The Press on Cannabis
October 3rd, 2011 at 10:00 am by David FarrarThe editorial last week from The Press:
The careful and considered suggestion by the leader of the ACT party that it is time to re-examine the legislation making possession of cannabis a criminal offence should be taken seriously.
Coming from most other advocates for liberalisation of the law on cannabis it could be dismissed as the partisan advocacy of raddled old dope-heads.
But coming from Brash, a former governor of the Reserve Bank and the epitome of a buttoned-up, middle-class, white-bread Pakeha, as a sober proposal, modestly put forward for discussion, it is not so easily dismissed.
If it is given the serious consideration it deserves, it will be found that Brash’s arguments for decriminalisation of cannabis use, which he supports, or even closely limited legalisation are compelling.
Although some have greeted the proposal as somehow radical, and have tried to beat up strife between him and the ACT party candidate for Epsom, John Banks, who is resolutely opposed to any relaxation of the law, Brash’s idea is increasingly part of mainstream debate about policing of drug use.
On this, it is Banks, not Brash, who is the dinosaur. As Brash noted, just a couple of months ago the Global Commission on Drug Policy declared the war on drugs a failure and recommended that governments should, among other things, explore legalising marijuana. That commission includes such pillars of rectitude as a former United States secretary of state, George Schultz (who has long been an advocate of liberalising the law in the US) and a former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker. …
It is time, though, to recognise that trying to prohibit it entirely is a massive waste of money and effort for no good purpose and, as Brash says, to have a sensible discussion about what should be done about it.
Again I agree.
Related posts:
- Brash calls for cannabis decriminalisation
- A long overdue cannabis debate
- DI Quinn on cannabis
- The problems with long term cannabis use
October 3rd, 2011 at 10:11 am
Far better to legalise and regulate a product that is used by a significant percentage of the population, they continue to allow millions of dollars going to gangs.
I would recommend that the place users can use the product be limited, and that they are registered users.
Vote:October 3rd, 2011 at 10:29 am
http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/opinion/cartoons/1251886/Tom-Scott
Vote:Third cartoon in.
October 3rd, 2011 at 10:45 am
“On this, it is Banks, not Brash, who is the dinosaur.”
So.. if the Press is saying John Banks is the dinosaur on this issue, I guess that John Key is as well.
And the Press would be right – they both are.
Vote:October 3rd, 2011 at 10:48 am
“So.. if the Press is saying John Banks is the dinosaur on this issue, I guess that John Key is as well.
And the Press would be right – they both are.”
And yet it is Phil Goff who will be (politically) extinct in less than 2 months.
Vote:October 3rd, 2011 at 10:49 am
Question is, why select Banks as the candidate for Epsom? Was it at Key’s insistence, so that ACT would have to remain socially conservative? Perish the thought!
In other words, if ACT proposes a socially liberal candidate for Epsom, then the conservative Nats would put up a strong candidate to oppose him. So Brash’s moderate stance on cannabis law reform is the first shot in the ACT civil war, which will culminate in a schism twixt the social liberals and the dinosaurs.
May the best man win. Won’t be pretty.
Vote:October 3rd, 2011 at 11:05 am
First Brash needs to decide if he is talking about decriminalization or or legalization. Decriminalization will save nothing indeed extra health and loss of productivity costs will cost more than savings on minimal Police and Court Costs, and the gangs will prosper even more. Legalization would put the gangs out of business and growers would need to be licenced,useage would grow as the cost of product would have to be below that of illegally grown product. Valuable market growing land would be converted.
Vote:Global Commissions are as valid as Expert Panels on the Christchurch earthquake. What would a former secretary of state and a former chairman of the Federal Reserve know about cannabis that any Joe Doe off the street or member of the Greens doesn’t.
October 3rd, 2011 at 11:09 am
The hypocrisy over this issue is staggering. What does it matter who has called for law reform, given that the call is exactly the same?
Vote:October 3rd, 2011 at 11:11 am
I love all these people making predictions. Some have yet to realise that National will need atleast 48% to govern.
Vote:October 3rd, 2011 at 11:24 am
Brash needs to decide if he is talking about decriminalization or or legalization
Isn’t everything legal unless it’s illegal? So decriminalising cannabis use, sale etc will simply make it not criminal, ie legal again.
Isn’t the real issue whether to replace the current mode of regulation – which relies almost entirely on the criminal justice system to enforce prohibition – with one that is more focused on specific issues of public concern, eg health consequences and restricting sale to/use by minors? Ie bringing it more in line with how we currently regulate tobacco and alcohol.
Vote:October 3rd, 2011 at 11:51 am
PORTIA:………Decriminalisation is generally accepted as relating to possession of small amounts. That would no longer be an offence. Sale or possession for the purposes of sale or growing would remain a serious offence. That is what I understand and what Brash needs to clarify.
Vote:October 3rd, 2011 at 11:52 am
If Brash is being true to ACT’s liberal principles, he should be talking about legalisation.
Vote:October 3rd, 2011 at 11:58 am
…”Isn’t everything legal unless it’s illegal?”….
In a nation a little closer to Utopia than ours this would be a throw away comment. Regrettably although, decades of kneejerk legislation resulting in the of banning anything that any nanny opposes on moral or personal risk grounds has left precious little that is legal.
Cycling helmets, marijuana, tobacco…the list is endless. The chickens are now firmly roosted & just about everything is prohibited in case some moron harms themselves.
Vote:October 3rd, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Decriminalization will not give the government control of the market or any increase in tax take. Despite this the savings in justice would more than pay for the extra health costs. instant fines are far cheaper than police and defendants going to court.
As to an extent the market in intoxicants has a finite size. Transferring any alcohol usage to cannibals will decrease accident and crime rates giving a saving in both health and justice.
To make an impact on gangs legalization is the only route to consider Alcohol and tobacco are cheap and easy to make/grow
yet few chose to. Why would a legal cannibis market be any different?
More tax take and less justice costs plus a boost to tourism win win win and no real downside
Vote:October 3rd, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Cannibals?
Vote:October 3rd, 2011 at 12:42 pm
oops
f..kwits=kiwifruit in my spell checker
Vote:October 3rd, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Legalise the lot. No more money spent on ‘drug enforcement’. Gangs lose most of their income. Drug related crime drops.
What’s not to like?
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:October 3rd, 2011 at 4:39 pm
Bloody Don Brash. First he wants competent economic management of the economy by the gummint. Then he wants an end to the institutionalised racism that permeates this country. Now he wants a sensible debate on the cannabis laws that don’t work. What a loser.
Vote:October 3rd, 2011 at 5:34 pm
More uninformed dribble. Obviously the The Press writer is inhaling……
Be prepared, those zombie movies will be reality…heh.
Vote:October 3rd, 2011 at 8:51 pm
“What would a former secretary of state and a former chairman of the Federal Reserve know about cannabis that any Joe Doe off the street or member of the Greens doesn’t.”
It’s an argument from authority. The presumption is that these are intelligent people that have well considered opinions grounded in unbiased research. Therefore, for those who can’t be bothered finding out things for themselves they can rely on these people as being trustworthy advocates. It’s an unfortunate but necessary part of democracy where everyone can vote, but no one is informed on every issue.
On the other hand it’s also a useful way to get debate started. Prejudice often limits debate because people have preconceived notions about the sort of person who might advocate for a particular issue. People like Paul Volcker help to debunk the myth that a person who advocates for drug law reform must be a drug addict. When people like Volcker speak people stop and listen much more often as compared to a guy with dreadlocks.
Vote: