Decriminalisation debate damaged

17 comments on “Decriminalisation debate damaged ”

• Comments are now closed

1. randal 1

   28 September 2011 at 2:43 pm

   one commentator said that Brash’s balloon was just a move to take the heat off lamingotn head and the rest of the act cadre of noo noo heads.
   he wasn’t being serious at all.
   And yes this country does have rto have a serious debate about cannabis. Anyone who listened to afternoons on rnsz the other day would have heard ding dong bell put the case against. All shibboleths and half statements that didnt mean anything but sounded technical. The misguided seem to accept that alcohol is allright but cannabis is somehow evil when the exact opposite is the case and all the blue noses and supposed spiritual christians agree. The y have demonised the fair and laud the foul. These are the people who think they know everything but rely on the argument form authority to enforce their bourgeois values on everybody just because they can. uggggggg g .
2. Pete 2

   28 September 2011 at 2:48 pm

   I’d advise anyone joining the debate to read http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping/

   It’s a slightly flippant article from a very flippant site, but it makes some good points.
3. Bill 3

   28 September 2011 at 2:48 pm

   What are you suggesting Anthony? That only ‘the correct’ type of people should have an opinion on decriminalisation?

   I’d have thought the broader the make up of the constituency that is advocating for decriminalisation, the better. Or is that not ‘cool’?
   • r0b 3.1

     28 September 2011 at 3:00 pm

     Anyone can have an opinion of course, the more the merrier. Brash is incongruous because he’s the leader of a law-and-order lock-em-up tough-on-crime political party. Just ask John Banks. Which – incidentally – is what Brash should have done.
     • burt 3.1.1

       28 September 2011 at 10:55 pm

       Brash is incongruous because he’s the leader of a law-and-order lock-em-up tough-on-crime political party.

       How do you argue that decriminalising marijuana is incompatible with a tough on violent/dangerous criminals stand point?

       In my opinion you need to decriminalise ‘offenses’ you do not wish to punish as ‘criminal’ to be tough on crime. It’s bloody obvious that if you don’t you can’t deliver on the party agenda. Or you are forced to call ‘status quo rocks’ on the statutes and hammer people against them irrespective of how effective or appropriate that is.

       If Brash’s actions have stuffed his position in ACT then perhaps he should start a new party for the next election using picture featured in this thread. What a piss take if he dragged 3-4 aging hippies into parliament. Hell rOb, you could be his sensible left wing academic supporter, I’ll put my hand up for his lose cannon red-neck appeal… umm perhaps he’s got that covered already.
4. MikeE 4

   28 September 2011 at 2:51 pm

   Should only long haired hippies be pro pot.

   If anything having prominent people from teh right and business supporting the debate could only be a good thing.

   We need to have lawyers, accountants, teachers, politicians etc standing up and supporting change, rather than just the stereotypical green supporter, only then will it become politically viable.

   If anything what Brash has done is good for the debate, even though it might be bad for ACT (in the short term).
   • McFlock 4.1

     28 September 2011 at 3:16 pm

     I tend to agree with r0b – Brash making an absolute hash of the matter has not only put his party in a spot of bother ( 🙂 ), it has held back a serious debate on the issue slightly more effectively than calling a smoke-up by smelly hippies a “protest”.
     • burt 4.1.1

       28 September 2011 at 9:34 pm

       Perhaps he didn’t put the party line ahead of his own – I think we need more of that in politics, especially from leaders.

       I don’t actually give a toss if ACT implode because of it and I don’t think that’s the issue here. The real victory is that the country has been talking about it for days and that (IMHO) is a good thing.
       • McFlock 4.1.1.1

         28 September 2011 at 11:04 pm

         Would that the nation hs been – but in fact the debate has been largely over Brash being a moron and ACT no longer being soally, as well as economically, liberal. Most people have already figured out their position on MJ – it’s a bit like abortion in that regard. Intractible opinion vs intractible opinion.
     • pollywog 4.1.2

       29 September 2011 at 8:42 am

       Brash makes hash of dope debate, forces Banks to get the knives out…
5. Ecosocialism 5

   28 September 2011 at 3:23 pm

   will labour take part in the debate now? and liberals from National? nope…? politics as usual then, and bad policy continues….
6. Penny Bright 6

   28 September 2011 at 3:53 pm

   Hmmmmm……………………. could the following be the reason behind this arguably brash announcement by Don for the decriminalisation of marijuana?

   The effective ‘decriminalisation’ of Don Brash (and John Banks’) arguably ‘white collar’ criminal offending?

   Why aren’t Don Brash and John Banks as former Directors of Huljich Wealth Management facing charges over misleading investors?

   I rang and checked today with the FMA (Financial Markets Authority) – Brash and Banks are NOT facing charges.

   WHY NOT?

   As former Directors of Huljich Wealth Management, then surely Don Brash and John Banks must be accountable?

   Were Don Brash and John Banks, as former Directors of Huljich Wealth Management – incompetent, negligent – or part of the ‘misleading’ of investors, for which Auckland fund manager Peter Huljich has pleaded guilty?

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/5690645/Huljich-pleads-guilty-to-misleading-investors
   Huljich pleads guilty to misleading investors
   MARIA SLADE
   Last updated 11:32 27/09/2011
   Peter Huljich
   PETER HULJICH: The charge under Section 59 of the act carries a maximum penalty of a $300,000 fine.

   Auckland fund manager Peter Huljich will be sentenced in December after pleading guilty to a charge under the Securities Act.

   He entered the guilty plea in exchange for seven other charges brought against him by the Financial Markets Authority being dropped.
   ………

   The charge under Section 59 of the act relates to him having misled investors in advertisements for the Huljich KiwiSaver scheme between 2008 and 2010. It carries a maximum penalty of a $300,000 fine.

   The advertisements said ”our results speak for themselves” and displayed three graphs setting out the performance of the funds.

   However, they failed to disclose that the funds had been inflated by a series of payments from Huljich to make their performance look better.

   Meanwhile the company HWM (NZ) Holdings, formerly known as Huljich Wealth Management, has pleaded guilty to two related charges.

   Huljich will be sentenced on December 8. A whole day has been set aside for the sentencing, with the judge commenting earlier that it was likely to be “complex”.

   ACT Party leader and former Reserve Bank governor Don Brash was a director of Huljich Wealth Management until last October, as was former National Party MP and Auckland City Mayor John Banks.

   Banks still acts as a director of parent companies Huljich (New Zealand) Ltd and Huljich Ltd, which is majority-owned by a Huljich family trust as well as a syndicate led by Banks.”

   Penny Bright
   Independent ‘Public Watchdog’.
   Candidate for Epsom
   • mik e 6.1

     29 September 2011 at 5:42 pm

     don has done his dhash.
7. Lindsay 7

   28 September 2011 at 5:45 pm

   “Some day”??

   All of the parties, including the Greens, including Labour, including the Conservative element in ACT, are too gutless to make it now.

   What is wrong with now?
8. dave brown 8

   28 September 2011 at 11:24 pm

   Well at least after the bad news about the 50% ‘clean’ NZ would be 100% ‘green’. If Brash legalised it it would make a lot more money than RWC. Party central would be everywhere and nowhere. The trains would appear to run on time. We would have to fight off the big brands. There would be no three strike legislation because we would lose count. Going forward would be matter of faith. Mum and Dad investors would forget to sell their shares. The Chinese vice premier would take up surfing. Milk powder would take off in China. The Taliban would invade NZ for a piece of the action. John Keys smile would get broader and his speech much clearer. The sustainable alternative to open cast. Kiwis in Aussie would come home and raise the IQ again. Destiny Church would put on the Rocky Horror Show. Possibilities…who’s got my smoke?
9. Georgecom 9

   29 September 2011 at 9:35 pm

   Oh Donny boy, the pipes, the pipes are smoking
   From Don to John, and down the Banks side
   Your credibility has gone, and all your MPs retiring
   ‘Tis you, ’tis you must go as your vote is on the slide .
   But come ye back with your policy on dakery
   People should be free to smoke what they can sow
   But tis the case, your party position
   Oh Donny boy, is whatever Banks says so.
10. Thomas 10

    1 October 2011 at 4:23 pm

    The real reason you’re upset is because Don Brash’s position on cannabis doesn’t fit into your one-dimensional left-right view of politics. You are angry that he has damaged your simple-minded world view, so you are demanding that Don Brash returns to disagreeing with everything you believe and that everything falls back into place.

    You win arguments by getting people on your side, not by defending your ideological territory. Learn to cooperate; if you don’t, you are the one doing the debate a disservice, not Don Brash.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS