Brown on synthetic cannabis

April 9th, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Russel Brown writes:

With the news yesterday of the attempted arson of a legal highs store in Invercargill, it’s reasonable to ask whether we’re on the verge of public hysteria about synthetic cannabis. The next question would be why it’s happening now, when 95% of retail outlets for such products have been either shut down or forbidden to to sell the products — and those remaining are closely monitored and, for the first time, required to be strictly R18 premises.

What seems to have happen is that the law has been sucessful in closing down most legal high outlets but it has made the remaining outlets more visible.

The list of products deemed low-risk and granted interim approval is a fraction of the nearly 300 legal highs sold in the past few years, before the new Act. It includes half a dozen fairly harmless pill products containing caffeine, guarana, kava, green tea and amino acids, and the rest is synthetic pot. When the full approval process gets underway, all of these will be banned subject to the Authority being satisfied that they present a low risk. It is quite possible that no products administered by smoking will meet the standard.

People forget that prior to the law change there was no regulation at all. Prohibition will not work, so the current law should be given time to see if it is effective.

Tags: ,

139 Responses to “Brown on synthetic cannabis”

  1. kowtow (8,776 comments) says:

    The current law should be given time to see if it’s effective……..

    ……..meanwhile in the real world ,real peoples’ lives are being fucked up by these merchants of misery.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    Legalise all psychoactive substances for use by consenting adults. Regulation should be comparable to that applied to alcohol.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    Are wine growers “merchants of misery”, too?

    Thing is, most people do not consume a dozen wine, each day, every day. Same with highs. They don’t trap you in an instant addiction death spiral. That is a media fantasy.

    Some people indulge over and above. In anything. Better they indulge in legal highs than, say, voting Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    legalize pot.
    The war on drugs is a pointless failure.
    Cannabis is a relatively harmless intoxicant.
    Available on the black market despite years of effort
    The harm done by the persecution of the large minority of us who smoke or have done far out ways the gains .

    Health problem

    Education and sensible restrictions

    Rational Harm minimization with our treatment of all drrrugs

    Potential tax income would pay for far more than the health issues .

    Tourism gains would add to GDP as well

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. James Stephenson (2,228 comments) says:

    legalize pot.

    Exactly. The entire reason for these synthetic concoctions’ existence is to get around the illegality of cannabis. Just allow people to grow a token couple of plants for their own consumption and the whole problem goes away.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Ryan Sproull (7,285 comments) says:

    Yes, get the nanny state out of our lives, thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Nuwanda (83 comments) says:

    Oh, goodness:

    “Prohibition will not work, so the current law should be given time to see if it is effective.”

    So while prohibition will not work, partial prohibition will?

    There’s this authoritarian streak in NZ society and the zealotry with which the police and prohibitionists go after drugs exemplifies it. It’s a bizarre aspect of our society: prostitution and gay marriage are fine and dandy, but adults smoking some weed is prosecuted with the same self-righteous religiosity as it always has been. The United States, oft-maligned for its (supposed) conservatism, has fully a third of states allowing medical marijuana use and at least two where significant quantities are fully legal. Yet in socially-progressive NZ (just won an award, didn’t we?), it’s still a crusade, it’s still a holy war.

    But it gives the bureaucracy something to do, eh?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9918856/Welcome-to-the-bureaucrat-capital

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Ryan Sproull (7,285 comments) says:

    Well said, Nuwanda.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    I agree with you Nuwanda, but don’t knock those bureaucrats.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Scott (1,819 comments) says:

    As if we don’t have enough problems in New Zealand already. Making marijuana legal or synthetic marijuana will just add to those problems. Who wants more people wandering around in a daze?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. DJP6-25 (1,389 comments) says:

    What griffith said.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    What an apology for synthetic narco’s – “it was worse before.”

    IMHO, This is comparable to saying in the bad old Ku Klux Klan days of lynchings – “we’ve stopped slavery, it was worse before”.

    Synthetic drugs are causing mayhem among young people. Our politicians, led by Possum Dunne, have been inept on the issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Ryan Sproull (7,285 comments) says:

    As if we don’t have enough problems in New Zealand already. Making marijuana legal or synthetic marijuana will just add to those problems. Who wants more people wandering around in a daze?

    Who wants more people being Christian? Who wants more people being single? Who wants more people eating meat? Who wants more people listening to jazz? Who wants more people wearing plaid?

    Life’s an awful lot simpler when you only tell yourself how to live, and let everyone else do the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    As for the legalise marijuana mob above, I guess you want marijuana legal, on sale, available to all even aged eight, tax free, no limits on driving under its influence or anti-pot road blocks by traffic police.

    And you would still want tobacco banned.

    I suppose marijuana puffing is magically good for your lungs, just as its leaf weaves into the greatest fibre ever, and pot heads are in some sort of brave creative-enhancing state rather than in escape from the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Ryan Sproull (7,285 comments) says:

    I suppose marijuana puffing is magically good for your lungs, just as its leaf weaves into the greatest fibre ever, and pot heads are in some sort of brave creative-enhancing state rather than in escape from the world.

    Have you been stoned before, Jack?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull posted at 10.16:

    Life’s an awful lot simpler when you only tell yourself how to live, and let everyone else do the same.

    Ryan, tell that to the parents of kids who are being ravaged by the products of the synthetic narco’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    Please outline how banning some substances will improve the situation. It clearly hasn’t worked for natural marijuana.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. big bruv (14,160 comments) says:

    miknmild

    Ah yes, we all know how you Greens want to legalise Marijuana.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Ashley Schaeffer (513 comments) says:

    Life’s an awful lot simpler when you only tell yourself how to live, and let everyone else do the same.

    Which would be fine except some of these ‘free spirits’ end up scrambling their brains permanently and making themselves unemployable in the process. But that’s ok, the taxpayer can support their poor choices with a benefit.

    Look, I’m all for having the freedom to live life as you choose as long as you don’t expect me – as a taxpayer – to pay for your mistakes.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull asks at 10.21 whether I have been stoned before (implying I’m stoned at the moment). Not at the moment Ryan, and if I was an American I might plead their legal defence on memories from decades ago.

    I would not ask such personal questions if Ryan hadn’t directed that question to me, but since he has, I ask Ryan:

    1. Do you have any connection with the still legal synthetic drugs trade in NZ?

    2. Have you ever tried any of these drugs, and if so, can you please tell us the effect?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Ryan Sproull (7,285 comments) says:

    Ryan, tell that to the parents of kids who are being ravaged by the products of the synthetic narco’s.

    I’d rather find a way to help them that doesn’t involve the Government dictating to adults how to live their lives, but if pressed, yes, I’ll tell that to those parents.

    What do you say to parents of kids who are being ravaged by the products of Lion Nathan and DB Breweries, Jack?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. RRM (10,026 comments) says:

    Meh, if you let these things be your road to ruin, then you were probably a dropkick waste of space already.

    I’ve heard plenty of people on the bus discuss these things over the years and they are always trash.

    Sorry I can’t get too upset about any of this.

    The way wowsers in this country tut-tut the drug use of others and then pick up a dozen of their own tipple from New World on the way home, I find endlessly amusing!

    Contains not less than 1.3 standard hypocrisies. Enjoy responsibly.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    Milkenmild posted at 10.26:

    Please outline how banning some substances will improve the situation. It clearly hasn’t worked for natural marijuana.

    Banning murder, rape, assault, theft, hasn’t eliminated them. So we should make them legal???

    How do you know, Milkenmild, whether there is more damage from a “habit” that is banned than when it is not? Some answer more than the apocryphal tales of America’s alcohol prohibition is needed. (Wowsers may be able to help with that, on figures on health etc from America’s Prohibition days – I don’t know what the real effect of prohibition was.)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Ryan Sproull (7,285 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull asks at 10.21 whether I have been stoned before (implying I’m stoned at the moment). Not at the moment Ryan, and if I was an American I might plead their legal defence on memories from decades ago.

    I wasn’t implying anything (and why would I imply that?!)

    I was curious regarding your statement about creativity and escapes from reality. Wondering if it’s been your experience that getting stoned is an escape from reality, and whether or not it’s had any effect on your creativity.

    I would not ask such personal questions if Ryan hadn’t directed that question to me, but since he has, I ask Ryan:

    I’m right here, you know. You don’t have to talk to me in the third person.

    1. Do you have any connection with the still legal synthetic drugs trade in NZ?

    Nope.

    2. Have you ever tried any of these drugs, and if so, can you please tell us the effect?

    Years ago, just before the BZP pills were made illegal, I tried one of those. The effect was something like way too much Red Bull, and I got pretty sick, though that was probably because it was New Year’s Eve and the pill kept me awake all night, which resulted in drinking far too much.

    I haven’t tried any synthetic cannabis products. Partly because I don’t enjoy cannabis anyway, and partly because I find something very off-putting about the idea of a synthetic smokable product. Just makes me think of breathing burning plastic or something.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    big bruv
    Not just marijuana – all psychoactive substances should be legal. I’m not a Green BTW.
    Jack5
    It’s pretty well established that alcohol is pretty much the most harmful substance available. That should tell you that the legal status of a substance might not be that relevant to minimising the harm from use of that substance.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    RRM posted at 10.32:

    I’ve heard plenty of people on the bus discuss these things over the years and they are always trash.

    Are you saying that if you oppose legalisation of marijuana, and support banning synthetic drugs you are trash?

    From your 10.35 post (just noticed) you are obvious a libertarian. That explains a lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Kleva Kiwi (289 comments) says:

    “Ryan, tell that to the parents of kids who are being ravaged by the products of the synthetic narco’s.”

    What about the kids that are ravaged by snorting butane and spray paint and a huge assortment of toxic substances readily available…

    These synthetic highs are R18 so when they fall into the hands of adolescents its purely the parents fault.

    These synthetics are far less harmful than breathing in butane fumes from a paper bag.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    Yes, to be consistent and rational those who want to ban synthetic cannabis should also be in favour of banning quite a wide range of currently legal products. I’m saying this as someone who has experience of others huffing butane.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. RRM (10,026 comments) says:

    Jack5 –
    Sorry, no I wasn’t very clear there about what I meant.

    For the avoidance of confusion:
    I’ve heard many people on the bus discussing their experiences of synthetic cannabis, herbal highs, party pills, etc.
    Invariably trash.

    But who the fuck am I to drink 3 or 4 beers after work on friday, and then judge them because I like what I like better than what they like?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. georgebolwing (1,011 comments) says:

    Jack5: you confuse behaviour that harms others (murder, etc), with self-harm.

    I have no problem with saying that my liberty stops at your nose: I have no right to harm you without your consent (boxing, for example, is fine, provide we both play by the rules). But I do have the right to harm myself.

    That we have a public health system that provides subsidised care for self-harm is, I agree, a problem. But there are simple solutions. The private life insurance market, for example, charges smokers more for life cover. Extending this principle to health care would overcome the objection that self-harm is costly to society.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Yah get stoned you wallop
    Like getting a bit pissed
    Most psychoactive substances are more relaxing and introverted.. less likely to lead to harm injury crime or violence
    There is a range of around five presently allowed for sale
    Most have an effect lasting for around one to two hours .
    All slightly different nuance but all have similar effects to pot
    Over indulgence is the same with any drug Not good for higher brain function. The man takes the drug don’t let the drug take the man.
    Cannabis is a better product nothing like freshly dried homegrown sticky crystal buds.
    Honestly look at the effects of alcohol on society before passing judgments on others entertainment.
    Many of your peers, who ever you are smoke Pot
    they just don’t let wowsers Know. :wink:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    Ryan, thank you for your forthright 10.35 response.

    From long ago, I similarly disliked marijuana, partly from the effects and smoke, and partly because I didn’t much like male hippies, who made a bit of a fetish of it, hash, LSD and Jesus hair.

    I disliked tobacco, too, both from the taste and from the physical misery it caused to several people I have known. I’m pleased it’s dying out. I hope marijuana smoking doesn’t replace it. If marijuana’s legalised, we’ll soon have corporations and their PR’s and lawyers ramming down our throats how harmless it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    georgebolwing
    I think it is better to keep the same broad basis of eligibility for health care. There are so many other things that might affect one’s health that it would be impractical to differentiate between them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    George Bolwing at 10.47 said I:

    you confuse behaviour that harms others (murder, etc), with self-harm.

    George, read the court reports over the last decade or two. Frequently, the criminals or their lawyers blame illegal drugs for their behaviour that harms others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Push the same standard for alcohol if you are worried about health costs
    Piss is one of the top killers if not the top for males 15/65 as well as being implicit in most crime and violence statistics.
    The Reality of alcohols health and social costs gives pissheads kollywobbles of the wine glass.Any one for a game of spot the alky with dts down at the city mission tonight?.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. georgebolwing (1,011 comments) says:

    Jack5: I was responding to your comment “Banning murder, rape, assault, theft, hasn’t eliminated them. So we should make them legal???”.

    My general, and simple, point is that the state should not make self-harm illegal, while harming others, regardless of the underlying cause, should attract legal sanction.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Ryan Sproull (7,285 comments) says:

    George, read the court reports over the last decade or two. Frequently, the criminals or their lawyers blame illegal drugs for their behaviour that harms others.

    Then, by the same token, you should be pushing for making alcohol illegal, surely. Alcohol is a factor in literally more than 100 times as many crimes as illegal drugs are.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. stigie (1,323 comments) says:

    Yea, what Griff said at 10.49 and 11.00.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    Ryan, re your 11.05:

    Yes, I think there should be tighter controls on alcohol, such as giving local communities more rigorous control on local outlets.

    Alcohol undoubtedly causes more harm than any other single drug, but that’s because it is so widely consumed,

    The drug narco’s would replace it with their poison, and parents are giving plenty of evidence on TV on how it is already destroying kids’ lives.

    In your 10.30 post, Ryan, you say:

    What do you say to parents of kids who are being ravaged by the products of Lion Nathan and DB Breweries, Jack?

    I would say for God’s sake don’t follow them. But in the synthetics case it is the kids themselves who are taking the drugs.

    I generally share your view of the less government the better, but in the case of the synthetic narco’s, I would like more, harsher government. To those who say that approach doesn’t work, I would respond: take a look at Singapore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. big bruv (14,160 comments) says:

    mikenmild.

    So once people become hooked on drugs who should pay for the junkies to go into rehab?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    Re George Bolwing’s 11.03 post:

    My general, and simple, point is that the state should not make self-harm illegal, while harming others, regardless of the underlying cause, should attract legal sanction.

    But George, surely you would think children are entitled to some intervention to protect them?

    You make a reasonable point, George, but in the synthetic drugs case, those attracted, the users, the victims seem to be young people, kids and up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Ryan Sproull (7,285 comments) says:

    Ryan, re your 11.05:

    Yes, I think there should be tighter controls on alcohol, such as giving local communities more rigorous control on local outlets.

    Alcohol undoubtedly causes more harm than any other single drug, but that’s because it is so widely consumed,

    The drug narco’s would replace it with their poison, and parents are giving plenty of evidence being given on TV on how it is already destroying kids’ lives.

    Obviously the availability of alcohol is a contributing factor to the massive amounts of harm it does, but I also think it’s the nature of alcohol itself. That said, my point is that it is still not the Government’s place to tell adults how to live their lives with regards to themselves. Yes, that results in people harming themselves, but a) that’s the price you pay for liberty, and b) relying on the Government to tell you how to live in ways that make sense is practice for relying on the Government to tell how you to live in ways you might otherwise question – people’s faculty for personal responsibility atrophies from lack of use.

    I would say for God’s sake don’t follow them. But in the synthetics case it is the kids themselves who are taking the drugs.

    I’m talking about parents of kids who are drinking alcohol. The kids themselves taking the drug that is alcohol.

    I generally share your view of the less government the better, but in the case of the synthetic narco’s, I would like more, harsher government. To those who say that approach doesn’t work, I would respond: take a look at Singapore.

    Why would you not similarly like more, harsher government for alcohol?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. unaha-closp (1,180 comments) says:

    Ryan, tell that to the parents of kids who are being ravaged by the products of the synthetic narco’s.

    You seriously think sending the kids “ravaged by the products of the synthetic narco’s” to prison is going to make the parents feel better?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. georgebolwing (1,011 comments) says:

    Jack5: yes, I’m all for liberty for consenting adults in private. Coersion, children and in public are all suitable candidates for intervention.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    unha-closp (11.24) asks whether I think the kids taking the synthetic drugs should go to prison.

    Of course not.The narco’s and the retailers should be the ones targeted by the law.

    Ryan (11.23) asks whether I should be advocating harsher government for alcohol? I think the alcohol industry, through higher duty, should pay more towards the cost of general and psychiatric hospitals, and to running prisons, in line with the harm alcohol causes. This isn’t on the grounds of morality or wowserism but on straight user pays principles, with the industry as the user.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Ryan Sproull (7,285 comments) says:

    Ryan (11.23) asks whether I should be advocating harsher government for alcohol? I think the alcohol industry, through higher duty, should pay more towards the cost of general and psychiatric hospitals, and to running prisons, in line with the harm alcohol causes. This isn’t on the grounds of morality or wowserism but on straight user pays principles, with the industry as the user.

    Tell that to the parents of kids who are being ravaged by alcohol abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. NK (1,257 comments) says:

    For me, it’s as simple as this: Why are we criminalising people for poor health decisions?

    When I put that to the lovers of prohibition they can never seem to answer it.

    I agree that drugs, including synthetic cannabis, are bad for you (generally). That’s not the issue. The issue, and the question, is whether making it a criminal offence to be addicted to a drug is good policy.

    And it isn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Kids developing fetal alcohol syndrome……

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    Jack5
    Wanting the alcohol industry to contribute more seems to bring you a bit closer to a harm minimisation approach. Do you still think there should be different legal regimes for alcohol and other psychoactive substances?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    Nk posted at 11.38:

    Why are we criminalising people for poor health decisions?

    NK, you are trivialising the harm that the synthetic narco’s are causing in NZ.

    Synthetic cannabis decisions are not on the same level as not taking enough exercise, or eating too much sugar, drinking too much caffeine.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    They are not much different taken to the extreme.
    No excise = bonded to your bed sheets due to the detritus of total inactivity…. Kack
    eating too much http://www.break.com/video/ugc/monty-python-mr-creosote-682829

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. JMS (342 comments) says:

    Synthetic cannabis decisions are not on the same level as not taking enough exercise, or eating too much sugar, drinking too much caffeine.

    Who cares on what ‘level’ decisions are. If somebody commits a crime against someone else, charge them, if not, leave them alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. kowtow (8,776 comments) says:

    NK et al

    A drunk driver is making a poor health decision. No persecution of drink drivers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. RRM (10,026 comments) says:

    A drunk driver is making a poor health decision. No persecution of drink drivers.

    A drunk driver is making a poor health decision.

    So we sensibly criminalise driving a motor vehicle while drunk – not ban all alcoholic drinks.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. ShawnLH (5,757 comments) says:

    Legalisation of marijuana is the answer. There is no doubt that synthetics are far more dangerous, and the popularity of synthetics is a direct result of criminalising marijuana. The police should be concerned with catching thieves, thugs, rapists and murderers, not wasting time and resources on pot smokers.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. unaha-closp (1,180 comments) says:

    Jack5 11.31am: Of course not [the kids]. The narco’s and the retailers should be the ones targeted by the law.

    I am against prohibition, because I do not want to lock people up for doing something that is only slightly harmful. And because it cost lots of money.

    But have to concede prohibition can work. It works in Singapore, but it fails in America.

    In Singapore possession is a $20,000 fine and/or up to 10 year term. Drug suppliers are imprisoned for life or executed. Singapore’s system works with very low drug usage.

    In the USA possession is treated mostly as a misdemeanour or ignored. Drug suppliers are imprisoned for life or life plus. America’s system doesn’t work. America has seen year on year decline of drug prices, there is pervasive drug use and all whilst cost of enforcement soars.

    Unless prohibition targets the consumers as well as the traffickers it never works.

    You appear to be for prohibition, but your preferred methodology is too weak and washy to be effective.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Pharmachick (241 comments) says:

    I agree with unaha-closp
    The following is from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_liberalization#Portugal and makes a very good case.

    “In 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession. In addition, drug users were to be provided with therapy rather than prison sentences. Research commissioned by the Cato Institute and led by Glenn Greenwald found that in the five years after the start of decriminalisation, illegal drug use by teenagers had declined, the rate of HIV infections among drug users had dropped, deaths related to heroin and similar drugs had been cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction had doubled.[38] However, Peter Reuter, a professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Maryland, College Park, suggests that the heroin usage rates and related deaths may have been due to the cyclical nature of drug epidemics, but conceded that “decriminalization in Portugal has met its central goal. Drug use did not rise.”[39]”

    EDIT: The Prof from U of Maryland may have a point, but the totality of the data suggests he is grasping at straws.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Fletch (6,496 comments) says:

    Brown on synthetic cannabis

    That explains, soooo much :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Scott (1,819 comments) says:

    Nooo. Making marijuana legal just adds to the problems as does synthetic marijuana. In Colorado where the pot heads are running wild now that pot is legal we can see the effects of legalisation starting to show. 19 year old commits suicide by jumping off a bridge after eating a hash cookie. Huge increase to poison hotline in Colorado because kids are getting stoned either through smoking or hash cookies.
    So let’s say no to drugs. It will only cause more harm to our already fragile civilisation.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    Would you have us say no to alcohol as well, Scott, seeing as it is demonstrably more harmful than other substances?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Ryan Sproull (7,285 comments) says:

    That explains, soooo much

    Fletch becomes the first person on Kiwiblog in seven years to actually make me laugh out loud.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. ShawnLH (5,757 comments) says:

    “19 year old commits suicide by jumping off a bridge after eating a hash cookie.”

    Nobody would commit suicide just because they ate a hash cookie, that’s absurd. Far more likely that something else had been going on for some time.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Pharmachick (241 comments) says:

    Oh and FWIW trying to find consensus amongst health professionals and boffins is about the same as the rest of the community … my partner is in almost the same field as me and he’s anti legalization. And Pharma for us has nothing to do with cows.

    Also, above I meant I agree with unaha-closp to some extent, but I’m for legalization and treatment.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Ryan Sproull (7,285 comments) says:

    Nooo. Making marijuana legal just adds to the problems as does synthetic marijuana. In Colorado where the pot heads are running wild now that pot is legal we can see the effects of legalisation starting to show. 19 year old commits suicide by jumping off a bridge after eating a hash cookie. Huge increase to poison hotline in Colorado because kids are getting stoned either through smoking or hash cookies.
    So let’s say no to drugs. It will only cause more harm to our already fragile civilisation.

    Three people a week die in Colorado of alcohol-related traffic accidents. Got to get your priorities straight, Scott. Do you want alcohol to be banned for the same reasons you want cannabis kept illegal?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    In my experience many professionals fail to see the wood for the trees
    fucus on the day-to-day presentation of a few clients and ignore the tens of thousands who go though life with 0 physiological clinic effects due to pot
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

    MOST people would agree that some drugs are worse than others: heroin is probably considered to be more dangerous than marijuana, for instance. Because governments formulate criminal and social policies based upon classifications of harm, a new study published by the Lancet on November 1st makes interesting reading. Researchers led by Professor David Nutt, a former chief drugs adviser to the British government, asked drug-harm experts to rank 20 drugs (legal and illegal) on 16 measures of harm to the user and to wider society, such as damage to health, drug dependency, economic costs and crime. Alcohol is the most harmful drug in Britain, scoring 72 out of a possible 100, far more damaging than heroin (55) or crack cocaine (54). It is the most harmful to others by a wide margin, and is ranked fourth behind heroin, crack, and methamphetamine (crystal meth) for harm to the individual. The authors point out that the model’s weightings, though based on judgment, were analysed and found to be stable as large changes would be needed to change the overall rankings.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Ryan Sproull (7,285 comments) says:

    http://www.alcohol.org.nz/research-resources/nz-statistics/health-and-injury

    Nearly one-fifth of all deaths for males and one-tenth of all deaths for females aged between 20 and 24 are attributable to alcohol use (Law Commission, 2009, p72).
    Approximately 45% of fire fatalities each year involve alcohol (Millar, 2005).
    Approximately 11% of all drowning between 2010-2012 involve alcohol (Water Safety New Zealand, 2013).

    Someone call Peter Dunne!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Pharmachick (241 comments) says:

    @Griffith (and others)
    David Nutt is a very, very clever man. He actually got more or less heave-ho’d from the UK Govt. advisory position because he was advising in ways they didn’t like. His paper re: drug harm and new scales for this (published in errrm, Nature or Science) is still very controversial and by no means “settled”, but Prof Nutt raises some interesting points, soundly backed up with good science and medicine.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. RRM (10,026 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull asks at 10.21 whether I have been stoned before (implying I’m stoned at the moment). Not at the moment Ryan, and if I was…

    Paranoia, interesting!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    We obviously have widespread opinions here. The way to sort it out in a democracy is the ballot box. Does anyone know if any of the parties that have signalled they will contest the coming election advocate tougher-than-Possum’s measures against the synthetic narco trade?

    Re RRM’s 1.02: how do you diagnose paranoia when Ryan Sproull’s grammar implies that I am either stoned at present or have been stoned recently on some recent occasion of which he and I are both aware?

    RRM, is your logic an indication of the effects of marijuana use?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    I think RRM was making a joke, Jack. Lighten up. Smoke a joint, maybe.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. JMS (342 comments) says:

    The way to sort it out in a democracy is the ballot box.

    As far as it relates to actions on public property, yes.

    But what people do on their own property with their own bodies is really none of the voters’ business.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Ryan Sproull (7,285 comments) says:

    Jack,

    I said: “Have you been stoned before, Jack?”

    Ryan Sproull’s grammar implies that I am either stoned at present or have been stoned recently on some recent occasion of which he and I are both aware?

    How on earth do you read all of that into a simple straightforward question?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Jacks personality type would be strongly advised to not partake in the herb as a predisposition to paranoid delusions can be exacerbated by cannabis use over the long term
    Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife
    http://www.rjbf.com/PNAS_Meier.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    JMS posted at 1.20:

    …what people do on their own property with their own bodies is really none of the voters’ business…

    The libertarians are barking today!

    JMS, so political self-immolation, perhaps even suicide bombing, is okay on private property? And what about insurance: how do libertarians reconcile self-actions with that? Do you reckon libertarians should have to declare their beliefs when signing policies, so they can pay fair premiums?

    Re Ryan at 1.20:

    You didn’t say, “have you been stoned?” or “have you ever been stoned?”. You said, “have you been stoned before which I think implies something a little different.

    Re Griffith at 1.29: you are a bit slow with grammar, too Griffith?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. JMS (342 comments) says:

    The libertarians are barking today!

    JMS, so political self-immolation, perhaps even suicide bombing, is okay on private property? And what about insurance: how do libertarians reconcile self-actions with that? Do you reckon libertarians should have to declare their beliefs when signing policies, so they can pay fair premiums?

    Yes to all of that, as long as it’s one’s own property and it doesn’t affect the neighbours or passers-by.
    As for insurance, it’s a free market(or at least it should be), the insurer can add what ever conditions they want. The customer can then choose to take it or leave it and go elsewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    No I am whacked of my tree and having a ball laughing at you.

    :lol:

    Puff Puff

    :lol:

    Mellow out dude .

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. kowtow (8,776 comments) says:

    JMS

    But that’s the point, it does affect others,badly. The people using this shit turn their families lives to shit.
    Let’s just ignore that!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    kowtow
    But you would ignore greater harm inflicted by use of alcohol. Hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. RRM (10,026 comments) says:

    How on earth do you read all of that into a simple straightforward question?

    Quite easy when you’re wasted…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. JMS (342 comments) says:

    kowtow,

    yes, of course mind altering drugs cause harm.

    the question is how far do we want to nanny adults?

    If you’re arguing for removing children from drug-addict homes(or violent homes etc), I would agree.

    But I see welfarism as a major contributing factor to this whole problem.

    It’s no coincidence that drug prohibition and the welfare state began around the same time

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    It’s terrible kow tow
    The effect of long-term use is a reduction of IQ by up to 8 points
    Makes me more like you…. buddy,….

    Seriously…..
    Cannabis has less hangover and less potential negative social consequences for me.

    I also find alcohol has a strong depressive effect lasting for days after drinking more than 5 standard drinks .

    As an introvert the social side of alcohol is not particularly inviting.

    I should be allowed as an adult to make my own informed choice as to the relative merits of an intoxicant rather than being denied choice by someone elses poorly informed prejudice.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. kowtow (8,776 comments) says:

    Drug prohibition goes back a long time.

    The Chinese didn’t like the west selling opium ,destroying their populations and emptying the Chinese economy of its silver.

    The war on drugs is not new like so many tell us and it’s not a Richard Nixon invention.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    But would you like a war on alcohol too?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    griffith at 2.08:

    I should be allowed as an adult to make my own informed choice as to the relative merits of an intoxicant rather than being denied choice by someone elses poorly informed prejudice.

    What if it’s going to leave you a schizophrenic dependent on the state, griffith? Not all burned out dopeheads are fit enough to survive in the streets.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. kowtow (8,776 comments) says:

    milktitties

    Call me a hypocrite?

    This discussion is about synthetic cannabis.A new and highly destructive,deliberatly invented narcotic.

    We don’t need any more new destructive shit on the streets or in our young people.Cannabis has been immensely destructive as it is!

    Call me a hypocrite……Fuck you ,c#nt.

    Get back to work,you work shy civil servant. Everytime you post here on taxpayers time you’re being a thieving c#nt!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Ryan Sproull (7,285 comments) says:

    What if it’s going to leave you a schizophrenic dependent on the state, griffith? Not all burned out dopeheads are fit enough to survive in the streets.

    So try to talk him out of it. But don’t use the power of the state to force him to act the way you think he should.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    Jack5
    You speak of Griffiths marijuana use as if it might be dangerous. Perhaps it could be. In your opinion, is marijuana more dangerous than alcohol?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    Yes, kowtow, I did call you a hypocrite. Coz that’s what you are. You rants could drive me to drink.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Weihana (4,606 comments) says:

    kowtow (6,650 comments) says:
    April 9th, 2014 at 2:18 pm

    Call me a hypocrite……Fuck you ,c#nt.

    Get back to work,you work shy civil servant. Everytime you post here on taxpayers time you’re being a thieving c#nt!

    lol. So agro. You must be stoned. Stoned people always get agro. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. kowtow (8,776 comments) says:

    Actually scoffing some organic yoghurt.Go figure.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    Don’t you feel you need something a bit stronger to take the edge off?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    Milkenmild asks at 2.20:

    In your opinion, is marijuana more dangerous than alcohol?

    Hard to tell, Milkenmild. Perhaps impossible to tell from the outcomes. An awful lot of screwballs immerse themselves in marijuana, while alcohol’s abusers are often thickish, more thuggish types. What would they have been like without marijuana/booze. The some people use both.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    The problem with your theory is the science does not back your stance. An examination of the published work fails to give a convincing direct link between schizophrenic and cannabis use besides the co morbid incidents of self medication and a predisposition for schizophrenics to fall to lower socioeconomic groupings were all drug use is more prevailing.
    Slightly more present for treatment with co morbid schizophrenic depression and heavy cannabis addiction but these numbers are insignificant when compared to alcohol and its know and documented effects on mental health.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    I’ll let you in on what must be a secret to you, Jack. Most surveys of relative harm have alcohol way out in front.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    Milkenmild: no secret, if you’re referring to total harm, because there’s much more drinking of booze than smoking dope across all society and all ages.

    How do they work out relative harm, though? How do you get reliable figures from surveys of something that’s illegal? Telephone surveys? Excuse me, Ma’am, how many bottles of vodka does your family drink in a week? Do you grow your own dope?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Pharmachick (241 comments) says:

    I agree with griffith – there’s a documented link with LSD and potentially with other dissociative central-acting drugs (e.g. PCP/angel dust – and thank Christ that’s gone out of style), but there’s no good hard science or medicine on cannabis use & schizophrenia.

    Of course, its nigh on impossible to do the actual studies due to the same reason we’re debating it (it’s not legal to do the research and the regulatory approvals are so onerous it would take so many years to get them that nobody does it). :-(

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    Jack5
    You may be surprised to find that these questions have been studied. You could start with this article from the Lancet:
    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)60464-4/fulltext

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Scholarly articles for dunedin cohort study and cannabis useCannabis use in adolescence and risk for adult …‎Arseneault – Cited by 880Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental …‎Moore – Cited by 973… of adolescent-onset cannabis use on adult psychosis …‎Caspi – Cited by 906

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Dazzaman (1,146 comments) says:

    Schizo’s, hoods, punks & the mentally ill just love the Kiwiblog elite’s cry for legalization! There’s room in the mental wards for you neo-progressives too you know….

    Must say, anyone who says legal highs existence is to get around the illegality of cannabis must be inhaling deeply to the point of spinning out! Dak is relatively easy to find & you don’t even have to risk being spotted at the local dealers to do so. Just be honest, you middle class white boys just love feeling you’re doing something forbidden for a bit of shit & giggles…….oooooh.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. georgebolwing (1,011 comments) says:

    To repeat, lots of things that people do are actually or potentially harmful to them.

    So what? Why should the government care enough to make some of these activities illegal?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    Support for the Libertarians and Possum Pete’s party at the election will show whether the public accept pro-druggie policies on synthetic cannabis.

    If you want to stay safe till then, dope heads, don’t wave pro-drug placards at rallies against sales of synthetic drugs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    big bruv (12,290 comments) says:
    April 9th, 2014 at 11:17 am

    mikenmild.

    So once people become hooked on drugs who should pay for the junkies to go into rehab?

    I’m not sure if anyone has replied to this, so here goes.

    At the moment tax-payers pay. If we legalised all psychoactive substances and the state bought the chemical varieties -heroine, cocaine , LSD etc – in bulk using the Pharmac model, then distributed them through the regions using institutions like District Health Boards we would be able to see who was using and adjust the pricing regime to ensure enough of a profit was being made to cover the health care of the users and offer, rehabilitation services and education about the effects.

    Organised criminal networks would be frozen out of the market as they would not be able to compete on price with the state buying in bulk and we would save a fortune on the amount of resources currently spent attempting to enforce prohibition.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    Jack5 (4,193 comments) says:
    April 9th, 2014 at 5:28 pm

    If you want to stay safe till then, dope heads, don’t wave pro-drug placards at rallies against sales of synthetic drugs.

    Chill out Jackie boy, you sound like you are in desperate need of a joint.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    Yoza, you want to nationalise the drug trade?

    Or something like licensing trusts for druggies?

    And you think anyone who questions dope smoking is in need of it? You live in a hallucinatory cloud.

    What a contradiction with your leftist dream of a socialist paradise. Ever hear of one of those where drug taking was allowed to flourish?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Ryan Sproull (7,285 comments) says:

    You didn’t say, “have you been stoned?” or “have you ever been stoned?”. You said, “have you been stoned before which I think implies something a little different.

    Hmm. It doesn’t imply anything different to me, but I’d think there’s at least some ambiguity, and you erred on the side of “Ryan’s a lunatic asshole” pretty reflexively.

    “Have you ever been stoned?” would be more unambiguous, I suppose, but it certainly never occurred to me that you’d take it in the way that you did.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Jack 5 you will not address fact just make unsubstantiated statements from prejudice. You then talk of thuggish violence

    Alcohol has far more harmful effects per user.

    Cannabis LD50 lethal in fifty percent of cases dose as yet unknown suggested around 1,000 to 10,000 x the normal usage

    Alcohol.

    a 100-pound woman or man who consumed
    9-10 standard drinks, respectively, in less than an hour would be in the
    LD:50 range. A 200-pound man would have to consume about 5-6 drinks per
    hour for 4 hours to reach the LD:50.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Ryan Sproull (7,285 comments) says:

    Griffith,

    When people talk about the harmful effects of cannabis, they’re seldom talking about lethal overdoses.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. nasska (11,813 comments) says:

    Ryan

    When sane, logical people talk about the harmful effects of cannabis, they’re seldom talking about lethal overdoses. For the rest this might put things into perspective.

    Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/x931gndvgveuycn/Drug_danger_and_dependence.png

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Ryan
    I am informed as I can be as a layperson.
    I am open about smoking cannabis. And happy to live with the consequences of using the drug.
    I have posted more research on this thread than any one There is little in modern literature that would justify treating cannabis as a heavily addictive, destructive or dangerous drug if used responsibly by adults. The only way to keep out of kids hands is by a controlled legal market. The very thing Jack 5 wants to fight over

    Relative harm .
    alcohol legal readily available killer
    pot banned same with xtc lsd khat and others.

    Safer options need to over take alcohol as the drugs of choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Jack5 (5,165 comments) says:

    Ryan, re your 6.06, I don’t (do not) regard you as a “a lunatic asshole”, even when I disagree with your posts.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    Jack5 (4,194 comments) says:
    April 9th, 2014 at 5:51 pm
    Yoza, you want to nationalise the drug trade?

    Or something like licensing trusts for druggies?

    Something like that. It would be better for all concerned if the distributors, consumers, healthcare professionals and educators collaborated to set a price that took the burden off the taxpayer while providing the services on which users now rely.

    And you think anyone who questions dope smoking is in need of it? You live in a hallucinatory cloud.

    Absolutely not, I do not think people should smoke pot. If they do, however, I believe the imposition of criminal sanctions exacerbates the problem out of all proportion.

    What a contradiction with your leftist dream of a socialist paradise. Ever hear of one of those where drug taking was allowed to flourish?

    Not so, my anarchist sensibilities require a more thoughtful response to a public health issue than reflexively imposing an outright ban. You are thinking of authoritarian socialist regimes which are the antithesis of the libertarian socialist model on which I would advocate society should be founded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Kb should formally adopt a method of conveying position on a liberal conservative as well as socialist capitalist political compass
    Yoza Have you sen any resent post similar to the list of nz blogs vs political compass DPF links to in his profile?

    Political Views
    I self identify as a classical liberal, which the Institute for Liberal Values of New Zealand
    succinctly summarises as a belief in individual rights, limited
    government, private property, free markets, tolerance, and reason.
    On the political compass test I score +10 (right) on economic issues and -6.15 (libertarian) on authoritarian/libertarian issues. One can see NZ blogosphere charted here and NZ politicians here.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    Yes, I have seen those.
    Economic Left/Right: -8.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.82

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    I was around 6 right 8 libertarian
    Neo lib :lol:

    but two much KB has past who knows where I am now?.

    Its crashed for now so I will do it later.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    Me:
    Economic Left/Right: -3.00
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.87
    Possibly my dislike of extremes coming through.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    It does very much depend on the sources political dimension for these things
    How they weigh the questions
    However having done a few it seems apparent they do give a reasonably good comparison between individuals leanings.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Economic Left/Right: -3.00
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69

    That change is because due to AGW I have become extremely cynical of the capitalist systems long-term benefit

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. CharlieBrown (1,027 comments) says:

    I was walking along the street the other day and came across a homeless guy whose life was ruined by a legal drug. He spent all his money on it and got arrested several times whilst high on it. He bought it from the local liquor store.

    Anyone that drinks alcohol and is against legal highs are fucking hypocrites.

    Life is full of vices, but most people live happily and without issues and can moderately take those vices. Whether it be pot, e, alcohol, caffeine, fatty foods, weed or synthetic drugs, let consenting adults make their own decision about taking them.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Yoza (1,913 comments) says:

    griffith (661 comments) says:
    April 9th, 2014 at 8:02

    That change is because due to AGW I have become extremely cynical of the capitalist systems long-term benefit

    I changed dramatically after the Lange regime, I was a Post Office lineman at the time. The first Gulf war pushed me further, reading Chomsky helped – he was the only voice making any sense when contrasted against the cheerleading media and the sheer glee being expressed for the horrors being inflicted on relatively defenseless Iraqis
    I don’t think of myself as extreme, I think most people are not the unbalanced moronic sociopaths the media and the state portray them as. I believe society will evolve to something closely resembling the anarchist/libertarian socialist model, there is no sound reason the planet’s population should be organized to preserve the privilege and authority of an unelected ruling elite.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Scott (1,819 comments) says:

    No one is getting rid of alcohol. It will always be with us. Jesus drank wine, he even made wine. People can drink a moderate amount and be fine.
    But adding drugs makes no sense at all. Marijuana is a bad thing that does not help anyone. We don’t need another intoxicant. We don’t need people stoned. Marijuana today is 10 times more powerful than in the 60″s. So we are not getting rid of alcohol. We don’t need to add Marijuana.
    There will always be a cut off point. Marijuana is on the wrong side of the line and rightly so. How can we possibly have a decent society if everyone is stoned all the time?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    It’s by no means certain that legalising marijuana would lead to an increase in consumption. Even if it did, I’m pretty sure it would be a long way short of ‘everyone stoned all the time’. Any social losses from hypothetical increased consumption would probably be well offset by the gains from decriminalisation or outright legalisation.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    I identified as anarchistic to a great degree in The late 80s to the i90.s..

    I was also an ACT voting union delegate / shop steward / Qualified health and safety rep / smart arse. :lol: Caused heaps of strife for both unions and management for a few years there. Companys that heavily discount the value of a motivated and connected work force are not well managed.

    But the knowledge that communal social interest are being destroyed so blindly is a piss off.

    Act came from the left it never rejected the social state to the degree portrayed.

    Gentlemen I have known who were in the tellecoms trades at the same time ..
    ..
    One made it to near the top of nz squash the other built a racing offroader..
    on company time.
    A third is still working now in mid management and well looked after.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Weihana (4,606 comments) says:

    Scott (1,605 comments) says:
    April 9th, 2014 at 9:25 pm

    No one is getting rid of alcohol. It will always be with us. Jesus drank wine, he even made wine.

    No one is getting rid of marijuana. It will always be with us. It has been used for recreation and medicinal purposes since before Jesus was born.

    People can drink a moderate amount and be fine.

    People can smoke a moderate amount and be fine.

    But adding drugs makes no sense at all.

    Alcohol is a drug. We are not comparing different classes of things, we are comparing different types of the same class.

    Marijuana is a bad thing that does not help anyone.

    Not true. Marijuana has various demonstrated medical benefits.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis

    We don’t need another intoxicant. We don’t need people stoned.

    We don’t need any intoxicants. We don’t need people to drink alcohol.

    Marijuana today is 10 times more powerful than in the 60″s.

    10 times? Interesting number. Nice and round. Possibly made up. :)


    A scientific study published in 2000 in the Journal of Forensic Sciences (JFS) found that the potency (THC content) of confiscated cannabis in the United States (US) rose from “approximately 3.3% in 1983 and 1984″, to “4.47% in 1997″. The study also concluded that “other major cannabinoids (i.e., CBD, CBN, and CBC)” (other chemicals in cannabis) “showed no significant change in their concentration over the years”.[49] More recent research undertaken at the University of Mississippi’s Potency Monitoring Project found that average THC levels in cannabis samples between 1975 and 2007 steadily increased,[50] for example THC levels in 1985 averaged 3.48% by 2006 this had increased to an average of 8.77%

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)#Concentration_of_psychoactive_ingredients

    Number of people who have overdosed from Cannabis? 0.

    So we are not getting rid of alcohol. We don’t need to add Marijuana.

    You seem to assume a power you do not possess. Cannabis has been around for thousands of years. It does not require you to “add” it, nor do you possess the ability to remove it.

    There will always be a cut off point. Marijuana is on the wrong side of the line and rightly so. How can we possibly have a decent society if everyone is stoned all the time?

    Notwithstanding the fact that just because something is available doesn’t mean you have to use it, how can we possibly have a decent society if everyone is drunk all the time?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Scott (1,819 comments) says:

    Weihana-We are dealing in the real world, not semantics. The issue is not alcohol or cannabis. Get that! There is no serious move to get rid of alcohol. So we can put alcohol aside.

    The issue is should we legalise cannabis? There may be some positive aspects of cannabis such as medical marijuana which is probably dubious anyway. But there are lots and lots of negative effects. The additional cost of welfare, the harm to children, the harm to adults. The strength of cannabis today causes psychosis, addiction, paranoia and leads to a nation of stoned idiots. Cannabis makes you stupid. But you think you are really smart.

    Cannabis will do nothing good and lots of harm. It is a gateway to other drugs. Getting stoned is not good for you or for others around you.
    It should stay illegal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Scott (1,819 comments) says:

    The big question is has Kiwi blog deteriorated further because of the effects of cannabis? Have the sodomites now been joined by the stoners?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    Way to go, Scott – adding homophobia to your misconceptions about drugs.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Scott (1,819 comments) says:

    No such thing mikenmild. Its actually called sound moral reasoning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    Your reasoning is grossly flawed on both issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. nasska (11,813 comments) says:

    ….” Its actually called sound moral reasoning.”…..

    Wrong…..it’s called moralistic pap usually pushed by arrogant conservative Godnutters.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. unaha-closp (1,180 comments) says:

    No such thing mikenmild. Its actually called sound moral reasoning.

    When someone lists all the harm occurring under a failed system, then endorses the same obviously failed system. Sound reasoning has not entered the room.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. CharlieBrown (1,027 comments) says:

    There is no rational argument of banning recreational drugs on one hand and not alcohol and tobacco on the other hand. To be honest, Saudi Arabia has more rational and consistent laws than NZ when it comes to drug use, even if their laws are abhorrent and confining.

    People that promote banning legal highs and keeping weed illegal are emotional and irrational on the topic. The national party voters that believe that are no better than the greens who want to regulate other aspects of our lives. They are two weeds from the same low yielding organic garden.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Scott (1,819 comments) says:

    Charlie Brown reasoning that the laws of Saudi Arabia are better than the laws of New Zealand? Who knew? I would suggest that Charlie travel to Saudi Arabia and see how he gets on? Over there you cannot even sit at a cafe with a member of the opposite sex. You’ll be arrested!
    But maybe they’re ok with you smoking weed at aforesaid cafe? Or having a quiet beer? Charlie could you go over and find out? Then report back? I am sure your fellow Kiwibloggers would be very interested to know how things go for you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    I thinks Charlie’s point was that Saudi Arabia has more rationally consistent laws: ban everything. I didn’t take it to mean he would prefer to live in Saudi Arabia. The drug laws in New Zealand are irrational and hypocritical.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Scott (1,819 comments) says:

    Well that’s right mikenmild. The laws over there are consistently oppressive. Whereas we allow alcohol and tobacco. We don’t need other intoxicants. Marijuana does harm. It will add to our social problems! What about that is hard to understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Scott (1,819 comments) says:

    First do no harm is a good guide to law making.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. mikenmild (11,776 comments) says:

    What might be hard for you to understand is that the incidence of harm caused by marijuana use could well reduce with legalisation. All I’m asking for is a consistent approach which minimises the likelihood of harm and does not criminalise the behaviour of consenting adults.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Scott (1,819 comments) says:

    No it won’t ! There will be more harm because there will be more stoners! That’s the trouble with marijuana. It makes you stupid while you think you are really smart.

    Anyone I am done on this topic. Lord save our nation from stoners! Amen

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. RichardX (329 comments) says:

    Scott (1,614 comments) says:
    April 11th, 2014 at 3:56 pm
    … It makes you stupid while you think you are really smart.

    I thought that was religion

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. CharlieBrown (1,027 comments) says:

    Scott – do u drink alcohol? Do you eat fast food? Do you gamble (including lotto)? If you do any of those you are a freaking hypocrite. All are vices that most people in this country enjoy, and the vast majority of the people that enjoy those vices don’t ruin their lives from it. The same goes for most drugs, nearly everyone I know has had a joint at some stage in their life, or tried an E, and none of them have ruined their lives from it. In the same breath, all my friends and family enjoy alcohol, and I do know one or two people that have ruined their lives with alcohol.

    Scott – if you read my comment you would see that I find the Saudi laws abhorrent, but rationally consistent. But obviously being rational isn’t something you aren’t familiar with. Can you please do us KiwiBlog readers a favor and go to Colorado, buy a joint and smoke it then come back to NZ and see if it ruins your life and makes you a criminal.

    As for your comment “makes you stupid while you think you are really smart.”. Our public education system can be guilty of that.

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