The Economist on NZ drugs regulation

August 12th, 2013 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

writes:

AS THE world’s drug habit shows, governments are failing in their quest to monitor every London window-box and Andean hillside for banned plants. But even that Sisyphean task looks easy next to the fight against synthetic . No sooner has a drug been blacklisted than chemists adjust their recipe and start churning out a subtly different one. These “legal highs” are sold for the few months it takes the authorities to identify and ban them, and then the cycle begins again. In June the UN reported more than 250 such in circulation.

An unlikely leader in legal highs is New Zealand. Conventional hard drugs are scarce in the country, because traffickers have little interest in serving 4m people far out in the South Pacific. Kiwis therefore make their own synthetic drugs, which they take in greater quantity than virtually anyone else. The government shuts down more crystal-meth labs there than anywhere bar America and Ukraine. But the business has adapted. First it turned to benzylpiperazine, which a third of young New Zealanders have tried. When that was banned in 2008, dealers found plenty of other chemicals to peddle. Today the most popular highs are synthetic cannabinoids, which pack a harder punch than ordinary cannabis.

Sick of trying to keep up with drugmakers, the government is trying a new tack. Last month a law was passed which offers drug designers the chance of getting official approval for their products. If they can persuade a new “Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority” that their pills and powders are low risk, they will be licensed to market them, whether or not they get people high. Drugs will have to undergo clinical trials, which the government expects to take around 18 months—much less than for medicines, because the drugs will be tested only for toxicity, not for efficacy. Drugs that are already banned internationally, such as cocaine and cannabis, are ineligible. Only licensed shops will sell the drugs, without advertising and not to children.

The approach NZ is taking in regards to what I’d call “soft drugs” will be watch around the world with great interest.

The arguments for legalisation—that it protects consumers, shuts out criminals and saves money while raising tax—are familiar to readers of this newspaper. Yet it requires careful regulation to ensure that its outcome is not worse than widely ignored prohibition. New Zealand must now get the details right. The government has yet to define “low risk”. Set the bar too high and the policy will be prohibition by another name; too low and potentially lethal products will be on sale legally. (They are already, in the form of alcohol and tobacco, but consistency is hardly a feature of drug policy.) Nor does anybody know what level of taxation will most effectively deter consumption without encouraging a black market.

And why this approach is a good one:

These tricky questions may look like weaknesses in the policy. In fact, they are its strength. While New Zealand and Uruguay are discussing what level of toxicity or what dosage is acceptable, every other country is leaving the matter to drug dealers, who do not care about quality control and who peddle to children on the same terms as adults. As New Zealand ponders what rate of tax to levy, in the rest of the world the business is tax-free. A hard road lies ahead for New Zealand and its fellow policy innovators. But every dilemma they face is a reminder that, unlike other jurisdictions, through government they are regulating the drugs business, not the gangs.

The new policy is no silver bullet. But it is a better way of approaching the problem than simple prohibition.

Tags: ,

78 Responses to “The Economist on NZ drugs regulation”

  1. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    “AS THE world’s drug habit shows, governments are failing in their quest to monitor every London window-box and Andean hillside for banned plants.”

    Obviously the Economist’s research section hasn’t been to Singapore.

    The only reason the so called war on drugs has failed in the west is because of lack of conviction.

    Proof?

    It works in Singapore, where they hang drug traffickers and they don’t fuck about doing it.

    Consequently the drug problem in Singapore is microscopic compared with western society in general.

    Drugs will prevail in any society where the will to enforce the law does not exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Black with a Vengeance (1,865 comments) says:

    Community boycotts of dairies selling that crap works too…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    People pile onto Lance Armstrong because he did the Tour De France on drugs.

    The last time I was on drugs, I couldn’t even find my bike.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, are you suggesting more government regulation ? How much does this war on drugs cost (to the nearest billion will do) and what is the return on this tax payer funded industry ?

    Singapore has plenty of drugs freely available btw.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Carlos (683 comments) says:

    Redbaiter has a point.

    In Singapore when they first launched their anti-drug policy, Lee Kuan Yew said that many didn’t believe he was that serious. They hanged a few drug users and then people knew they were serious.

    Mao Zedong destroyed the opium addiction scurge in China by killing users and possessors of it.

    However, I don’t think NZers would want to be under those sorts of regimes even if it meant a massive reduction in the use of drugs.

    NZers seriously need to decide one way or the other. The half-hearted approach that’s been used for the last few decades hasn’t worked.

    It wouldn’t hurt if parents took more responsibility for their kids too. A decent book about parenting is “Your Kids are your own Fault” by Larry Winget.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    The rise in drug use (of all kinds, soft and hard) parallels the rise to social and political ascendancy of the Progressives, as the young fall deeper and deeper into the chasm of amoral and mentally debilitating socialism.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    “It wouldn’t hurt if parents took more responsibility for their kids too.”

    That is right, but its not the way to do things today. Parents are frequently prosecuted by socialist governments for trying to divert their children’s attention from the destructive whimsies of progressivism.

    “It takes a village” remember?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Mao Zedong destroyed the opium addiction scurge in China by killing users and possessors of it.

    However, I don’t think NZers would want to be under those sorts of regimes even if it meant a massive reduction in the use of drugs.

    Well some NZers do. Such as Red for example. He wants to mimic the drug policies of Maos China and the former USSR, while ignoring the policies of democratic European countries with free market economies.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    “Redbaiter, are you suggesting more government regulation ?”

    I am suggesting that if laws exist, they should be enforced. (BTW, I’m not a FITH Libertarian. When you can get more than 800 votes in a general election get back to me)

    Yeah, drug use is a major problem in Singapore.

    Obviously they should just stop enforcing the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Yes, remember before progressivism began as a political movement, and no-one took drugs?

    If only we could get rid of all the progs, things would go back to how they were, and no-one would take drugs any more.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Black with a Vengeance (1,353) Says:

    August 12th, 2013 at 2:07 pm
    Community boycotts of dairies selling that crap works too…

    That I have no problem with. We need to take responsibility as a society and not look to central government as Redbaiter demands. Government enforcement is massively expensive and does not work.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Wake up Red. The law is hugely expensive and it is not working. Everyone who wants to take drugs is already doing it. Just like they do in Singapore, except Singapore has more, and better, drugs than little old NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    Drug use increase over the years idiots like RRM have been politically and socially ascendant.

    Its down to you RRM, and progs like you. Take ownership of your outcomes for once in your miserable life.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Red, I checked out your link. It shows NZ is number 11 and Singapore is 53rd !

    That tells me our drug laws are about 5 x more effective.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    Drug offences NZ- 23,747 per 100,000

    Drug offences Singapore- 46.8 per 100,000

    Singaporeans don’t need drugs because their society has not been corroded by Progressivism.

    BTW, it costs fuck all to stop drugs in Singapore. The claim that the war on drugs is costly is true, but only in the west where they don’t really conduct any real war. Its all wet bus ticket stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    The Conservative drug of choice is far more harmful.

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2961462-6/abstract

    Drug policy should be a health issue not Law enforcement based.

    We should take a scientific look at drug policy not one based on brainless knee jerk “it gets you high so its evil”.

    Kids find it easier to buy pot than ciggys and alcohol.

    Place the same control’s on pot E etc as these more harmful drugs R21, no advertising, whatever just make the entire process legal regulated and taxed.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    DRUG INDUCED DEATHS SECOND ONLY TO MOTOR VEHICLE FATALITIES, 1999-2007

    Curious – you used to be all about freedom and personal responsibility Weddy. Now you want nanny state to just ban stuff?

    Redbaiter – standing for unrestricted tobacco advertising, optional motorcycle helmets, and compulsory abstention from smoking dope, since… 1999?

    You’re nothing if not inconsistent, I have to give you that. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    “That tells me”

    What it tells me is that you’re a troll full of worthless shit, and that you are not in the least concerned with facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Red, those figures are convictions. It could be because their enforcement is less effective ?

    Communist regimes have a great record for controlling drug use. Just look at the mess in Russia with massive alcohol and drug addiction rates, now the “progs” are no longer in charge.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    RRM, drugs are a social problem and the problem is caused by people like you. If people like you went away, so would the drugs problem. (largely).

    There are two issues here.

    1) Laws, if introduced need to be enforced.

    2) Progressive political policies are to blame for the increase in drug use.

    Previous to the sixties there was no need for a grossly intrusive state.

    This is just another example of the same old same old progressive shit. They say they are for freedom, but they have built a hugely intrusive government. They are not Libertarians, but Libertines. Amoralists who see big powerful secular government as their religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Any regime for testing psychoactive substances for safety would logically only resulting in banning of substances that are more harmful than alcohol and tobacco. The synthetic cannabinoids would probably get through. That raises in turn the question of why ban the natrual form of cannabis.
    For me, the only logical approach is to legalise the sale, possession and consumption of all psychoactive substances under control regimes similar to those applied to alcohol and tobacco.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Warrrrrrrrrr on drugs, Warrrrrrrrrrrrr on progs, Warrrrrrrrrrrr warrrrrrrrrrrr blah blah….

    Alcohol is the real problem and we all know it. Wasting time and money convicting harmless dope smokers is just plain silly. Problems like gangs, prostitution, violence are largely the result of the law, not the drug users. I can assure you gangs do not want drugs made legal.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    So, are there businesspeople the government shouldn’t hang if it takes a dislike to their business, or is it open slather?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    RRM, drugs are a social problem and the problem is caused by people like you. If people like you went away, so would the drugs problem

    LOL :)

    So responsible hard working family men, who care enough about society to comment here, are the problem and we need to make the them go away ?

    What did you have in mind ? A gulag ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Scott Chris (6,150 comments) says:

    Community boycotts of dairies selling that crap works too…

    Yeah. Takes money off the tinny houses dammit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    The police in NZ claim they are terribly busy with all this crime and demand more and more powers over us to assist them, yet are spending huge amounts of time lobbying against LEGAL highs. However they are too busy to investigate burglaries and actual crimes properly !

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. stigie (1,219 comments) says:

    I find this quite amusing when a few years back, some of you guys were banging on about natural cannabis and how bad it was for everybody, and now since the synthetic shit has been out there and causing a lot of health damage, you guys seem more happier to go along with the natural cannabis debate where there is no real health damage. Whats changed ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    There is no better example of the Nanny State, of social engineering, of the commonly accepted invasion of personal choice by the Government, than recreational drug bans and their cheerleaders.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    Bullshit Ryan, it all starts with you commies and your progressive taxation. The government ENFORCED assumption that I am responsible for the upkeep and raising of other people’s children. Get rid of your huge intrusive preaching moralizing progressive state/ culture and these things will when reason becomes (by necessity) paramount in life, evaporate like ice in the sun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    Little kids In the hood see these gangsta idiots as heroes.

    The teen ages running the thinny houses dont get busted bad they are just naughty poor kids.
    :lol:
    Playing with remote control toys and having all the bling.

    kids grow up in low rent areas see gangstas peddling drugs as fucken heros who have made it.

    Another generation jostling for their position in the local gang hierarchy.

    Another lost case of social anarchy forever before the courts and in and out of jail.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    It would be nice if Redbaiter, who claims to respect reason, could construct an actual argument for banning some psychoactive substances, instead of flinging abuse at those who can make an argument for liberalisation.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    Bullshit Ryan, it all starts with you commies and your progressive taxation. The government ENFORCED assumption that I am responsible for the upkeep and raising of other people’s children. Get rid of your huge intrusive preaching moralizing progressive state/ culture and these things will when reason becomes (by necessity) paramount in life, evaporate like ice in the sun.

    “If everyone was thinking straight, they’d agree with me, but in the meantime the State should force them to act the way I want them to.”

    The anthem of the State worshipper.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. kowtow (8,522 comments) says:

    No matter what drug you legalise the drug traffickers will be quite a few steps ahead and produce more illegal drugs that it will be cool for the drop kick shit heads to take.

    War on drugs ,too right. But wage it properly and destroy the traffickers.

    And yes it takes a village,but the druggies and their friends have fucked our villges beyond recognition,another reason not to surrender to the destructive criminals and their stupid thinking fellow travellers.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Red, forever battling for Nanny State to have more power and more involvement in our lives. Our drug of choice, and even who we marry, nothing is sacred or beyond the power of central government in Reds world.

    BUT…when that exact same government wants to help some poor folk out they are “prog scum” who we are at “war” with.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    The enigma of progressive oppression in arguably the most free state in the world.
    How dear we argue for personal choice and responsibility for those choices.
    Much better if we allow redbunter to make all decisions about druugs for us.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Manolo (13,837 comments) says:

    Drug users and potheads of the world, unite, shouts Griff, the addled warmist.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Iran has the sort of drug policies that appeal to Red. As do most authoritarian regimes. All the prosperous democratic countries are the ones he seems to have a problem with. It makes me wonder why he insists on living in this prog-sewer we call New Zealand ?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. nasska (11,579 comments) says:

    Baity has pretty much answered this with his comments on previous threads Kea. Like most authoritarians he sees nothing wrong with marinating himself in alcohol….it’s just things that that offend conservatives that must be banned by the heavy hand of the state.

    As has been mentioned before, on Planet Redbaiter only the things he agrees with should be legal.

    Glad I could clear that up. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. stigie (1,219 comments) says:

    Hey, well said Nasska.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    The world health organization on alcohol.

    The harmful use of alcohol is a global problem which compromises both individual and social development. It results in 2.5 million deaths each year. Alcohol is the world’s third largest risk factor for premature mortality, disability and loss of health; it is the leading risk factor in the Western Pacific and the Americas and the second largest in Europe. Alcohol is associated with many serious social and developmental issues, including violence, child neglect and abuse, and absenteeism in the workplace. It also causes harm far beyond the physical and psychological health of the drinker. It harms the well-being and health of people around the drinker. An intoxicated person can harm others or put them at risk of traffic accidents or violent behaviour, or negatively affect co-workers, relatives, friends or strangers. Thus, the impact of the harmful use of alcohol reaches deep into society.

    http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/alcohol/en/
    http://www.ncadd.org/index.php/in-the-news/155-25-million-alcohol-related-deaths-worldwide-annually

    The Money of the alcohol industry infects our establishment.

    It is funny how often conservative ideals end up being counterfactual personal bias manipulated by crony capitalists.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    I do not take drugs, not even asprin. I do drink. There is no doubt in my mind that alcohol is the worst drug in our society and by a considerable margin. This is not based on something I read, but by personal observation and experience with offenders.

    We could ban it, but prohibition does not work. People will simply turn to other drugs and it would create a black market. Which is exactly what has happened with other drugs.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. kowtow (8,522 comments) says:

    Alcohol a drug?

    More double speak.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Alcohol a drug?

    More double speak.

    A mind-altering substance, responsible for a high number of deaths, injuries, family breakdowns, and under whose influence a great deal of disorderly behaviour, violence and crime is committed.

    Trying to argue there’s somehow a DIFFERENCE between alcohol and some of the substances we ban in this country is the true exercise in double speak….

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    Yep. Calling alcohol “not a drug” is doublespeak at its best.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. kowtow (8,522 comments) says:

    Sugar,mind altering,body altering,addictive kills shit loads too.

    Sugar is a drug?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. kowtow (8,522 comments) says:

    Chocolate.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. kowtow (8,522 comments) says:

    Coca cola.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Yoza (1,879 comments) says:

    I really have my doubts about these Asian regimes who are ‘hard on drugs’.

    These pricks (the Singaporean, Thai, Malayan, Indonesian establishments) would not turn their noses up at the billions on offer from the illicit trade in narcotics. I suspect the main reason people are put to death for trafficking in those countries is because that is the way major dealers respond to competition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    We’d better ban them all those things you listed then.

    Nanny state knows best what’s good for you and what isn’t.

    You’re so close to getting it Kowtow.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    Yoza, if you have the money and know the right people, you will walk in most of those countries. Also there is no shortage of drugs in those Asian countries. Don’t listen to Reds bullshit to the contrary.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    In 2012, a report by the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) showed that it arrested 3,481 drug abusers in Singapore – a five-per-cent increase from 2011.

    Former drug dealers and users say though, that these figures are indicative of what the authorities manage to nab on a yearly basis, and they believe it is a small fraction of the real numbers of drug users in Singapore.

    THE ENTRY OF “ICE”

    In recent years, the latest target among drug-busters is methamphetamine, or “ice” and “meth” as it is commonly called.

    There has been a rise in usage over the years. In a 2012 report, the Central Narcotics Bureau said it is the second most-used drug in Singapore after heroin. The agency reported a 261-per-cent increase in seizures of this drug in 2012 as compared to 2011.

    DRUGS FROM MALAYSIA

    To his knowledge, a significant amount of ‘ice’ comes from Malaysia, and reports of Malaysian authorities clamping down on meth labs are in the news every so often.

    In a recent case, RM2.3 million (S$952,000) worth of the drug was seized in police raids in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian tabloid The Star reported.

    http://news.insing.com/tabloid/pores-drug-scene-not-half-dead-former-drug-dealers-say/id-4b753f00

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. nasska (11,579 comments) says:

    Drug use occurs in Singapore….it may not be at street level but those with money & connections can fry themselves sixteen ways come Sunday.

    Ref: http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/12/10/idUSSIN135004

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    Sugar,mind altering,body altering,addictive kills shit loads too.

    Sugar is a drug?

    The Wikipedia definition is helpful: “A drug is a substance which may have medicinal, intoxicating, performance enhancing or other effects when taken or put into a human body or the body of another animal and is not considered a food or exclusively a food.”

    But yes, sugar could be considered a drug in a lot of ways. Alcohol is a much stronger drug, however.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Of course many use the term ‘drugs’ to denote illicit substances. There being no clear distinction in terms of harm inflicted, legal status has become a proxy for ‘good’ or ‘bad’ substances.
    There might well be as great a case for regulating the use of sugar as there is for alcohol.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. kowtow (8,522 comments) says:

    Glue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Sales of glue can be easily restricted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    There might well be as great a case for regulating the use of sugar as there is for alcohol.

    Or as small a case for regulating either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. nasska (11,579 comments) says:

    A handy reference site for what is considered a drug in NZ & how they are likely to affect people.

    Ref: http://www.fade.org.nz/alcohol-and-drug-info/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I’m pretty sure some restrictions on alcohol can be justified in a liberal and democratic society – based on the need to minimise harm from the consumption of such a harmful drug.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    I’m pretty sure some restrictions on alcohol can be justified in a liberal and democratic society – based on the need to minimise harm from the consumption of such a harmful drug.

    For minors, yes. But I think there is a strong burden on anyone arguing that any kind of private behaviour should be regulated by the government, whether that government is democratic or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I’m not sure that having unlimited quantities of liqour available (for adults) in any location 24/7 would lead to healthy outcomes. We already accept quite strong limits on the sale and consumption of alcohol. Some restrictions are justified by the danger to public order and public health.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    That exchange with Red was hilarious. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Yes, Reddy had his arse kicked, again.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Ryan Sproull (7,205 comments) says:

    I’m not sure that having unlimited quantities of liqour available (for adults) in any location 24/7 would lead to healthy outcomes. We already accept quite strong limits on the sale and consumption of alcohol. Some restrictions are justified by the danger to public order and public health.

    You’re assuming that “healthy outcomes” outweigh individual liberty, and that existing common acceptance of limits on alcohol is an argument for continuing those limits. There’s also alcohols relationship to driving accidents and domestic violence.

    I’m not saying that these things don’t outweigh individual liberty, just that it should be an uphill battle to justify any intrusion on people deciding how to live their own lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Black with a Vengeance (1,865 comments) says:

    kids grow up in low rent areas see gangstas peddling drugs as fucken heros who have made it.

    Another generation jostling for their position in the local gang hierarchy.

    oh bullshit!!!

    They see them as doing what it takes to survive cos they got no real choice.

    They’re more likely to see the Ma’a Nonus and the Sonny Bills as heroes.

    Have you talked to any low rent area kids lately or are you just making shit up?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Sure Ryan, no argument there. Any legislation that infringes upon personal freedom should come with a specific justification for such infringement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    That exchange with Red was hilarious.

    I think we have driven him to drink :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. kowtow (8,522 comments) says:

    Boot polish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I knew a chap who said they used to boil up boot polish and drink it in North Africa during the war. Should be banned, no question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    kowtow, that is quite a cocktail of chemicals you are into. Fortunately none of them do the harm alcohol does. Enjoy your glue/ boot polish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. nasska (11,579 comments) says:

    If anyone is determined to get off their face they’ll find a way. At boarding school in the early sixties we used to make a form of cider from apples, sugar nicked from the dining tables & utilising raisins as a makeshift form of yeast, all fermented in coke bottles.

    It didn’t have much of a kick but it knocked the edge off the boredom of Sunday night’s chapel attendance. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    Polly black wog with a vengeance.
    Nah bro just reporting on what I see when I get caught short and pop down to the thinny house
    White fellows like me dont buy thinnys by choice we score ozs from the casual networks pot creates.
    And the missis is somewhat of an expert on south Auckland kids. She specializes in the fucked up ones.
    They see the local hoods selling pot they know which house is selling and who is selling it.
    All you do if you want pot is cruise any back street and ask the first dude
    hay bro where can I score a thinny? Usually works first time never takes more than three dudes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. wat dabney (3,775 comments) says:

    1) Laws, if introduced need to be enforced.

    You certainly wouldn’t want to be a Jew hiding in Red’s attic, would you.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    LOL :) ^^^

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. freemark (581 comments) says:

    Some people shouldn’t be allowed to have kids, some people shouldn’t be allowed to drive, some people shouldn’t be allowed to vote, some people shouldn’t be allowed to drink, some people shouldn’t be allowed to run for Parliament, some people shouldn’t be allowed to take other drugs. Some people can manage everything ok. It’s the deciding who that creates a wee problem, but I’m sure a committee of Kiwibloggers would be able to make some good decisions.. (well I would anyway) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Black with a Vengeance (1,865 comments) says:

    So you can tell a kid idolises a tinny house dealer as having made it just by looking at them, Griff…

    What are you, Professor X or some shit ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    No black with utu

    Been to a thinny house lately?

    Do you think the mob and black power et al are stupid.
    They are fuckin obvious in a neighborhood with a car pulling up every five minutes. The cops bust them and another springs up down the road.
    The bp or mob have kids running the tinny houses. They get busted who cares- family group conference. :lol: With a mob family. These kids get money Lots of money for a young teenager.
    You can tell us the community will ban it .
    Problem for you is the community in New Zealand is made up of mostly “we inhaled” some like it some dont .
    I may be the only blatant user on KB since Phillu
    There are lots of us both on kb and in your community.
    It will be very interesting how they end up rating potential harm Hopefully they will use present legal recreational drugs as reference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Black with a Vengeance (1,865 comments) says:

    Never been to a tinny house actually.

    Still don’t buy that those kids look up to dealers and want to be like them. Maybe they just can’t see how to escape.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote