About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

May 8, 2006 10:47am by David Farrar

Does Prohibition Work?

Helen Simpson, President of ACT on Campus, blogs against prohibition of cannabis, pointing to how ineffective prohibition of alcohol has been.

Share this:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment151

Uncategorised

Comments (151)

Login to comment or vote

Murray

How about how ineffective prohibition on rape and murder are?

Do we biff those laws too under the too hard to be bothered rule?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 8, 2006 11:10am
James

Murray….rape and murder are crimes because they violate the rights of unconsenting others,drug use does not…but the other side effects of prohabition are another matter.But how many rapes and murders were stopped by the fact that there weres laws against those activites…? Those laws are required mainly to mop up after the event but someone who is bent on murder or rape isn’t going to stop and say…”Oh hang on…this is illegal! I’d better stop!”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 8, 2006 11:19am
Willie

Murray: An action is only a wrong (I.E a crime that needs to be made illegal) if there is a distinct and identifiable victim.

Rape and murder are obviously wrong (and therefore a crime) because there are victims – the individuals being raped or murdered. Theft is also a wrong and thus a crime – the victims are those being stolen from.

Smoking cannibis, on the other hand, is not an action that is a crime so long as the smoker takes responsibility for the action of smoking cannibis.

Where the smokers take responsibility for smoking, there is no distinct and identifiable victim of smoking cannibis. Smoking cannibis does not harm anyone else so long as the smoker pays their own healthcare. It would harm the taxpayer (distinct and identifiable victims) if and only if they were coerced into paying the smokers health bill.

The often used argument to attempt to cast cannibis smoking as morally wrong (and therefore a crime) is to say that “society is the victim”. Society, however, is not a distinct and identifiable victim. I can’t go out and point to society and say “there is the victim of the cannibis smokers”, like I can point to victims of murder, rape and theft. Or like I can point to the victims of wealth redistribution by saying “there are the people that are being taxed”.

That is the most crucial point to note here – that classical liberals like Helen differ to the left in their arguments for legalisation because classical liberals put forward the argument that along with the freedom to smoke cannibis, goes the responsibility that if they harm themselves with it *they* foot the healthcare bill, *not* the taxpayer. So long as the smokers pay for it there is no victim, it is therefore not morally wrong, and therefore not a crime and therefore cannibis smoking should be legal.

The right’s case for legalising cannibis is that individuals would be able to smoke cannibis but have to take care of the negative effects themselves.

Be aware though that the left’s arguments for legalising cannibis are completely different in nature. They left argues the freedom *without* responsibility nonsense. They argue that individuals should be able to smoke cannibis but still be able to socialise the negative effects. That is, have taxpayers pay for the cost of their healthcare.

There is an enourmous difference. The left’s argument is based in coercion and the right’s is based in liberty.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 8, 2006 12:25pm
mj

Tell me Murray,who’s the victim in this so called criminal behaviour.The real crime in these things is the continued involvement of a criminal element in the supply of a substance that is prohibited.IMHO the real crime is the prohibition of a herb with a huge number of uses other than recreational.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 8, 2006 12:28pm
mj

Tell me Murray,who’s the victim in this so called criminal behaviour.The real crime in these things is the continued involvement of a criminal element in the supply of a substance that is prohibited.IMHO the crime is the prohibition of an herb with a huge number of uses other than recreational.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 8, 2006 12:39pm
James

Nice post Willie! Saves me saying it. ;-0
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 8, 2006 12:58pm
Berend de Boer

Guys, the only point Murray seems to make is that effectiveness isn’t an argument.

And secondly, I’m guessing that our problems with alcohol are much larger than our problems with drugs. Any chances drugs will become much larger a problem when legalised?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 8, 2006 1:36pm
baxter

I don’t propose to debate the merits or demerits of cannibis though I have seen many tragic results from its use. I note Mrs SIMPSON connects freedom to use to a compulsory health insurance and I approve of that so long as a loading is not placed on non users.Having it illegal does not mean the Police have to seek out offenders where a problem is not apparent, but having the power to do so when a situation is out of hand is always beneficial.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 8, 2006 3:51pm
Logix

They left argues the freedom *without* responsibility nonsense. They argue that individuals should be able to smoke cannibis but still be able to socialise the negative effects. That is, have taxpayers pay for the cost of their healthcare.

Errk??? The left more commonly argues that it IS the social costs that create the mandate for prohibition.

And then again just a thread or two ago we had the right arguing that tobacco was ok BECAUSE the high tax on it paid for medical treatment. Does this make legalisation of cannabis if the govt taxes it high enough to compensate for the social costs? And how do you measure the social costs of cannabis compared to alcohol or nictone? On the direct face of it cannabis is a relatively harmless drug…although there are many who argue that the indirect affects are not unsubstantial.

I fully agree that prohibitions do not work, unless the vast majority WANT them to work. For that to happen, what is really required is a wider understanding of why these common drugs hold such a power over us.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 8, 2006 5:49pm
libertyscott

The fundamental point above all others is the question:

Who owns your body?

Who should decide what you are allowed to ingest? If it isn’t you – assuming you’re an adult, and assuming you are on your own property (and haven’t signed any contracts prohibiting your consumption during employment) – then who?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 8, 2006 7:19pm
phil

Willie:”Be aware though that the left’s arguments for legalising cannibis are completely different in nature. They left argues the freedom *without* responsibility nonsense. They argue that individuals should be able to smoke cannibis but still be able to socialise the negative effects. That is, have taxpayers pay for the cost of their healthcare.”

Arse. If cannabis were ever legalised, it would be taxed as cigarettes and alcohol are.

BTW, the great thing about pot is you can easily grow your own, thus avoiding any (hypothetical) tax.

DPF “Does prohibition work?” Any sane person knows the answer is NO! It needs to be completely legalised and taken away from the control of gang members.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 8, 2006 7:29pm
B.J. Melville

I’m no expert, but my guess would be that cannabis sativa is illegal because it is a substitute for cotton and to legalise it would destroy the US cotton industry. Destroy the US cotton industry and you destroy America’s wartime supplies of cellulose that they use to make ammunition. That’s why the left wanted it legalised. That’s my take anyway.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 8, 2006 7:46pm
aurion

Prohibition of alcohol is a great success in Saudi Arabia. Cutting off the hands of thieves seems to work too. I
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 8, 2006 8:32pm
B.J. Melville

“BJ, cellulose aint used in ammunition anymore in they way you suggest”

Yes, I know, I was just offering a possible historical reason for prohibition. Nowadays they mostly use double and triple based powders and other more powerful synthetic explosives. Cotton nowhere near as important militarily as it was in the first half of last century.

I just guess no-one got around to legalising it again. Think about it, the cotton growing countries campaign hard to keep hemp off the market and no-one is really going to die in a ditch so they can have their joint with their chardonnay after a hard days work, are they? The criminal underworld makes good money off it so they have no incentive to legalise it. It’s rather a peripheral issue for most of the world but if China and/or India decided to legalise it to provide locally produced raw material for their textile industries, that might be a different matter. As for New Zealand, it’s probably not worth risking our trade with Oz and the US over a few potheads.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 8, 2006 9:13pm
B.J. Melville

Another possible reason cannabis is illegal, from wikipedia:

“From the 1950s to the 1980s the Soviet Union was the world’s largest producer(of hemp) (3,000 km
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 8, 2006 9:34pm
tim barclay

Making any drug illegal has no impact on the criminal class nor the rich (who think they can do anything). But it does work with the generally law abiding middle class. They make up the bulk of our population anyway so prohibition does work there. The only solution is to just sit on it, make the drugs difficult to obtain and expensive (too expensive for the poor) and sit it out until medical science comes up with something the neutralises their effects. There is some progress here already. Cannabis is probably more harmful than we think, our mental health wards are full of cannabis abusers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2006 11:05am
err..

“Cannabis is probably more harmful than we think, our mental health wards are full of cannabis abusers.”

You’re not too up on this whole thinking thing, are you? A relationship between two things does not imply causality in the way you’re implying.

For example, is it not equally (or more) likely that the mentally ill are more likely to turn to drug abuse than the rest of us?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2006 11:36am
tim barclay

Err my information is better than that. Cannabis does cause psychotic behavior in a small number of people who are in our mental health wards. Its effects on the general population are not well understood. But I am always amused by several things about cannabis users. Firstly their physical appearance – they look like little old men, secondly their brains are plain lazy and finally cannabis abuses are very defensive about their abuse of the drug.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2006 6:08pm
phil

“they look like little old men, secondly their brains are plain lazy and finally cannabis abuses are very defensive about their abuse of the drug.”

Seems like you’ve bypassed pot and gone straight for the P pipe, mate.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2006 6:35pm
Ben Wilson

phil, I suggest Tim prefers Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. Picture yourself in a suit in a beamer, with cannabis smokers who look like little old men, suddenly ahead appears a middle aged housewife, who confuses her punters again and again.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2006 7:35pm
Linda

Timn: hmmm, somehow I don’t think Sir Paul MacCartney will be remembered as “looking like a little old man whose brain was plain lazy”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2006 9:12pm
tim barclay

Really Linda look at todays stuff with Mcartney in the Daily Mail and other UK newspapers. His music is absolute mush which reinforces my point.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2006 9:24pm
SPC

The case against smoking and marijuana is the same. It harms the user and brings costs on the public health system. Tobacco attracts punitive taxation for this reason, but not so marijuana (health and policing and court and prison costs falling on others BECAUSE it is kept illegal).

My only concern with legalisation is the harm it does to younger people (18 to early 20’s-mid20’s). I would support it, if legal use was by age and use level limits secured by ration cards (one could not allow it with the sort of regime applying for alcohol – too lax in application of the age restriction).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2006 11:41pm
SPC

BK Melville

Mexico is decriminalising possession of most drugs in amounts for personal use only. They have not been threatened with loss of their NAFTA participation. We won’t get free trade with the USA until we become a state of Oz (which seems to be a USA policy goal) or it’s part of APEC/WTO.

Tim

Criminalisation results in no higher a price than would occur from legalisation and taxation (as per tobacco). One can maintain laws against unlicensed growing and selling of marijuana (to control taxation, price, distribution and amount allowed to users).

The only valid reason for the illegal status appears to be to encourage the indolent and unskilled into horticulture and to provide criminals with a career option safer to society than burglary/theft/armed robbery/home invasions and harder drugs).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 9, 2006 11:56pm
fejj

NZ
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2006 10:27am
fejj

NZ
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2006 10:37am
GloriaMcAlesse

Great post Fijj. I don’t like Hollands implementation of its drug policies, it has given too much power to racketeers.

Hadn’t read about Sweden’s policy and wasn’t aware it was successful. I was under the impression though that Sweden was a wealthier society than New Zealand and it’s hard to say what sort of part this plays in the success of there drug policies.

Something else that seems gets overlooked are the nations that have prohibition and relatively low cannabis consumption such as Ireland.

The greatest problem in New Zealand is not cannabis consumption but methamphetamines and ecstacy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 11, 2006 9:48am
GloriaMcAlesse

Great post Fijj. I don’t like Holland’s implementation of its drug policies, it has given too much power to racketeers.

Hadn’t read about Sweden’s policy and wasn’t aware it was successful. I was under the impression though that Sweden was a wealthier society than New Zealand and it’s hard to say what sort of part this plays in the success of their drug policies.

Something else that seems gets overlooked is that there are nations that have prohibition and relatively low cannabis consumption such as Ireland.

The greatest problem in New Zealand is not cannabis consumption but methamphetamines and ecstacy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 11, 2006 9:51am
fejj

Gloria

Sweden is definitely a wealthier country but that is only part of it. It is about the priorities a country sets. There is a top to bottom consensus in Sweden about drugs in fact they have set a goal to have a drug free society and so the governmental response is based on that rather lofty premise. This has resulted in taxpayers money and the laws being targetted to this end leading to the crucial components that have resulted in Sweden going from an epidemic level of drug use to very low levels of drug use in 20 years.

The other fascinating thing about this journey is that it began from the bottom up – Swedish politicians didn’t suddenly see the light.

P and ecstasy are more dangerous than cannabis but their levels of usage are in the low single digits as a percentage of our population whilst cannabis is used recreationally by a sizable minority. The Chch Health and Development Study (subjects are now 28) shows that 75% of them have tried cannabis – that is the extent of the problem
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 11, 2006 1:15pm
Mike

Gloria….

Could you please explain to the class why estacy is the greatest problem in NZ. Have you ever met someone on E? Or if your viewpoint based on general drugs are bad hysteria?

Considering there hasn’t been a single study worldwide showing MDMA to be harmful. The only deaths from Estacy have been through overheating or consuming too much water (or ODing on other substances), and being “loved up” is hardly a danger to society.

Or are you coming from the Christian fundy “moral danger” viewpoint?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 11, 2006 3:00pm
Ben Wilson

Feji, your description of the system not working hinges entirely around your standard, which is to have less people consuming the drug. But I don’t think too many people are saying that prohibition has no effect on usage levels.

The anti-prohibition camp are arguing two things. Firstly, prohibition takes away a right of humans to make decisions about what they can do to themselves. This is a wrong in itself.
Secondly, the enforcement of prohibition has it’s own social cost, which you have neglected to mention in the case of Sweden. That is that in Sweden, there are a lot of people in prison on minor cannabis related charges. These people’s lives have been *greatly harmed* by their approach.

So when you make your only benchmark that Sweden has less cannabis usage than Holland you’re hardly telling anyone anything they wouldn’t expect. But you’ve left out the harm done to any Swede who feels like they might want to smoke dope but isn’t allowed. And you’ve left out everyone who is considered a very bad criminal in Sweden for acting on that wish.

You have defined all of these people out of the debate. But that only works on the assumption that cannabis usage is wrong, which is the very issue in contention.

I have no doubt that if alcohol were prohibited in NZ, then less people would use it. We would also have a new class of criminals – people who wanted to drink alcohol and acted on that, and people who supplied it. If history is anything to go by, these groups would be large. Is society served by criminalizing the activities of large sections of it’s population, whose crime is only to do something *to themself*?

Sure, they may then commit other crimes, as a result of their drug usage. This is certainly the case with alcohol. But in the case of alcohol, our society functions rationally – it criminalizes the criminal behaviour itself, not the consumption of alcohol. That way people who use alcohol responsibly are not criminalized.

I personally don’t like the affect of alcohol in our society. So I abstain from using it, and generally from going anywhere where using it is the main point. I have low tolerance for drunks. This is my choice, at this particular time of my life. If we had dutch-style coffeeshops where you could smoke dope, I would generally avoid them too. Again, my choice. I’m too old for such nonsense.

This doesn’t mean I don’t have alcohol in my house for those rare occasions when using it would be nice, perhaps during an All Black test. And if dope were legal, then the same would probably go there. Prohibition works on me, but that doesn’t mean I’m in favour of it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 11, 2006 3:21pm
phil

SPC: El Presidente has actually backed out of signing into law the
bill. Hmm, I wonder why? Is that the collective sigh of hundreds of
drug cartels I hear?

fejj: Bloody good post, well researched and all. A few points: I
think the problem with the Dutch model is that it has not gone far
enough. In order for proper regulation of drug use, it needs to be
regulated by the state ie. complete and utter legalisation. Move the
production and distribution out of gang members’ hands. Why? A couple
reasons off the top of my head:

Firstly, drug users will not be made criminals for indulging in their
vice of choice. Secondly, the quality of the drugs will be controlled.
How many people buy moonshine whiskey, when they can buy good quality
whiskey at a licensed distributor? Make it the same for other drugs.

Also, drug-related crime would drop considerably. (I’m not talking
about rampaging P binges, I mean gangs killing each other and innocent
bystanders for control of drug markets, although the aforementioned P
nutters would be more easily controlled if forced to obtain their
supply from a regulated environment such as a pharmacy)

Anyway, I am under no illusion that ABUSE (important word) of drugs is
disastrous. I know it would continue if certain drugs were legalised.
What it basically comes down to is the fact that I and many people I
have met and know in my life face the possiblity of arrest at any time for having a
good time. I hate that fact.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 11, 2006 6:55pm
geniusNZ

Generally these laws fail because you don
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 11, 2006 7:22pm
SPC

Fejj

Success in managing crime is premised on societal attitude. Thus, as our society has moved against drink driving and tobacco smoking, this amount of this has lessened.

Crime is centred around deprived sectors of society – usually disadvantaged ethnic groups. These have lower respect for law, because it is the law of the mainstream.

Egalitarian and monocultural society’s like Swedens more quickly realise success when they have agreed on a community goal.

So while you might, compare liberal vs conservative management and from this propose what would work here, I have cited reasons for reservations.

I note another factor – how many areas of Sweden are conducive to growing marijuana. Also the Netherlands has borders and would have a more difficult job keeping out drugs from other areas.

Finally – if New Zealanders don’t share in the goal, of having people choosing not to smoke marijuana – what is the point of having this as a goal?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 11, 2006 9:34pm
Ben Wilson

GeniusNZ, sure, everything you do has consequences. But if you are going to prevent people doing something you need to have a reason, and in most cases the only real reason you have to coerce someone not to do something is if their action harms you in some way.

It is quite possible to use dope in ways that harm only yourself. Therefore it is hardly something we need to stop people doing, particularly if they *want* to.

I grasp your point about firearms, but it misses the mark. It can be extended to any object at all. You could beat someone to death with a video box (there is a case of that in NZ). That does not justify stopping people from having videos. The difference with guns is that they are so dangerous. They are *designed* to cause damage to living things, like poison. That is why reckless use of a firearm is a crime, because it has a high probability of injuring people.

But dope is not designed to harm people, nor is that it’s common usage. It is difficult to force someone to use it, and even if you did the likely outcome is they would get stoned, and then it would wear off.

So it’s not really the same thing at all. But if you like, I can concede that there are irresponsible ways to use dope, and some of them should be criminal. You should not pilot an airplane, for instance. Probably you should not drive a car. You should not really be in charge of anything where lack of judgement could cause other people damage. Those things should be crimes, sure, but not the simple fact of ingesting the substance.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 11, 2006 10:06pm
James

I love you Ben Wilson…and I want to have your baby….free to use drugs or otherwise… 😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2006 12:53am
fejj

SPC

Most marijuana grown in the Netherlands is so called Nedewiet and is hydroponically grown (to enhance potency
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2006 9:01am
GloriaAlesse

Fijj so what exactly are the laws in Sweden, is it legal for citizens to sell cannabis, legal for them to consume it? Ben Wilson posted “that in Sweden, there are a lot of people in prison on minor cannabis related charges.”

What are it’s enforcement laws?

Ben Wilson – “whose crime is only to do something *to themself” yes, your right in one sense but this statement doesn’t address two issues: that some people abuse cannabis and that there is the criminal element involved in the supply of cannabis.

“Christian fundy “moral danger” viewpoint?” Whatever Mike!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2006 9:55am
Ben Wilson

Feji, prohibiting cannabis use is quite a lot more strict than random breath testing. It is a far bigger intrusion to say there are no circumstances in which you can ingest cannabis at all, period, than to say you may not be *too* drunk to drive a vehicle. The breath test is hardly intrusive if you haven’t touched a drop, it takes all of a few seconds. And it catches people who are doing something very dangerous to other people, right then.

So your comparison is quite bogus.

As for your litany of the harms of cannabis, I don’t deny that harm can be caused to the user. But that is not reason in itself to stop people *who want to* from doing it. You can harm yourself by falling off a bike, or from eating too much McDonalds. But neither of these things are or should be banned. It is well known that alchohol usage is very harmful in excess, far exceeding anything claimed about dope usage. But we accept that people can choose to harm themselves in this way, just as we accept that you can be a fat pig, or get your belly button pierced or go in a boxing match. This is because these things harm only yourself. You are not allowed to forcefeed people, or force a piercing on them, or punch them out, because these are harms to someone else, that they didn’t sign up for.

As for the coffeeshops of Amsterdam being fronts for harder drug sales, that’s bullshit man. They sell coffee, cakes and pot. If you want to buy hard drugs in Amsterdam it’s a matter of hanging out on a canal bridge and waiting for a salesman to approach you. I can imagine there are people in coffeeshops who wouldn’t mind making a sucker out of you by arbitraging such a simple deal, but that’s hardly ‘working as a front’.

Probably there is more heroin sold in Amsterdam because of their tolerance to dope. But it doesn’t seem to be the problem it is in other places. I didn’t see droves of sky high heroin bums lying about the place like I see every time I go to Melbourne.

If you love Sweden, that’s cool man, but just because they have crushed dope usage doesn’t mean it’s right. I have heard that Sweden is the most boring place on the planet to visit, so perhaps it’s more about the kind of people Swedes are than anything about their policies that have led to the success of their prohibition.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2006 10:29am
Ben Wilson

Gloria, if cannabis were not prohibited then it could be supplied far more efficiently by a non criminal element.

And abuse is a problem, I admit. It is actually already a problem, even with prohibition. Dealing with it is a health issue, IMHO.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2006 10:40am
GloriaAlesse

Wilson – decriminalising cannabis won’t stop drug dealers supplying cannabis, the Netherlands shows that it can contribute to a greater illict trade in drugs.

You agree that abuse of cannabis is a problem, yet say cannabis should be legalised. Surely as cannabis consumption increases when it is decriminalised, the problem of abuse will also increase.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2006 12:04pm
James

The purpose of law and Government is NOT to protect us from “harm” as such…its to protect our rights.We have the right to “harm” ourselves as we see fit as long as no one else is forced to pay the cost for us doing so which is why the State should not be involved in taxing people for safety nets for the stupid and irresponsible.

And “harm” is a subjective thing…some people will view reading porn,drinking,casual sex etc as “harmful” and may want these actions banned to “protect” people…from themselves.No thanks!

“If you ask the government to impose morality, then moral questions will be
decided by whoever has the most political power…..Harry Browne
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2006 12:05pm
Logix

The purpose of law and Government is NOT to protect us from “harm” as such…its to protect our rights.

And not the slightest hint of “responsibility”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2006 12:43pm
James

When anyone who wants to can grow a plant or two in their own garden for there own use why would drug dealers even get a look in…?
The profit motive is directly linked to the costs and risks of supply, eliminate those and the price of the drug drops, profits go down and dealers fade out as its not worth it anymore.Its the basic laws of economics.

Its not all cut and dried (pardon the pun),a dealer may offer such a good product and service that people are willing to just pay him rather than do it themselves….who knows….but leave them to it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2006 12:48pm
Ben Wilson

Gloria, I think you’re confused in what you’re saying. Yes, gangs will still supply whatever is still illegal, but if dope ain’t they won’t be the supplier anymore. As James says it’s pretty easy to grow. A lot easier than tobacco, and that’s not supplied by gangs either.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2006 1:20pm
Ben Wilson

Gloria, re abuse.

Yes, I admit abuse of anything is a problem. Abuse of vehicles leads to a lot more deaths than cannabis, but I don’t say vehicles should be illegal. Crimes that actually are crimes should still be punished.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2006 1:30pm
gloriaAlesse

Ben that is only your unresearched opinion – drug dealers do still supply cannabis to coffee shops in the Netherlands because the supply to these shops is rarely investigated.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2006 2:05pm
Danyl Mclauchlan

decriminalising cannabis won’t stop drug dealers supplying cannabis, the Netherlands shows that it can contribute to a greater illict trade in drugs.

Sure – just like the Mafia continued to control liquor sales in the US after prohibition was repealed!

If dope is legalised it’ll be grown by Watties and sold at Starmart.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2006 2:19pm
Mike

Gloria – you still haven’t answered why “The greatest problem in New Zealand is not cannabis consumption but methamphetamines and ecstacy.” – I ask, why is Estacy the greatest problem in NZ?

What shred of evidence do you have to back up this assertion?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2006 2:42pm
Ben Wilson

Yes, Gloria, the supply of cannabis into coffeeshops in Holland is strange because of their wierd approach to legalization. It is not legal even there to openly grow wholesale quantities of the herb. But the police don’t investigate. So your reference to ‘drug dealers’ is similar in it’s use of language to how it works here.

I wouldn’t suggest such an approach. If possession and consumption are allowed then production should also be, otherwise, yes, crime is involved again.

I put it to you that people who grow a few plants hydroponically indoors couldn’t really compete with thousands of acres of outdoor crops on a commercial farm. Yeah, that’s a theory, but seems pretty sound to me.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2006 3:40pm
phil

Fejj said:

“Phil
I don
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2006 4:51pm
Fejj

Fejj

I simply repeat, that an egalitarian monocultural society, with little outdoor horticulture, is best placed to impose some societal regulation against horticulture across it’s nation.

Can you cite the example of any multi-cultural society with disadvantaged ethnic minorities, where the Swedish way has worked?

I doubt it.

I agree on one point. If the US has it’s high marijuana usage rate, despite it’s criminalisation and imprisonment system, the case is for more focus on, diversion, drug education and rehabilitation is strong. But where people in their social circle choose to use marijuana as an alternative to alcohol and/or this is also seen as part of a rejection of mainstream society by ethnic groups, there are going to be limits to the effectiveness of any such Swedish programme.

“I dispute that NZers don
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2006 7:21pm
SPC

Er, I am actually the one responsible for that last post.

I admit to wanting to convince Fejj of my arguement’s validity, but not via intentionally counterfeiting his signature on something which was my work to realise
such a purpose. It was mere careless use of a keyboard, when at the wrong target space.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2006 7:28pm
fejj

SPC
Sweden has its share of disadvantaged minorities
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 13, 2006 11:22am
Ben Wilson

Feji, all Sweden has shown is the well known fact that if you very harshly punish something, the occurence of it will be less. You have not shown why this is a good thing in the case of cannabis, a substance that a sizeable chunk of our population would like to be able to use. You have not addressed *at all* the harm done to society by criminalizing the activities of huges swathes of the population.

Your arguments that cannabis should be prohibited are based on:
1. Liberal cannabis culture leads to more liberal harder drug culture.
2. Cannabis can harm you
3. You assert the majority of people agree with you.

2 has already been addressed.
1 only follows as any justification if you already reject liberal drug culture. Therefore it is no argument. It suffers from the ‘fallacy of affirming the consequent’.
3 I disagree. Your talks with ‘concerned parents’ are preaching to the choir, and how likely is it that parent who had liberal views would pipe up in such an audience?

Most of your facts come straight from narcotics police. Do you consider this an impartial source? The very people whose livelihood depends on the prohibition of drugs?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 13, 2006 11:57am
James

…And many prominent policemen both in Britian and the US are now speaking out and calling for drug legalization because they can see the failure of prohabition and the destructive effects it causes to society.

Its only the “Emperors new clothes” fear of stating an obvious but unpopular truth that prevents the whole rotten and corrupt failure from crashing down in a heap.In the meantime more lives are destroyed that need not have been…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 13, 2006 1:53pm
Gloria McAlesse

Many people use cannabis and it doesn’t harm society agreed, but its misleading to say all cannabis use doesn’t harm society.

It is clear that some young people’s use of cannabis exacerbates their lack of opportunities and impedes their chance of educational achievement which leaves society to pick up the pieces. Either by paying for benefits or by paying for costly rehabilitation and educational programmes.

Reports also show that a very high percentage of those who use hard drugs had previously been regular users of cannabis. If cannabis use causes an increase in hard drug use it is very obvious that cannabis use does cause harm to society.
You only need to look at the recent case of Trevor Eagle who commited a horrific rape on a Napier woman. He had an established history of drug abuse and was high on P at the time of the abduction.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 14, 2006 9:31am
James

“It is clear that some young people’s use of cannabis exacerbates their lack of opportunities and impedes their chance of educational achievement which leaves society to pick up the pieces. Either by paying for benefits or by paying for costly rehabilitation and educational programmes.”

By that reasoning ALL activity must cease as all activity affects other people or “society” somehow. Its only when other people are FORCED to take responsibility for the actions of others that there is a problem.

Trevor Eagel also had a long history of torture fantasys involving women in degradation…the drugs didn’t give him that.

But again it boils down to this…its not a choice between a drug free utopia or the current situation, its between the current situation and the best possible outcome.All live is a trade off between possible outcomes.While drugs are illegal we are getting the worst outcome we can get…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 14, 2006 11:44am

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

Police use of pepper spray »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Top Stories

General Debate 23 November 2024
Can we afford such generous research leave?
Who are the major emitters?
The newest Green MP
Secret lawyers
Do the KCs believe in democracy
A whale on a prediction market
RANZ Update
General Debate 22 November 2024
About time

Recent Posts

RANZ Update 23 November 2024
Who are the major emitters? 23 November 2024
A whale on a prediction market 23 November 2024
General Debate 23 November 2024 23 November 2024
Can we afford such generous research leave? 23 November 2024
Secret lawyers 22 November 2024
Do the KCs believe in democracy 22 November 2024
The newest Green MP 22 November 2024
About time 22 November 2024
The $800,000 lotto draw for researchers 22 November 2024
General Debate 22 November 2024 22 November 2024
A cunning plan? 22 November 2024

Recent Comments

RANZ Update
Spam
RANZ Update
Souvlaki
General Debate 23 November 2024
Yvette
Who are the major emitters?
bythesea
General Debate 23 November 2024
AitchW
General Debate 23 November 2024
MCōs
Who are the major emitters?
Benedict Yu
Who are the major emitters?
judith8409121
Who are the major emitters?
judith8409121
RANZ Update
Grizz
Can we afford such generous research leave?
Nigel
Can we afford such generous research leave?
tas
General Debate 23 November 2024
NeverMindTheBollocks
Who are the major emitters?
LCI
General Debate 23 November 2024
Steve Otto(North Shore)

Links

Obsession With Unreliable Wind & Solar Drives Punishing Cost of Net-Zero CO2 Delusion
Utopia
Treaty Principles Debate
NZCPR
€ 500 Billion for Coal and Gas Seems Expensive
No Minister
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Much ado about cussing…
Point of Order
A guide to making a submission on the Treaty Principles Bill
The Standard
You all understand these gang patch bans will get challenged in Court right?
The Daily Blog
Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2024 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d