UNITE union organiser convicted of selling P

October 17th, 2013 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

3 News reports:

A prominent South Island union organiser has been sentenced to community detention for trying to sell methamphetamine.

, 36, was sentenced on a charge of conspiring to sell a Class A drug in the Christchurch District Court this afternoon.

The Union South Island organiser requested name suppression, arguing the publication of her name would affect her employment, however the plea was ignored by Judge Paul Kellar.

Good.

Ms Butcher is well-known around the South Island, having both organised and attended several protests across this year. She attracted media attention in May after blocking the drive through to a McDonald’s restaurant in Dunedin while lobbying for better pay rates and guaranteed hours for workers.

She will not be able to leave her home between 7pm on Fridays and 7am on Mondays for the next four months.

Does being a convicted Class a drug dealer mean she won’t keep her job with UNITE, or do they not have a problem with that?

Tags: ,

44 Responses to “UNITE union organiser convicted of selling P”

  1. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    The only reason lower income people are using P is because cocaine is prohibitively expensive. Drug laws are a blight on the community, at least she wasn’t doing anything really harmful like sniffing glue or petrol.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Redbaiter (10,443 comments) says:

    Pity this ain’t Singapore.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Longknives (4,962 comments) says:

    Yoza- Are you actually claiming that Methamphetamine isn’t harmful??

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    Surprised? It’s long been known that the criminal gangs control drug manufacture and supply in NZ…

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Longknives (4,962 comments) says:

    Anyway- Is anyone really surprised that a professional ‘Rent a Mob’ Protester is a drug dealer??

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Samuel Smith (276 comments) says:

    You Right wingers sure love your smear campaigns.

    Perhaps you should hang-out near the local dump in the morning. Never know what you might uncover.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 1 Thumb down 29 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Sidey (255 comments) says:

    Samuel Smith at 12:15 pm
    Perhaps you should hang-out near the local dump in the morning. Never know what you might uncover.

    Rorting thugs discussing new ways to disrupt people going about their lawful right to run a business by serving their customers who are going about their lawful right to buy something to eat, perhaps?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    A turf war between the Mongrels and Unite would be fun… :-)

    My money would be on the Mongrels…

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. PhilP (163 comments) says:

    You Right wingers sure love your smear campaigns.

    Perhaps you should hang-out near the local dump in the morning. Never know what you might uncover.

    Back to the sewer with you from wence you came Sam.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Lance (2,718 comments) says:

    @Sam Smith
    “Perhaps you should hang-out near the local dump in the morning. Never know what you might uncover.”

    Nah
    The Standard keep banning us for thinking.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    It was Whales fault.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Ed Snack (1,940 comments) says:

    How come she got such a slap on the wrist for selling “P” ? CD for 4 freaking months, why not use a wet bus-ticket instead ?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    What’s the mark up on P?

    She a capitalist pig?

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Sidey (255 comments) says:

    Being a loyal union thug, I’m sure she first checked to make sure she wasn’t doing business with a right-wing capitalist pig, and only sold to the good, decent, hardworking folk from the left who are deserving of her business.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Lance (2,718 comments) says:

    @Harriet

    I think the correct term is “Capitalist Running Dog”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    RRM 12:13 pm

    Surprised? It’s long been known that the criminal gangs control drug manufacture and supply in NZ…

    I have my doubts, they are more than likely just middle-men. The serious drug syndicates are run by competing national security networks, there is just too much money involved for these agencies to allow just anyone access to such vast amounts of liquid capital. Also, having a degree of control over the distribution networks provides access to a wide variety of societal groups.

    Longknives 12:11 pm

    Yoza- Are you actually claiming that Methamphetamine isn’t harmful??

    Of course not. What I’m saying is that next to inhaling the fumes of solvent based adhesives or petrol, both readily available substances, P is relatively harmless and cocaine is less harmful than P.

    Ed Snack 12:30 pm

    How come she got such a slap on the wrist for selling “P” ? CD for 4 freaking months, why not use a wet bus-ticket instead ?

    It was only P. Take a deep breath and try and calm down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. graham (2,348 comments) says:

    “It was only P.”

    Are you serious? “Only” P???

    Understatement of the year …

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Yoza

    I used to see a bit of humour and some of your point of view on some things. Reading your 12.45 pm you are just a batshit loon

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    Harriet 12:31 pm

    What’s the mark up on P?

    She a capitalist pig?

    From the tone of the article it sounded like she was looking for people to go in with her in buying a relatively small amount, it is not unusual in such cases for the sum of the contributions to equal the price whoever she was getting it off was asking.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Rich Prick (1,750 comments) says:

    I’ll translate Yoza: I’m a lefty, a fellow lefty has been caught and convicted dealing P, P isn’t really that bad, so nothing really wrong was done, you righties are in a lather over nothing, nothing to see here, move on.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay 12:49 pm

    Yoza

    I used to see a bit of humour and some of your point of view on some things. Reading your 12.45 pm you are just a batshit loon

    I see all drug use as a personal choice and not something in which law enforcement agencies need involve themselves. There is a huge tract of evidence linking the various security agencies of many countries to the illicit drug trade. Only a fool could believe such vast sums of money and drugs can move around the planet without official collusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    Rich Prick 12:52 pm

    I’ll translate Yoza: I’m a lefty, a fellow lefty has been caught and convicted dealing P, P isn’t really that bad, so nothing really wrong was done, you righties are in a lather over nothing, nothing to see here, move on.

    I am an anarchist. I see drug laws as an illegitimate form of authourity which serve the primary purpose of allowing the domestic security apparatus carte blanche access to search and monitor anyone they want whenever they want.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Yoza

    We are not Mexico FFS.

    Go to the Auckland Casino late on a Sunday night. You will see where senior gangsters go to play with their meth cash.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Rich Prick (1,750 comments) says:

    I could say the same about tax laws Yoza. In fact they are even more draconian. But I obey them.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Sponge (268 comments) says:

    Yoza – You are not an anarchist – you are an idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    It was only P. Take a deep breath and try and calm down.

    :shock: It was only P?

    http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1236038659/436/1988436.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    “……It was only P. Take a deep breath and try and calm down….”

    Meet Yoza:

    http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/gallery/before-and-after-drug-abuse/crystal-meth-abuse/the-ugly-effects-of-methamphetamine-abuse.htm

    :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    RRM (8,097) Says:
    October 17th, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    :shock:

    It was only P?

    From wikipedia:

    “Dixon suffered horrendous abuse as a child, according to evidence given at his 2007 Appeal Court hearing. It was reported that he had been frequently tied to a clothes line, sexually abused, could only bark like a dog, and showed paranoid behaviour over several years”

    Do you suppose that might have had anything to do with how he turned out?

    Many seem unable to grasp that a drug can be harmful whilst not justifying the reefer madness style hyperbole that often accompanies it. Alas drug abuse is a subject not often afforded the nuance that it requires.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/hutt-valley/7510811/Police-dog-stops-Upper-Hutt-sword-attack

    Funny how the p-fucked wrecks seem to go for Samurai swords. I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s noticed this…

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    “….Alas drug abuse is a subject not often afforded the nuance that it requires…..”

    ‘nuance’

    So why do only ‘some’ people take drugs while ‘most’ people drink alcohol.

    And why do ”most’ people who take drugs have ‘most’ of the problems – while ‘most’ people who take alcohol have very very few, if any problems at all?

    10,000 youths getting pissed and throwing up on any given Saturday night in NZ, is not a sign that any ONE INDIVIDUAL has a serious problem – let alone the whole fucken lot of them!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Harriet (2,743) Says:
    October 17th, 2013 at 1:41 pm

    So why do only ‘some’ people take drugs while ‘most’ people drink alcohol.

    Culture. Alcohol is a drug. It is culture that attempts to distance it from its nature as a recreational drug because it is traditionally the preferred drug of choice for the dominant culture. Expert evaluation generally rates alcohol as worse than many other illegal drugs based on potential for addiction and related harms to the individual and to society. Methamphetamine is obviously much worse than alcohol though.

    And why do ”most’ people who take drugs have ‘most’ of the problems – while ‘most’ people who take alcohol have very very few, if any problems at all?

    This is simply not true. Most of the problems from drug abuse in society are a result of alcohol. This doesn’t make it the worst drug, because obviously a lot of that is a consequence of its widespread use.

    10,000 youths getting pissed and throwing up on any given Saturday night in NZ, is not a sign that any ONE INDIVIDUAL has a serious problem – let alone the whole fucken lot of them!

    Of course all problems can be rated on a sliding scale. Throwing up from drunkeness on a friday night is not as big a problem as someone who spends all their welfare money on booze. But likewise that someone uses methamphetamine on a friday night at a dance party does not necessarily indicate that there is a serious problem. It is a question of risk and these risks always fall on a sliding scale. Methamphetamine is more risky (significantly so) than alcohol and other drugs. It’s among the most risky and has a high potential for addiction.

    But posting a picture of Antonie Dixon and implying that “this is what P does to you” is an oversimplification. Certainly combining P with someone of such a tragic background is asking for trouble, but by neglecting to include that overall picture you distort what has actually taken place and I’m not sure that doing that is the best way to communicate the very real risks associated with the drug.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Rick Rowling (816 comments) says:

    Yoza (835) Says:

    I am an anarchist

    So you definitely wouldn’t be voting for big, interventionist government that wants government ownership of power and other assets.

    You’ll fit right in here :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. mandk (1,032 comments) says:

    Yoza: “I see all drug use as a personal choice and not something in which law enforcement agencies need involve themselves”

    Never, or only when druggies have to lead lives of crime in order to feed their habits?

    I had the misfortune recently to serve on a jury in a high court case where use of P and other drugs featured heavily. A few P users might be capable of leading “normal” lives, but it is obvious that most are mired in criminality. The economic and social costs of drug use are astronomical.

    Only a fool would say that use of P is essentially a private matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Manolo (14,173 comments) says:

    P P P P P P P P as some would say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    “…..But posting a picture of Antonie Dixon and implying that “this is what P does to you” is an oversimplification. Certainly combining P with someone of such a tragic background is asking for trouble, but by neglecting to include that overall picture you distort what has actually taken place and I’m not sure that doing that is the best way to communicate the very real risks associated with the drug…..”

    Then who else shouldn’t be on drugs?

    So far you’ve listed all the ‘child poverty’ victims in NZ.

    Or does taking mind altering drugs when you have problems correct them ?

    C’mon Weihana, we all know that ‘natural pot’ that was grown by the hippies back in the 60’s doesn’t hurt anyone -for the most part- but it is far different to what is grown today, and the likes of nearly all chemical drugs are just as bad, as you get immune to them and have to increase the dosage to get the same effects. That’s when the serious problems start – just like with alcohol.

    The point is: Like alcohol, one beer or one properly manufactored exstacy tablet is probably not going to really hurt anyone – but given the history of alcohol, or as you say “your choice of drug” being responsable is not what is ever going to happen, unless of course we become an even bigger police state with more intrusion from government.

    And that is doing what exactly – liberating the populace from the ‘problems’ created by drug useage? Hardly!

    For the masses there is no liberty in legalising drugs for the few, as their problems soon become ours – one way or another!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    mandk (386) Says:
    October 17th, 2013 at 2:42 pm

    Never, or only when druggies have to lead lives of crime in order to feed their habits?

    Do you think making the price of the drug expensive is more or less likely to induce criminality?

    I had the misfortune recently to serve on a jury in a high court case where use of P and other drugs featured heavily. A few P users might be capable of leading “normal” lives, but it is obvious that most are mired in criminality. The economic and social costs of drug use are astronomical.

    If one is using P habitually I’m not sure there are any who can live a normal life. But surely “mired in criminality” is a redundant statement given that it is inherently illegal. In any case, the fundamental question is whether the “economic and social costs” are reduced or exacerbated by the current legal framework. The evidence indicates the latter.

    Only a fool would say that use of P is essentially a private matter.

    Except the science does not support you. By far most of the harm from methamphetamine is to the user.

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    Harriet (2,749) Says:
    October 17th, 2013 at 2:57 pm

    Then who else shouldn’t be on drugs?

    Ideally no one should use drugs. But then the evidence would indicate this is not consistent with our nature. Most people use some form of mind altering substance for pleasure and entertainment.

    Or does taking mind altering drugs when you have problems correct them ?

    Well, yes. There are mind altering drugs which have therapuetic uses. But I don’t think that’s what you are referring to. :)

    C’mon Weihana, we all know that ‘natural pot’ that was grown by the hippies back in the 60′s doesn’t hurt anyone -for the most part- but it is far different to what is grown today

    Sure, in the sense that a bottle of whiskey is different to a bottle of beer.

    …and the likes of nearly all chemical drugs are just as bad, as you get immune to them and have to increase the dosage to get the same effects. That’s when the serious problems start – just like with alcohol.

    There are chemical drugs that are much worse than alcohol (e.g. meth) and there are chemical drugs that are not as bad (e.g. LSD). But then what does “bad” mean? This can be broken down into different parts. LSD has a relatively low risk for addiction, but it’s probably much more dangerous to drive while hallucinating than if you were drunk.

    The point is: Like alcohol, one beer or one properly manufactored exstacy tablet is probably not going to really hurt anyone – but given the history of alcohol, or as you say “your choice of drug” being responsable is not what is ever going to happen, unless of course we become an even bigger police state with more intrusion from government.

    And that is doing what exactly – liberating the populace from the ‘problems’ created by drug useage? Hardly!

    For the masses there is no liberty in legalising drugs for the few, as their problems soon become ours – one way or another!

    For most drugs I’m not sure I see how usage is any more irresponsible than how people consume alcohol, and given that prohibition has failed and is implicated in a myriad of harmful unintended outcomes, then I think a new regulatory framework is needed that isn’t based on reefer-madness hysteria. Decriminalization in Portugal has shown that legislation has little impact on social trends which are the real driving force behind drug use.

    Addicts should be treated. The prisons should be reserved for those who block McDonalds drive-thru’s. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. mandk (1,032 comments) says:

    @ Weihana,

    Why did you cite a British study when the pattern of P use there is so different from the P socio-economy here in NZ?
    You might also find the comments posted under the article illuminating.

    It’s interesting that you doubt that any habitual P user could live a normal life. Accepting that, how do you think habitual P users fund their habit? By crime, of course – and that’s where the astronomical economic and social costs comes in.

    Decriminalising P would not remove the costs. There would still be crime associated with P-related psychosis, need to fund the habit on top of other living expenses, inability to parent effectively, lack of economic contribution. Need I go on?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Psycho Milt (2,427 comments) says:

    Rorting thugs discussing new ways to disrupt people going about their lawful right to run a business by serving their customers who are going about their lawful right to buy something to eat, perhaps?

    Well, the NZ government certainly hasn’t had any qualms about disrupting her lawful right to run a business, or disrupting the lawful right of her customers to buy her products, but calling its members “rorting thugs” really is going a bit far.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Weihana (4,621 comments) says:

    mandk (387) Says:
    October 17th, 2013 at 4:02 pm

    Why did you cite a British study when the pattern of P use there is so different from the P socio-economy here in NZ?

    I cited the study to demonstrate that the harm from P is primarily towards the user (e.g. deterioration of health from chronic use). Yes it is British, but I don’t think that detracts largely from the point being made.

    You might also find the comments posted under the article illuminating.

    The main criticism appears to be that the harm to others is an overall rating not weighted by usage rates. Which is true, but doesn’t invalidate the conclusions.

    It’s interesting that you doubt that any habitual P user could live a normal life. Accepting that, how do you think habitual P users fund their habit? By crime, of course – and that’s where the astronomical economic and social costs comes in.

    I’ve known habitual users in the past. I wasn’t aware of any of them leading lives of crime. I don’t think it’s as simple as you put it, though I’m sure if certain people get desperate enough they might turn to crime. Certainly the price of the drug is a factor. I’m not trying to minimize the harm or dysfunction, just suggesting that habitual users are not necessarily robbing houses to pay for their fix.

    Decriminalising P would not remove the costs. There would still be crime associated with P-related psychosis, need to fund the habit on top of other living expenses, inability to parent effectively, lack of economic contribution. Need I go on?

    No, but you could make a credible case that all these costs you cite are addressed by prohibition. They are not. Indeed the costs appear to be increased. The price of drugs increases encouraging addicts towards crime to pay for the high prices and the money paid for the drugs goes towards organized crime. Use of the drug is hidden and less able to be identified.

    Drug abuse is often a symptom of other underlying problems. Many addicts use a variety of drugs and simply criminalizing the problem does not make that underlying problem go away, it just turns desperate or dysfunctional people into criminals and makes it even harder to escape the lifestyle they are in. It seems to make drug abuse a greater problem which is then inflicted upon all those around.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    The stark reality is the ‘War on Drugs’ has been a massive failure if the purpose of the exercise is to prevent ‘illicit’ drugs circulating in society. Drug use is on the rise as a consequence of the ‘successes’ of Police clamp downs.

    Whenever a large amount of, say, P is removed from circulation its value increases – the increased value is a motivating variable for anyone doing a risk/benefit analysis. The former dealers who were selling are off the street providing a gap for the next generation of sellers, the dealers who weren’t caught are emulated as their operations were obviously more secure than those of their recently incarcerated rivals.
    The constant ‘pruning’ by police of drug networks ensures they are in a state of constant vibrant growth.

    I’m would not argue that P was a harmless drug, the problem is it is the only ‘hard’ drug that is readily available. P can be manufactured far more easily than the likes of cocaine or heroine – so doesn’t need to be imported.

    The criminality of the P user is mainly as a consequence of the artificially inflated price of the drug – if P wasn’t illegal its dealers would not be forced to add the huge mark up to qualify the risk they take by dealing the drug, also dealers would not be forced to adopt such violent tactics in order to punish indiscretions.

    I wouldn’t be singling out P for decriminalisation, there is a whole host of drugs that could be legalised so P users could select a less harmful habit.

    The ‘War on Drugs’, like the ‘War on Terror’, is just another one of those Orwellian ideas that are never meant to be solved, these boogeymen exist solely to frighten society into accepting a draconian security apparatus.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    Rick Rowling t 2:02 pm

    Yoza (835) Says:

    I am an anarchist

    So you definitely wouldn’t be voting for big, interventionist government that wants government ownership of power and other assets.

    You’ll fit right in here :-D

    No, that’s not entirely true. There was an opinion piece in the Washington Post recently which gave an unusually accurate explanation of the central tenet of anarchism:

    Anarchism is not lawless, but it does involve a critique of the state. Anarchists encourage us to place a burden of proof on existing authority structures, and push us to limit, or even dismantle, the power of institutions, regulations and individuals whose authority proves to be illegitimate.

    If ‘big government’ is going to be replaced by big business then we are replacing one form of relatively illegitimate authourity with an unacceptable level of illegitimate authourity. At least big government is marginally democrat and tenuously responsive to popular concerns. Big businesses are private tyrannies and are not in the least democratic and are far less responsive to the same popular pressure.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Andronicus (219 comments) says:

    Good to see that with one or two predictable exceptions, this thread is a debate on drug use rather than the usual diet of union bashing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. chiz (1,174 comments) says:

    Sharna Butcher, 36, was sentenced on a charge of conspiring to sell a Class A drug in the Christchurch District Court this afternoon.

    Anyone trying to sell Class A drugs in a district court deserves to be sentenced!

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