yeah, you'd think they were expecting........ to be shot at.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:11 |
|
|
Two Options: Make weed legal and tax it making millions of dollars and cutting the bottom out of a ton of organized crime or Arm every single police officer in the country costing millions of dollars and causing loss of life due to accidents and escalation of situations
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
I saw a dog handler report form once, the forms are laid out in a certain fashion and there are fields for everything. It basically went like this: Date: 15/16/1980 Job Type: Training Items recovered: N/A Offenders Involved: 0 Injuries: 1 Dog: 0 Handler: 1 Offender: 0 Where injured: Foot Weapons: y Weapon description: Firearm Incident description: shot self in foot while training dogs I loving laughed hard at that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 09:53
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
BARONS CYBER SKULL posted:Two Options: Absolutely. Prohibition gave birth to organised crime in the US and legalising drugs would completely gut it within weeks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
Wait. Did this guy just commit mass voter fraud? loving nail him to the wall and annul the votes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
The willingness to brag on social loving media about committing crimes with reasonably large penalties blows my mind
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
You could say...the internet....makes you stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
exmachina posted:The willingness to brag on social loving media about committing crimes with reasonably large penalties blows my mind Yeah, he's not exactly among the intellectual elites of our society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Yeah, he's not exactly among the intellectual elites of our society. People brag on social media about committing crimes all the time. People are stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
504 posted:Absolutely. I am 100% for drug law reform, and organised crime and putting citizens (police and non-police alike) in danger are the two main reasons. How would we regulate drugs that are prescription though? Like, recreational drugs can be used for medicinal purposes but sons medicinal drugs probably have very little recreational value but are dangerous if taken without care - and probably should have a doctor behind the decision to avoid contraindications. I am mainly concerned with quacks recommending medications to their patients, because they think they have knowledge that they don't and can't be trusted but people often do trust th - imagine what the alternative medicine people could do of they could literally sell whatever they wanted! Edit: maybe the solution to that issue is that prescription drugs are subsidised and that means people will still get them from a doctor rather than some idiot chiropracticer or acupuncturist or phisio. klen dool fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Mar 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Prescription is a regulation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
yeah I think people tend to conflate decriminalisation with legalisation
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Prescription is a regulation. well yeah, what are you getting at?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
klen dool posted:well yeah, what are you getting at? that prescription drugs are already regulated, and that drug law reform with regards to illegal stuff wouldn't necessarily relax regulations around prescription drugs I think
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
The Schwa posted:that prescription drugs are already regulated, and that drug law reform with regards to illegal stuff wouldn't necessarily relax regulations around prescription drugs Hmmmm yeah, you are probably right about that interpretation. But I guess my point is that the definition of prescription vs recreational substances is fuzzy. I'd want a situation where one can sell, buy, and be in possession of any substances they want without fear of prosecution - kinda like alcohol. If you get prosected it's not because you have or are trafficking substances, it's because you did something dumb like sell it to a 12 year old. I guess you could also regulate the purpose that the substance is being sold for, so Tommy mcdrugdealer can't start selling champix or sertraline alongside tinnies and LSD. But then Tommy could just say "it's for recreational use". Tommy could also sell yellowcake and say it's for recreational use. Hmmmm. There has to be a way to do what I want (which sounds a bit libertarian) but also protect people from actual harm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
klen dool posted:well yeah, what are you getting at?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:That prescription drugs are prescription drugs due to regulation so asking how we would regulate them in a post-decriminalisation or legalisation framework is an ouroboros. They are already regulated through having them be prescription, and there's no reason why we would need additional regulation of existing prescription drugs simply because other drugs will be coming in. The purpose of drug reform is to fit dangerous but possibly useful drugs that are currently illegal into the legal framework we already have for dangerous but useful drugs, a framework which heavily relies on prescription as a form of access restriction. Well okay then in that case I don't want drug reform. I want to be able to go down to the bottle store and pick up a dozen beers and a sheet of acid, or grab tinnie at the supermarket. But I can't see how to allow that, and also stop people from selling things that really need advice to take. Maybe I am over thinking this.... Who is going to want to take some weird liver medication recreationaly when they can get MDMA?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
klen dool posted:Well okay then in that case I don't want drug reform. I want to be able to go down to the bottle store and pick up a dozen beers and a sheet of acid, or grab tinnie at the supermarket. The same people who see a Facebook post and decide they have celiac disease and the proceed to crusade against all things wheat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Drug law reform could mean changing the laws in a number of ways. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about total decriminalisation, and sometimes I have trouble sorting out which parts of that are just an emotional reaction / me going "but there must be something we haven't thought of". I think a middle ground would be something like, for certain drugs, no penalty for users but possibly a penalty for selling, but I don't actually know whether that would work in practice. I definitely think the stuff that I personally deem relatively harmless (weed, mushrooms, acid, MDMA, a few other things) should be readily available, but that would require a reasonable, health/harm-reduction based approach to drug policy by the government v vI have opinions on drug law reform, I had to sit down and type this out at the Basin in case the moment passed
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
klen dool posted:Well okay then in that case I don't want drug reform. I want to be able to go down to the bottle store and pick up a dozen beers and a sheet of acid, or grab tinnie at the supermarket. Those decisions are based on the capability of abuse for recreational purposes and the mundanity of their medical applications. Amphetamines were widely available until they started being heavily abused with significant social and medical costs associated, with increasing regulation applied as a result. I would expect currently illegal drugs to follow an opposite path - coming in restricted and dropping as their social effects become more widely documented and medical uses more codified. As weed is being pushed mostly because of a perceived lack of difference between its harm-profile and beer's, i would expect that it would be widely available based on that and its documented low-risk medical uses for aches and pains/depression.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
The Schwa posted:Drug law reform could mean changing the laws in a number of ways. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about total decriminalisation, and sometimes I have trouble sorting out which parts of that are just an emotional reaction / me going "but there must be something we haven't thought of". I think a middle ground would be something like, for certain drugs, no penalty for users but possibly a penalty for selling, but I don't actually know whether that would work in practice. I definitely think the stuff that I personally deem relatively harmless (weed, mushrooms, acid, MDMA, a few other things) should be readily available, but that would require a reasonable, health/harm-reduction based approach to drug policy by the government v This is actually the current status quo in a lot of places, including some parts of NZ. I've heard stories from a lot of smokers in the outer parts of Wellington who got caught with a joint and just got told to put it out. NZ police definitely go after dealers though. Making the discretionary powers semi-official rather than "whatever the people in charge of police department xyz feel like" would go a long way. SurreptitiousMuffin fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Mar 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
That is not what I'm after, really. "Still technically illegal" is not a great approach and doesn't really let people know where they stand. I'm talking more about the hard poo poo in this case anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
The suggestion I've heard often around the most harmful and addictive substances (like heroin, meth etc) is that they become prescription drugs. So if you're an addict you can get a prescription for cheap and clean meth. That way addicts could also be directed towards addiction services like we have for smoking, cessation drugs, etc. That way were treating addiction like a medical and social rather than criminal problem. I often hear people say that no one would want to go to the doctor for their drugs but I'd far rather 10 minutes of judgement from a Dr than having to meet a loving dealer every week or so, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Drugs with very little indicated harm (like weed) could simply be legalised but controlled and heavily taxed in a similar way to alcohol and tobacco now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Those decisions are based on the capability of abuse for recreational purposes and the mundanity of their medical applications. Amphetamines were widely available until they started being heavily abused with significant social and medical costs associated, with increasing regulation applied as a result. I would expect currently illegal drugs to follow an opposite path - coming in restricted and dropping as their social effects become more widely documented and medical uses more codified. I am convinced that moderate and extreme abuse of drugs by individuals is caused by the simple fact that the substances are illegal. When you are breaking the law, you become secretive and hide your usage, and you withdraw a little from society, and that can cause more drug use, which causes more withdrawal etc.... I think weed is quite interesting in that while its illegal, its still only Class C and its so widely used that the stigma is felt less by users, and its no surprise to find all sorts of people using it in all walks of life. I am also convinced that the use and possibly existence of certain drugs are also caused by safer drugs being illegal. So, would methamphetamine/P be abused - or even become readily available - if safer alternatives legally existed? It is thought by some that the relatively low rates of meth abuse in London stems from the readily available alternatives such as MDMA and cocaine. Note that I don't think a meth addict would use MDMA instead, but an MDMA or speed user might not try P if they had a choice - P wouldn't have a market because a safer alternative exists. I don't like the strict "medical use" clause around drug availability, but would argue that mere physical and mental harm reduction is best served by legalization. Regulation similar to alcohol would be fine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
The Schwa posted:That is not what I'm after, really. "Still technically illegal" is not a great approach and doesn't really let people know where they stand. I'm talking more about the hard poo poo in this case anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
klen dool posted:I am convinced that moderate and extreme abuse of drugs by individuals is caused by the simple fact that the substances are illegal. When you are breaking the law, you become secretive and hide your usage, and you withdraw a little from society, and that can cause more drug use, which causes more withdrawal etc.... I think weed is quite interesting in that while its illegal, its still only Class C and its so widely used that the stigma is felt less by users, and its no surprise to find all sorts of people using it in all walks of life. What? Addiction is a thing, and some people will abuse some drugs whether they're illegal or not. I think for some users there's a definite attitude that if I can try this, I will. Legalisation will mean that those users who do become addicts could at least use in a safer context and without the risk of being arrested, and with a way lower rate of OD because of consistency in what they're getting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
fong posted:The suggestion I've heard often around the most harmful and addictive substances (like heroin, meth etc) is that they become prescription drugs. So if you're an addict you can get a prescription for cheap and clean meth. That way addicts could also be directed towards addiction services like we have for smoking, cessation drugs, etc. That way were treating addiction like a medical and social rather than criminal problem. Nice idea, maybe all drugs should be able to be prescribed by a doctor with all that comes with it - subsidized and safe. Perhaps commercial operations who produce these substances should only be allowed to sell to doctors/pharmac. Perhaps street level dealers who persist should be ignored as its not illegal anymore. hmmm. The other option - that others have brought up already - is an evidenced based policy where actual harm is used as a barometer for legalization. I think I could be happy with a system like that, as long as mere possession of any drug is still legal. I think avoiding a hard physical addiction might be too important to leave to chance. On that note, ban nicotine sales to anyone born after 2000, so I can still vape like a giant idiot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
I have Feelings about what you said, but I have another engagement so I gotta leave it here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
The Schwa posted:What? Addiction is a thing, and some people will abuse some drugs whether they're illegal or not. I think for some users there's a definite attitude that if I can try this, I will. Legalisation will mean that those users who do become addicts could at least use in a safer context and without the risk of being arrested, and with a way lower rate of OD because of consistency in what they're getting. I absolutely agree, and I don't think anything I wrote denied the existence of addiction, nor suggested I want anything less than legalisation. I was of course talking in generalizations and there are always individual cases that prove the rule, where people will just want to try anything. But how can you try P in NZ if we didn't try and work out how to make it locally? P became a problem because it was easy to make locally with locally sourced chemicals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
klen dool posted:I am convinced that moderate and extreme abuse of drugs by individuals is caused by the simple fact that the substances are illegal. When you are breaking the law, you become secretive and hide your usage, and you withdraw a little from society, and that can cause more drug use, which causes more withdrawal etc.... I think weed is quite interesting in that while its illegal, its still only Class C and its so widely used that the stigma is felt less by users, and its no surprise to find all sorts of people using it in all walks of life. I mostly agree with that - I mean, we very obviously wouldn't have gone through that whole synthetic cannabis boom and emergency bust a few years ago if people were able to just simply buy cannabis in the first place. As to whether or not that extends past specific drugs due to the difference in their effects, I don't know, I don't know anybody who has ever taken up alcohol specifically because pot was harder to get. If there's a safe hallucinogen widely available I don't see why people wouldn't choose that over a technically legal chemical cocktail substitute. I use the "medical use" because it's a good portion of the existing argument for deregulation of cannabis, and it's starting to become one around mushrooms as people have seen that you can make headway by demonstrating that these drugs have "legitimate" use beyond just listening to Dark Side of the Moon. It's part of the destigmatisation of it as an illicit activity, but personally I don't see why we can't just admit that there's no substantive differences between having a toke or a swapper in the proper surrounds when you're not causing a nuisance, and if you do cause one then the irresponsible intoxication is the issue not the method. I think for political reasons we will see the medical argument prevail, as it has in the US, over the "just let us have fun in our way of choice" one - and that will eventually lead to an acceptance of it as a recreational substance choice similar to alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and cough syrup.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Whole lotta  being smoked in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:Legally speaking, they'd probably manage this by keeping it totally illegal on the books, but giving the police wider discretionary sentencing powers. That means they've been told to generally ignore smokers, but if somebody is caught with weed while in the commission of another crime then the weed can become an aggravating factor when it goes to court. That's actually the current status in the Netherlands - it's not technically decriminalised, but the police have been instructed to ignore smokers (and most dealers) unless they're causing trouble. Discretionary sentencing for consumption of drugs isn't a particulary great idea because you can easily guess which part of the population is still going to disproportionately get the book thrown at them when they get arrested, as you say, during the commission of a minor crime, and they happen to have a tinnie of weed or something on them. El Pollo Blanco fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Mar 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Whole lotta 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Not recently There's a drought right now, everyone's hurting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
I never smoked weed. Mostly because I bounced from 'Knew plenty who had and sold it (lol Hawkes Bay) but couldn't afford it' to 'Could afford a whole buttload, but had long decided to jump the Sinking Ship that was everything south of the Bombay Hills'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
Ban alcohol, legalise weed. One kills thousands of people a year in NZ alone, one only kills people by being illegal and causing crime due to that illegality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
New Zealand Politics: legalise this poo poo please! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V2HyX4h3t0
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
BARONS CYBER SKULL posted:Ban alcohol I hear that worked out real well in the states.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:11 |
|
|
Legalise literally everything including murder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 08:44
|
|