Cannabis debate
-
Where do ferners sit? I haven't heard any argument for a yes vote that makes sense to me. Places I've been in the world that decriminalised cannabis, legalisation doesn't make those cities more desirable to be in. Legalising cannabis to keep Maori out of prison is a crazy reason to do it. Improving discretion of the police to avoid prosecution in cases of possession seems like a better way to me. Considering the way kids can walk into dairies and buy ciggies and booze, and the way the party drug experience turned out, I think its unrealistic to expect people to act responsibly if the floodgates are opened.
Shane Jones has the right idea, he'll vote no because the Greens want it 😆
-
- Current approach is doing jack towards reduction of use and touch points with gangs etc.
- treating it as a health and education issue, funded via taxation would be a more positive approach.
- where it has been decriminalization overall use has trended downwards, with two (?) States in the US seeing youth usage dropping.
- $$$ heaps of tax and savings in govt spending with fewer people in prison and courts due to weed related events. Massive reduction for police - then they can hit P and organized crime harder imo.
- industry and medical benefits for local markets and hopefully international markets.
- smoke free is a tension, can't argue that away. But there are plenty of non-smoking ways to enjoy cannabis. Plus we ain't getting moral in booze so... that one is tounge in cheek tho.
- fear, so much of (older ahem) people's 'knowledge around weed is hangovers from reefer madness, makes u crazy, gateway, a loser drug etc, etc.
- noting that it absolutely has bad outcomes for some, but that's all the more reason to reframe as a health/education challenge imo. Reducing stigma and criminality would likely see more people getting help.
- plenty of productive and otherwise law abiding folks run the risk of conviction for enjoying weed.
- I feel the list goes on personally 😁
-
And 'floodgates' being opened is exactly the alarmist language feeding the reefer madness fear imo. 80%+ of folks have tried it - or a figure pretty close to that.
It has to be 20+ imo and big penalties for anyone selling outside if the rules. Regulated market offers benefits around quality also. No flysprayed tinny from your local gang house etc.
-
I'm for it despite the greens position. Got some mates who have been pretty screwed with criminal charges relating to weed, I don't feel its a significant danger to society. If we can get to a position where you can buy weed legally without finding yourself in environments with the kind of folk that will try to upsell you to other far more dangerous substances then I think that is a good thing. I'd like to see police have more time to concentrate on worse things. By big concern with legalisation is increased use in under 20 year olds and accidents resulting from people under the influence, maybe there are ways to mitigate that once legalised.
-
@Rembrandt said in Cannabis debate:
My big concern with legalisation is increased use in under 20 year olds and accidents resulting from people under the influence, maybe there are ways to mitigate that once legalised.
This. As for mitigation, is that going to be like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted?
-
@Paekakboyz said in Cannabis debate:
- Current approach is doing jack towards reduction of use and touch points with gangs etc.
- treating it as a health and education issue, funded via taxation would be a more positive approach.
- where it has been decriminalization overall use has trended downwards, with two (?) States in the US seeing youth usage dropping.
- $$$ heaps of tax and savings in govt spending with fewer people in prison and courts due to weed related events. Massive reduction for police - then they can hit P and organized crime harder imo.
- industry and medical benefits for local markets and hopefully international markets.
- smoke free is a tension, can't argue that away. But there are plenty of non-smoking ways to enjoy cannabis. Plus we ain't getting moral in booze so... that one is tounge in cheek tho.
- fear, so much of (older ahem) people's 'knowledge around weed is hangovers from reefer madness, makes u crazy, gateway, a loser drug etc, etc.
- noting that it absolutely has bad outcomes for some, but that's all the more reason to reframe as a health/education challenge imo. Reducing stigma and criminality would likely see more people getting help.
- plenty of productive and otherwise law abiding folks run the risk of conviction for enjoying weed.
- I feel the list goes on personally 😁
Was just about to type this word for word 😎
-
I was always for it, until I started talking with a friend from Colorado who is a pain specialist. He recently wrote a book about it:
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030459673
He is very anti against the way they have done things in Colorado - basically as the strength of product went wild, and marijuana ended up in all sorts of other products (eg, gummy bears) which end up in kids hands etc etc. I think I posted about it ages ago so I’ll see if I can dig it up.
Based on my conversations with him, my answer would depend exactly on what can be done (and can’t be) and how this law works to protect vulnerable groups.
Edit: a link to some of the things he’s discussed (eg in babies/young kids). Given some of the problems in NZ, we have to expect similar issues.
-
@canefan said in Cannabis debate:
@Rembrandt said in Cannabis debate:
My big concern with legalisation is increased use in under 20 year olds and accidents resulting from people under the influence, maybe there are ways to mitigate that once legalised.
This. As for mitigation, is that going to be like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted?
I'm not up with the latest advancements. If they can test 'under the influence' then that solves some of the problems. As for under 20 year olds getting it, I know there was no issue getting it when I was young. Maybe other peoples experience is different or things have changed since then. I think the best you can do is give your kids advice and hope they make good decisions. I would rather teens getting hold of weed that met certain criteria than those dodgy legal highs or whatever the local tinnie house is peddling.
-
@gt12 said in Cannabis debate:
I was always for it, until I started talking with a friend from Colorado who is a pain specialist. He recently wrote a book about it:
I've talked myself into voting 'yes'. I don't like cannabis, and it causes harm - the question is whether it causes more harm to the community by being illegal. A bit like prostitution; it's not always a positive thing, but is it worse to be open, legal and taxed, or illegal and done anyway.
It's not great either way, but I reflected on a mate who escaped a cannabis conviction by the skin of his teeth, and then went on to a successful career in private and public sector. Would he have had that with a conviction? Probably not. And yet, 80%+ of the population have tried it at some stage.
I don't think teh bill is great, but I think it's better (on balance) than the status quo. You can tell I'm not an enthusiastic voter about this at all
Should get a thread going on euthanasia. Hosteda few doctors last ngiht, and none were keen on it at all. And yet that one sounds like it's relatively uncontroversial by comparison...
-
@nzzp I take the same simplistic view on euthanasia as I do on legalising pot. Basically that we should be starting from a position of "yes" then figuring out how to make it work.
To me, telling someone that they should have to continuing living a life they no longer want to live, even in in circumstances where they no longer have control of their faculties, is just extraordinary. Twlling them that there is no way for them to gain assistance in ending their lives, is beyond comprehension to me.
Yes there is lots to work through. It shouldn't be easy. You dont want people to feel forced or obligated because they are a burden. But let's start from "yes" then figure that stuff out.
-
@voodoo good call. I don't think the doctors were fundamentally against it - they just think it's a lawyer thing, not a doctor thing. Putting doctors at the heart of it seems to drive going against the hippocratic oath. It's a bit simplistic, but I think it shoudl be done, but as you say, it shouldn't be easy.
Also, the billboards saying 'no parental cosnent required' is an absolutely gyp ... once you turn 18, no parental consent is needed for any medical or legal procedure. FFS.
-
-
I’m somewhat supportive if they can keep it out of edibles and away from kids.
But I don’t think they can do that.
I assume that weed will have to move to edibles as the government wants to reduce smoking. I haven’t read the bill so I don’t know what issues are addressed and how, but the law of unintended consequences suggests that we’ll get some negative externalities.
-
I'm a def yes for medicinal cannabis, but am still on the fence re decriminalising it.
I did have a chuckle reading the article the other day, Whinny saying NZ First would make ciggies cheaper, then had a dig at the making NZ Smoke FRee by 2025 and legalizing weed...
So if NZ becomes smoke free (Yeah Right) does that make Tobacco illegal then? Assume Weed would be too, for smoking at least?
Was listening to something the other day and NZ is def not going down the route of some of the US states with gummies and all sorts of products and paraphenalia
-
@canefan said in Cannabis debate:
@gt12 I think it was telling that Maori feature disproportionately in cannabis convictions, and a high percentage of Maori polled in a tvnz poll want cannabis decriminalised. Will it have a positive effect on people in Northland for example?
Who knows? But I'm really not sure that it will lead to long term significantly higher usage. All those people you speak of, they're all getting weed now, its just that the profits are going to gangs and dealers. They all still have to go to work and drive cars, its not liek they'll become 24/7 slackers. And imagine all that extra tax revenue going into extra policing, including RBT's and the drug testing equivalents?
-
@taniwharugby said in Cannabis debate:
I'm a def yes for medicinal cannabis, but am still on the fence re decriminalising it.
I did have a chuckle reading the article the other day, Whinny saying NZ First would make ciggies cheaper, then had a dig at the making NZ Smoke FRee by 2025 and legalizing weed...
So if NZ becomes smoke free (Yeah Right) does that make Tobacco illegal then? Assume Weed would be too, for smoking at least?
Was listening to something the other day and NZ is def not going down the route of some of the US states with gummies and all sorts of products and paraphenalia
I think its absolutely staggering that anyone could not be for medicinal cannabis, but be ok with being prescribed opioids like oxycontin or morphine...🤔