Violent Crime Rate Up
A massive increase in violent crime ober the last 12 months was revelaed in the Police Stats today.
Violent Crime is up 10.2%, with grievous assaults up 19% and sexual attacks up 10%. Burglaries up also up 11%.
The level of violent crime stayed constant from 1997 (40,072) to 2000 (40,090). Over the next five years it increased to 45,941 and in this one year has increased almost as much as the previous eight years to 50,644.
Yes that’s right – almost as big an increase in violent crime in this one year than in the previous eight years combined.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:49 pm
I wonder how much can be tied to P?
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Inclined to agree with you Mikeybill. “P” is the new scourge wrecking peoples lives. And across all levels. You have to wonder how much of all our crime is caused by addiction to this drug.
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:11 pm
More likely the cause is the continuing illegality of P and other drugs.”Drug crime” is what you get surrounding the actual drug and the consequences of keeping illegal something consenting adults want and are willing to pay for.
Legalize and save our money,our morality and our kids.
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Here’s the spin:
- Increased public confidence in the Police has encouraged higher reporting levels
- Praise for successful advertising campaigns encouraging zero tolerance for crime has resulted in a huge upswing in reports
- Actual crime has in fact dropped
- Helen praises her government and the minister for doing such a fine job
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:19 pm
No John it’s all the last National governments fault.
Didn’t you get the memo?
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:23 pm
And here I thought addiction was the problem.
Thanks James. Now if we can just get the ingredients on a label we can start giving it away for nothing in our schools. James, I think “p” is a little different from many other drugs. I sort of agree with you when we look at Marijuana or even Heroin. (didnt studies show heroin doesnt actually harm you physically?- note I say physically. Some heroin addicts have full lives)But “p” is different. I’m not happy to say I have seen a few friends lose most of what they have worked for because of this drug. And the damage around them in their families wasnt good either. A “P” addict will do pretty much anything to get high.
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:33 pm
John,
Nice try…
…but that’s the OLD liar-bour approach.
The new liar-bour approach:
THE POLICE HAVE MOVED THE GOAL POSTS AND ARE TRYING TO SMEAR LABOUR.
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Anyone know if the measurements are exactly the same?
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Most of the increase in crime is in “Intimidation and Threats”, something which you can speculate about among yourselves. The other variable at play seems to be a decline in minor assaults mirroring an increase in serious assaults. Looks like either a definition change, or that people are getting a little more jiggy with it when giving others the bash.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:06 pm
david…P IS being made and sold in our schools now! The money to be made due to the high price caused by its illegality has seen to that.
The creation of “P” was a direct result of drug prohabition and the difficulty in getting the product to the buyer via smuggeling. P was a drug able to be created in the home with basic equipment able to be sourced easily.As drug production and distribution have been left in the hands of criminals its no wonder that quality standards are non existent and end users suffer and inflict damage on society.
Thanks “war on drugs”! Another fuck up thats put us all in more danger.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:27 pm
James
No doubt you also advocate for removal of gun control laws? It would be entirely consistent with your drug philosophy.
Give the kid a .45cal for his tenth birthday eh?
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:31 pm
The police commissioner has just stated on News Talk ZB that the increase in figures are just a blip and that next year the figures will start trending downwards again.I’m surprised he didn’t blame the EB’s it would of had just as much credibility as a blip
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:43 pm
For those intersted in the “P” issue, I would refer you to the SHORE report on methamphetamine, the Executive Summary reads thus:
http://www.shore.ac.nz/projects/Final%20ATS%20report.pdf
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
7
Executive Summary
This report presents a large amount of new research on Amphetamine Type Stimulant (ATS)
drug use in New Zealand, much of it employing research methodologies never used before in
New Zealand. ATS are a group of synthetic illicit drug types which include
methamphetamine, ecstasy and crystal methamphetamine (known as ‘ice’). This section
summarises the main findings of the research. The report includes new analysis of data from
the 2001 National Drug Survey, a survey of frequent methamphetamine users in Auckland,
key informant surveys of drug enforcement officers and drug treatment workers, analysis of
drug treatment statistics related to ATS, and a local pilot study of the drug use of arrestees
conducted in police watch-houses.
The research in this report demonstrates that ATS are now serious drugs of abuse in New
Zealand. In 2001, one in ten New Zealanders aged 18-29 had used an ATS drug in the last
year. The level of amphetamine use among 15-19 year olds may be higher in New Zealand
than in Australia. The illicit trade in ATS drugs in New Zealand is of the equivalent dollar
value as the illicit trade in cannabis and may have effectively doubled the dollar value of the
illegal trade in drugs in New Zealand in less than ten years. In the case of methamphetamine
the proceeds are likely to be concentrated among a relatively small number of local organised
criminal gangs who were instrumental in the introduction of methamphetamine manufacture
to New Zealand.
The secondary analysis of the National Drug Survey findings highlighted the greater risks and
harms associated with frequent ATS use and identified the risk that increased ATS use may
pose in terms of the spread of intravenous drug use and the enhancement of the demand for
other ‘hard’ drug types. Attention was also drawn to users of crystal methamphetamine as the
ATS drug users with the highest levels of daily use, poly drug use, intravenous drug use and
opioid use. These findings suggest law enforcement and other agencies should focus on
frequent ATS and crystal methamphetamine users as priorities in the effort against ATS.
Many frequent users of methamphetamine reported pre-existing mental health problems
including tendencies to self-harm. Use of methamphetamine increased these individuals’
levels of psychological problems such as ‘anxiety’, ‘mood swings’, ‘short temper’, ‘paranoia’,
and ‘depression’ and the level of suicidal thoughts and attempts. These findings suggest
frequent methamphetamine users should be approached with caution and reassurance to avoid Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
8
triggering any violent defensive or self-harm response. Methamphetamine users’ increased
propensity for self-harm should also be taken into account when they are detained in custody.
The arrestees studied were many times more likely to use methamphetamine and crystal
methamphetamine than the general population. Twenty-one percent of arrestees had used
amphetamines in the last month and 9% had used these just before committing an offence.
Arrestees reported that the use of these drug types was a factor in their criminal offending and
increased their likelihood of becoming angry. About a quarter of the arrestees who recently
used amphetamines considered their use of these drugs to have played a major part in the
activities they were subsequently arrested for. Amphetamines, along with alcohol, were the
drugs most likely to make arrestees feel angry. Arrestees carried out some of their driving
while under the influence of ATS drugs. However, cannabis followed by alcohol was the drug
most often combined with driving. The high level of drug use among arrestees and the
potential for their drug induced actions to impact on others, through violent crime and
intoxicated driving, make them an appropriate target group for drug counselling and drug
treatment services. Every effort should be made to provide such advice and ensure access to
drug treatment institutions for those arrestees who are willing to undertake programmes.
Contact with drug counselling may be able to be arranged while the arrestee is in the criminal
justice system but this service should be provided independent of Police and Corrections.
Frequent methamphetamine users were often involved in other illegal activities such as drug
dealing and drug manufacture. One third of the frequent methamphetamine users interviewed
had sold methamphetamine and about one in five had manufactured it or exchanged it for
stolen property. Measures which impact upon frequent methamphetamine users within the
community (for example, either incarceration or referral into drug treatment) are therefore
likely to have a disproportionately greater impact on overall drug use, drug harm and drug
trafficking.
The rise of ATS drug use may be transforming the nature of the sale of illicit drugs in New
Zealand. About half of amphetamine buyers contacted their drug dealers by mobile phone or
texting, while nearly two thirds of cannabis buyers visited a house or flat. The amphetamine
market was smaller and more secretive and insulated than the cannabis market. Only 5% of
the arrestees purchasing amphetamine, compared to about half of the arrestees purchasing
cannabis, purchased their respective drugs from drug or ‘tinny’ house. All the amphetamine
sellers reported selling only to ‘close friends and family members’, whereas cannabis sellers
sold at least ‘some’ of their cannabis to ‘casual acquaintances’ and ‘complete strangers’. Drug Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
9
enforcement tactics may need to be adapted to more effectively impact on these more
clandestine markets.
The new groups of methamphetamine users identified in the key informants surveys are
consistent with the diffusion of methamphetamine use from the ‘originator’ sub-cultures, such
as the dance party community and motorcycle gangs, to broader society which includes lower
socio-economic groups and Maori and Pacific peoples. The reports of increased drug dealing
by methamphetamine users and a greater cross section of people selling the drug are
consistent with the spread of methamphetamine to wider sections of society. The sale of
smaller weights of methamphetamine at lower prices and reported sales of methamphetamine
from cannabis drug houses, suggest marketing strategies aimed at lower socio economic
groups, teenagers and traditional cannabis users. These groups may be less able to control
their drug use and more likely to impose costs on family, friends and the wider community
than middle class users. The demographic characteristics of the ATS using population are an
important determinate of the social impact of ATS and should be continued to be monitored.
There was some evidence that law enforcement is now impacting on ATS. Sixty percent of
frequent methamphetamine users noticed more law enforcement activity directed against
methamphetamine in the last six months. A third of frequent users reported more arrests of
other users they knew. Ten percent of frequent users felt law enforcement had made it more
difficult to obtain methamphetamine in the last six months. Continued law enforcement
pressure is required to suppress this trade and to separate methamphetamine from the
traditional cannabis market and in particular prevent its sale from cannabis ‘tinny’ houses.
The levels of violence reported to be associated with methamphetamine use, and the high
levels of violence associated with the illicit manufacture and trade in this drug, justify the
targeting of methamphetamine over the traditional trade in cannabis and LSD. The rapidity
with which ATS drugs have emerged and become entrenched in New Zealand indicates the
need for an ongoing research capacity which can act as an early warning of the rise of a new
illicit drug type and the nature of harms to expect, such as increased intravenous
administration or the greater use of other drug types. Research is also required to provide
some understanding of the impact an illicit drug may have on violence and general
criminality. The Office of the Commissioner of New Zealand Police has made important
progress in establishing research programmes to meet these requirements.
There may also be a need to challenge the new economic power of the gangs and drug dealers
involved in the manufacture and sale of ATS drug types in order to effectively control organised crime. For example, consideration may need to be given to stronger asset
confiscation laws around drug manufacture and drug dealing.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
10
Key findings
Prevalence of ATS use
About one in ten New Zealanders aged 18-29, or about 100,000 people nationwide, had used
an ATS drug in the last year. About one-third of these users were frequent users (i.e. monthly
or more often).
The level of ATS drug use in New Zealand was similar or slightly lower than in Australia.
This was particularly the case for ecstasy while the level of amphetamine use between the two
countries was closer. The level of amphetamine use among 15-19 year olds appeared to be
higher in New Zealand than in Australia.
Patterns of use
Poly drug use was common among ATS drug users in New Zealand. ATS users were many
times more likely than the general population to use high potency cannabis, LSD, magic
mushrooms, cocaine, GHB (Gamma-hydroxybutyrate), Ketamine, Rush and tranquillisers. Ice
users exhibited the highest level of poly drug use, including relatively high levels of opioid
use.
Intravenous drug use was also many times higher among the ATS using population than the
general population. One in five frequent methamphetamine users (i.e. monthly or more often)
had injected methamphetamine in the last six months.
Two thirds of the frequent methamphetamine users interviewed reported binging on
methamphetamine in the last six months (i.e. using continuously for 48 hours or more). The
average frequency of binging was once a fortnight. A binge could last for many days on end.
Demographics of the ATS using population
As with other drug using populations ATS drug users were disproportionately male and aged
18-29, with the heaviest use among 20-24 year olds. However, several characteristics of the
ATS using population set them apart from other illicit drug using populations. ATS drug users Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
11
had high levels of full time employment, came from a range of occupational backgrounds
including professionals, earned mid-level incomes and had relatively high levels of
educational achievement. Large numbers of ATS drug users, including frequent users, were
European. Disproportionately more ATS users lived in urban settings, in the upper half of the
North Island and in Auckland.
Harms from the use of ATS drugs
Approximately one third of those who had used an ATS drug in the last year reported
experiencing harm in at least one area of their lives from the use of these drug types. About
half of the frequent methamphetamine users interviewed reported harm in the areas of
‘friendship and social life’ (55%), ‘health’ (55%), and ‘energy and vitality’ (53%) from their
methamphetamine use. The harms that frequent methamphetamine users most often rated as
‘very serious’ or ‘extremely serious’ were in the areas of ‘work and work opportunities’,
‘outlook on life’, and ‘friendship and social life’.
The most serious problems reported by frequent methamphetamine users were psychological
rather than physical. About 40% of frequent methamphetamine users reported pre-existing
psychological problems. Levels of psychological problems increased after using
methamphetamine with about two-thirds of frequent methamphetamine users reporting
‘anxiety’, ‘mood swings’, ‘short temper’, ‘paranoia’, and ‘depression’. Twenty-one percent of
frequent methamphetamine users reported ‘suicidal thoughts’ and 13% ‘suicide attempts’
after using the drug.
Ninety-three percent of the frequent methamphetamine users interviewed considered
methamphetamine to be ‘more harmful’ or ‘much more harmful’ than cannabis.
ATS and drug treatment services
The questions on dependency indicated that about one-fifth of frequent methamphetamine
users were having difficulty controlling their methamphetamine use. However, about half of
frequent methamphetamine users reported no difficulties with their methamphetamine use or
ability to stop or go without.
Amphetamine was found to be impacting on alcohol and drug treatment services in New
Zealand to the extent that about one in five patients now cite amphetamine, alone or in
combination with other drugs, as their main substance use problem. This confirms that
increases in amphetamine use in the general population are now translating into a sizeable
increase in treatment demand for this drug type. Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
12
The size of the illicit market for ATS
The estimates of the dollar value of the illicit markets for amphetamine and ecstasy calculated
here suggest that the combined value of these markets, approximately $168.3 million,
approaches the dollar value of the entire illicit market for cannabis in New Zealand.
The seizure rates calculated for amphetamine and ecstasy indicate the authorities are seizing
less than 10% of the trade in both drugs.
ATS and criminal offending
Amphetamine/methamphetamine and crystal methamphetamine were the ATS drug types
most commonly used by arrestees (41% and 11% used in the last year respectively). Twentyone
percent of arrestees had used amphetamine/methamphetamine in the last month and 9%
had used it just before committing their offence.
About a quarter of the arrestees who had used amphetamine/methamphetamine in the 48
hours before being arrested indicated that the use of this drug had contributed entirely to the
activities they were subsequently arrested for. Amphetamine/methamphetamine and crystal
methamphetamine (along with alcohol) were the drugs most likely to make arrestees feel
angry. Crystal methamphetamine and amphetamine/methamphetamine were the ATS drug
types most likely to be combined with driving, with 34% and 16% of arrestees respectively
doing ‘some’ of their driving while under the influence of these drugs respectively.
More arrestees had had a friend arrested for an amphetamine offence than for a cannabis
offence in the last month (17% vs. 14%).
The illicit amphetamine market was the illicit drug market which arrestees most clearly
identified as violent.
Procurement of ATS drugs
The typical dollar amount spent on amphetamine by arrestees was $350 compared to only $20
for cannabis. Those arrestees purchasing amphetamine purchased the drug less frequently,
used a smaller number of sellers, and took longer to complete a purchase than arrestees
purchasing cannabis. Only 5% of the arrestees purchasing amphetamine, compared to about
half of the arrestees purchasing cannabis, purchased their respective drugs from a ‘tinny
house’. The arrestees purchasing amphetamine were more likely to purchase from a ‘private
house’ or ‘outdoor area’. About half of the arrestees buying amphetamine contacted their Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
13
sellers by mobile phone or texting, while nearly two thirds of the arrestees purchasing
cannabis visited a house or flat. All the amphetamine sellers reported selling only to ‘close
friends and family members’, whereas cannabis sellers sold at least ‘some’ of cannabis to
‘casual acquaintances’ and ‘complete strangers’.
One third of the frequent methamphetamine users interviewed had sold methamphetamine
and about one in five had manufactured, or exchanged, it for stolen property at some stage.
About 40% of the frequent methamphetamine users had earned income from illegal activities
in the last six months with drug dealing the most common type of illegal activity. The average
dollar amount earned from illegal activities was $24,000.
Recent trends in methamphetamine use
The majority of all three key informant groups surveyed (i.e. drug enforcement, drug
treatment and regular methamphetamine users) reported there had been an increase in, either
the use of methamphetamine or the demand for methamphetamine treatment in the last six
months. However, the regular methamphetamine user key informants placed the greatest
qualification on this picture of increasing use, with 22% reporting ‘no change’ and 21%
reporting a ‘decrease’ in methamphetamine use (58% reporting an ‘increase’).
The new methamphetamine user groups most commonly reported by all three KI groups were
‘teenage users’ and ‘business people’. User key informants also noted more ‘young women’,
‘lower socio-economic’ and ‘Maori/Polynesian’ users. Treatment key informants commonly
noticed more ‘young women’ users.
There was strong agreement among all three key informant groups that ‘smoking’ was the
most common mode of methamphetamine administration, with ‘snorting’ and ‘injecting’ the
next most common. All three key informant groups reported more ‘smoking’ and more
‘intravenous’ methamphetamine use.
The overwhelming majority from all three groups described the availability of
methamphetamine as either ‘very easy’ or ‘easy’. Three-quarters of drug enforcement and
over half of drug treatment key informants believed the availability of methamphetamine had
become ‘easier’ in the last six months. User key informants were much more circumspect
with only 26% indicating that the availability of methamphetamine had become ‘easier’ in the
last six months and most saying availability was the ‘same’ compared to six months ago.
Eighteen percent of user key informants thought the availability of methamphetamine had
become ‘harder’. Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
14
All three key informant groups noted more of a ‘cross section’ of people now selling
methamphetamine. Many user (47%) and drug enforcement (24%) key informants reported
the ‘repackaging’ of methamphetamine into smaller weights at lower prices.
Both user and drug treatment key informants were most likely to report the ‘same’ level of
arrests for methamphetamine offences. However, about one-third of both key informant
groups indicated that ‘more’ of the methamphetamine users they know of had been arrested in
the last six months.
All three groups of key informants were most likely to report increased ‘violent crime’ and
increased ‘property crime’ by methamphetamine users. Enforcement key informants also
reported increases in ‘burglary’, ‘domestic violence’ and ‘fraud’ by methamphetamine users.
The reports of the key informants suggest that the greater vigilance now exercised over the
sale of pseudo-ephedrine based flu products from chemists has reduced the attractiveness of
this source of amphetamine precursors and created a need for alternative strategies.
Enforcement key informants indicated high levels of involvement by organised criminal
groups in the importation, manufacture and sale of methamphetamine in New Zealand. Apart
from importation, where ‘Asian triads’ were identified as a leading group, three local and
established gangs (the ‘Mongrel Mob’, ‘Black Power’ and the ‘Tribesmen’) were identified as
the groups most often involved in the methamphetamine trade in New Zealand. The ‘Hells
Angels’ and ‘Headhunters’ were also commonly mentioned.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:49 pm
James
What a load of liberal pro-drug crap. The whole ‘legalise drugs to get the gangs out’ is a fallacy. They just simply swap an illegal trade for a legal trade. It is exactly what happened in Holland when cannabis was partially decriminalised in 1976. The levels of youth drug use in particular jumped up significantly and it led to a gradually liberalisation of attitudes to drugs across the board. They tried to separate the hard and soft drug markets by saying “if we allow some cannabis use we can concentrate on catching the hard drug crims”. What ended up happening is they became soft on hard drugs as well. The whole legislative environment became soft – lower sentences for trafficking in hard drugs compared to other countries in Europe, weak surveillance laws and now Holland is not only the world capital of designer drugs like ecstasy but is the major trafficking point for hard drugs for all of Europe.
The famed coffee shops are still largely owned by criminal syndicates through front companies and they have become a gateway to promotion of harder drugs. The head of the Paris narcotics squad sent his undercover cops into Holland and at every coffee shop (nice and ‘safe’ selling only cannabis – the ‘safe’ drug) his officers were offered hard drugs.
NZ’s P problem is because the police have been under funded and under resourced especially in their organised crime units and so they can barely keep up with the gang’s efforts. Gang tinnie houses are like the Dutch coffee shops and are used to recruit harder drug users. The pervasive societal attitude to drugs in NZ where recreational use of cannabis has become so rampant that it is widely accepted has, like Holland, led to the harm minimisation model of treating drug use which essentially says we accept drug use and will try to teach people to use safely. Add to this the woeful under-funding of drug/alcohol treatment (and mental health in general) and so when people get into trouble there are vastly fewer options than if you lived in the UK, Australia or the US. This has contributed to higher levels of drug use and some of this (not all) has contributed to higher crime especially violent crime.
Sweden used to have epidemic levels of drug use in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s but through a mixture of modern, effective drug education, intelligent new laws giving police discretionary powers to tackle drugs in a News York style street level ‘broken windows’ approach, massive spending on drug treatment programmes and widespread use of interagency co-operation between social service agencies (only just starting to happen in NZ after years of hiding behind the Privacy Act) and now Sweden has the lowest levels of drug use in the Western world.
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Hoss, you must win the prize for the longest comment ever.
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:32 pm
No, just the longest copy/paste ever on a blog.
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:00 pm
I concur with fejj’s post. Someone has obviously done their homework.
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Feji, your information about the Dutch coffee shops is bollocks, I’m sorry. I never got offered any hard drugs, or soft ones for that matter, in coffee shops when I was in Amsterdam last year. Not once, and I drink a lot of coffee.
I did get propositioned on bridges to buy hard drugs. Easy to spot the kind of guys who were going to do that, and even easier to avoid, since they were pretty scary looking anyway.
So I’m not sure what kind of questions that these french coppers must have asked in order to try to get connected. “Where can I buy some hard drugs?” The answer would have been simple – “at the nearest bridge, dick, and why don’t you jump off while you’re at it?”
So I don’t buy that ‘coffeeshops are a front for gangs’ bs, *at all*. They’re places where people buy coffee, and some other things, including pot and hash.
I’ve experienced similar attempts to push in many cities in the world. Melbourne, Sydney, London, New York, Berlin, Bangkok, and others. That the drugs were banned appeared to have no impact on their availability. The big factor appears to be demand, and yes, Holland has a big demand for drugs, since every druggie on the planet wants to go there sometime.
I didn’t notice anywhere near as many actual druggies in Amsterdam as I did in, say, London or Melbourne. As in people sacked out in doorways or swaying from side to side puking, as was a regular feature of city life when I lived and worked in Melbourne. And I’m not including the drunks in those observations, whose similar antics I’ve experienced pretty much every time I’ve ever gone out on a Friday night anywhere in NZ.
I’m sure P does make some people violent. So does booze, or people swearing at them, or traffic jams. All of these factors have been on the rise, too.
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:22 pm
What did I tell you:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/839860
“Police Minister Annette King blames the rise on more crime being reported. She says police are also using a new computer system to record data.”
“P”athetic Liar-boar, “P”athetic.
So predictable.
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:28 pm
Just spend a Monday morning in the criminal courts, most of the increase in ‘crime’ is due to police tactics of multiple charges for the one event. The reason they do this is to push up the ‘resolved’ numbers. As we know from previous debate over the ‘resolved’ figures they also include crimes which no one is charged but the police ‘know’ who did it.
It came to light in Melbourne that the clerical people doing the data entry were pressured by late night calls from officers in charge of police stations to ‘scale’ some of the figures – just like they do in exams but downwards.
Im also dubious about the big increase this year , just after an election. Where some numbers held back till the after the election. Any company accountant worth his salt knows how to move figures around from one year to the next , cops are no different. The other outcome is that next year the rate of increase has ‘dropped’
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Just heard the Police Commissioner in one breath tell me there has been a new computer which seems to have been responsible for the rise in figures,and in the next breath say that sex crimes have risen too. Maybe others heard it like me that the the computer and the sex crimes were linked.
Maybe Hoss the computer and the commissioner have been sharing their swag with you!
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:39 pm
John, it could possibly predictable because it is true. No guarantee of course, but true things are often repeated.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:07 pm
If you read the police report properly you’ll see that the statistics are about REPORTED crime and resolved crime, not crime per se.
Increased reporting could mean that incidents have increased or that people feel more confident about telling the police about an incident, or both.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:11 pm
31% increase in murders? Its just because people are reporting it more.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Hoss
Interesting read.
One must assume that the policy makers have been briefed sufficiently about this report, but who knows.
Anyway, the way I look at it, Police have got a pretty good case for some serious extra funding. That can only be a good thing. Such a shame the next election is in 2008.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:43 pm
“P”athetic Liar-boar, “P”athetic.
So predictable.”
The irony
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:49 pm
If the crime numbers are being juggled upwards now you can be sure that the reverse will happen next election year. And we – the voting lemmings, aided and abetted by the MSM – will buy it without a second thought
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:52 pm
If the crime numbers are being juggled upwards now you can be sure that the reverse will happen next election year. And we – the voting lemmings, aided and abetted by the MSM – will buy it without a second thought
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:57 pm
Sean: Excellent analysis!!
If the crime numbers are being juggled upwards now you can be sure that the reverse will happen next election year. And we – the voting lemmings, aided and abetted by the MSM – will buy it without a second thought
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:23 pm
My take on this is that the Police Minister is incompetent and should resign.
Why;
Not the stats, they are what they are. The numbers of offences as recorded are difficult to dispute. The Police Minister has claimed that figures may be ‘skewed’ because of a new computer system. One must also assume that a system implemented in 2005 is more accurate at recording the current day business than a system implemented in 1976. So if the figures are ‘different’ the Police long standing claim that they are underfunded are validated. The Police minister is to incompetent to use this ‘event’ correctly, as a lever for immediate funding increases. Instead she decides to use it as spin to diminish the shock of the revelation. Apparently oblivious to the disrepute that such a usage gives to the current Police and their systems, something you would expect the Govt to be a little weary of.
Given how long one would expect the figures have been known to the Minister, how hard could it be to manage the release and use the statistics for their purpose, allocation of funding – not further reduction of public respect in the Police, who are working their assess off most likely funded on misleading low statistics.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Whether the increase is reporting or actual, the crime rate’s still lower than just about every year since 1996 apart from the last two years. Look at the graph. To hear you lot carry on, you’d think we’ve been plunged into Gotham City before Batman turned up.
Murders? 100 people killed in 2003/2004. 80 killed in 2004/2005. 105 killed in 2005/2006. The numbers are so small, a difference of 20 cases looks like a massive increase. 92% solved. By population, it’s up from 0.2 instances per 10,000 to 0.3. Grievous assaults and intimidation and threats – those numbers are big enough to suggest trends.
The “election theory” of crime rates? Actually a small increase around 2002. But don’t let the data get in the way of a good story.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Anon..
I’m certainly not being critical of the Police operations and the accuracy of their figures, I’ll leave that to the Govt.
The Govt would how ever crow about a 5% reduction and would claim policy success. Such an increase is clearly a computer glitch, I hear you, shall we move on?
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:03 am
Ben Wilson
You missed the whole point of my post. Crime goes up when you are soft on crime and it goes down when laws, sentences and parole periods are both stricter and enforced. Drug related crime is up as well as violent crime and both quite dramatically over a one year period. Anyone who works in the field of drug addiction (which you clearly don’t) knows the way P operates and why its use has fuelled violent crime. It (unlike drugs like cocaine or even heroin) strips the brain of a range of chemicals in the parts of the brain that control values and conscience and reduces the brain to its reptilian (or basic life) functions and thus causes some of its users to commit horrific crimes of violence. Many come down from the drug in jail and are in shock and disbelief when the nature of their crime is described to them.
How does society reduce crime? We look to those who have successfully done it. One city that comes to mind is New York. Over a 10 year period the rate of murders and violent crime plummeted by over 70%. Achieving this stunning result was not rocket science. It involved seriously beefing up policing numbers (something Labour wont do), it involved passing stricter laws and enforcing them (Labour started due to the ’99 Norm Withers referendum and then their liberal instincts got the better and they reverted to type), it involved tackling minor petty crime (the so called ‘broken windows’ policy) such as theft, public drunkenness etc. Enforcing these minor breaches caught more serious criminals. And yes it involved building more prisons and longer sentences because, surprise surprise, violent criminals who are in jail and stay in jail longer cannot reoffend. Similar results have been replicated in many cities and counties in the US.
When it comes to drug use, levels of usage of all drugs have steadily climbed to epidemic proportions in NZ. I once brought Swedish experts to NZ to view our conditions. They said they mirrored Sweden in its liberal hey day of the 70’s where cannabis was virtually legal and heroin could be prescribed by doctors. Now Sweden has the lowest levels of drug use in the Western world and recent opinion polls there have a staggering 96% of Swedes supporting their mix of laws that achieved this result because they like their country better when drug use is no longer rampant.
It is ironic that Helen Clark would view Sweden as an ideal so called 3rd way country and yet in regard to drugs, it has become quite conservative. Permissive attitudes to drugs in a country long seen as progressive on many issues became unpopular paving the way for intelligent but tough laws that brought results. I cannot see Labour enacting such laws in a 1000 years!
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:25 am
fejj – cannot see Labour enacting such laws in a 1000 years! That’s because Labour is too intelligent to put their entire voting core in prison…
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:07 am
Fejj:
You asked: How does society reduce crime?
and pointed to the NY solution. I actually agree with their solution, but it depends on your definition of crime. I am not a bad person. I have never attacked anybody, and I doubt I ever will. But according to drug laws started by zealots in the US, with NO LOGIC WHATSOEVER, I am a criminal. I have used marijuana, ecstasy, LSD, hallucingenic mushrooms and cacti, cocaine, speed, nitrous oxide, P, alcohol and tobacco. Of that list, the worst effects have been from P, alcohol, tobacco and to lesser extent speed. The rest…I had and have a great time while using them.
So I don’t care if Sweden has the lowest use of drugs in the world (which they haven’t, as they are a nation of boozers. Yep, I can make sweeping generalisations like you, fejj).
So, fejj, which drugs have you used? Careful, if you say none you’re a liar…
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Phil
You can think me a liar but the answer is no – I don’t drink and I have never used illicit drugs. I tried alcohol in small doses in my youth and that’s it. Most societies chose to outlaw illicit drugs for good reason. They have seen the damage done by legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) and all benign societies seek to protect their young by legislation outlawing things that cause harm or they seek to restrict the sale of harmful items (licensing laws – age restrictions).
As to New York’s success – it would never happened with a ‘progressive’ drug law that would exempt your recreational use. You cant be half pregnant. As to your own use I would say this. I have met many dozens of former illegal drug users many who have used the cocktail of drugs you use/have used. NOT ONE of them has said that their life was better when they were using. Even those who only recreationally used cannabis say their life in every respect is infinitely better now that they are drug free. Try it – you might be pleasantly surprised!
My comments about Sweden are the facts not sweeping generalisations and relate to illicit drug use. You can look at the various bi-annual UN World Drug Reports and the highly esteemed 4 yearly ESPAD report looking at youth drug use in Europe plus a myriad of studies in each country using comparable study protocols – they all overwhelmingly back my contention.
October 3rd, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Feji, I was just pulling you up on some bs facts you were buying wholesale from French narcotics police, hardly an impartial source on drug crime, it being their entire reason for existence. My experiences differed radically from their’s so I can only imagine they are either bullshitting, or not telling the whole story about how they went about trying to score hard drugs in coffee shops.
And I did not *miss* your point, I just didn’t especially bother to *address* it. Your position is pretty clear – you want stricter cops.
I do agree that this would probably cut down on crime. But I don’t agree that drugs are the kind of crime that they’ll get much payoff from enforcing more strictly, since by far the most dangerous drug in all the senses you describe is available in vast quantities from the supermarket. The exact description of coming-to in a jail cell and not really being able to believe the testimony of others about some of the outrageous things they did, is an extremely common story for drunks. The comparison of numbers of outrageous episodes on P vs Piss would lean heavily towards Piss by orders of magnitude, IMHO. So they payoff on getting bitter on P is piss-all
.
Stricter enforcement will always make crime statistics better, but the question of payoff for dollars invested is less clear. That is the balance we all have to make about how to spend our tax money. It could perhaps be better spent on, as you kind of suggest, better education about the ills of drugs. You don’t need to tell me now I’m better off without booze, but you could have told me when I was younger and it might have made a difference.
So long as that education is factual, rather than simply propagandistic bs.
I would still have tried booze, but I would at least be making a relatively conscious choice about inflicting the harm on myself that it causes. In moderation, that harm is bugger all, and there’s really nothing wrong with that at all. I suspect the same goes for drugs like P – they could actually have their place, but knowing what place that is, is what we don’t really have enough information about. Certainly ‘speedy’ drugs have been used to very useful effect in the military. The real danger is simply overuse leading to not sleeping, leading directly to psychosis, waking dreams, etc. Which is about knowing when to stop. Very difficult with a poorly controlled illegal substance, with unknown strength.
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Seems to be only South Auckland Hmmmmmm,
Wonder why? hehe
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Ben Wilson
Some very pertinent comments. My experience with Rotterdam coffee shops was somewhat in between yours and the French drug police. I was approached for other harder drugs in the immediate vacinity but not on the premises. I had discussions with the head of the local drug squad and they confirmed the indirect involvement of Dutch gangs in coffee shops – after all they were busting them every day usually for harder drug trafficking and their large hydroponic Nederweit greenhouses would be caught up these busts so they unearthed the cannabis supply chain and hence the ownership links as well.
Your comments piss v P are very valid. There is one crucial difference – you can use alcohol responsibly and in moderation and most adult NZers do. There is really no safe dose of street P – it is a powerful and pernicuious drug, vastly and rapidly addictive. If the same number of people used one hit of P with the frequency with which people get moderately drunk then you’d see an enormous explosion of violent crime. Despite the huge increase in meth use it comes off a low base with the percentage of our adult population using P is now approaching 5% whereas the proportion of NZ’s population who abuse alcohol is about 4 x that figure.
In viewing the Swedish model first hand I was struck by the quality and extent of the drug education (no silly scare tactics), the intelligent use of modern effective policing laws not just some blunt ineffective prohibition (as is the case here) and the extent of quality and accessible treatment. It is the interaction of these elements and the way agencies involved with at-risk youth work tightly together for good outcomes that led to the large reductions in drug use.
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Hi fejj, cheers for the reply.
“You can think me a liar but the answer is no – I don’t drink and I have never used illicit drugs.”
I said “drugs” not illicit drugs. Surely you have been on medication that has potentially dangerous side effects? You’ve never taken Panadol? People overdose and die on Panadol, but not that often, because it is a regulated substance.
you said “Most societies chose to outlaw illicit drugs for good reason.”
(BTW, illicit drugs are already outlawed so…;) )
Your good reason is the need to protect the young. And since you won’t accept a regulated drug trade (except for alcohol, tobacco, anti-depressives, morphine, etc etc), you want the tough law solution, as Sweden has. I don’t. Why not? Because I don’t want to be made a criminal for doing something that does not harm anybody except myself. ANd so far I haven’t been harmed, except for the odd hangover…so sue me.
“As to New York’s success – it would never happened with a ‘progressive’ drug law that would exempt your recreational use. ”
What do you mean by success? They have reduced the violent crime rate. Are you suggesting that all drug users are also violent criminals? I bet you there are still thousands upon thousands of New Yorkers still using illegal drugs. I met a couple last month, traveling. (Both very successful in their careers too, how is that possible…)
“As to your own use I would say this. I have met many dozens of former illegal drug users many who have used the cocktail of drugs you use/have used. NOT ONE of them has said that their life was better when they were using.”
Sounds like you’ve met drug ABUSERS, not users. Plus, a cocktail of drugs implies taking many drugs at the same time. I’m pretty sure no-one has managed to take all those drugs in one go (Hunter S Thompson doesn’t count). If someone you knew has done so, they are idiots. But they don’t deserve to be criminals for doing so.
“Even those who only recreationally used cannabis say their life in every respect is infinitely better now that they are drug free.”
I first smoked cannabis when I was 15. I had a blast. I went to school stoned. I smoked pretty heavily while in my last year at school (3-5 times a week on average) as did most of my friends. I obtained University Entrance. I am 7 papers away from obtaining a BA (double major in Anthropology and Spanish, studying for me has stretched out for a long time cos I keep going off on OEs, I’m in Mexico at the moment, where the war on drugs has been an incredible success…) Anyway, my (illict) drug use has not been constant over that time. I have had long periods of not using drugs, and it hasn’t made the blindest bit of difference. I got excellent grades the last semester I was at uni, and was smoking pot constantly. Why? Because I was lucky enough to have the great combination of excellent lecturers and incredibly interesting papers. One semester I failed a history paper. That semester, i would have smoked maybe 3 or 4 times. My drug use is totally irrelevant.
“Try it – you might be pleasantly surprised!”
I have, there’s no difference. Welcome to the world of the sensible recreational drug user.
The Espad report is interesting. I will look over it more thoroughly when I have the time.
So… do you think I am a threat to society? Would I be better off in jail? Of course not. But you would have me, many of my close friends, and millions of others around the world locked away, a la NY. Bit harsh, no?
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:03 pm
Phil
Thank you for your interesting history. Your experience of there being absolutely no difference between no drug use and recreational use is unique. I have met all types of drug users from abusers to recreational users such as yourself and all are happier being off what ever they were using in every aspect of their life – good marks became better marks, a profitable business became more so and good relationships with partners and family got better and for many these indicators were bad and then became good.
Lack of space meant I have not actually described my ideal solution – I have merely cited some of the reasons for the large decline in crime in NY, since crime is the subject of the thread. I do not believe criminalising drug users is the answer but I believe the state can use its powers to coerce positive outcomes. I watched first hand how they do it in Sweden and the narcotics officers (youth and adult) I spent time with tried to avoid charging where a custodial sentance was in order rather they chose to use the threat of prosecution and simultaneously work with agencies to get the person the help they needed to get off drugs and it has worked well as the statistics show (a sort of carrot and stick approach). I support the Drug Court model used in some US juristictions particularly youth drug courts that similarly use a diversion approach to drugs focussing on treatment not incarceration.
On a personal note, I have worked with numerous high school principals and Boards of Trustees throughout NZ to encourage them to abandon the old punitive ‘kick them out’ NIBY approach to drugs and adopt the highly successful RUBICON programme used for the last 5 years in the 4 high schools in Whangerei. This is a diversion programme that uses counselling and random drug testing to keep students at the same school and get at the root cause of drug use and expulsion is only resorted to after repeated relapses. The results have been outstanding with 85% of students still drug free 1 year later.
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:05 pm
Feji, certainly there is no safe dose of any uncontrolled substance, including alcohol. I remember a stupid mate of mine once made alcohol and sold it to a girl at school who almost died from drinking it.
I do not agree that P is ‘vastly and rapidly addictive’ at all – I don’t know of any credible evidence of that claim, unless by addictive you mean it in the same way a good video game can be addictive.
Nor do I agree that there could be no safe dose, or any way of taking it in moderation. The base substance from which P is derived was popularly available as relief from the symptoms of colds not too many years ago, and I used it in moderation on a number of occasions. It really helped, but now I just have to suffer, unless I’m prepared to waste money go to the doctor for a prescription for a runny nose and headache.
You claims about an explosion in violent crime are pure speculation. If 5% of the population use P (as you claim), then the number of people having these outrageous episodes is a very small fraction indeed, certainly I have not heard that hundreds of thousands of people are going psychotic on a regular basis in NZ. Except on piss of course
, but that’s much more widely used.
And because taking P is considered highly criminal behaviour, is it any surprise that the pool of people from which P users is selected is highly biased towards a criminal mindset? That doesn’t mean P makes them either criminals, or do criminal things.
Sure, there are some people who have gone nuts on P and done terrible things. But I’m totally unconvinced that in itself is enough reason to ban it, since they did these things *anyway*, regardless of the illegality.
Definitely every drug that messes with the chemical balance in your brain has the potential to be harmful. The dangers should be clearly labelled on the packaging, but that about as far as I reckon the law should intrude on our right to it.
So just as tobacco clearly states that it’s highly toxic, and kills millions of people per year, alcohol should also say what a safe dose is, and how many people have died from it. And dope would probably have a label saying ‘prolonged use could cause some respiratory problems’. P would say ‘prolonged sleeplessness will cause pyschosis – make sure that you sleep every night for at least 8 hours when using this, or you’re taking too much’.
The effects should also be clarified. Tobacco should say it will make you feel good, but only as long as you are taking it. Booze should say that a small amount will make you feel relaxed, a bit more uncoordinated, a bit more will lead to vomitting and unconciousness, and a bit more to death. And dope should say you’ll probably get silly, hungry, and then fall asleep. P would probably say you’ll feel awake and have symptoms of colds relieved.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:13 pm
Feji, Phil’s experience is not unique. I know personally at least 10 people who have reported pretty much the same thing. Which is a pretty high proportion of the people who’ve admitted *anything at all* to me about their drug use.
I think you’re talking at cross-purposes anyway. What you’re proposing is living a healthy drug-free lifestyle, and there is much that recommends itself about such a thing. Just as a good exercise program or sensible eating habits benefit the majority of people who try it, abstinence from any mind altering substances could be good for you. But you wouldn’t ban fatty food because it kills millions of people, is very addictive, and it makes you fat. You’d say everyone has the right to choose about such things. And even bad things, in moderation, can be mostly harmless. You could eat, say one bag of chips a week, and never notice any effects on your health. Or you could eat ten per day and put on 30kg, get cranky, and waste heaps of cash. You are pretty much saying all P users are like that.
And that’s just not true. Possibly most of the ones you or your mates bust are, and good on you for busting them if they then commit a crime. But I’m pretty sure you haven’t managed to bang 5% of the population behind bars for raging psychosic episodes yet, and I suggest there’s a reason for that – most of the time it doesn’t happen.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:01 pm
I’m gonna agree with Ben, it’s rare but it’s true. I would know at least 6 people who fit in that description, all professional people in significant roles.
Lets put some perspective into this debate. If a person is bi-polar and has an episode every few years and takes a couple of weeks off we are expected to understand, work with that and don’t discriminate. But if a Lawyer whips off to Thailand every few years and cruises on a bong for two weeks then has a few days at home before returning to work, but gets caught one year. Game over.
Ben, you got a moral answer for that
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:20 pm
However I have, as a random witness, seen the violence of “P”. It’s ugly. Never seen anything like that, psychotic scarcely describes
Clearly status quo prohibition isn’t working very well at all – what is plan B?
October 4th, 2006 at 7:29 am
Fejj: “Thank you for your interesting history.” No problem.
“Your experience of there being absolutely no difference between no drug use and recreational use is unique.”
I don’t know. You probably consider it unique. Trust me, it’s not unique though. There are many people whose lives a ruined by drug use. I’m not one of them. I know people who are drug addicts (if you count cigarettes I know hundreds). They are not happy people. I am as happy as the next person. If I’m unhappy, I don’t do drugs.
I get the feeling from your comments that you believe that no drug has any redeeming quality. As you have never tried any, there’s no point trying to convince you otherwise. If I were to try, I would point you to the free online text of “LSD: My Problem Child”, by Albert Hoffman. I could point you to the Wikipedia entry on Dr Alexander Shulgin. You could listen to a Beatles album made after 1965. You could visit Amsterdam and hang out in Vondelpark, before admiring Van Gogh’s hallucinatory paintings.
“I have met all types of drug users from abusers to recreational users such as yourself and all are happier…”
100 percent success rate huh? That’s pretty rare in anything, but I guess I’ll just have to take your word for it.
“I do not believe criminalising drug users is the answer but I believe the state can use its powers to coerce positive outcomes.”
That’s bound to get some Kiwiblog posters pulling out their dog-eared Ayn Rand novels
While drugs remain illegal, users remain criminals. Would you support a change in the law then?
I think the state can use its powers to regulate something that is potentially dangerous, as they do with alcohol, tobabcco, prescriiption drugs, cars, risky sports etc in order to reduce that potential danger.
Do you advocate the Rubicon system in workplaces?
October 4th, 2006 at 8:06 am
Phil and Ben
You both seem to advocate legalisation of all drugs (including hard drugs). This is a position that I would say 90% of NZers would reject for good reason. When any harmful substance is legal its usage levels climb – that is why alcohol abuse is so much more widespread than illegal drug abuse. The few places in the world where hard drug use has had limited legal status (Switzerland and for a while Sweden for example) hard drug and soft drug use climbed to unacceptable levels leading to a law reversal.
There are many people I know who use drugs recreationally who are successful – the point I was making that is that everyone I have observed who gave up all illicit drugs report noticeable improvements in many aspects of their lives even if their life when using was OK and not some stereotype of a drug addict. You have observed otherwise and I accept that.
Like many recreational users, you desire the laws of the land to reflect your world view thus allowing you to indulge without the possible threat of legal sanction. All laws involve trade offs and most societies deem the protection of its citizens (especially its young) from harmful substances warrants a higher priority than the rights of recreational users.
This thread was about rising crime. You speak to anyone involved with policing and they will unequivocally tell you about the link between the increase in the use of P and the increase in violent crime. Not all users of P nut out but this drug has a different pharmacalogical effect on brain function than even other hard drugs like opiates and so more users of P will have angry violent reactions than say users of cannabis. So if the raw numbers of total P users rises, so will the numbers of violent reactions as that is one of the possible (but not guaranteed) side effects.
As for the health dangers of fatty food, they are well publicised and real. But no person ‘high’ on fish and chips ever murdered their step child as Stephen Williams (high on P) did to Coral Burrows.
Yes I do support so called Worker Assistance programmes (the workplace equivalent of Rubicon). They have been highly successful in the US and are used by certain high risk industries in NZ such a forestry.
Burt – I dont believe NZ’s prohibition is effective. If you look at my previous posts in this thread, I talk about Sweden’s move from liberal laws and epidemic drug use to modern, effective laws that brought drug use down to very low levels. It is a model worth considering.
October 4th, 2006 at 10:46 am
Feji, I’m sure usage would climb with legalization. The difference between us is that you would find that ‘unacceptable’, whereas I would wait to see the actual effect before judging. More people would use, and quality of the drugs would be higher. There would be a lot more real information (as opposed to “narc police say”) about the effects. And there would be a consequent rise in understanding of what using in moderation is. With alcohol that exists, to the point that you *can* drink in moderation and drive, because they *have* done experiments to see what the effects are.
I believe it is true that the reactions some people have who use a lot of P are violent. But we still have not unbundled that from the criminal population P users are selected from. Our statistics on the matter are worthlessly biased. And the illegality means highly uncontrolled quantities are consumed. Furthermore it’s a very expensive drug, so people can be forced into highly criminal behaviour if they have a habit. Girls will be hookers, one of the fastest ways to make easy money. Men will become thieves, or robbers. Neither of these would be necessary if the drug cost around what booze costs.
As for people getting high on fatty food and killing, there have been plenty of slayings after a meal of fatty food. How can you be sure it had no effect?
October 4th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Ben
Middle NZ would read your last post with horror. What you are saying is that legalised P would actually be purer. If you know anything about P you would know that it would do its nuerological damage with even greater efficiency. This is a drug that one can become addicted to after one or two small hits. Its not like alcohol where you can have a couple of beers with zero ill effect. You are also assuming that the legal drug will be cheaper thus even more available. Somehow miraculously some warning label on the packet will ameliorate the deleterious effects of the drug or that the warning label will stop a curious 15 year old from using because they have been ‘educated’.
Not all P users come from the so-called criminal classes. Some of the high profile murders committed by P users clearly had criminal pasts. Plenty come from ordinary lives and ordinary families and become criminals after using P. My step niece sadly fits this category as do almost all of her late teen P using friends.
Your hypothetical progressive world with ‘enlightened’ drug laws would soon turn to custard just as did life in enlightened Sweden did when leftist academics persuaded law makers in the ’60′s to experiment with legalised heroin prescribing and de facto cannabis legalisation.
Oh and please cite the actual case where the consumption of fatty food became the major cause of a murder rather than the type of food the murder co-incidentally consumed prior to the crime. You really are starting the scrape the bottom of the barrel.
October 4th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
I think Ben is trying to say that the dosage of legalised P would be more predictible. It’s difficult to predict the dosage and effects of illegal drugs because they’re often mixed up in bathtubs by gang members – if they were manufactured under laboratory conditions and subject to government regulation then the dosage and effects would be more predictable, or presumably safer. It’s my understanding that most of the deaths attributable to heroin overdoses are due to poor manufacturing practises.
I don’t think there’s any significance in the Swedish experience. The Swedes did experiment (in a very minor way) with liberal drug policy and saw a subsequent rise in drug addiction.
However, every other country in Europe also saw an equivilent rise in addiction at the same time, regardless of drug policy. It’s likely that the rise in addicts was due to cultural and political changes occuring during the late 60′s.
October 4th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Fejj:
“This is a position that I would say 90% of NZers would reject for good reason.” I highly (scuse the pun) doubt 90% but a majority would, I would expect. However, I would also think the number would be much less if only cannabis was considered. A large percentage of the NZ population smoke cannabis.
You repeatedly cite Sweden as a model for the eradication of drugs, and also refer to when “leftist academics persuaded law makers in the ’60′s to experiment with legalised heroin prescribing and de facto cannabis legalisation.” I assume you’re talking about this :
“For example, from 1965 to 1967, it was possible for severe drug abusers to obtain prescriptions for morphine and amphetamines. This non-scientific experiment (involving approximately 120 people)…”
from parl.gc.ca
I wouldn’t base my views on legalising hard drugs on one non-scientific “experiment”, from 1965.
The Swedish system has worked so far because of the conformist make up of their society combined with harsh penalties for ALL drugs not just hard drugs and intense propaganda campaigns, including the tired old claim of cannabis being a gateway drug. NZ has no way near that level of conformity, as much as redbaiter likes to believe it does. In other words they have a policy of spreading misinformation combined with tough law enforcement. It will not work for ever, as their demographics change.
I think P is a horrible drug, but the reason it is in NZ and out of control is due to two things: an ineffective war on drugs combined with Homo sapiens urge to get wasted. You cannot suppress that urge in all people all of the time. The best you can do is manage it.
Get the production and distribution of P out of the hands of violent sociopaths and addicts. You’re argument against that is weak: that they swap an illegal trade for a legal one. Your evidence is an anecdote about some french cops getting offered hard drugs in coffee shops. I have been to Amsterdam four times. I was never offered hard drugs in the smart shops or coffee shops, unless you consider hallucinogens hard drugs. Anyway it’s besides the point, hard drugs are still illegal in Holland right?
What happened to production and distribution during prohibition of alcohol? Controlled by the mafia and other gangs. After prohibition? Check the business pages. That is a fact set in stone, and the same would go for any highly sought after product.
“All laws involve trade offs and most societies deem the protection of its citizens (especially its young) from harmful substances warrants a higher priority than the rights of recreational users.”
Fair in the case of hard drugs. Those are heroin and amphetamines, alcohol and tobacco. They can be very dangerous, but in lumping all drugs together you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Other drugs such as the hallucinogens and ecstasy are less dangerous. Hallucinogens and cannabis are not lethal. They are not physically addictive.
No state has ever completely legalised and regulated all drugs. So you have nothing to compare against. Commmon sense shows that dangerous activities which are also popular need to be regulated not banned, as, due to the fact that they *are* popular means that they will not magically disappear. Supply and demand is what makes the world go round right?
October 4th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Phil
The last Colmar Brunton poll I have seen still had just under 60% opposed to legalising cannabis vs about 35% in favour.
Your experience and mine in Dutch coffee shops were different. The Dutch police see things differently from you as well. There is no denying that Holland is a major haven for European hard drug dealers due to softer laws.
If the Swedish model is just some propoganda campaign why do 96% of Swedes support their drug laws (including 92% of 16-25 yr olds)? The polling company never in the history of opinion polling in Sweden had ever had such unanimity on any issue. Are you saying virtually an entire sophisticated 1st world nation is stupid? The low levels of drug use in Sweden have largely been maintained since the early 90′s. Their model, which you clearly dont like, works and they like it.
The gateway theory has been strongly proven in the Chch Health and Dev’t Study longitudinal study of 1200 kids born in 1977. Back when they were 21 yrs old they looked at the cannabis gateway issue and of those who had smoked cannabis 50 x or more, they were 62 x more likely to use harder drugs. Prof Fergusson told a conference I attended that at first the figure was a massive 142 x and so they eliminated those whose harder drug use arose from other issues (such as family environment)and so the 62 x more likely figure was strictly from the cannabis use. This study is world renown and has published its findings in over 90 articles in reputable journals the world over so its findings cannot be easily disregarded.
Alcohol is different from hard drugs. You can use moderate amounts of alcohol in many forms with little or no negative health outcomes. The same cannot be said for P. You have a valid point about regulating the different types of drugs and you are right, the Swedish make no distinction in their lists. However in practice they make a major distinction and in sentencing and in policing both the courts and police tend to adopt an informal A, B and C classification not unlike NZ’s. Certainly the youth narcotics police I spent time with told me they rarely prosecute any under 18 year olds in possession preferring to work with schools, social service agencies and if necessary treatment providers to stop the drug use. The latest ESPAD report put last month use of cannabis by 12 – 18 yr olds in Sweden at a paltry 2%. Why is there no P epidemic in Sweden? Oh that’s right they are a conformist society who march in lock step with their brainwashing health ministry.
October 4th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
I think Danyl and Phil filled in most of the gaps for me.
Feji, I don’t care what Middle NZ, whatever that is, thinks of my opinion. I think it’s a right opinion, and I will seek to persuade Middle NZ and Outer NZ alike for my entire life, that my opinion is not only not outrageous, but actually true.
I can’t even fathom why you think purer P would be badder P. There’s a certain amount of P that a person needs to get X high, and if they have to consume 10 street hits or 1/4 of one, they will do so until they get their high. So overconsumption is extremely likely, not to mention that they are inhaling whatever other crap is in there, which they have no idea about.
It’s not a silly point, it’s an obvious point, that I thought you would have got when you read my anecdote about my friend almost killing a girl at my school because he made alchohol that was too pure. Off the shelf alchohol has quality control that includes an alcohol % rating, which give you good information about how much of it you can consume. By contrast, every P user is like that poor girl sipping away on bootleg overproof alchohol until she almost died.
You state that ordinary people committed violent crimes after a bender on too much P, people with no criminal past. Well, sorry man, but if they even managed to have a bender on P then they must have been indulging in repeated criminal behaviour, since it is a criminal offence to buy, sell, own or use it.
You also claim that addiction can occur after one or two hits. I challenge you to produce any credible evidence of this. No one I know who has ever used P has got hooked. Noone. At all. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible, but I think your use of the word addicted is very loose, as I already said, you’re using it in the sense that a video game can be addictive. It’s not the same as opiates or nicotine which have a real physical addiction.
As for my point about fatty foods, I’m merely showing you that coincidence can actually be mistaken for cause and effect. Proving that ‘the P made them do it’ is not as simple as proving that they had used P, any more than ‘the McDonalds made them do it’ because a lot of people who commit crimes ate McDonalds beforehand.
That doesn’t mean that P can’t cause people to act crazy. I’m not saying that. But I think there is a semi-automatic assumption emerging that if some acted crazy, and they had P, then the P made them crazy. A lot of people are crazy anyway. A lot of people don’t get crazy on P. The size of the proportion of people who genuinely went crazy just because of the drug itself, unbundled from the crazy things that were most likely happening to them at the time, such as having to make shady connections with gangsters, watch out for narc police, make tons of money, and hold down a job, is unknown. You claim to know it, but you just don’t.
And *even if* there are a proportion of people who go crazy just because of P, that is *still* no more of an argument for prohibition, any more than it is for booze, a drug that is well known to make people crazy, and most people drink it *for that reason*.
What is against the law is the criminal behaviour booze drinkers engage in when pissed. If all they did was sit around at home watching TV, then they harmed noone but themselves (and perhaps their families due to neglect), noone is going to arrest them for that. It is universally understood in our society that that is a choice people should be allowed to make for themselves, even if it is probably a bad choice.
Don’t you get that? That even BAD choices are choices people should be allowed to make for themselves. If they then commit criminal behaviour, then that is a bad choice also, but one that should be punished. But short of that, if all they did was harm themselves, it’s not something we should be wasting police time on, and creating a massively profitable industry for gangsters out of.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Feji, yes, an entire 1st world nation can be completely wrong about something. That is not only certain, it’s obvious, because lots of 1st world nations disagree about stuff, and clearly they can’t all be right.
As for the gateway theory, again your statistics are totally dodgy, claiming to prove cause and effect, when all they’ve proved is correlation. Yes, people who are more likely to try dope are also more likely to try other drugs. That’s really a no-brainer. But the jump to saying that *because* they smoked dope *therefore* that increased their probability of trying other things, is simple a fallacious jump.
Perhaps there is a gateway effect, but it’s definitely not that smoking a joint suddenly magically makes you 62 times more likely to try heroin. You have not showed that even before you puff on that joint, you aren’t already 62 times more likely to try heroin than the guy who won’t puff the joint. The dope particles don’t suddenly hit some magical ‘and now I’ll try heroin’ button in your brain, any more than booze particles would. That button was possibly already pushed, quite possibly at your conception. You have a lot more to prove on this point than you think.
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:42 am
Overdose deaths can be intentional or unintentional, and they can result from both licit and illicit drug abuse. Drugs commonly implicated in overdose must be in public lists! WBR LeoP
January 22nd, 2007 at 8:35 am
Overdose deaths can be intentional or unintentional, and they can result from both licit and illicit drug abuse. Drugs commonly implicated in overdose must be in public lists! WBR LeoP
January 22nd, 2007 at 8:36 am
Sadly already this year, seven people have been murdered, that’s only one every three days. Meanwhile the appalling government shows utter contempt for society by their callous silence, which indicates they are quite happy to condone the lawlessness and bloody mayhem.
Can’t we the people demand an election tomorrow and finally get rid of these corrupt / conniving misfits. Why do we have to wait to 2008?
This government has completely lost the plot !!!!
March 16th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
According to an anaesthetist I met a while ago, ketamine is still used in adults during surgery in some cases. WBR LeoP
May 19th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
lmrbacpo ydzlux kafrozmq bqnmhy kewcxsb sozfarmjd fzehbwnjd
May 19th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
lmrbacpo ydzlux kafrozmq bqnmhy kewcxsb sozfarmjd fzehbwnjd
May 19th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
lmrbacpo ydzlux kafrozmq bqnmhy kewcxsb sozfarmjd fzehbwnjd