- #1715730TedEMemberMember since: May 6, 2006
Replies: 2247TedE March 31, 2019 at 10:55 pm
We need a roadside test for THC to enable the rapid identification of impaired drivers.
TedE - Papakura -#1715765lilith7MemberMember since: April 9, 2017
Replies: 2029lilith7 April 1, 2019 at 11:17 am
Lilith, agreed. As long as, while we are having that discussion and educating people, young and old, about addiction, we stop putting users in jail – very happy for the dealers to be jailed as long as they’re not also addicts or in thrall to the dealers – I think it’s really important to keep adventurous, immature youngsters out of the correction system.
Absolutely; the Dunedin study showed that when teens are sent to prison,then there’s a high chance they’ll continue with a life of crime, but if they can be kept out of prison, then the percentage of them becoming reasonable, non criminal adults is up in the high 90% range.#1715788Hero42 April 1, 2019 at 4:40 pm
We can also learn from the past.
Consider what the UK did to control drugs until the US told them to stop.
Until 1916 drug use was hardly controlled, and widely available opium and cocaine preparations were commonplace.
Between 1916 and 1928 concerns about the use of these drugs by troops on leave from the First World War and then by people associated with the London underworld gave rise to some controls being implemented.
The distribution and use of morphine and cocaine, and later cannabis, were criminalised, but these drugs were available to addicts through doctors; this arrangement became known as the “British system” and was confirmed by the report of the Departmental Committee on Morphine and Heroin Addiction (Rolleston Committee) in 1926.
The Rolleston Report was followed by “a period of nearly forty years of tranquillity in Britain, known as the Rolleston Era. During this period the medical profession regulated the distribution of licit opioid supplies and the provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Acts of 1920 and 1923 controlled illicit supplies.”
The medical treatment of dependent drug users was separated from the punishment of unregulated use and supply. This policy on drugs was maintained in Britain, and nowhere else, until the 1960s.
Under this policy drug use remained low; there was relatively little recreational use and few dependent users, who were prescribed drugs by their doctors as part of their treatment.
In 1961 the international Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs was introduced. To control global drug trading and use, it banned countries from treating addicts by prescribing illegal substances, allowing only scientific and medical uses of drugs. It was not itself binding on countries, which had to pass their own legislation.
Following pressure from the US, the UK implemented the Drugs (Regulation of Misuse) Act in 1964. Although the Convention dealt with the problems of drug production and trafficking, rather than the punishment of drug users, the 1964 Act introduced criminal penalties for possession by individuals of small amounts of drugs, as well as possession with intent to traffic or deal in drugs. The police were soon given the power to stop and search people for illegal drugs.
Cheers 🙂#1721004phun83179MemberMember since: November 19, 2013
Replies: 19phun83179 June 2, 2019 at 1:32 pm
Legalising cannabis will not take drugs out of the gangs hands. They will just sell the more dangerous drugs they are pedalling now.
The link between mental health and cannabis use in young people in particular, is well known, so why would the Government consider legalising it? Only to get more votes from the liberal Left. As for having a referendum to decide how they will go about it is unbelievable. This is not a yes/no question. Most voters will not have researched the subject in any detail. Beware what you hope for!
We elect Members of Parliament to rule, not to pander to small, vocal lobby groups. Their job is to make decisions for the welfare and economy of all citizens, not just a small group.
Many recent cases of drug-driving have headlined in the press in recent times. If they can do a roadside drug-impairment test in Australia (and have done so for some years) why are we not doing it here?
I would be happy for my MP to vote on this issue on conscience after considering all the evidence for and against legalisation. That’s what he’s been elected to do.
phun83179#1721084arandarMemberMember since: November 23, 2009
Replies: 10711arandar June 2, 2019 at 10:02 pm
That is indeed what we elect our MPs to do, to do the work, absorb the research, work out the best solution and vote accordingly.
That is, unless, fair enough if they were honest about it when they were campaigning for election, they have firmly held, usually religious, beliefs which they must bring to bear on conscience issues.
Unfortunately, some have firmly held, not so much religious as commercial beliefs and are open to the more powerful, and well resourced, lobby groups; the tobacco industry for example springs to mind.
They’re apparently working hard to persuade ‘their’ MPs not to vote to decriminalise cannabis reasoning, I gather, if more people smoke a bit of weed they might smoke a little less tobacco.
I see no more reason for cannabis to be illegal than tobacco or alcohol. It’s no more harmful and probably less when used in moderation by adults.
When prohibition made alcohol illegal it went underground and made a lot of criminals very rich and a lot of drinkers criminals. Entirely predictable result.
And Oh! Look! That’s exactly what happened with cannabis.
Every one I know who smokes dope is a fully functioning adult. Can’t say the same of everyone I know who drinks booze.
Arandar#1721090lilith7MemberMember since: April 9, 2017
Replies: 2029lilith7 June 3, 2019 at 11:14 am
I think it would be a good move on the part of govt,to have a public education campaign on the subject,presenting both views prior to the referendum.
Thanks to the long term effects of the propaganda film ‘Reefer madness’ from the 1930s, there’s still a lot of misinformation out there.#1721156jensMemberMember since: May 3, 2006
Replies: 7636jens June 3, 2019 at 8:27 pm
Good on you, Paulinem, and since cannabis smoking might have the same effect on your lungs as tobacco smoking – and worse effects on the intoxication and mental health level –
why not start an anti cannabis smoking drive even stronger than the govt. supported anti tobacco smoking campaign right now ?
#1721194Hero42 June 4, 2019 at 12:23 pm
- This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by jens.
No smoking cannabis does not have the same effect on the lungs as cannabis does not contain the same toxic chemicals that tobacco has nor does it have nicotine which is what makes tobacco addictive and why cannabis isn’t chemically addictive.
Cheers 🙂#1721195Hero42 June 4, 2019 at 12:31 pm
The referendum won’t decide how to go about it. The government is currently tying to work with all parties in parliament on the legislation but as far as I know National won’t join in.
Paula Bennett has rejected invitations from Green spokeswoman on drug reform Chloe Swarbrick to join this group in the past. She said today she would be happy to join if it was led by a minister.
But what will be presented next year is how the reform would work if the majority of the voters support it, not just a small minority.
No doubt once the plan for how the reform will work we will be getting a lot of discussion on what is good and what is bad about the plan and how much each party will support the reform should it be approved by the referendum. This will also help voters to decide on which party to support which may be why National are not committing to the reform at present.
Cheers 🙂#1721198arandarMemberMember since: November 23, 2009
Replies: 10711arandar June 4, 2019 at 1:05 pm
May be. Focus groups. Polls. They might not be sure which way to jump yet.
And 1, or is it 2 tobacco company ex employees amongst their MPs. Do they receive donations from cannabis’ competition, Big Tobacco? They certainly used to.
Not to mention being a bit keen on private, for profit, prison systems which shareholders expect you’ll guarantee a ready supply of customers.
Oh, well, never mind, what price are principles anyway. 🤪
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.