Why the hell is he being given space in a newspaper? He’s no more “qualified” than the next person to make these pronouncements.
Oh wait, in this instance I’m the next person and I’ve actually spent time in a prison. In that case, he knows comparatively **** all.
Certainly they’re not run as well as they should be, and staff are barely able to cope. They’re under incredible stress and most do an excellent job despite, rather than because of, the facilities they’re managing (while a large number have simply given up and become automatons).
And why is this? Well for one thing it’s because narrow minded one-note idiots with no clues on correctional systems keep insisting we have “sensible” sentences which see offenders who could actually repay their debt to society by doing something positive for the community instead being stuffed, in ever greater numbers and for ever-lengthening times, into our prisons.
Now, if only we could identify the idiots responsible for encouraging that trend through their increasing tantrums every time a sentence is handed out with which they disagree, we could refer them to Mr McVicar for a damn good thrashing…
McVicars the only drop kick who will speak out against such transgressions thanks to his fort knox protected house, all lovingly paid for by supporters of SST. Sounds similar to someone else who preaches….
Bring back the death penalty I say.
Once more than 10 maori are hung/drawn/quartered, Turia and Sharples might walk the talk instead of blabbering on about shit.
McVicar will then have nothing to talk about – after all SST is all about “hang em high” policies to anything that involves biblical crimes.
Sit back, and watch crime rate drop accordingly. Turia will blame neoliberal post colonialism as a reason for maori getting hung, while conveniently ignoring the history of tribal warfare.
Even reinstating it for 2 years would be enough of a disincentive to not murder/rape/pillage/plunder. Bearing in mind that 98% of criminals caught in this country have a rap sheet longer than my arm, and are the ones who committed such atrocities.
But who can blame maori. They’re simply acting out their post colonialism tribal aggression.
BTW: Im fully aware of the fact that maori is a noun, I just choose not to give them capital status. Just Capital Punishment.
I’m all for harsher sentances, providing they are for crimes that have a real victim.
I’m sure if we got rid of our silly cannabis laws, the prison population would shrink, and we would have more room to keep the real bad bastards locked away, rather than someone who gets caught with a spliff.
I’m once again in agreement with MikeE. There’d be less people in prison if there weren’t so many pointless laws. We lock people away from society because they pose a risk to themselves. It’s patently absurd. Legalise it… all.
I’m addressing a conference on Restorative Justice next week (along with a whole lot of people with far more knowledge than I on the subject) and have been doing my level best to get an Aussie journo or two along. I’ve just got yet another “sorry, I’ve got better things to do” response. Yeah, like regurgitating press releases from the local equivalents of McVicar, for instance. *sigh*
Mike E, QtR: Instant fines for possession of small amounts of cannabis have been the policy in several Australian states for some time now. NSW has trialled a policy of issung Criminal Infringement Notices (on-the-spot fines) for minor offences such as offensive language, minor cases of common assault (pushing and shoving basically), obstructing traffic and first time shoplifting*.
This frees up police from paper work and helps unclog the courts and the offender doesn’t end up with a criminal record.
Predictably there’s an outcry as other states try to introduce a similar scheme, complaining we’re “going soft” on “crims”. *sigh*
* Only if it’s a first offence, the goods are worth less than $300 and the shopkeeper agrees.
People take him seriously because I think he had a family member that was a victim of a crime, and he was put through hell through the system and saw the system was set up to help the criminals and not the people who were victims.
Rex – We want it legalised. I don’t want to see some system of fines in place. It ought to be legal as should every other drug. One thing on that list: offensive language! I would hate to see the day you got a fine for offensive language. IMO there is no such fucking thing (libel is another matter). I don’t actually know what the laws are in New Zealand surrounding “offensive language” but I do recall being in a fairly inebriated state and telling a police officer using a few choice words what I thought of her profession and merely getting an indifferent response.
GC – I’ve always thought that and said so many times on this site. You may wish to disagree with the freedom of a person do with their own body what they wish, but it’s something I believe in. It’s also something MikeE coming from the opposite end of the economic/political spectrum as I agrees with. IMO P, heroin, cocaine, ecstasy,mescaline, LSD, BZP, PCP, DMT whatever it is if people want to take they shouldn’t be criminalised for it. You might find this site interest: Law enforcement against prohibition. It’s a more commonly held belief then you may think ginger.
PS – GC what’s wrong with a heroine.
HS – Go back to kiwiblog.
How about you just speak for yourself HS, unless they had a vote and named you chief bloviator.
They’ve pretty much legalised heroin in Switzerland, had a referendum, about 65 percent in favour. Hard core junkies can get their fix of uncut smack at the pharmacy. Heaps fewer needles lying around in parks and I hear about a third of the junkies on the deal have since quit their ten year plus habit. Funny that.
The war on drugs has been a miserable failure, though it’s funded lot’s of narco wars and given the CIA and other such high minded individuals decent funding for deniable adventure with excellent blowback opportunities going forward. So if you’re into that sort of terror and bullet in the back of the head hijnks, it’s not a complete loss. And it mostly only happens to the not white people and third world failed staters so meh, eh?
I don’t think its a commonly held belief. A wee few perhaps but I don’t see many asking the argument for legalising all drugs. There is certainly opinion around cannabis that i think is legitimate. But when not a single political party or even a minority of people talk of legalisation of all drugs, you can hardly call it a common held belief.
Now that is your opinion so your certainly entitled to it but I think its a poor argument to bring criminal numbers down.
—-
I’m still wondering why Jasper has not been banned. That was the most disgustingly racist thing I’ve ever read here.
GC – I didn’t say it was a commonly held belief I said it was a more commonly held belief than you may think and linked to that site to help my case. You may be surprised ginger, for example Pen and Teller. Here’s the show rather than me arguing the point with you and taking this thread further off topic.
Actually the call has been to de-criminalise (can’t spell!) marijuanna, which is not the same as legalise. Might give police more important things to worry about?
Ginger, why do you think it’s a poor argument re criminality?
For the sake of argument let’s posit that we legalise the lot, regulate suppliers similar to alcohol etc, and have quality controls so that users know what they are buying etc.
Way I see it, beyond the obvious fact that users and dealers would no longer be criminals, you’d also eliminate all the crime surrounding the market. Competitors in the alcohol business don’t tend to murder each other. Retailers only rarely find that their new supplier has sold them coloured water and shot through to Sydney or Jo-berg with a quarter million in cash, requiring the time consuming and dangerous task of locating and extracting the specialised, expensive, and not very nice debt recovery services available. Similarly Liquorland doesn’t feel the need to employ enforcers to beat the shit of slow paying creditors. Alcoholics seem to be able to find their fix cheaply enough and reliably enough that they don’t need to steal up to grand a week in widescreen TV’s and XBOX360’s to keep the DT’s at bay. There wouldn’t be millions locally and trillions globally floating around needing laundry services and payoffs to everyone from border officials and politicians to police, judges, bankers, lawyers and god knows who else. (disclaimer/sidetrack deflection – I’m not saying that outright corruption is a big problem in NZ, but I wouldn’t say it doesn’t exist, and those millions do get laundered somewhere).
Narcotics are estimated to be, I understand, right up there with oil and guns as the most traded things on the planet. The war on drugs just transfers all that cash to bad, bad men.
Do you disagree? What would you suggest we do to start ‘winning the war on drugs’, if you think that is possible?
Garth McVicar wouldn’t know, and neither would the ‘just say no’ crowd. They’re big criminal narco’s bff. Pump up the margins and pass the cut merchandise baby.
There has to be a better way to regulate than this surely? IMO etc.
GC – I haven’t been banned because while I was busy snorting coke, smoking marijuana and cooking P, I must have dazed off into a dreamland where I wished that my husband, neice, nephew, sister in law, mother in law and several cousins would all be goneburger.
Somehow my rant was only taken seriously by you. Are you one of the fawning masses who drool over McVicars every word too?
Tane – apologies if it came out as being moderately serious and not in the same style as a McVicar rant… I must have been slightly more coherent.
QtR – Fully agree. Legalise all dugs. Government gets revenue, stigma goes away, it’s no longer a “cool” drug to do as there’s no element in getting caught. Most drug takers only do it for the thrill.
Canberras decriminalisation has led to a massive drop in the number of people with MaryJane in that state alone.
The argument you make is a very good one. It makes sense on the pragmatic level you pitch it to. Yet I cannot help but still have reservations.
Where an act has a direct social dimension (eg murder or theft), we seem to have no problem enacting and enforcing laws against it.
By contrast where the direct victim of an act is also the perpetrator of it (eg drug use) enforcement becomes far more problematic. There is no doubt that drug abuse (and I include alcohol) carries an enormous indirect cost to society as a whole.
Let me try these numbers. Crime in NZ is estimated to cost about $8-10b pa. About 70% of that can be directly linked with alcohol abuse. Something like 30% of all accidents and medical costs are probably related to it, and I would suggest that lost workplace productivity and opportunities probably amount to at least 5% of GDP. Add all those up and alcohol abuse alone probably costs this country close to $20b pa. (Not to mention all the uncountable human misery. And if only we could invoice LiquorKing for this cost we might be able to afford some real tax cuts.)
We seem to happily accept the staggering social cost of alcohol abuse, while deploring (as we should) acts like murder, rape and child abuse that probably have a somewhat lessor total impact on society.
What drives this distinction? Why is it that we find crimes like murder relatively easy to reach a social consensus about (leaving aside the question of capital punishment for the moment), but twist ourselves in moral and intellectual knots over drug abuse?
Jasper:
That’s the downside of satire; sometimes it’s impossible to distinguish from reality.
I can’t see how legitimising the use of dangerous drugs as a good thing. In a commercial content arguably the drugs would be safer but they’re still dangerous and very open to abuse. That is one concern. Secondly, we know that by lowering the age of alcohol use there has been an increase in young people drinking and the health costs and criminal activity attached to that law change has increased. We know being liberal about alcohol laws means poorer areas see huge growth in liquor stores etc. In the legalisation of all drugs that same increase would be seen. And who would suffer more than others? Why the very people that are Labour’s core voters. They constantly vote Labour and the left That surely is a concern? Because you legalise drugs and the biggest increase would be the South Aucklands, the Aranuis of Christchurch etc etc.
Likewise, in legalising drugs you will see crime increase. The changes in liquor laws have seen more and more criminal offences by drunk people. That would also extend to drug users. You don’t think places that sell drugs won’t be targeted by criminals? I beg to differ. You’d also see a rapid rise in health costs as more and more people use drugs. See I don’t think legalising drugs will make less people use them I would think there would be a considerable increase in drug usage and there would thus, be an increase in health costs and criminal costs.
—-
Jasper I really don’t care if you were joking or not.I just saw what you wrote as racist, non-funny and offensive. I like some of what Garth McVicar has to say and I believe some of the things he does is in the interest for New Zealand and something that has a general concensus. I also think he goes way too far and often ignores white collar crime.
QtR: I agree fines are just a bloody nonsense for possession, and have nil value as a deterrent (which is presumably why they exist). I was just pointing out that even a small step in the right direction gets decried.
I also agree with you re legalising it all, for precisely the reasons so eloquently enumerated by Pascal’s bookie above.
Higher Standard: normally you talk sense, but before you start speaking for the entire medical profession have a word with some of your colleagues. I’d recommend starting with Andrew Byrne, an incredibly compassionate GP who’s become a specialist in addiction treatment. He’s seen the misery addiction can bring and is certainly no proponent of the “let’s legalise it so we can all party” POV (which I detect a slight whiff of from QtR… my apologies if I’ve read you wrong).
But Andrew and others who’ve worked with addicts (including, in a small way, myself) know full well that the intervention of some Plod with a charge sheet has never done anyone an ounce (pardon the pun) of good.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to see any drug (including alcohol) abused. But if GPs are still hanging their hat on prohibition as a prophylactic, then they need to do some professional development, urgently.
Red – But what is it you advocate – that we should prohibit alcohol? It seems to me that you’re the one tying yourself up in a moral knot. I’m certainly not in any. The point of our argument is that prohibition has been an absolute failure. We saw so plainly what a failure alcohol prohibition was in America (and interestingly enough in Russia) and I think it’s plainly obvious the immense failure of the global war on drugs fought since the early seventies. Drugs are easier to access and cheaper in the U.S. now than before the war began and I think it would be comparable worldwide. Calling for an end to prohibition is not in any way advocating drug use. Humans are always going to look to use psychoactives it’s just a plain fact of life. You can’t suppress it anymore than you can suppress sex.
Ginger – You give me one example where prohbition has actually led to a significant decrease in the rates of use. Then you’re argument will have some merit, but otherwise it doesn’t and I know of no instance where it has. I don’t think the argument that lots of people will start taking drugs if it was legal and crime would increase bears up to any scrutiny. Alcohol prohibition did nothing to use and crime increased as Al Capone and the like went on murdering sprees. The wiki article quotes the New York county lawyers association thusly:With aid of these distinctions, we see that present drug policy appears to contribute to the increase of violence in our communities. It does so by permitting and indeed, causing the drug trade to remain a lucrative source of economic opportunity for street dealers, drug kingpins and all those willing to engage in the often violent, illicit, black market trade.
Meanwhile, the effect of present policy serves to stigmatize and marginalize drug users, thereby inhibiting and undermining the efforts of many such individuals to remain or become productive, gainfully employed members of society. Furthermore, current policy has not only failed to provide adequate access to treatment for substance abuse, it has, in many ways, rendered the obtaining of such treatment, and of other medical services, more difficult and even dangerous to pursue. ‘
Rex – I’m not adverse to little smoke here and there, but I’m no party animal.
Give me evidence that legalising drugs somehow benefits society. Any legitimation of drug use will have problems and that you can’t see that I find dumbfounding.
Also I never actually said the prohibition of drugs cuts usage but I believe it has to be better than legitimising and legalising dangerous drugs.
As for your arguments about alcohol QtR yes making alcohol prohibited saw an increase in gangs etc but one thing you can’t deny. That the opening up and acceptance of alcohol and new liberal laws around alcohol sales etc. Has caused social issues, increases in admissions to hospitals etc and increases in crime.
—-
Are our current laws in terms of illegal drugs wrong? Possibly. But I don’t favour decriminalising anything other than cannabis and I frankly do not see the benefits of making current illegal drugs legal.
Personally I’m very liberal socially, and happy for people to do whatever they like as long as it doesnt have a real negative impact on the rights of others. But it is funny to see alcohol used as a justification for the legalisation of other drugs. We clearly need more of the problems that alcohol provides, though on the other hand prohibition is a clearly worse solution.
The damage caused to our society by alcohol abuse is far more widespread and expensive than any other drug – apologies for that sweeping statement to any individuals on the receiving end of any drug related trauma.
The solution is simple but unpalatable to most of our society. Decriminalise drugs, supply them legally, tax the hell out them, provide rehab services and have draconian penalties for possessors of unlicenced narcotics. Might as well raise some tax revenue from an inelastic commodity – it may help pay for the lost productivity, increased medical costs etc society as a whole incurs. And run the same sort of campaign against, dope, party pills, P etc that we now run against cigarettes.
Why are cigarettes unacceptable but dope, party pills aren’t? (Always amuses me when fussy, greenie, “natural is good” types take party pills – there’s consistency for you.) Cant understand the logic disconnect there. Oh, and minimum sentence of (pick a number greater than 1) years for anyone driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. I don’t want a doped up idiot running over my kids as they walk to school. Though if said doped up idiot stays in his bedroom eating pizza I don’t really care.
Garth McVictim is an absolute joke. My mind often wanders when I’m stuck on menial tasks at work, and I was thinking today about he really aught to fess up that the policies he advocates have been shown to increase crime, he really aught to be honest to people that hes willing to live in a more dangerous society, in return for getting a bit of revenge.
The others are right in identifying a significant racist element in his work, when Jack Nicholas was shot, in McVictims general area, that was a big turning point for the SST, they really used it to pump up their profile. This was all kind of based around the expectation \ assumption that the person who shot him would be a Maori growing a crop of dope on his land. Bit of a shock to McVictim when I turned out to be a white fella, but that’s the way the chips fall.
The other thing about drug prohibition that I don’t think has been covered here is the example of Vancouver’s safe injection site. Similar too other programs, clean gear provided, medical supervision ect (but drugs not supplied like some other places). Two benefits not really mentioned that have been seen in the Vancouver set up is it tends to have all the users in the near by area, while this is at the expense of that area, things are a lot better in the rest of the city for it.
It also takes drug use out of the shadows and provides much better access for medical and psychological treatment for the users. Many of which their drug use has gone well beyond about using or pleasure from a drug, its just pure addiction and dependence. The safe injection sites result in a much higher rate of getting people clean.
Red, I’m not suggesting that drug use is without cost. Why we tie ourselves in knots? I don’t know. But what is undeniable is that for a large number of humans, in pretty much any time and place you care to mention, ‘recreational’ drug use has been important to them, socially, spiritually and emotionally. I don’t think that is going to change. At present society offers only one legal drug. One that when abused makes people violent and dangerous. Much more so than many of the other drugs that are illegal. Ask cops about whether they feel safer visiting dance parties or pubs after 4AM. And where they make more arrests. P is a menace, it’s also a crap drug that’s easy to make and powerful. Black market mana.
gc
“legitimisation” is a red herring. People that want to take drugs, and that is a lot of people BTW, take them now. They are very widely available, through criminals who will sell them to anyone, restricted only by their personal sense of who they want to sell them to. These are the only people users can buy them off, they would far rather get better quality safer product at licensed dealers.
Most drug users manage fine. Alcohol is one of the most damaging personally and socially IMO, yet the biggest dealers of that drug are widely respected pillars of the community.
Think Douglas Myers, what is the difference between him and the guy selling Ecstasy tablets? Answer: The guy selling e’s is a criminal with fewer deaths on his hands (as a result of the product).
What we need to do is minimise the social harm done by drugs. Most of that harm is due to the criminality of the enterprise, and the fact that alcohol is legal. It still cracks me up that at events like the Gathering you used to get around ten thousand people camping out for 3 days, alcohol prohibited, a low police presence and trained folks on hand to look out for problems. Hardly a single problem with violence or non drug crime despite 95 percent of the punters being out of their gourds as much as they liked on pot, e, mushrooms, lsd etc. I guarantee if alcohol was involved there’d have been a lot more problems and a lot less fun. Down the road in Nelson there’d be a couple of hundred piss heads get together for one night at new years eve,- riots, dozens of arrests heaps of property damage etc and so on.
Given the choice, lots of the people that at the moment cause problems due to alcohol, (young males) would be using drugs that are less aggro, and don’t mess with your head in the same way that alcohol does.
One question:
Does anyone think the clever people at the big pharma companies would not be able to develop safer recreational drugs than those we use now, if the stigma was removed from the idea that using drugs to have fun is ‘wrong’ ?
Any rational reasons why that isn’t happening?
People get nervous about the idea of legalised drugs. Given the problems illegal drugs cause I find that ridiculous.
Ginger – I also see the issue as a wider issue than the pragmatic side, the social cost, the economic cost, etc of the drug war, I see it as a moral one in that I don’t think the government ought to control what we put into our own bodies. I think that is a basic point of difference between our views that is irreconcilable. Yes you are dumbfounding GC. The pragmatic side is obvious and you really can’t argue it, you don’t even bother. You yourself said you didn’t say that prohibition of drugs cuts usage. So what’s the point in prohibition then? Just an incredibly bizarre and expensive game. I think the best quote is from someone on the National research council in the U.S: “the drug war has no interest in its own results.” In countries with relatively liberal approach to drugs such as the Netherlands there is actually less drug use than other nations with harsher approach to drugs. Answer me this if cocaine was legalised tommorrow would you suddenly start snorting cocaine? I think your answer would be no and I think that answer is the same for most people. The argument that usage would actually increase with legalisation is just plain wrong. Drugs are already readily available and easy enough to acquire the people that want to take drugs do take drugs prohibtion or no prohibition. Also I believe that harm reduction can be much better achieved if the people we are trying to treat are not criminalised and the money saved on law enforcement and mass imprisonment was spent on healthcare and education. Your side of the argument is not only untenable from a moral perspective it’s untenable from a pragmatic perspective. Another interesting quote from that article, since I know you didn’t bother to read it. Martin Friedman said: “See, if you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That’s literally true.’
Also answer me this ginger Do you drink alcohol, smoke tobacco or drink coffee? If the answer is yes then you are a drug user. Did you know that when the U.S drew up its list of drugs to make illegal on such and such’s law (I can’t remeber the name), violating their own constitution, coffee was short listed, we’re just lucky that it wasn’t arbitrarily made illegal like so many other drugs, as the rest of the world followed America’s lead.
Give me evidence that legalising drugs somehow benefits society.
The vast – and I do mean vast – numbers of people who wouldn’t have been burgled, robbed at knife / gun / syringe point, mugged, car jacked, stood over for money and just plain stolen from (thought that’s mainly partners, friends and family, specially mums and dads – it’s the public who get the really nasty stuff committed upon them) by a junkie who needs to spend hundreds of dollars a day on a drug when decriminalising it would lower the price and make it affordable.
The kids of junkies who might get fed if mummy and / or daddy could afford a fix and food.
The medical staff, spcially at hospital A&Es, who wouldn’t have to deal with violent addicts withdrawing and demanding drugs they’re not legally allowed to prescribe and could get on with treating people who needed help (or, sadly, drunks who’d had too much and glassed one another, but that’s another story).
The cops who wouldn’t have 80% of their time taken up with the above.
It’s nigh on impossible to extract reliable drug-related crime data from the overall statistics – especially crimes not involving drugs, but committed to fund their purchase, because no one really collects it.
But spend a while in the “justice” system in any capacity at all, from judge to crim, and you’ll soon see the enormity of the crime committed to purchase illegal substances. Crime that would virtually vanish overnight if those substances were decriminalised and affordable.
It’s like Frank Gallgher says in the opening title sequence of the brilliant Shameless; “Make poverty history: cheaper drugs now” 😀 To which I’d add “And make most crime history too”.
ginger- the argument (interestingly, both sides argue from facts, not ideology) that we should decriminalise is based on the assumption that certain types of drugs are harmless enough that the black market that supplies them, and other trappings of criminalisation, such as ignoring drug addiction as a health problem both mental and physical, exceed the harm of simply letting people have the drug.
Most people with any slant on drug decriminalisation believe that cannabis is probably the best candidate, and certainly worth a try given the drug-related crime statistics in the only country that has to any degree decriminalised it. (Most of the incidents are foreigners who came to the country specifically to smoke, which seems to be evidence for decriminalisation.)
Would you agree for instance that removing penalties for possession only is likely to still allow police to go after people who really are abusing the system- like growers and dealers- without having to bust people for choosing to endanger people for their own health?
“I see it as a moral one in that I don’t think the government ought to control what we put into our own bodies”
And who’s responsibility is it for paying and cleaning up the mess resulting from what people put in their bodies ?
QTR your comments are the same sort of drive I used to spout decades ago before I grew up.
Rex
“The medical staff, spcially at hospital A&Es, who wouldn’t have to deal with violent addicts withdrawing and demanding drugs they’re not legally allowed to prescribe and could get on with treating people who needed help (or, sadly, drunks who’d had too much and glassed one another, but that’s another story).”
Rex addicts withdrawing and demanding drugs is more of a problem at secondary care level, the majority of drug/addiction problems in A&E is self harm or harm to others caused by the patients abuse of drugs (prescription and non prescription, legal and illegal)
McVicar may come across as a bit of a buffoon at times but he quite clearly represents the utter frustrations of a very significant proportion of the population who have suffered from crime and the justice system and who see massive flaws in it.
They won’t go away until things improve for them. And good on them quite frankly.
I don’t understand why some have a problem with their wailing at the politicians.
HS – Speaking on behalf of the galatic federation… You grew up HS but Noam Chomsky, Milton Friedman, those guys who signed the american constitution, all those classic liberalists like John Stuart Mill, Julian Critchley former head of the U.K’s anti-drug coordination unit, all the former and current law enforcement persons at LEAP, and so on and so forth.
All of them are immature young people and you are the wise old man isn’t that right HS. Two quotes for you the afformentioned Julian Critchley:I think what was truly depressing about my time in UKADCU was that the overwhelming majority of professionals I met, including those from the police, the health service, government and voluntary sectors held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those intelligent, knowledgeable people were forced to repeat the nonsensical mantra that the Government would be ‘tough on drugs’, even though they all knew that the Government’s policy was actually causing harm.
and Albert Einstein:The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this.
I didn’t know you were a member of the galactic federation.
QTR – I don’t think one needs to look past the effect of lowering the drinking age to see what the likely effects of across the board drug legalisation or decriminalisation would be. In terms of what I would consider one of the less harmful drugs that could be considered for decriminalisation have a look at the issues below.
“The Swiss Experiment: Tolerant drug policies in Switzerland have resulted in an influx of drug users. In 1987, the Swiss Government permitted drug use and sales in a part of Zurich called Platzspitz, or “Needle Park.’ By 1992, over 20,000 drug users congregated in the park, and the surrounding areas were overrun with crime. The park has been shut down and the experiment has been terminated.”
“The Canadian Experiment: The aggressive decriminalization effort in Canada has resulted in the highest levels of pot use in 25 years. The Canadian Government released a report indicating that marijuana usage had increased to the same levels as the late 1970’s. Kids were getting mixed messages about the dangers of marijuana during the 1990’s when the decriminalization discussion was going on. According to the November 24, 2004 Canada Addiction Survey, marijuana use among Canadians has doubled since 1994. A decade earlier, 7.4% of respondents indicated they had used marijuana; usage levels are currently 14%. The study also indicates that there has been an increase in the number of Canadians using an injectable drug: the number rose from 132,000 in 1994 to 269,000 in 2004.”
“In Ireland, the number of children treated for mental disorders caused by smoking cannabis has quadrupled since the government downgraded the legal status of the drug, according to an article in the Sunday Times (September 18, 2005). Addaction, an Irish drug charity, told the Times that “three months after police stopped arresting anyone found in possession of small amounts of the drug, the overall number of users treated for such conditions rose 42%.’
“Mayor of Maastricht Pushes Cannabis Cafes to Edge of City: According to a New York Times article (August 20, 2006), “The mayor (of Maastricht) wants to move most of the city’s 16 licensed cannabis clubs to the edge of town, preferably close to the border’ (with Belgium and Germany). Mayor Gerd Leers is reacting to growing concerns among residents who “complain of traffic problems, petty crime, loitering and public urination. There have been shootings between Balkan gangs. Maastricht’s small police force is already spending one-third of its time on drug-related problems.’ Cannabis clubs have drawn “pushers of hard drugs from Amsterdam, who often harass people on the streets.’ According to a police spokesman, the clubs have also attracted people looking to buy marijuana in quantity. Piet Tans, the police spokesman also stated that “People who come from far away don’t just come for the five grams you can buy legally over the counter They think pounds and kilos; they go to the dealers who operate in the shadows.’
Lynn apologies for the cut and pastes – linking not working for some reason.
HS – First of all the swiss experiment, only yesterday in the press they had an article on swiss voters Swiss voters have overwhelmingly approved a move to make permanent the country’s pioneering programme to give addicts government-authorised heroin.
It goes on to say:The heroin programme has helped eliminate scenes of large groups of drug users shooting up openly in parks that marred Swiss cities in the 1980s and 1990s, supporters say.
Second of all citing the Netherlands to defend your case is ridiculous. The Netherlands has a soft approach to natural drugs Cannabis, mushrooms, etc and the use rates of hard drugs are correspondingly lower than the rest of the EU and the use of Cannabis use is lower than countires with a much harsher approach to Cannabis like the U.S. Furthermore deaths from drugs are lower than other nations and the rates of AIDS due to intravenous drug use is also lower. That quote from the police woman could easily support an argument that Cannabis laws should be further liberalised in the Netherlands as people are going to criminals “who operate in the shadows” to buy large quantities instead of a shop.
Thirdly, the average consumption of alcohol in New Zealand is average on a world scale, we’re mormon tea drinkers comparable to some countries, wealthy european countries for instance.
Fourthly you’re all over the place with your Canadian example. Injectable drug use is up all over the world, the reason is Afghanistan. Also you give numbres not percentages so you’re not accounting for population increases. The Netherlands has a softer approach to Cannabis then canada and their rate of use is around 6%. The use of Cannabis in Canada is about the same as that in our country and as you say about the same as when the laws were harsher in the seventies which supports my view that prohibtion or legalisation will not really change the number of people doing drugs anymore than making sex illegal would have an effect on the number of people having sex.
Fiftly – In Ireland that is just as anyone supproting an end to prohibition would expect, that once the criminality of a drug is removed it would be easier for drugs users to seek treament. The quote from the New York county lawyers association I put in an earlier comment says that current policy has not only failed to provide adequate access to treatment for substance abuse, it has, in many ways, rendered the obtaining of such treatment, and of other medical services, more difficult and even dangerous to pursue. Furthermore Cannabis use in Ireland is relatively low less than half of what it is in this country.
Now what have you to say about my earlier comment are you still maintaining that all those people are immature and young?
Two things. If some form of decriminalisation occur, it is likely that the recorded incidence will rise as there is no reason to hide. Think of the apparent rise in recorded incidence of violent crime when publicity encouraged reporting of domestic violence. (sort of the same.) One small country with decriminalisation in some form is sure to attract a huge number of outsiders. If all countries were in, there would be no need for the congregation.
And the legal use of alcohol does not prevent problems arising from its use. But if alcohol was a banned substance I think the serious consequences would be even greater.
Your Einstein quote refers to the prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 20s – I can’t see it’s relevance in relation to your wish to make all drugs of abuse legal and I hardly think that’s what Einstein was suggesting when he made that statement.
Though one could argue that prohibition of a previously legal substance may cause major issues ……. although the prohibition on smoking in restaurants etc certinly hasn’t caused any great problems, so one could expect different issues dependent on what is prohibited and what restrictions are placed around drugs of abuse which is hardly surprising.
Secondly you seem now to be making the argument that we need legalisation of drugs of abuse so that we can make medical services and treatment to get people off the drugs of abuse more freely available – which is bordering on the non-sensical.
I doubt we’ll ever see eye to eye on this issue as my position will remain is that drugs of abuse are harmful and need to be treated and restricted as such whereas you appear to take the libertarian view….
“I see it as a moral one in that I don’t think the government ought to control what we put into our own bodies. I think that is a basic point of difference between our views that is irreconcilable.”
….having seen the damage caused by legal and illegal drugs of abuse I find I can’t agree with at all
Ianmac
I tend to agree with your position on total alcohol prohibition although it would never happen in NZ and we wouldn’t know unless we tried it. However what would be the effect of having a zero limit for drink driving with very harsh penalties – would it lead to a furthering lowering of alcohol related road fatalaties over the next decade.
HS – Well I see the alcohol prohibtion a perfect example of the failure of prohibition and the same things that went on with alcohol in America in the prohibition era is the same that goes on with other drugs now, that is poorly made drugs causing harm to users, bath tub gin in the days of prohibition, drug cartels controlling the market, we all know about the gangsters in the prohibiton days and we can see the drug cartels and gangs in action today. Remember all the while during prohibiton of alcohol cannabis was legal, opium was available in snake medicine and heroin was prescribed for sore throats. When many drugs that are illegal are more innocuous than alcohol your argument against prohibiton of them is hypocritical in the extreme if you are not calling for the prohbition of alcohol. You take issue with my Einstein quote fine, but what about the rest, are they all immature young people? You decided not to aruge any of the points I raised only the health issue. I make the argument against prohibition for many reasons not just that. Many people in law enforcement and health care have made the same argument that harm reduction can be much better achieved if prohibition was ended. You believe that the number of users would increase, I do not. You haven’t provided any examples to back up your argument. As I’ve said before those that want to use drugs or try them have or will, prohibition or no prohbition. The war on drugs has done nothing to the availability or cost of drugs, they’re now cheaper and more readily available then before the war on drugs. the only thing that would make your argument work is that if you could prove that prohibiton does anything to the number of people using and trying drugs and you can’t prove that. I asked ginger whether he’d start using drugs if they were legal I’ll ask yout he same question; If cocaine or heroin were legalised tommorow would you start using them? In conclusion your argument is indefensible from any moral or pragmatic level.
P.S. You’re a freedom hating wowser.
“In conclusion your argument is indefensible from any moral or pragmatic level.”
So your position is that it is both moral and pragmatic to legalise drugs – right then
“If cocaine and heroin were legal tomorrow would you start using them”
No,
“Many people in law enforcement and health care have made the same argument that harm reduction can be much better achieved if prohibition was ended. You believe that the number of users would increase, I do not. You haven’t provided any examples to back up your argument.”
I’m pretty much in total agreement with the comment the author makes…
“Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal; they are illegal because they are dangerous. A child who reaches age 21 without smoking, misusing alcohol, or using illegal drugs is virtually certain to never do so.Today, most children don’t use illicit drugs, but all of them, particularly the poorest, are vulnerable to misuse and addiction. Legalisation and decriminalisation—policies certain to increase illegal drug availability and use among our children—hardly qualify as public health approaches.”
There are also other links that argue for an end to prohibition so an interesting read form both perspectives as I have said previously my perspective is from that of someone who has to clean up the mess caused by drugs of abuse and as a parent who does not only want more restrictions placed on the availability of alcohol and tobacco but would exit NZ in an instant if the government moved to make currently illegal drugs legal as per your heroin and cocaine argument.
And in regards to being a freedom hating wowser – no not really I’m just not in favour of people killing themselves and others as a result of their abuse of legal and illegal drugs.
Wowser – Right, so I skimmed over you first link (bloody long) and found this in the conclusion:Decriminalisation measures in the U.S. and Australia were much less radical than their name implies. The new laws involved a change in penalties whereby cannabis possession offenders were no longer subject to potential jail terms, which had already been an uncommon sentence in most jurisdictions, as well as providing the opportunity for possession offenders to avoid a criminal conviction and the resultant problems. In both countries, these so-called decriminalisation laws did not appear to have had a major impact on rates of use, as many feared that it might have.
Tha’s what I’ve been saying laws or lack of will not change usage and if they don’t is there in any point in the whole war? I will read in more detail and check out the other link later.
Wowser – Your second article is by its own admission totally inconclusive. I simply don’t agree with the third article and many in the health profession and in law enforcement do not either. We could both sit here and cherry pick others’ opinions forever if we wish. Back to the first article I think it proves my point that liberalisation even if it’s just a small move like decriminalisation does not do anything to the number of users and that criminalisation is no deterrent and has had no effect on the number of users. The people that want to use drugs do and those that don’t don’t and the changing the laws won’t change that fact. From the article: The presumed benefit of the criminalisation of cannabis possession is the deterrence of cannabis use. There is, however, little evidence of a strong deterrent effect. Substantial increases in marijuana use occurred in the 1960s and 1970s despite the application of criminal penalties for cannabis possession both in the U.S. (7, 23, 44) and in Australia (17). These trends in cannabis use do not constitute conclusive evidence regarding the lack of a deterrent effect, as it is not known whether rates of use might have increased even more if cannabis possession had not been prohibited. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that nonusers rarely cite fear of legal consequences as a reason for their nonuse (34, 44). Rather, the simple lack of interest or fear of adverse health consequences are the most commonly given reasons for abstention from cannabis use
The available data indicate that these decriminalisation measures substantially reduced enforcement costs, yet had little or no impact on rates of use.
Changes in rates of use appear to be more strongly connected with changing perceptions of health risks rather than availability or any changes in the legal status of the drug.
Cannabis use is very popular, being by far the most widely used illicit drug in both countries. The cannabis market has been described in the U.S. as being “near-saturation” (23) and this would probably also apply to Australia as well.
Under these circumstances, it should not be surprising that the reduction of penalties for cannabis possession to a fine only did not lead to significant changes in rates of cannabis use.
Am I to take it that you are now in favour of decriminalisation?
No I’m not in favour of decriminalisation I merely stated that it’s the lesser of two evils.
Are you now in favour of only decriminalising cannabis or are you still wishing to legalise all drugs of abuse ?
I would also point to an rather obvious point that appears lost on you – make something easier and cheaper to obtain, and you increase the number of people who will try it.
If we have indeed got saturation usage of cannabis this may not be the case with this drug of abuse, but to extrapolate that to other drugs of abuse or new drugs of abuse is foolhardy.
We know that keeping an activity illegal deters many people from taking part in that activity. Remove the penalties or sanctions, and many more people will take up the activity.
We can learn from history here. After Europe imposed the opium trade on China in the mid-19th century, by 1900 there were an estimated 90 million opium addicts in the nation. When British physicians could write prescriptions for heroin in the 60s, the nation’s junkies increased thirty to forty-fold.
HS – No I still support legalisation. We know that keeping an activity illegal deters many people from taking part in that activity. Remove the penalties or sanctions, and many more people will take up the activity.
Now you’re just making blind assertions. The article you linked to on Cannabis decriminalisation comes to the exact opposite conclusion:Changes in rates of use appear to be more strongly connected with changing perceptions of health risks rather than availability or any changes in the legal status of the drug.
You said: I would also point to an rather obvious point that appears lost on you – make something easier and cheaper to obtain, and you increase the number of people who will try it. It is not an obvious point. I would say it is false. As I asked you if you’d start taking heroin or cocaine if they were legal and you said you would not. My point as I have made many times is that drugs are easy to acquire, available in abundance and relatively cheap and those that want to try them do regardless of the laws. I’ve made this point: the war on drugs has done nothing to the availability or cost of drugs, they’re now cheaper and more readily available then before the war on drugs. It’s you who doesn’t seem to get the point that after years of mass imprisonment, executions, spraying of vast swathes of land, many deaths on both sides law enforcement and criminal absolutely nothing has been achieved by the drug war. Nothing. And as I said drugs are actaully cheaper and more readily available then when the war started. I think the quote I put in an earlier comment sums it up best: “the drug war has no interest in its own results.’
As to your spurious comments about heroin in Britain, I have no doubt that you have absolutely no understanding of the situaiton. Your numbers are way over the top. First of all British physicians could write prescriptions for heroin since the twenties to help addicts so your claim is laughable. The laws actually became harder in the 60s and seventies in Britain surrounding many drugs. Now there was an increase in heroin users in the sixties, I’ll allow you to draw own conclusion on the fact that when the approach to drugs became harsher use increased. There is a long article here about supplying heroin legally to addicts.
Here are some quotes from it: Bv 1924, when the Rolleston committee met, the disastrous effects of the United States decision to refuse legal opium, morphine, and heroin to addicts were conspicuously visible. Dr. Harry Campbell came to the United States in 1922 to observe what had been happening during seven years of enforcement of the Harrison Act. What he saw flabbergasted him. Upon his return to England he informed his medical colleagues of the astonishing conditions he had observed: … In consequence of this stringent law a vast clandestine commerce in narcotics has grown tip in that country. The small bulk of these drugs renders the evasion of the law comparatively easv, and the country is overrun by an army of peddlers who extort exorbitant prices from their helpless victims. It appears that not only has the Harrison Law failed to diminish the number of drug takers-some contend, indeed, that it has increased their numbers-btal far from bettering the lot of the opiate addict, it has actually worsened it; for without curtailing the supply of the drug it has sent the price up tenfold, and this has had the effect of impoverishing the poorer class of addicts and reducing them to a condition of such abject misery as to render them incapable of gaining an honest livelihood.
And the sixties:In short, Britain had begun to adopt American antidrug propaganda methods, and was beginning to reap Americanstyle rewards in terms of a rise in youthful addiction.
I still can’t understand your ket reason for making substances that are harmful to oneself and society legal perhaps you should list your rationale again.
But to cover some further points.
“We know that keeping an activity illegal deters many people from taking part in that activity. Remove the penalties or sanctions, and many more people will take up the activity.Now you’re just making blind assertions.”
Nope
During Prohibition in America, consumption of alcohol declined substantially, as did the cirrhosis death rate for men (cut by two-thirds between 1911 and 1929), and arrests for public drunkenness (dropped 50 per cent between 1919 and 1922).
When Muslim societies removed restrictions on hashish in the 15th century, it is said that this resulted in “a large number of people from all walks of life [being] in a constant state of intoxication’.
Some advocates of legalisation claim that such a move will reduce drug-associated crime. Even if we assume that lower prices will cause addicts to commit fewer offences, there is a very real possibility that this will be offset by the general crime increase associated with the increase in users.
Any health professional or police officer will tell you that a person on drugs will be more likely to neglect a child, abuse a spouse or take a life. It’s not just that people do bad things to get drugs; drugs make them do bad things.
Consider some statistics:
-A 1991 US federal survey found that a majority of those arrested in 24 cities for robbery, assault, burglary and homicide tested positive for drugs.
-In New York in 1987, 73 per cent of child abuse cases involved parental drug abuse.
-A 1994 study of 31,000 abused and neglected children in Cook County, Illinois found that more that 80 per cent of the cases involved drugs.
-A 1992 study of NSW inmates found that 67 per cent of prisoners had been on drugs while committing the crime they were imprisoned for.
Also, cheaper drugs do not necessarily mean less crime. When inexpensive crack cocaine flooded America in the early 1980s, the rate of addiction soared, as did crime rates. Indeed, police noted that wherever drugs were the cheapest, crime rates were the highest.
Some would argue that we’re fighting a losing battle but consider that several decades ago around 60% of all adults and young people smoked cigarettes. But now, due to education, health warnings, and government restrictions, that figure is declining as is well below 20 per cent. Social trends can be reversed.
By declaring certain things illegal, the law sends out a moral message that such activities are wrong and to be avoided. Correspondingly, to legalise a previously illegal activity sends the signal, especially to our young people, that such an activity is now morally acceptable. What society was once seen to disapprove of it is now seen to endorse.
HS – You don’t give up do you. I will have the last word no matter how many days it takes. Each time you come up with some bullshit I debunk it and you don’t even bother to defend it you just divert to some new erroneous claims. The heroin supply to addicts was a case in point, you were clearly bested when I pointed out to you that heroin was supplyed by those in the medical profession since at least the twenties and probably well before that. Furthermore there was the own goal with the link on Cannabis decriminlisation which further strengthed my case (I don’t think you even read it). Now you’ve come out with another clearly mistaken claim about alcohol prohibition. You clearly don’t look or don’t wish to look at the evidence.. At the beggining of alcohol prohibtion use went down, but as soon as the bootleggers and rum runners got into business it soon went back to normal. Also you must remember that prohibition was hardly enforced in much of America for obvious reasons. From the drug library alcohol section: In discussing the relative successes and failures of Prohibition, most observers conclude that the undertaking failed.
Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became “organized”; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism.
Although some view the theory of prohibition as reasonable, it is generally conceded that the realities of manufacture and distribution make it unworkable, for in one form or another, alcohol can be easily produced by farmers, high school chemistry students, and ordinary citizens.
The per capita rate for the Prohibition years is computed to be 1.63 proof gallons. This is 11.64% higher than the Pre-Prohibition rate (Tillitt, 1932: 35). Based on these figures one observer concluded: “And so the drinking which was, in theory, to have been decreased to the vanishing point by Prohibition has, in fact, increased
The trend of death from alcoholism reflects hardly anything else than progress in the treatment of the so-called diseases of chronic alcoholism. Nevertheless, statistics of death from alcoholism have been used by both Drys and Wets to prove that Prohibition or repeal has greatly improved the rate of death from alcoholism. . . . Death from alcoholism is simply not an index of the prevalence of inebriety. Death from alcoholism could fall to zero in response to medical progress, while at the same time the rate of inebriety might rise many fold (Jellinek, 1947: 39).
“In making out death certificates (which are basic to Census Reports) private or family physicians commonly avoid entry of alcoholism as a cause of death whenever possible. This practice was more prevalent under the National Dry Law than it was in preprohibition time” (Tillitt, 1932: 114-115).
Nevertheless, gross statistics drawn from 383 cities indicate that arrests for drunkenness per 10,000 population reached a high of 192 in 1916 and fell to 71 in 1920. From this level, they rose steadily again to reach 157 in 1928 (Warburton, 1932: 102). Of course, arrests prior to Prohibition may not bear the same relation to the use of alcohol as they did subsequently, Warburton theorizes:
. . . [U]nder Prohibition, especially during the early years, police were more strict in making arrests, and . . . a larger proportion than formerly of persons appearing on the streets under the influence of liquor are arrested. Also, since the sale of liquor is illegal and cannot be obtained in public saloons, and when the police are more strict in arresting intoxicated persons, it is reasonable to suppose that drinking is less public and that fewer drunken persons appear on the streets relative to the quantity of liquor consumed (Warburton, 1932: 103).
You’ve also got to ask yourself why there was such a clamour for the repeal of prohibition if it was as in your eyes so successful. Are you advocating alcohol prohibtion?
I’m not arguing with you about the harm that drugs can cause. I’m arguing that prohibition achieves nothing and harm reduction can be better achieved where prohibition is ended.
P.S. 15th century muslim societies you’re clutching at fucking straws there.
I’m surprised what with hs being a Doctor that teaches at the Uni and all. It’s really not hard to use some quote marks and say “as Bill Muehlenberg said…” HigherStandards aren’t what they used to be.
A few questions I’ve not seen you answer there doc:
Do you think the ‘war on drugs’ approach is actually working?
Are you happy with the current state of affairs re the effects of drugs on society, locally or globally?
How could we make the ‘war’ more effective?
Most importantly, please answer this one because it’s destroying whole nations in S. America and other places (Russia and Mexico not the least):
Do you think it best that the at least hundreds of billions of dollars spent globally on drugs currently go exclusively to criminals and terrorists who foster corruption and outright warfare to protect that income? How do you plan on stopping that hs? It’s only been getting worse for decades. (hint: getting consumers to ‘just say no’ is the current plan = epic fail)
Because if you can’t answer that question, you are ignoring the costs of prohibition and your analysis is not worth anything because it only looks at the benefits. (hint: getting consumers to ‘just say no’ is the current plan = epic fail)
Would it not be smarter to take the successful approach we have used with tobacco instead, with taxing it and having state funded education and support?
You can say that the state does offer such support now, but it is compromised by the fact the people most in need of it, fear legal sanctions, and that much of the information is propagandistic nonsense (‘drugs of abuse’ indeed) that users find to be completely separate from their own personal experiences.
“I’m not arguing with you about the harm that drugs can cause. I’m arguing that prohibition achieves nothing and harm reduction can be better achieved where prohibition is ended.”
Nice to see that you’ve amended your argument from where you were originally position…
“Rex – We want it legalised. I don’t want to see some system of fines in place. It ought to be legal as should every other drug.”
and
“You may wish to disagree with the freedom of a person do with their own body what they wish, but it’s something I believe in. It’s also something MikeE coming from the opposite end of the economic/political spectrum as I agrees with. IMO P, heroin, cocaine, ecstasy,mescaline, LSD, BZP, PCP, DMT whatever it is if people want to take they shouldn’t be criminalised for it. ”
Now there can be no doubt that your comment that prohibition achieves nothing is patently absurd when if prohibition wasn’t in place all those substances would be freely available to NZers to experiment and possibly become addicted to and become a considerable burden on and potential harm to society.
In terms of harm reduction being better achieved when prohibition is ended it would be interesting to see the relative numbers of persons seeking assistance with their addictions because of the criminal justice system or of their own free will.
PB
Do you think the ‘war on drugs’ approach is actually working?
With some drugs and in certain countries Yes in others No
Are you happy with the current state of affairs re the effects of drugs on society, locally or globally?
No
How could we make the ‘war’ more effective?
How about the death penalty for manufacture and supply ?
I also find the example of tobacco to be odd…….. the suggestion would involve legalising and making more freely available harmful substances so we can then embark on a major campaign to educate people against using them .
Dude, drugs are freely available now.And they are cut with all sorts of crap. It’s easier for kids to get P or pot than vodka. Why is that do you think?
With some drugs and in certain countries Yes in others No
cop out
How about the death penalty for manufacture and supply ?
Really? But not for anyone you know or their families aye? Oh no, it would be probably. No worries, you’ll pull the switch right?
HS – How have I amended my argument? I haven’t. My position is the same as it always has been. All drugs should be legal. All I said was I’m not arguing about the harm they cause becasue I know they cause harm and you can spout statistics till you’re blue in the face. I’m saying prohibition isn’t doing a damn thing to reduce that harm all it’s doing is putting profits into the hands of gangs, drug cartels and terrorists, criminalising people that shouldn’t be, killing innocent people, and costing an immense amount of money. The drug war is absurd in the extreme. As PB points out and as I’ve said many times drugs are readily available and easily acquirable, prohibition has achieved nothing. The burden of proof is on you to show that it has and as yet you haven’t come up with anything that isn’t refutable.
“Drugs are freely available now” ……….. ah no they’re not
“With some drugs and in certain countries Yes in others No”
“As PB points out and as I’ve said many times drugs are readily available and easily acquirable, prohibition has achieved nothing.”
So you are now arguing that the legalisation of all those drugs you listed (including heroin, cocaine, ecstasy,mescaline, LSD, BZP, PCP, DMT whatever) would not make them more easily acquirable what utter piffle.
And with all due respect it is you who is arguing for a change to current law therefore it is for you to provide the burden of proof that legalisation will improve the drug problem. My opposition is the same as that of retired District Court judge Kenneth Gee QC “Legalisation is really a counsel of despair, almost irreversible once embarked upon. It should not be tried. It will not work.’
HS – I’ve come out with lots of facts to show that prohbition has been a complete failure. Read through my comments. You have yet to come up with one that I can not rebuke. Look at your little quote. Remember mine from Julian Critchley former head of the U.K’s anti-drug coordination unit:I think what was truly depressing about my time in UKADCU was that the overwhelming majority of professionals I met, including those from the police, the health service, government and voluntary sectors held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those intelligent, knowledgeable people were forced to repeat the nonsensical mantra that the Government would be ‘tough on drugs’, even though they all knew that the Government’s policy was actually causing harm.
Here are some quotes from LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition:
District Court Judge Whitman Knapp: After 20 years on the bench I have concluded that federal drug laws are a disaster. It is time to get the government out of drug enforcement.
Retired Chief of Police Bob Owens: This country is long overdue in recognizing that not only have we lost the “war” on drugs but we have squandered billions of dollars and untold numbers of lives addressing a medical and societal problem using the criminal law
Former Vancouver Police Officer Gilbert William Harold Puder: My belief that the war on drugs must end arises from the damage being done to both policing and the society it serves. The tactics, weaponry, and propaganda of our 20th Century narcotic prohibition have been borrowed from a Western military model, yet in their misguided application have generated nothing other than systemic conflict that has overwhelmed our justice and health care systems. Being a frontline police officer, I am deeply troubled by any example of counterproductive law enforcement. Talented officers diligently perform what many honestly believe to be their duty, placing themselves and others in harm’s way to intervene in matters of personal choice. Unwittingly, however, this merely raises the stakes in a game where criminal cartels meet the demand that our forefathers rather arbitrarily declared to be illegitimate. And while we attempt the impossible with increasingly limited resources, elected officials abdicate responsibility for legislation needed to reduce the harm to society. In a pointless civil war at the turn of the millenium, we need to, “unlearn the habits we have taught ourselves, or we shall not survive.” Rather than assigning victory or defeat, Canadians must fundamentally change the strategies of several interwoven social institutions, policing being the keystone among them.
Judge Eleanor Levingston Schockett: I retired from the circuit bench Dec.31, 2002. (I served two six-year terms). I was referred to this organization by John Chase of the November organization. My interest in this subject dates back to 1958 when I wrote my senior paper at Tulane Law School on the administration of the drug laws in the United States. Matters have only gotten worse in the intervening years as I observed when in the Criminal Division of the Court. The main reason I did not take senior judge status is that I wanted to have my civil rights back, so I could speak out on political as well as judicial issues. I am in full agreement with your mission statement and would like to do whatever I can to contribute to a more responsible drug policy.
There’s an article from her here when she came to NZ.
The Alaskans who vote for Sarah Palin as governor? The women who didn’t know Africa was a continent. It doesn’t surprise me that they wouldn’t vote for socially responsible legislation. I have given you lots of facts to debunk your claims not just quotes. That recent comment was just to show you that I can play the quote game too. Except that I can acutally link to the quotes so that you can verify them. And furthermore I haven’t been plagarising like you, as PB found out. You won’t watch the videos because you can’t handel the opposing argument can you because let’s face HS you’re not the sharpest knife in the drawer. You provide one peice of solid evidence to the success of prohibition and I’ll shut up and leave this thread alone. Otherwise I’ll continue t debunk your claims and show you up as the ignorant fool that you are. I think the hypocrisy and contradictions that riddle your mind and those of other conservatives are subject to a wall of cognitive impenetrability because you can’t seem to accept reality. Here are some more facts for you from Drug war facts (they’re for the U.S.): It is important to note that each of the most violent episodes in this century coincide with the prohibition on alcohol and the escalation of the modern-day war on drugs. In 1933 the homicide rate peaked at 9.7 per 100,000 people, which was the year that alcohol prohibition was finally repealed. In 1980, the homicide rate peaked again at 10 per 100,000.
Of the 1,841,182 arrests for drug law violations in 2007, 82.5% (1,518,975) were for possession of a controlled substance. Only 17.5% (322,207) were for the sale or manufacture of a drug.
Although people may think that the Drug War targets drug smugglers and ‘King Pins,’ in 2007, 47.4 percent of the 1,841,182 total arrests for drug abuse violations were for marijuana — a total of 872,720. Of those, 775,137 people were arrested for marijuana possession alone. By contrast in 2000 a total of 734,497 Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses, of which 646,042 were for possession alone.
“There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.” Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr., “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base,” Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999).
“In 2003, a total of 20,687 persons died of alcohol-induced causes in the United States (Tables 23 and 24). The category ‘alcohol-induced causes’ includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of alcohol, but also accidental poisoning by alcohol. It excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to alcohol use as well as deaths due to fetal alcohol syndrome.” Source: Hoyert, Donna L., PhD, Heron, Melonie P., PhD, Murphy, Sherry L., BS, Kung, Hsiang-Ching, PhD; Division of Vital Statistics, “Deaths: Final Data for 2003,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 54, No. 13 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, April 19, 2006), p. 10.
“Tetrahydrocannabinol is a very safe drug. Laboratory animals (rats, mice, dogs, monkeys) can tolerate doses of up to 1,000 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram). This would be equivalent to a 70 kg person swallowing 70 grams of the drug—about 5,000 times more than is required to produce a high. Despite the widespread illicit use of cannabis there are very few if any instances of people dying from an overdose. In Britain, official government statistics listed five deaths from cannabis in the period 1993-1995 but on closer examination these proved to have been deaths due to inhalation of vomit that could not be directly attributed to cannabis (House of Lords Report, 1998). By comparison with other commonly used recreational drugs these statistics are impressive.” Source: Iversen, Leslie L., PhD, FRS, “The Science of Marijuana” (London, England: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 178, citing House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology, “Cannabis — The Scientific and Medical Evidence” (London, England: The Stationery Office, Parliament, 1998).
“There were 2.4 drug-related deaths per million inhabitants in the Netherlands in 1995. In France this figure was 9.5, in Germany 20, in Sweden 23.5 and in Spain 27.1. According to the 1995 report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in Lisbon, the Dutch figures are the lowest in Europe. The Dutch AIDS prevention programme was equally successful. Europe-wide, an average of 39.2% of AIDS victims are intravenous drug-users. In the Netherlands, this percentage is as low as 10.5%.”
An estimated 112,085,000 Americans aged 12 or over (46.1% of the US population aged 12 and over) report having used an illicit drug at least once in their lifetimes.
“Overall, it is important to note that supply reduction — that is, reducing the availability of drugs — does not appear to have played as major a role as many had assumed in three of the most important downturns in illicit drug use that have occurred to date, namely, those for marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy (see Figures 8-4, 8-5, and 8-6). In the case of cocaine, perceived availability actually rose during much of the period of the downturn in use. (These data are corroborated by data from the Drug Enforcement Administration on trends in the price and purity of cocaine on the streets.) In the case of marijuana, perceived availability has remained very high for 12th graders over the past 31 years, while use dropped substantially from 1979 through 1992. Perceived availability for ecstasy did increase in association with its increasing use in the 1990s, but the decline phase for use appears to have been driven much more by changing beliefs about the dangers of ecstasy than by any sharp downturn in availability. Similarly, amphetamine use declined appreciably from 1981 to 1992, with only a modest corresponding change in perceived availability. Finally, until 1995, heroin use had not risen among 12th graders even though availability had increased substantially.”
Interdiction efforts intercept 10-15% of the heroin and 30% of the cocaine. Drug traffickers earn gross profit margins of up to 300%. At least 75% of international drug shipments would need to be intercepted to substantially reduce the profitability of drug trafficking.
To achieve a one percent reduction in U.S. cocaine consumption, the United States could spend an additional $34 million on drug treatment programs, or 23 times as much — $783 million — on efforts to eradicate the supply at the source.
“Despite 2 years of extensive herbicide spraying [source country eradication], U.S. estimates show there has not been any net reduction in [Colombian] coca cultivation – net coca cultivation actually increased 50 percent.”
“The long-run elasticities provide a basis for estimating potential benefits from changing the current policy mix away from enforcement and interdiction and towards education and treatment. Applying the estimated coefficients, a 10 percent reduction in expenditures on enforcement (about 1 billion dollars by the late 1990s) would be associated with a long-run reduction of over 20% in both the number of deaths and the age-adjusted death rate. This would imply that close to 3,000 deaths a year might be avoided with a shift away from enforcement approaches to drug control. Adding the billion dollars to education and treatment would represent an 18% increase in 1998. The estimated elasticity of 1.59 implies a reduction of close to 5,000 drug-induced deaths per year as a result. Thus, the underlying estimates suggest that very substantial improvements in public health may be achieved by emphasizing education and treatment over enforcement and interdiction.”
A study by the RAND Corporation found that every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers $7.46 in societal costs.
The RAND Corporation study found that additional domestic law enforcement efforts cost 15 times as much as treatment to achieve the same reduction in societal costs.
Many thanks for my turn – it will be my last, but feel free to respond and let’s just accept that neither of us are likely to change our position.
Let me restate why I am against legalisation of any and all drugs – or as you put it “IMO P, heroin, cocaine, ecstasy,mescaline, LSD, BZP, PCP, DMT whatever it is if people want to take they shouldn’t be criminalised for it.
and
” We want it legalised. I don’t want to see some system of fines in place. It ought to be legal as should every other drug.”
and
” One thing on that list: offensive language! I would hate to see the day you got a fine for offensive language. IMO there is no such fucking thing (libel is another matter). I don’t actually know what the laws are in New Zealand surrounding “offensive language’ but I do recall being in a fairly inebriated state and telling a police officer using a few choice words what I thought of her profession and merely getting an indifferent response.”
oops discussion for another day perhaps, however I must admit to being quite prepared to tell kids off for f-ing and c-ing at each other and adults.
Back to my point I am against legalisation for the following reasons
1. This drugs cause harm to the individual taking them (some more than others obviously) – I think we are agreed on this point.
2. People under the influence of these drugs may cause harm to themselves, others and property.
3. Those likely to be at the highest risk of experimenting with these drugs are likely to be the younger members of society.
4. Many of these drugs are addictive.
5. Society is expected to clean up any attendant mess cause to or by individuals taking drugs.
6. Legalisation of the currently illegal drugs clearly sends a message normalising their use.
7. Legalisation and normalisation of any previously prohibited activity has tended to increase usage while restriction and prohibition have tended to have a reverse effect – (put another way make it easier to access and more people are likely to try it especially the youth – as a rather obtuse example imaging remving the speed limit how many (more) young men would be tempted to travel down the motorway at 200kmph)
8. Legalisation in NZ would lead to a influx of for want of a better word “scum” of all sorts.
As a discussion piece read the article below which ended with the comment..
“I would not be proud if we were to be seen by our neighbors as a narco-state,” says the Public Health Ministry’s Dr. Bunning. “We don’t want people to come here just to gawk at the girls in the windows and get stoned. We have a culture and a history of which we are proud.”
He sighs. “With drugs we are in the realm of theory. There is no simple solution to the drug problem. No one nation, not the U.S., not England, has the answer. But our solution in Holland is not ideal either.”
As below……
“The revised Dutch drug policy was based on Parliament’s 1976 acceptance of the recommendation of a commission headed by Pieter A. H. Baan, a psychiatrist and expert in rehabilitating drug addicts who was serving at the time in the Dutch Office of Mental Health. The Baan Commission’s report proposed distinguishing between so-called List One drugs-those that present “an unacceptable risk ( heroin, cocaine and LSD )”–and List Two drugs–cannabis products, such as hashish and marijuana–seen as less dangerous and “softer.” Essentially, Parliament depenalized the possession of 30 grams of marijuana or hashish–enough, the legislators calculated, to meet an average smoker’s needs for three months. At the same time, the parliamentarians vowed to continue the fight against both domestic and international trafficking in the more dangerous List One drugs.
Shortly after accepting the commissions primary recommendation, Parliament went a step further by authorizing the commercialization of cannabis products through their open sale in a network of licensed coffee shops. Those shops were subject to a number of legal constraints: they were not allowed to sell more than 30 grams to a customer; no hard drugs were to be sold on their premises; and they were neither to advertise, sell to minors, nor operate within 500 meters of a school. Out of respect for Holland’s international treaty obligations, the import, export, production, or sale of cannabis products outside the coffee shops remained illegal.
At the time the Baan Commission report was adopted, Holland had what was considered a serious heroin addiction problem, albeit one roughly comparable to that of its European neighbors. The nation was relatively untroubled by major international drug traffickers, with the exception of a number of Chinese “triads” ( gangs ) whose trafficking was pretty much confined to the Dutch marketplace. ”
How has that situation changed today? First and most revealing, Holland ( in the words of senior customs and police officers in the United Kingdom, France, and Belgium ) has become ‘the drugs capital of western Europe”–and not just of those soft drugs depenalized by the Dutch Parliament but also of hard drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and now ecstasy.
Britain’s Customs and Excise Department figures that 80 percent of the heroin seized in the United Kingdom either passed through or was temporarily warehoused in Holland. The Paris police estimate that 80 percent of the heroin consumed in the French capital comes from Holland. The forthcoming 1998 figures for France’s Central Office for the Repression of the Illegal Traffic in Drugs will, one of the organizations senior officers says, show “an explosion” of drugs coming into France from the Netherlands.
Worse, the greatest drug problem facing European youth today comes from synthetic drugs like ecstasy and amphetamines that have spread across Europe like a virus since they were first introduced in Holland in 1987. British police estimate that a million of these pills are swallowed every weekend in British discos and clubs. Overwhelmingly, these synthetic drugs are coming from and being made in Holland. British customs states that virtually all the pills seized in the United Kingdom last year were manufactured in Holland or Belgium. Ninety-eight percent of the amphetamines seized in France in 1997 came from Holland, as did 73.6 percent of the ecstasy tablets. During an official briefing last summer, a senior Dutch police officer admitted to former General Barry McCaffrey, the U.S. drug-policy czar, that “Holland is to synthetic drugs what Colombia is to cocaine.”
Holland’s emergence as the drug capital of Europe is not due solely to the decision by the Dutch government to commercialize the sale of cannabis products in the nation’s now-famous coffee shops. But many Europeans believe it is the consequence of the tolerant attitude toward drugs that grew out of that policy. That attitude, defined by Dutch foes of the policy as the “coffee-shop mentality,” now permeates Holland’s criminal justice system.
“If you want to do drugs, Holland is the place to do them,” notes one of France’s top drug police officers. “The light sentences they hand out [and] the liberal attitude of their judges has resulted in an explosion in the number of international trafficking groups operating out of Holland.”
As the coffee shops boomed between 1984 and 1996, marijuana use among Dutch youths aged 18 to 25 leapt by well over 200 percent. In 1997, there was a 25 percent increase in the number of registered cannabis addicts receiving treatment for their habit, as compared to a mere 3 percent rise in cases of alcohol abuse. In 1995, public Ministry of Justice studies estimated that 700,000 to 750,000 of Holland’s 15 million people–about 5 percent of the population–were regular cannabis users. A much more recent study just completed by Professor Pieter Cohen of the University of Amsterdam disputes those figures, claiming that only 325,000 to 350,000 Dutch men and women are regular cannabis users. Unfortunately, however, his survey discovered that those smokers are particularly concentrated among the young in densely populated areas of Amsterdam, Utrecht, and Rotterdam. In the last three to four years, these same areas have witnessed a skyrocketing growth in juvenile crime and the number of youths involved in acts of violence associated by many Dutch law-enforcement officers with the abuse of “soft” drugs. With remarkable candor, Amsterdam Police Commissioner Jelle Kuiper declared more than 18 months ago, “As long as our political class tries to pretend that soft drugs do not create dependence, we are going to go on being confronted daily with problems that officially do not exist. We are aware of an enormous number of young people strongly dependent on soft drugs, with all the consequences that has.” A few months later, his counterpart in The Hague, the de facto Dutch capital, echoed his views: ‘Sixty-five percent of the persistent rise we are seeing in criminality is due to juveniles and above all juvenile drug users.”
Today, according to Holland’s “grass guru,” Professor Adrian Jansen of the Economics Faculty of the University of Amsterdam, the annual Nederwiet harvest is a staggering 100 tons a year, almost all grown illegally. And it does not stay in the Netherlands. Perhaps as much as 65 tons of pot is exported–equally illegally–to Holland’s neighbors. Holland now rivals Morocco as the principal source of European marijuana. By the Dutch Ministry of Justice’s own estimates, the Nederwiet industry employs 20,000 people. The overall commercial value of the industry, including not only the growth and sale of the plant itself but the export of high-potency Nederwiet seeds to the rest of Europe and the United States, is 20 billion Dutch guilders, or about $10 billion–virtually all of it illegal and almost none of it subject to any form of Dutch taxation. The illegal export of cannabis today brings in far more money than that other traditional Dutch crop, tulips.
In the 1970s, advocates of Holland’s coffee-shop policy argued that providing soft-drug users with a shopping outlet in which to buy their drugs would keep them from falling prey to drug-peddling criminals. At the same time, they would be corralled off from hard-drug users into a congenial environment of their own. Petty criminality would fall, and hard-drug consumption would be cut by offering young people an attractive alternative.
That was the theory. Unfortunately, it did not work. A 1997 report on hard-drug use in the Netherlands by the government-financed Trimbos Institute acknowledged that “drug use is considered to be the primary motivation behind crimes against property”–23 years after the Dutch policy was supposed to put the brake on that. Furthermore, the Trimbos report put the number of heroin addicts in Holland at 25,000, a figure so low that critics of the government say it “Promotes a policy, not a reality.” That statistic is based, the skeptics note, on the number of heroin addicts who actually come into contact one way or another with the nation’s social or justice departments. The real figure, they maintain, is far closer to 35,000.
But even if one accepts the Trimbos figures as correct, they represent almost a tripling of the number of Dutch addicts since the country liberalized its drug policies. They also mean that Holland has twice as many heroin addicts per capita as Britain, which is known for having one of the most serious heroin problems in Europe. Furthermore, the number of heroin addicts being treated in the methadone-maintenance programs run by the Ministry of Public Health went from 6,511 in 1988 to 9,838 in 1997, an increase of just over 50 percent–hardly an indication that heroin use has declined since the introduction of the coffee-shop law.
Dutch supporters of their lenient soft-drug policy argue that cannabis does not inevitably thrust the heavy smoker across a threshold into hard drug use. They are right. There is no compelling physiological link between cannabis smoking and heroin use, and by no means do all heavy pot smokers move on to hard drugs. But in France, for example, 80 percent of heroin addicts also are heavy consumers of marijuana or hashish. Koopman of the Hope rehab center says more than 90 percent of the heroin addicts that his institute has treated developed their habit after first becoming habitual grass smokers.
The sale of hard drugs at the coffee shops was strictly forbidden by the law that created them. That was an edict honored for years more in the breach than in the observance. Michel Bouchet, now an officer of the French Ministry of the Interior but for many years the head of the Paris narcotics squad, regularly sent his officers to Holland undercover to see if hard drugs were being sold in the coffee shops. Almost inevitably, they discovered that they were.
Some European advocates of liberalizing drug laws, such as Paul Flynn, a Welsh Labour member of the British Parliament, argue that by making cannabis freely available to their youth, the Dutch have turned these kids away from heroin. And it is certainly true that in Holland, as in most other European countries, the heroin-addicted population is growing older. On the other hand, heroin addiction is usually a slow, insidious process; the youth who begins to consume it at 19 will probably take four to five years to reach the level of dependency that will force him or her to seek help.
But Koopman, at Dordecht’s De Hoop rehab center, says that 40 percent of the 250 addicts awaiting treatment at his facility are younger than 25. You get the real answer about what is happening among young people in Holland from talking with young addicts in the Rotterdam headquarters of Storm’s Junkiebund. The picture that emerges is remarkably similar to the youth drug scene elsewhere in Europe today.
“Kids are into everything now,” says Dominy, 32, who has been smoking heroin since he was 15. “When I came into the scene, it was just heroin. Now it’s coke, cannabis, ecstasy, speed, a blow of heroin to calm you down when you’re up too far.”
The real drug concerns in Holland today, as in the rest of Europe, are the skyrocketing rise in pill-popping and Holland’s pivotal role in the manufacture and sale of ecstasy and amphetamine pills. Unfortunately, little is known about the long-term consequences of sustained ecstasy use. The best study so far, published in October 1998 in the British medical journal The Lancet, was done by the Biological Psychiatry Branch of the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Although the sample that the scientists employed in their study was small, it did reveal that prolonged, regular use of ecstasy can result in apparently irreversible damage to the serotonin receptors in the brain. The consequence could well be that some of today’s heavy ecstasy users may find themselves burdened with chronic depression later in life.
HS – You make the point that many of these drugs are addictive which is of course true, but many are not. In particular the hallucinogens or psychedelics are usually not. For example LSD is not addictive. Another example is the strongest psychedelic known to man Salivia divinorum which is perfectly legal in this country have you noticed any problems Dr. Another point is the dependence and physical harm, etc does not I repeat does not correlate with a drugs legality. If you bother to watch the first video I linked to you’d have seen the results in the U.K of a study: “The study found little correlation between actual harm and legality. In fact, one researcher said “if alcohol were invented today… it’d be illegal” Statistically, U.K. drug laws have a 0.372 correlation value with harm: Which is not a statistically significant relationship.”
Your talking again about decriminalisation of Cannabis. First of all if you bothered to read the article you linked to on that very subject you’d have found as I’ve already pointed out: In both countries, these so-called decriminalisation laws did not appear to have had a major impact on rates of use, as many feared that it might have.
The presumed benefit of the criminalisation of cannabis possession is the deterrence of cannabis use. There is, however, little evidence of a strong deterrent effect. Substantial increases in marijuana use occurred in the 1960s and 1970s despite the application of criminal penalties for cannabis possession both in the U.S. (7, 23, 44) and in Australia (17). These trends in cannabis use do not constitute conclusive evidence regarding the lack of a deterrent effect, as it is not known whether rates of use might have increased even more if cannabis possession had not been prohibited. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that nonusers rarely cite fear of legal consequences as a reason for their nonuse (34, 44). Rather, the simple lack of interest or fear of adverse health consequences are the most commonly given reasons for abstention from cannabis use
The available data indicate that these decriminalisation measures substantially reduced enforcement costs, yet had little or no impact on rates of use.
Changes in rates of use appear to be more strongly connected with changing perceptions of health risks rather than availability or any changes in the legal status of the drug.
Back to the Netherlands, I think you’ve once again come up with a complete fabrication 200% I think is as bullshit as your heroin in britain “facts” which I managed to debunk like all your other erroneous claims thus far. The quotes you provide are in acutal fact in no way damning. Here are some facts: The number of problem opiate/crack users seems to have remained relatively stable in the past ten years (3.1 per 1000 people aged 15-64 years). In the past decade, local field studies among traditional groups of problem opiate users have shown a strong in-crease in the co-use of crack cocaine, a reduction in injecting drug use, and an increase in psychiatric and somatic comorbidity.”(2007)
Which supports what your article is saying despite Cannabis decriminalisation the Netherlands has had no increase in hard drug users and still has much lower use rates than most other western countires.
The figures for cannabis use among the general population reveal the same pictures. The Netherlands does not differ greatly from other European countries. In contrast, a comparison with the US shows a striking difference in this area: 32.9% of Americans aged 12 and above have experience with cannabis and 5.1% have used in the past month. These figures are twice as high as those in the Netherlands.”
So despite the U.S. tough stance towards Cannabis which sees thousands upon thousands of users, not dealers, locked up every year they still have a much higher rate of Cannabis use. So this is the main thrust of my argument; what has prohibtion achieved. If it is not doing anything to the number of users then what is the point in it. From the first video I linked to Lifetime prevalence student’s cannabis use: US 45% UK 33% Canada 29% Netherlands 28% Germany 27% Notice something? The countires with the more liberal policies (Netherlands, Germany and Canada) have lower Cannabis use.
To the trafficking side of things. I don’t know what you’re getting at. First of all hard drugs started to become a problem in the seventies and in response to this the Netherlands started decriminalising what it viewed as natural drugs. It has always been a centre for drug trafficking in europe. heroin is trafficked thorugh the “balkan route.” The Netherlands also has an important role in cocaine trafficking from the carribean. It is afterall a major maritime nation. The fact that the Netherlands changed its drug policy in response to the hard drug poblem and the fact that use of hard drugs is now much lower in the Netherlands than other european nations makes me think that once again you don’t know what you’re talking about and don’t look at your spurious sources of information with anything of a critical eye, just as you did with your laughable british heroin “facts”. I for instance am reading much of what I just wrote off of The 202 page Report to the EMCDDA by the Reitoix National Focal Point The Netherlands Drug Situation 2006. Sorry no link it’s a pdf, just search for it. Which is to me not very recent, but then again the article which you quoted above which I found no thanks to you was from 1999. Back to your article. In the report I just mentioned it has the following facts relating to your article: XTC-production seems to spread to other countries (Belgium, Australia, Canada, Indonesia); the Netherlands still play an important role in XTC production. With regard to the production of ecstasy in laboratories in The Netherlands data suggest that this problem descends.
Back to young people and Cannabis: The latest surveys indicated that drug use had stabilised or decreased among secondary school pupils between 1996 and 2003. A large-scale regional school survey in the South of the Netherlands revealed decreasing prevalence rates for all drugs between 2001 and 2005.
Let me give my concluding statements in this tussle. Supply and demand; the supply of drugs is there and as I have shown you the war on drugs has done nothing to diminish that supply. The demand as I’ve always said is there and will remain there. The laws against a drug do not seem to deter a person’s demand for that drug and the U.S. is a case in point. You cannot diminish the demand for drugs anymore than you can diminsh the demand for sex. Ever since the war on drugs began demand for drugs has actually increased. If it has not achieved to decrease demand or supply then what on earth is the point of it? Under prohibition the supply of drugs is provided by gangs and drug cartels and has been used to fund terrorism. Ending prohibiton would take the profits out of the hands of these people. Drug profits also lead to massive cases of police corruption around the world this would also be finished with when the cartels are. Money spent on drug law enforcement could be spent on education, rehabiliatation and healthcare which as the studies by RAND in one of my earlier comments can attest gets better results for less money. Drug impurities kill many users, if prohibition was ended regulation would change that just like it did with alcohol after the end of prohibition in America. Drug addicts are sick and should not be treated like criminals. It has been shown that provision of drugs from the medical profession to addicts has had positive effects on use rates and deaths caused by these drugs, as we saw with Switzerland and the U.K before the drug war. The vast majority of drug users (this can be borne out by the sheer number of drug users see my ealier comments) are oridnary functioning members of society, who hold down jobs have families etc they should not be treated as criminals for their choice of pastime. Many drugs are not as harmful or addictive as legally available drugs, yet they are still illegal. This clearly demonstartes the arbitrary nature of drug laws. Durg prohibition is also a barrier to drug research. I could go on and on, but I’ll stop with this: Lastly what right does a government or conservative misfits such as yourself have to tell other people what they can or can’t do with their own bodies and ultimately their own minds?
“Lastly what right does a government or conservative misfits such as yourself have to tell other people what they can or can’t do with their own bodies and ultimately their own minds?”
Well in my case it’s the medical degree – and I note that you comment that
“It has been shown that provision of drugs from the medical profession to addicts has had positive effects on use rates and deaths caused by these drugs, as we saw with Switzerland and the U.K before the drug war.”
So you appear to be suggesting that even under your proposal of legalisation that I (actually more likely colleagues in primary care and psychiatry) would still be telling people what they can or can’t do with their own bodies and ultimately their own minds.
And the right of a government to tell people what they can or can’t do with their own bodies – as you well know this is based on the government’s perception of the risk, cost and harm.
by Daphna Whitmore Last week France passed a law that equates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. It is based on a definition of anti-Semitism that includes criticism of Israel such as: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist ...
Over the past year we've seen major bus problems in Hamilton and Wellington, as drivers have sought better wages and an end to the bullshit of split shifts, which basicly see them "married to the job". And now its Auckland's turn. When NZBus's drivers planned low-level strike action of not ...
The government has been congratulating itself over the passage of the Zero Carbon Act, which sets out long-term emissions targets. But those targets are insufficient. Meanwhile, Denmark is showing us how its done:Denmark’s parliament adopted a new climate law on Friday, committing to reach 70% below its 1990 emissions in ...
Another day, another piece of legislation with a secrecy clause. This time its the innocuous-seeming Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill, which (after establishing a new body and making it subject to the OIA in three different ways) includes the rapidly-becoming-standard clauses enabling it to request information from other public ...
The state of the United Kingdom is fractured, torn up, shredded. The Empire is gone, it died a long time ago. And yet, the country is still tracking with a lead in favour of the ones who play to the ingrained, class-bound division for political gain. It is a disgrace ...
On 27 September, Greta Thunberg addressed a crowd of 500,000 at the School Strike for Climate in Montreal, saying: “You are a nation that is allegedly a climate leader. And Sweden is also a nation that is allegedly a climate leader. And in both cases, it means absolutely nothing. Because ...
It should be obvious by now but let’s be clear: The same folk who regularly traffic in disinformation, misinformation and “fake news” are also those who most strongly claim that their freedom of expression rights are being violated when moves are made to curb hate speech (as opposed to protected ...
Michael SchulsonWhen Shane Burcaw flies on an airplane, he brings along a customized gel cushion, a car seat, and about 10 pieces of memory foam. The whole arsenal costs around $1,000, but for Burcaw it’s a necessity. The 27-year-old author and speaker — who, alongside his fiancée, Hannah ...
We are very pleased to publish this submission is from Lucinda Stoan. She is a social justice activist, mother, and educator, based in Washington State in the US. This detailed and comprehensive source-linked overview of trans issues and what is at stake will be useful for many people, especially in ...
New Zealand's Underarm Banker: It bears recalling that the “independence” of the Reserve Bank Governor was for decades held up by neoliberal capitalists as the most compelling justification for passing the Reserve Bank Act. Interesting, is it not, how the ruling class’s support for the Bank’s independence lasted no longer than ...
Rubbish In, Rubbish Out: Put all this together, and it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that anyone who responds positively to a pollster’s request to “answer a few questions” is just ever-so-slightly weird. Desperately lonely? Some sort of psephological train-spotter? Political party member primed to skew the poll for or against ...
“Free at last, Free at last, Thank God almighty we are free at last.” ― Martin Luther King Jr. A long and bitter court feud between former Conservative Party leader Colin Craig and Jordan Williams has been settled, with an apology and compensation from Williams. On Tuesday, Craig sent out ...
Some people seem to want to close down any critical discussion of the current research into the relationship between water fluoride and child IQ. They appear to argue that claims made by researchers should not be open to critical review and that the claims be accepted without proper consideration ...
The government has been congratulating itself over the passage of the Zero Carbon Act, which sets out long-term emissions targets. Meanwhile, Climate Action Tracker has the shameful reality: those targets are insufficient:While New Zealand is showing leadership by having passed the world’s second-ever Zero Carbon Act in November 2019, under ...
The government introduced a Racing Industry Bill today. As an urban who horse racing as pointless-to-cruel, and gambling as a tax on stupidity and/or hope, this isn't normally a bill which would interest me in the slightest, beyond grumpiness at more government money for a dying industry. But there is ...
Check. Check. One, two, three, four. Is this thing ON? Hello readers, I logged in last night (yeah, it’s been a while) to mark THE END of the landmark legal case, Jordan Williams v Colin Craig, which (gulp) reached The Supreme Court, in which New Zealand’s most-defamed man was suing the politician he ...
Before The Birth: Israel’s most fervent supporters set their clocks ticking in Biblical times. They cite the kingdoms of David and Solomon as proof that, in the words of the Exodus movie’s theme-song: “This land is mine.” The majority of Israel’s backers, however, start their clocks in 1933 – the year Adolf ...
In an unreliable, strange and confusing world, Public Address is proud to present a measure of comfort and stability by annually asking everyone what words or phrases sum up the year that's been – and then giving some of them consumer goods as prizes for being clever or simply lucky.Well, ...
Both my parents are pretty handy – and they seem to have the right tools for most jobs in the garage and they know how to fix practically anything. A similar story could be told about their generation’s experience in the workforce – being a generalist was not unusual and ...
When it was revealed that NZ First had tried to enrich itself from public office via the Provoncial Growth Fund, the Prime Minister assured us that everything was OK as Shane Jones, the Minister responsible for the fund, had recused himself. Except it seems that that recusal came very late ...
Today is a Member's Day, and probably the last one of the year. After the marathon of the End of Life Choice Act, most of the bills up for debate today are uncontentious. First up is the second reading of Chlöe Swarbrick's Election Access Fund Bill. This will be followed ...
The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has reported back on the government's odious and tyrannical control orders bill. As expected, the fraudulent select committee process has made no significant changes (partly because they couldn't agree, but mostly because it was a stitch-up from the start, with no intention of ...
Yesterday, the government released its draft Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill, which will be put to a non-binding referendum at the next election. I'm not a drug policy expert, but Russell Brown is, and he thinks its pretty good. And pretty obviously, it will be a massive improvement on the ...
As you're probably aware, the draft bill outlining the proposed legal cannabis regime to be put to a referendum late next year was published yesterday, and has already attracted a flurry of comment. It's notable that a good deal of the comment is about proposals that aren't actually new.A minimum ...
One of the big problems in New Zealand climate change policy is the government working at cross-purposes with itself. It wants to reduce fossil fuel use, but encourages oil and gas exploration. It wants to reduce transport emissions, but then builds enormous new roads. The problem could be avoided if ...
Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nzAccording to the United Nations, food shortages are a threat ...
Last year, the government announced it was ending offshore oil exploration by no longer issuing new permits. The idea was that the industry would then die off as permits expired. Except almost immediately the government revealed its bad faith, by saying they would extend permits and alter conditions to keep ...
The government introduced the Education and Training Bill to Parliament yesterday. Its a massive bill, which replaces both existing Education Acts, as well as various other bits of legislation (including some which are still proceeding through the House). I'll leave the serious analysis to teachers and people who actually know ...
Amelia SharmanThere’s no one-size-fits-all when it comes to micro-credentials, those bits of bite-sized learning that can help workers stay on top of technological change. What’s a micro-credential? While definitions vary, micro-credentials can be understood as short courses that allow people to learn new skills or have an existing competency recognised. ...
All Smiles Now: Claire Szabo is taking up her presidential role after serving as the CEO of Habitat For Humanity. Which is absolutely perfect! After KiwiBuild was so comprehensively mismanaged by Phil Twyford, the party has not only elected a new president from a thoroughly respectable not-for-profit, but one who ...
While much of the NZ left has transitioned to postmodern and identity politics in relation to transgender ideology, there are some very good articles about that deploy Marxist methodology in relation to this subject. The one below is from the British marxist group Counterfire and appeared on their site here ...
by Daphna Whitmore At Golden Oaks, a luxurious country retreat in the Hudson Valley, pregnant women have the best care money can buy. From the organic food, personalised exercise programmes, private yoga instruction and daily massages Golden Oaks looks like a country lodge for the upper class. Set some time ...
When Labour was running for election in 2017, it felt it needed to demonstrate "fiscal responsibility" and signed itself up to masochistic "budget responsibility rules". It was a fool's errand: the sorts of voters who demand fiscal responsibility are also the sorts of voters who believe that labour can never ...
Writing in Stuff, Joel MacManus looks at what we need to do to meet the Zero Carbon Act's targets. The core of it:1. Convert 85 per cent of vehicles on the road to electric. 2. Eliminate fossil fuels from all industrial heating up to 300 degrees Celsius. 3. Double our ...
Professors Janet Hoek and Richard Edwards, Emeritus Professor Phil Gendall, Jude Ball, Dr Judith McCool, Anaru Waa, Dr Becky FreemanRecent media reports have presented conflicting evidence on youth vaping in NZ. While some NZ school principals report concerns about increasing vaping on school grounds and confiscating vapes, ASH Year ...
“America the Beautiful!”, staunch defender of democracy, freedom and… a whole lot of despotic tyrants that play nice with what is called “the Washington Consensus.” America is indeed capable of immense good, but like any Nation, and most assuredly any aspirant to the mantle of Empire, great, immense evil. All ...
Image credit:The beginner’s guide to blogging I notice a few regulars no longer allow public access to the site counters. This may happen accidentally when the blog format is altered. If your blog is ...
1080 is used to control pests in NZ. Its use is contested by a noisy few. A new report claims high levels of 1080 in rats washed up on a beach. Flora and Fauna of Aotearoa (F&F) won’t name the laboratory that did their testing. It has sparked a hunt ...
What Kind Of Empire? The thing for Kiwis to decide is what kind of empire they want to belong to. The kind that, while offering its own citizens democratic rights, demands absolute obedience from its “friends”? Or, the kind that, while authoritarian at home, takes a relaxed attitude to the ...
It hasn't been a good week for the Conservatives, pollwise. All major recent polls are showing their lead shrinking.Comparing each pollster's current (between 29/11 and 22/11) and previous most recent poll.Com Res - Conservative lead down 3 points.You Gov - Conservative lead down 1 point.Kantar - Conservative lead down 4 ...
Within quick succession, Countdown maths wizard and twitterer Rachel Riley, alleged comedian David Baddiel and prominent lawyer Andrew Julius have all expressed very similar opinions / ideas:
These #3billboards are going round London today, organised by ex-Labour people, horrified by what their party has become. Their principles haven’t changed, they’re ...
So, there have been a bunch of bad polls out for Labour, and even the Leftie's friend, Survation, have recently given the Conservatives a rip-snorting 11% lead. You Gov's much vaunted MRP poll - which pretty much nailed the result in 2015 - is currently predicting a comfortable majority for ...
The European Parliament has voted overwhelmingly to declare a climate emergency:The European parliament has declared a global “climate and environmental emergency” as it urged all EU countries to commit to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The vote came as scientists warned that the world may have already crossed ...
Pure Fear: Worse than Heroin, this drug’s addictive power was terrifying. People under its influence didn’t drift off to Elysium. Nor did it persuade inadequate individuals that they could conquer the world. No, this drug – pure crystal methamphetamine, “P” for short – unlocked the gates of Hell itself. It ...
As the rate of measles infection, and of deaths, continues to climb in Samoa, antivaccination activists infectious disease proponents seem intent on doubling down on their claims about vaccination. (Check pretty much any news-media FB post about measles & you’ll see exactly what I mean.) Unfortunately, some of them have ...
Samoa are experiencing a devastating measles epidemic. It is possible that 2-3% of the population will ultimately be infected by the time it is over. Hopefully the mass immunisation campaign currently under way can mitigate some of this, for many it is too late. The first question many people ask ...
Meghan Murphy is a Canadian writer and journalist She runs the Feminist Current website which she founded in 2012. She was a keynote speaker for the Feminism2020 conference in Wellington this month. When Massey University cancelled the original venue booking Feminism2020 was hosted in Parliament by MP David Seymour. Meghan ...
Text and photos by Gearóid Ó Loingsigh Colombia has lived through one week of protests against the economic measures taken by president Duque. What looked like a protest that would fizzle out after its first day on November 21st is still going strong. Part of the reason for the continuance ...
Around a million billion pass through you each second, almost all originating from our sun, but few of them are likely to interact with you enroute. I was reading in a physics magazine earlier in the week about the nature of neutrinos. These are extremely numerous elementary particles, but only ...
By Pallab GhoshThere’s value in covering new research advances, even when the underlying science is unsettled. But there are also risks.The recent announcement that scientists discovered water on the planet K2-18b, 110 light years away, prompted a media swoon. News stories, including a piece written by me, billed ...
I wrote this review a couple of years ago when I was still in the process of getting my head around the politics of transgenderism, and specifically the claim that intersex conditions lend support to the notion that sex is ‘socially constructed’. Since writing this review I have come across ...
Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nzHow much does our use of air travel contribute to the ...
Minor planet/asteroid (2309) Mr. Spock is named not for the character in Star Trek, but for a cat that was itself imperturbable, logical, intelligent and had pointed ears. In a preceding blog post I introduced one of my favourite asteroids, (2472) Bradman, and also mentioned (6581) Sobers amongst a few ...
Today the death toll from measles in Samoa rose to 32. All but four of the dead were less than 5 years old. Absolutely terrible, heartbreaking, news. That statistic alone should be enough to give the lie to the common claim by antivaccination activists plague enthusiasts that “measles is a ...
by Gearóid Ó Loingsigh It is late here in Bogotá, almost 11.30pm on Monday the 25th of November as I write this. The day began full of hope with yet more massive marches throughout the country, a mix of the International Day of Non-Violence Against Women and the National Strike. ...
Anti-fluoride activists are rubbing their hands in glee over what they claim is “yet another study” showing fluoride harms the brains of children. But their promotion relies on IQ relationships which the paper’s authors acknowledge disappearing when outliers or other factors are considered. And they completely ignore other relationships ...
The feature below is the conclusion of A History of Economic Thought, whose author was a leading Marxist economist in Russia in the early 20th century, Isaac Ilyich Rubin. The book arose from a course he ran at Moscow University following the Russian Revolution. First published in Russian in 1929, ...
There are many thousands of asteroids with formal names, some humdrum but other more noteworthy (depending on your predilections). One of my favourites, the name of which I was involved in suggesting, is (2472) Bradman, named for the Australian cricketing great. As a minor planet (synonym: asteroid) spotter, I have ...
Tory manifesto: big on austerity, low on promise, non-existent on delivery. The Tories: the party so big on ambition they couldn't be arsed writing a manifesto. MLK: "I have a dream!"BJ: "I'll just have a nap." Labour: Broadband!Tories: Narrow minds! Labour have hope, dreams and ambition. The Tories will save ...
The Ministry of Health has announced that “people under the age of 50 travelling from New Zealand to Samoa, Tonga, Philippines and Fiji” are now on the list of national priorities for MMR vaccination. Given the outbreaks of measles in Samoa, Tonga, Philippines and Fiji, the Ministry of Health is ...
Hong Kong has been protesting for six months for, demanding democracy, human rights, and an end to police violence. Today, they went to the polls in district council elections - a low-level of government with virtually no power, similar to community boards in New Zealand. But while the positions themselves ...
Text and photos by Gearóid Ó Loingsigh On Friday 22nd of November a curfew came into effect and troops were deployed on the streets, here in Bogota. It was the first time since September 1977 that a curfew had been imposed on the city. The decision was a cynical pre-planned ...
Meanwhile, while the government is planning to restore voting rights to prisoners, National is promising to turn our prisons into US-style slave-labour camps:The Opposition is proposing compulsory education, training or employment for prisoners who are serving sentences of two years or more. [...] On Sunday, National Party Leader Simon Bridges ...
Excerpts from Being and Being Bought, by Kajsa Ekis Ekman Spinifex Press, 2013. Ekman, a Swedish journalist and critic, brings together a Marxist and feminist analysis of prostitution and surrogacy in this groundbreaking book. This is the second part of a synopsis and brief commentary of the book by Daphna ...
Dalmeet Singh ChawlaIn 2008, psychologists proposed that when humans are shown an unfamiliar face, they judge it on two main dimensions: trustworthiness and physical strength. These form the basis of first impressions, which may help people make important social decisions, from who to vote for to how long a ...
Claas Kirchhelle, University of Oxford; Adam Roberts, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, and Andrew Singer, Centre for Ecology & HydrologyAntibiotics are among the most important medicines known to humankind, but we are running out of this crucial resource. Decisive action is needed if we are to retain access to ...
Things That Make You Go - Hmmmm: “All right. Let me come at this another way. I’m guessing that what you’ve got in that box contains names, dates, bank account numbers – all the details you need to put Winston Peters and Jacinda Ardern squarely in the cross-hairs. So, the first ...
A new defence report has mapped out how New Zealand's soldiers will navigate rising seas, and a year after the Defence Force announced its need to prepare for climate change. In the “Responding to the Climate Crisis” report, the Force restates its operational plan and sets goals to tackle climate ...
Mark Patterson, Spokesperson for Primary Industries New Zealand First spokesperson for Primary Industries, Mark Patterson, has called for awareness to be raised and more stringent biosecurity checks to be put in place for African Swine Fever (ASF), a widespread virus that is uncontrolled in most of Asia and a serious ...
Jenny Marcroft MP, Spokesperson for Human Rights A critical step has been taken to end gender based violence against women and girls in Parliament this evening. New Zealand First Spokesperson for Human Rights Jenny Marcroft MP has welcomed the passing of the first reading of the Crimes (Definition of Female ...
New Zealand First MP Shane Jones says it's time to recognise market forces haven't led to the expected reduction in Māori smoking rates and try a new approach. The Party had recently invoked the agree to disagree clause in their Coalition Agreement with the Labour Party, and will not support ...
Live from the Whanganui Opera House, on the final day of the 2019 Labour Party Conference, Jacinda Ardern announced the largest investment in school property in 25 years. ...
The Coalition Government will be banning foreign donations to political parties and candidates, ahead of next year’s general elections. Legislation will be introduced to Parliament and passed under urgency – emphasising the need for such restrictions to safeguard our democracy. The bill introduces a new requirement that party secretaries and ...
Associate Transport Minister Shane Jones opened Taipā's $19 million bridge recently, improving transport infrastructure in the Northland region. The two-lane bridge is 107m long with a 2.5m-wide shared walking and cycling path, and will reduce the congestion that the old one-lane bridge was notorious for. The project had also included ...
The Overseas Investment Office have rejected the application of Mercury Agriculture LP, which is 92 per cent controlled by Canadian interests, to purchase more than 2000 hectares of South Canterbury and Otago land. Mercury wanted to buy 2000ha at Rangitata, 1494ha near Ashburton, 816ha near Cromwell and 212ha near Temuka. ...
This weekend was Labour's 103rd Party Conference! We welcomed over 500 of our Labour whānau in red to Whanganui, where we reflected on the last two years in Government, and looked ahead to 2020 and beyond. We know the long-term challenges facing New Zealand won't be tackled overnight, but we're making ...
Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones announced that the Provincial Growth Fund will invest $9.6 million to seal the final unsealed section of State Highway 43 from Stratford to Taumarunui. The Minister said sealing the 12-kilometre gravel section of the highway – also called the “Forgotten World Highway” - through ...
Former Finance Minister and former chair of the Tax Working Group, Sir Michael Cullen, has voiced his support for New Zealand First’s decision to oppose the planned increase in tobacco excise tax. In an interview with The Weekend Collective, he said that increasing the price was no longer effective in ...
Māori are natural storytellers. On the marae we use stories to tell our history, to teach the next generation life lessons and to let people know, in our most creative of ways, who we are and where we have come from. ...
Rt Hon Winston Peters, New Zealand First Leader New Zealand First has invoked the ‘Agree to Disagree’ provisions of the Coalition Agreement because it cannot support the announced 11.46 percent increase in the tobacco excise from 1 January 2020. “Studies show that the automatic tobacco excise increases are having less effect ...
Taupō-based company Geo40 has made a breakthrough in extracting near battery-grade lithium from geothermal fluid which its says could be a gamechanger. Its chief executive John Worth said the earth mineral was highly prized, with battery-grade lithium selling for US$10,000 (NZ$15,600) a tonne. Geo40 was founded in 2010 to find ...
Crown research institute AgResearch Ltd, as part of its Future Footprint plan, had intended to relocate top scientists and support staff — particularly those focused on sheep genetics and genomics — from Invermay to Lincoln. However, those plans seem to have been shelved at the request of the Coalition Government. ...
Ten engineering firms in Southland are receiving a total of $2.13 million in Provincial Growth Fund funding to lift productivity and create new jobs. Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones announced in Invercargill that the 10 engineering and manufacturing firms would receive funding to assist them with buying equipment that ...
The number of new residents to New Zealand is the lowest it has been in nearly two decades and it has earned the ire of the immigration industry. The industry alleges that 'Trump-style extreme vetting' is being put in place aimed at keeping a lid on immigration numbers. June Ranson, ...
The Royal New Zealand Air Force is one step closer to modernising its fleet after the United States State Department recently approved the sale of five new C-130J Hercules aircraft to New Zealand. Arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin, in Fort Worth, Texas, will provide the aircraft, but as a "foreign military ...
Forestry Minister Shane Jones wants to create a log barging facility at Hicks Bay and turn the area into a Special Economic Zone. The move would be part of protecting New Zealand's forests from being depleted by India and China, he said. It follows his announcement last week to strengthen ...
New Zealand First supports the changes recommended by the Winter Grazing Taskforce to improve animal welfare outcomes through the winter months, and the establishment of a pan-sector action group to implement them. New Zealand First Primary Industries Spokesperson Mark Patterson says the report highlights areas of concern about the animal ...
Former prime ministers Helen Clark and Sir John Key, formerly from the Labour and National parties respectively, have joined forces in support of New Zealand First’s plan to relocate Auckland's port to Whangārei. While Ms Clark and Sir John spent their political careers on opposite sides of the political divide, ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters is in Japan for the Foreign Ministers' meeting of the G20 grouping of countries as one of nine "invited" countries. He has used the opportunity to cast a spotlight on the plight of Pacific countries, calling out countries which still offered subsidies or Government assistance to ...
It's been a great week of progress: we've celebrated Children's Day, we've made communities safer with 1800 new police, and we've seen almost 90% of eligible schools take up Government funding to scrap school donations - taking pressure off the families of more than 416,000 students. ...
Hon Shane Jones, Minister of Forestry The Government will further strengthen New Zealand’s wood processing sector as part of our focus on ‘value over volume’ in our forestry industry, Forestry Minister Shane Jones says. Minister Jones will today meet with forestry representatives in Northland to signal new measures to help the ...
New Zealand First are celebrating the announcement of an investment of $3.5 million into five new trapping devices. These are a range of bait and trap devices, all designed to be left unattended for long periods of time. NZ First conservation spokesperson Jenny Marcroft says that this latest development will ...
Darroch Ball, Spokesperson for Police New Zealand First is proud to have delivered on a key Coalition Agreement commitment to adding 1800 new frontline police, with the graduation of Recruit Wing 332 in Porirua today. Law and Order Spokesperson Darroch Ball says increasing police numbers and boosting their resources was one ...
Jenny Marcroft, Spokesperson for Conservation New Zealand First is proud to announce the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) has allocated $3.5 million to develop innovative predator control approaches which will reduce the need for repeated 1080 use. $19.5 million of PGF funding was announced for Predator Free 2050 Limited in February ...
Rt Hon Winston Peters, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has welcomed the first reading of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation 2021 (APEC 2021) Bill in Parliament today. The temporary bill supports New Zealand’s security preparations for hosting the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum ...
Clayton Mitchell, Spokesperson for Consumer Affairs The ‘wheel clamping’ Bill that will cap clamper fees to $100 passed its third readinginParliament today. New Zealand First welcomes The Land Transport (Wheel Clamping) Amendment Bill to combat predatory wheel clamping behaviour in what is currently a largely unregulated business. Cowboy clampers are: gouging ...
Jenny Marcroft, Spokesperson for Health New Zealand First welcomes the passage of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill through its first reading in Parliament. “Today’s progress takes serious action on the mental health and addiction crisis the country is facing,” says New Zealand First Health Spokesperson Jenny Marcroft. “The re-establishment ...
The Government will fund the bulk of the cost of a rural water supply for the Ohakea community affected by PFAS contamination, Environment Minister David Parker announced today at a meeting of local residents. This new water scheme will provide a reliable and clean source of drinking water to the ...
I have had the opportunity to be briefed on the details of the volcanic eruption of Whakaari/White Island, off the coast of Whakatane in the Bay of Plenty. The eruption happened at 2.11pm today. It continues to be an evolving situation. We know that there were a number of tourists ...
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Minister of Civil Defence Peeni Henare have today confirmed initial Government support of $100,000 for communities affected by the severe weather that swept across the South Island and lower North Island over the weekend. The contribution will be made to Mayoral relief funds across the ...
New Zealand's High Commissioner to the Cook Islands, Tessa Temata, died in Palmerston North over the weekend, Foreign Minister Winston Peters said today. Ms Temata, 52, had recently returned to New Zealand for medical treatment. "On behalf of the Government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, we extend ...
Transport Minister Phil Twyford today announced construction is underway on Wellington commuter rail upgrades which will mean more frequent services and fewer breakdowns. The upgrades include converting the Trentham to Upper Hutt single track section to a double track, with a new signalling system, upgraded stations and level crossings, and ...
Minister of Defence Ron Mark and Minister for Climate Change James Shaw have announced the release of a Defence Climate Change Implementation Work Plan, titled Responding to the Climate Crisis: An Implementation Plan. The plan sets out a series of recommendations based on the 2018 New Zealand Defence Assessment, The ...
A medium-scale adverse event has been declared for the South Canterbury district, which will see up to $50,000 in funding made available to support farming communities which have been significantly affected by recent heavy rain and flooding in the area, says Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor. “Two weeks of solid rain ...
Thank you Professor Juliet Gerrard and your team for the comprehensive and extremely helpful report and recommendations. Thank you too to all the stakeholders and interested parties who have contributed ideas and thinking to it. “Making best practice, standard practice” is a great framework for change and the action plan ...
The Government will phase out more single-use plastics following the success of its single-use plastic bag ban earlier this year and the release today of a pivotal report for dealing with waste. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has welcomed the Rethinking Plastics in Aotearoa New Zealandreport, released by her Chief Science Advisor ...
International education continues to thrive as the Government focuses on quality over quantity, Education Minister Chris Hipkins said. The tuition revenue from international education increased to $1.16 billion last year with the average tuition fee per student increasing by $960. The total number of international students enrolled in New Zealand ...
Health Minister Dr David Clark says new appointments to DHBs represent a significant changing of the guard, with 13 new chairs including four Māori chairs. Today 76 appointments have been announced to complement elected board members, as well as eight elected members appointed as either chair or deputy chair. Four ...
Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Fletcher Tabuteau, is travelling to Germany, Poland, Austria, and Spain next week to bolster New Zealand’s political and trade relationships in Europe. While in Spain, Mr Tabuteau will represent New Zealand at the 14th Asia-Europe (ASEM) Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Madrid. “New Zealand strongly supports ...
“I’ve spoken to Minister Faafoi, who has apologised for his poor handling of this issue,” Jacinda Ardern said. “I have confidence in Kris as a hardworking and effective Minister, but this should have been dealt with in a much clearer manner, and I’ve made my views on that very clear ...
Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters met with Tongan Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Pohiva Tu'i'onetoa in Wellington today. The pair signed a Statement of Partnership setting out joint priorities for cooperation out to 2023. “We welcomed Prime Minister Tu'i'onetoa on his first visit to New Zealand as Prime Minister. Tonga ...
The Minister of Police Stuart Nash says his sympathies are with the family of a man who died after being shot by Police in Kurow. “Initial reports are that Police were called by a family member to help the man who was threatening to harm himself,” Mr Nash says. “However ...
Ethnic communities will be able to plan and deliver more community initiatives thanks to an increase in Government funding, Minister for Ethnic Communities Hon Jenny Salesa said today. “Ensuring Aotearoa New Zealand is a place we can all be proud to call home has been a key priority of our ...
Healthier waterways, better productivity and farmer wellbeing are front and centre in a new project involving more than 1000 Southland farmers and growers. Minister of Agriculture Damien O’Connor today announced that the Thriving Southland Change and Innovation Project is the first region-wide extension programme supported by the $229 million Sustainable ...
Work to look after nature and restore freshwater quality in Te Hoiere/Pelorus River catchment is getting a significant boost, thanks to new Government funding support Minister for Conservation Eugenie Sage announced in Canvastown today. “Every New Zealander should be able to swim in their local river without getting sick, and ...
Eight Queen’s Counsel have been appointed under a process that includes the new criterion of a commitment to improving access to justice, Attorney-General David Parker announced today. “The new criterion was included this year. It emphasises that excellence and leadership in the profession can be seen through a wider, community ...
Onslow College in Wellington will get 20 new classrooms for more than 400 students, Education Minister Chris Hipkins announced today. The much-needed investment will relieve growth pressure the school has been experiencing for some time. Seven existing classrooms which have deteriorated over time will also be replaced, bringing the total ...
More than 250 young New Zealanders will add international experience to their education, thanks to the latest Prime Minister’s Scholarships for Asia (PMSA) and Latin America (PMSLA), Education Minister Chris Hipkins announced today. This round of scholarships supports 252 recent graduates or current students to undertake study, research or internships ...
Consumers will benefit from a more competitive, transparent retail fuel market as a result of changes the Government will be making in response to the findings of the Commerce Commission’s study of the fuel sector. “We accept the Commission’s findings and, as the Prime Minister has said, we’re ready to ...
Five new cancer medicines have now been funded this year, meaning thousands of people have more treatment options PHARMAC has today announced that it has approved two new medicines for funding – fulvestrant for breast cancer and olaparib for ovarian cancer. This follows earlier decisions on advanced lung cancer treatment alectinib, ...
The Minister of Local Government, Hon Nanaia Mahuta says the Government will consider making changes to local electoral legislation before the 2022 elections to fix the problems that have arisen where elections are settled by a coin toss. The Minister says the recount process in the Murupara- Galatea ward at ...
New Zealand will sign up to new international maritime regulations to reduce ship emissions and lift air quality around ports and harbours, Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter announced today. Subject to completion of the Parliamentary treaty examination process, New Zealand will sign up to Annex VI of MARPOL, an ...
New legislation to transform our urban areas and create sustainable, inclusive and thriving communities will tomorrow be introduced to Parliament, Urban Development Minister Phil Twyford said. “The Urban Development Bill gives Kāinga Ora-Homes and Communities the tools it needs to partner with councils, communities, mana whenua and private developers to ...
Today’s launch of He taonga te Tamaiti: Every child a taonga: The Early Learning Action Plan 2019-2029 provides the foundation for long-lasting changes to early learning, Education Minister Chris Hipkins says. “Early learning will be one of the Government’s top education priorities going into 2020,” Chris Hipkins said. ...
Major decisions made by the Government will now be considered under a climate change lens, Minister for Climate Change James Shaw announced today. “Cabinet routinely considers the effects of its decisions on human rights, the Treaty of Waitangi, rural communities, the disability community, and gender – now climate change will ...
Education Minister Chris Hipkins today announced the appointment of Māori education specialist Dr Wayne Ngata and Business NZ head Kirk Hope to the Board of the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC). Dr Alastair MacCormick has been reappointed for another term. “Wayne Ngata, Kirk Hope and Alastair MacCormick bring a great deal ...
The next phase of the Pike River Re-entry project is underway, Minister Responsible for Pike River Re-entry Andrew Little says. “Fresh air will be pumped into the Pike River Mine drift this week, following acceptance of the plan for re-entry beyond the 170m barrier by New Zealand’s independent health and ...
New Zealand consumers will have greater certainty about their insurance cover when they need to make claims as a result of proposed government changes. “Insurance is vitally important in supporting consumers and businesses to be financially resilient when unexpected events happen,” Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Kris Faafoi said. ...
The Crown is providing an opportunity for the hapu of Ngāpuhi to rebuild its framework from the ground up for collective negotiations to deal with its historical Treaty claims, Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Andrew Little and Minister for Māori Development Nanaia Mahuta announced today. The Crown is also ...
A Bill enabling referendums to be held with the 2020 General Election has passed its third reading. Justice Minister Andrew Little says the Act is important for upholding the integrity of New Zealand’s electoral process. “The Government has committed to holding a referendum on legalising recreational cannabis at the next ...
The first release of public information on the two referendums to be held at next year’s General Election was made today with an informative new Government website going live. Additionally, the draft Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill has been released, showing the strict controls on cannabis that will apply if ...
The Government is taking action to protect New Zealand from foreign interference in our elections by banning foreign donations to political parties and candidates, Justice Minister Andrew Little announced today. Legislation will be introduced to Parliament this afternoon and passed under urgency. “There’s no need for anyone other than New ...
Governments and tech companies are holding a two-day workshop, hosted by YouTube/Google in Wellington, to test the Christchurch Call Shared Crisis Response Protocol. The workshop aims to refine and strengthen the response in the event of a terrorist attack with online implications. Companies, governments, civil society experts and NGOs will ...
The new independent Cancer Control Agency has formally opened today, delivering on the Government’s plan to improve cancer care in New Zealand. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Minister of Health David Clark marked the occasion by announcing the membership of the Advisory Council that will be supporting ...
Small businesses who deal with government departments are set to be paid faster and have improved cash flow as a result, under a new strategy released today. The Government is backing recommendations from the Small Business Council (SBC) and has agreed to implement three initiatives immediately to support business and ...
The Education and Training Bill 2019, introduced in Parliament today, proposes the biggest education changes in decades and is an important step towards improving success for all our learners, Education Minister Chris Hipkins said. “The Bill’s rewrite of education legislation is long overdue. Indeed one Education Act, parts of which ...
Minister for Pacific Peoples Aupito William Sio will travel to Bali to represent New Zealand at the 12th Bali Democracy Forum that will be held on the 5-6 December. “The Forum is a valuable opportunity for Asia-Pacific countries to share experiences and best practice in building home-grown democracy and fostering ...
Welcome to The Bulletin. In today’s edition: Death toll from Whakaari eruption likely to rise, cabinet agrees Auckland port must move, and expensive Christchurch stadium details released.A tragic death toll from the eruption of Whakaari/White Island is likely to rise. The number of those killed is currently five at the time ...
Aerial reconnaissance missions have flown over Whakaari-White Island since the eruption on Monday afternoon and there are no signs of any survivors, police say. ...
The world number one in long drive golf, Kiwi Phillis Meti, wants to see equal pay for women, and more Maori and Polynesian girls striking the ball ...
How can we protect our privacy online in the face of increasingly clever marketing and retailing ploys? Victoria University of Wellington's Dr Marcin Betkier has some thoughts. ...
The British people have a chance to stop the new age of hostility and belligerence before it is fully unleashed in the country's most significant election in 40 years, writes Neal Curtis. ...
Commercial media, a business that requires public trust and goodwill, is in a tough financial position right now. Gaurav Sharma says that’s in part because of its poor job of reaching immigrant communities, in the first of a new monthly column for The Spinoff.Let’s start with a test, about references ...
We don’t normally see these eruptions coming, no matter how much we would like to. Many systems are already ‘primed’ for such events, but the triggers are poorly understood, writes Shane Cronin of the University of Auckland.As of Monday night five people have been confirmed dead, 18 had been rescued ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shane Cronin, Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Auckland Five people have been confirmed dead, 23 have been rescued and several remain unaccounted for after a sudden volcanic eruption on Whakaari/White Island off the east coast of New Zealand. The island is ...
One person is dead, 23 have been rescued and potentially two dozen people are unaccounted for on Whakaari/White Island, after it erupted on Monday. ...
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters are to be commended for their leadership on the Upper North Island port issue, Waterfront 2029 Spokesperson Michael Goldwater said today. The Prime Minister today announced that ...
In partnership with the JR McKenzie Trust and University of Otago, Children’s Commissioner Andrew Becroft has today released the annual Child Poverty Monitor at childpoverty.org.nz which shows more bold and sustainable action is needed. ...
Today’s child poverty figures , revealing that nearly 150,000 children are living in material hardship in New Zealand, show the need for tax relief says the Taxpayers’ Union . ...
Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) welcomes the 2019 Child Poverty Monitor report , and says more can be done to help families who have need of welfare assistance. ...
A rescue operation is under way on Whakaari/White Island in the Bay of Plenty, with reports of up to 20 people injured, some critical.What’s going on?Whakaari/White Island, New Zealand’s most active cone volcano, located 48km off the eastern coast of the Bay of Plenty, is erupting. Large plumes of steam ...
Auckland bus operators are enraged at the inconvenience to passengers affected by continued bus driver strike action. Even those operators not directly affected by strikes are appalled at the behaviour of First Union and Tramways Union and their ...
The publication of the Child Poverty Monitor 2019, released today, is a reminder of the need to accelerate efforts to lift our children / tamariki out of poverty. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniela Kaleva, Associate Head Research and Scholarship, Australian Institute of Music Review: Farnace, composed by Vivaldi, Pinchgut Opera When a performance of Farnace was cancelled at the theatre of Ferrara after the artistic failure of Vivaldi’s opera Siroe re di Persia in ...
OPINION: In the fifth part of the series with our partners at Flick Electric Co to help you make better energy choices, Flick’s Nikki Cockburn breaks down the sources of our electricity.So we know that regardless of which power company we’re with, the electricity we use is at the mercy ...
The recent accident near Kaikoura, where two Malaysian children and their parents were killed in a head-on collision with a truck, was easily preventable, says the car review website dogandlemon.com . ...
Former Auditor-General Martin Matthews is petitioning Parliament to reopen his case, claiming MPs "held a gun to his head" to force his resignation. ...
Auckland Council recently announced a citywide food scrap collection scheme that will be kicking off in 2021. Most of us already know the main gist of composting, but what’s happening to this waste? What will I have to pay? And can I opt out if I don’t need it?New Zealanders ...
Central and local government, including Auckland Council, have been debating the future of the Ports of Auckland but there seems to be something missing in the debate - how much more greenhouse gases will Aotearoa emit if we move the port from the ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Humphery-Jenner, Associate Professor of Finance, UNSW Westpac can expect a bumper turnout of shareholders at its annual general meeting in Sydney on Thursday, many of them angry at its alleged role in facilitating child exploitation in the Philippines, its 23 million ...
More than a billion dollars has wiped off the value of New Zealand's biggest company this morning following the surprise resignation of A2 Milk's chief executive. ...
Cindy Baxter is at COP25 – her 17th climate change conference – and for the first time, New Zealand is one of the good guys. But are we?As we head into the second week of the climate talks in Madrid, I’ve been reflecting over the first week, and the strange ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David King, Senior Lecturer, The University of Queensland Growing up, no one ever gave me the rundown on how or what I should do to keep my penis clean […] I’ve never read any reliable answer beyond washing it with water. ...
You’ve probably never heard of him, but an artist called Cavetown is coming to Auckland in January for a show that’s already sold out. We explain where he came from, how this happened, and why you should be listening.What, pray tell, is a Cavetown?Cavetown is the stage name of Robin ...
Three glaze recipes to take your festive feast from ho-hum to ham-azing.In the middle of November, my aunt suggested in our family WhatsApp group that Christmas lunch should go meat-free in acknowledgement of climate change. I froze at my desk where I’d taken a moment to procrastinate. While I support ...
The Climate Change Minister James Shaw says he is hopeful the final hurdles can be cleared for fixing the final rules of Paris Agreement before it kicks in next year. ...
"Youllbefine, Rockmaster, Cossack Warrior and now Valtteri are the four horses who have been killed on New Zealand race tracks in just three weeks" said Frances Baker, Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses (CPR) spokesperson. ...
Former finance minister Steve Joyce says an NBR journalist told him its columnist Matthew Hooton had ‘gone completely troppo’ in a column about to be published by the business website about the MP. ...
A truly ambitious solution would keep jobs in Southland, delivering on the promise of the Zero Carbon Act to make NZ all but carbon neutral by 2050, writes Nicola Gaston in a post co-authored with Sally Brooker, Justin Hodgkiss and David Williams of The MacDiarmid Institute.Tiwai Point is in the ...
The housing market is heating up ahead of the holidays, with positive signs of growth, according to ASB's latest quarterly housing confidence survey. ...
The New Zealand Maori Council has called the latest childhood poverty statistics released by the Children’s Commissioner as appalling for a first world nation and has called upon the Government to do more. Matthew Tukaki, the Councils Executive ...
The next phase in the Democrats’ plan to impeach US President Donald Trump begins at 9am Monday morning Washington DC when the House judiciary committee meets to consider a report from the intelligence committee – and hear academic argument on the way forward. The judiciary committee is expected to draft ...
It’s been a Sunday morning staple for Kiwi kids for decades, but What Now may be facing new challenges in the era of social media. New Zealand children’s show What Now has utilised many different ways of engaging with its young audience over the past 38 years. Whether it was getting ...
New Zealand Police has taken delivery of three Armoured Special Purpose Vehicles. The vehicles are unmarked and look like standard Toyota Land cruisers. ...
Polystyrene meat trays, cups and takeaway food containers are the next targets in the battle to phase out single-use plastics, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced. ...
All workers contracted by InterGroup to carry out street cleaning and litter control for Hutt City Council are now receiving the living wage as a minimum. ...
Kris Faafoi apologises to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, does not offer to resign; and Government moves to ban plastic fruit stickers, cutlery, and cotton buds. ...
We may be called fuckwits. We may be called idiots. But the optimism keeps on, writes Chris Cessford.As spring lurches into summer, Wellington wakes up to another day of a crazy-making gusty northerly gale. Or, as we cyclists in the southern suburbs call it, a head wind.I fasten my helmet ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Kewley, Director, ARC Centre for Excellence in All-Sky Astrophysics in 3D, Australian National University Australian astronomy punches well above its weight, in terms of the research it leads and the facilities it houses. We have made remarkable discoveries in the past ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vicki Lowik, PhD candidate, CQUniversity Australia This article is the first in a series exploring gender and Christianity. Jane* was a member of Australia’s evangelical Christian community, and throughout her marriage she heard many sermons on honouring a husband’s authority. These sermons ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yousuf Mohammed, Dermatology researcher, The University of Queensland If you’ve ever Googled the causes of a skin complaint or damaged hair, chances are someone on the internet has pointed the finger at SLS, or sodium lauryl (or laureth) sulfate, a common ingredient ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Nelson, Associate Professor of Economics, Griffith University Household electricity bills in Australia have increased sharply in the past decade. But new official figures show they are projected to fall markedly – in some cases by 20%. In-house modelling we conducted at ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Goss, School Education Program Director, Grattan Institute Education news in Australia last week was dominated by Australia’s worst ever showing in the OECD’s PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) tests. The mathematical literacy of our students has fallen to the OECD ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liam Davies, PhD Candidate, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University This is the first article in a series to mark the 50th anniversary of the landmark Melbourne Transportation Plan. —- The 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan was perhaps the most influential planning policy ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Backhouse, Research Fellow, Learning Environments Applied Research Network (LEaRN), University of Melbourne Public libraries embody the values of democracy by offering free access to knowledge. But the role of contemporary public libraries extends far beyond access to books. Libraries are places ...
Good morning and welcome to The Bulletin. In today’s edition: Long term consequences from heavy weekend weather, hospitality giant apologises for many mishandled complaints, and Auckland traffic chaos looms.There will be long term consequences from the weather that hammered the country over the weekend. Chief among them is a massive slip ...
A new report from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser envisages a future with much less plastic, all of it recycled or dealt with responsibly within New Zealand borders. ...
America's Cup defenders Emirates Team New Zealand have done things differently by building their own boats for the first time, and so far, it's paying off ...
Liam Hehir makes a plea to education minister Chris Hipkins not to discriminate against integrated schools when it comes to school funding.The government’s announcement of a big maintenance funding boost for schools was greetedwarmly by many principals, teachers and parents. Excluded ...
Garth McVicar 
by Daphna Whitmore Last week France passed a law that equates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. It is based on a definition of anti-Semitism that includes criticism of Israel such as: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist ...15 hours ago
Over the past year we've seen major bus problems in Hamilton and Wellington, as drivers have sought better wages and an end to the bullshit of split shifts, which basicly see them "married to the job". And now its Auckland's turn. When NZBus's drivers planned low-level strike action of not ...16 hours ago
The state of the United Kingdom is fractured, torn up, shredded. The Empire is gone, it died a long time ago. And yet, the country is still tracking with a lead in favour of the ones who play to the ingrained, class-bound division for political gain. It is a disgrace ...3 days ago
On 27 September, Greta Thunberg addressed a crowd of 500,000 at the School Strike for Climate in Montreal, saying: “You are a nation that is allegedly a climate leader. And Sweden is also a nation that is allegedly a climate leader. And in both cases, it means absolutely nothing. Because ...3 days ago
It should be obvious by now but let’s be clear: The same folk who regularly traffic in disinformation, misinformation and “fake news” are also those who most strongly claim that their freedom of expression rights are being violated when moves are made to curb hate speech (as opposed to protected ...3 days ago
New Zealand's Underarm Banker: It bears recalling that the “independence” of the Reserve Bank Governor was for decades held up by neoliberal capitalists as the most compelling justification for passing the Reserve Bank Act. Interesting, is it not, how the ruling class’s support for the Bank’s independence lasted no longer than ...4 days ago
“Free at last, Free at last, Thank God almighty we are free at last.” ― Martin Luther King Jr. A long and bitter court feud between former Conservative Party leader Colin Craig and Jordan Williams has been settled, with an apology and compensation from Williams. On Tuesday, Craig sent out ...4 days ago
Some people seem to want to close down any critical discussion of the current research into the relationship between water fluoride and child IQ. They appear to argue that claims made by researchers should not be open to critical review and that the claims be accepted without proper consideration ...5 days ago
In an unreliable, strange and confusing world, Public Address is proud to present a measure of comfort and stability by annually asking everyone what words or phrases sum up the year that's been – and then giving some of them consumer goods as prizes for being clever or simply lucky.Well, ...5 days ago
While much of the NZ left has transitioned to postmodern and identity politics in relation to transgender ideology, there are some very good articles about that deploy Marxist methodology in relation to this subject. The one below is from the British marxist group Counterfire and appeared on their site here ...1 week ago
“America the Beautiful!”, staunch defender of democracy, freedom and… a whole lot of despotic tyrants that play nice with what is called “the Washington Consensus.” America is indeed capable of immense good, but like any Nation, and most assuredly any aspirant to the mantle of Empire, great, immense evil. All ...1 week ago
Image credit: The beginner’s guide to blogging I notice a few regulars no longer allow public access to the site counters. This may happen accidentally when the blog format is altered. If your blog is ... 1 week ago
It hasn't been a good week for the Conservatives, pollwise. All major recent polls are showing their lead shrinking.Comparing each pollster's current (between 29/11 and 22/11) and previous most recent poll.Com Res - Conservative lead down 3 points.You Gov - Conservative lead down 1 point.Kantar - Conservative lead down 4 ...1 week ago
A new defence report has mapped out how New Zealand's soldiers will navigate rising seas, and a year after the Defence Force announced its need to prepare for climate change. In the “Responding to the Climate Crisis” report, the Force restates its operational plan and sets goals to tackle climate ...20 hours ago
Live from the Whanganui Opera House, on the final day of the 2019 Labour Party Conference, Jacinda Ardern announced the largest investment in school property in 25 years. ...7 days ago
The Government will fund the bulk of the cost of a rural water supply for the Ohakea community affected by PFAS contamination, Environment Minister David Parker announced today at a meeting of local residents. This new water scheme will provide a reliable and clean source of drinking water to the ...12 hours ago
Welcome to The Bulletin. In today’s edition: Death toll from Whakaari eruption likely to rise, cabinet agrees Auckland port must move, and expensive Christchurch stadium details released.A tragic death toll from the eruption of Whakaari/White Island is likely to rise. The number of those killed is currently five at the time ...35 mins ago
Aerial reconnaissance missions have flown over Whakaari-White Island since the eruption on Monday afternoon and there are no signs of any survivors, police say. ...2 hours ago
The world number one in long drive golf, Kiwi Phillis Meti, wants to see equal pay for women, and more Maori and Polynesian girls striking the ball ...2 hours ago
A critical part of the global trading system may fail this week - what does that mean for NZ? ...2 hours ago
How can we protect our privacy online in the face of increasingly clever marketing and retailing ploys? Victoria University of Wellington's Dr Marcin Betkier has some thoughts. ...2 hours ago
The High Court is told three tweets by a publisher repeated his paper and website's defamation against former National minister Steven Joyce. ...2 hours ago
The British people have a chance to stop the new age of hostility and belligerence before it is fully unleashed in the country's most significant election in 40 years, writes Neal Curtis. ...2 hours ago
An exhibition by Rarotonga-based artist Sam Thomas uses patu to explore questions of cultural exchange. Pat Baskett reviews 'Pakeha Gifts'. ...2 hours ago
Bougainville's path to a referendum on independence has been described as NZ's foreign policy success you've never heard of. ...3 hours ago
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shane Cronin, Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Auckland Five people have been confirmed dead, 23 have been rescued and several remain unaccounted for after a sudden volcanic eruption on Whakaari/White Island off the east coast of New Zealand. The island is ...9 hours ago
Ports of Auckland needs to control and run its port operations if it moves to Northport, just as it does now in Auckland. ...10 hours ago
Official advice may not be so hot on moving the port, Shane Jones says. ...12 hours ago
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters are to be commended for their leadership on the Upper North Island port issue, Waterfront 2029 Spokesperson Michael Goldwater said today. The Prime Minister today announced that ...14 hours ago
The European Central Bank’s activism on climate change is leading it into uncharted territory. ...15 hours ago
Former Auditor-General Martin Matthews is petitioning Parliament to reopen his case, claiming MPs "held a gun to his head" to force his resignation. ...16 hours ago
More than a billion dollars has wiped off the value of New Zealand's biggest company this morning following the surprise resignation of A2 Milk's chief executive. ...17 hours ago
The Climate Change Minister James Shaw says he is hopeful the final hurdles can be cleared for fixing the final rules of Paris Agreement before it kicks in next year. ...19 hours ago
Former finance minister Steve Joyce says an NBR journalist told him its columnist Matthew Hooton had ‘gone completely troppo’ in a column about to be published by the business website about the MP. ...19 hours ago
The housing market is heating up ahead of the holidays, with positive signs of growth, according to ASB's latest quarterly housing confidence survey. ...20 hours ago
The next phase in the Democrats’ plan to impeach US President Donald Trump begins at 9am Monday morning Washington DC when the House judiciary committee meets to consider a report from the intelligence committee – and hear academic argument on the way forward. The judiciary committee is expected to draft ...21 hours ago
Polystyrene meat trays, cups and takeaway food containers are the next targets in the battle to phase out single-use plastics, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced. ...22 hours ago
Kris Faafoi apologises to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, does not offer to resign; and Government moves to ban plastic fruit stickers, cutlery, and cotton buds. ...22 hours ago
The long-awaited and much-delayed Parliamentary report into the 2017 general election is expected to be published in the coming days. ...22 hours ago
A new report from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser envisages a future with much less plastic, all of it recycled or dealt with responsibly within New Zealand borders. ...1 day ago
The Islamic Women’s Council spent five years trying to get their concerns heard. David Williams tells their story ...1 day ago
Just three months into her comeback from knee surgery, Bronwyn Dibb jumps to silver at the world trampoline championships ...1 day ago
America's Cup defenders Emirates Team New Zealand have done things differently by building their own boats for the first time, and so far, it's paying off ...1 day ago
Every day, City Mission employee Helen Robinson sees the depth of poverty in Auckland. But at no time is that more visible than at Christmas. ...1 day ago
Debt is deep in the heart of our heart and our society, but we have an odd relationship with it. Bernard Hickey asks why we both love and fear it. ...1 day ago
Cancer treatment could be in for a paradigm shift with genomic profiling opening the door to personalised tumour therapy. ...1 day ago
With penguins dropping of the perch left, right and centre, Dunedin ranger Ben Goldsworthy must step up the search-and-rescue effort. ...1 day ago
Whatever political party we support, we either respect human rights or we don’t, writes Dr Jonathan Barrett of Victoria University of Wellington. ...1 day ago
Why the hell is he being given space in a newspaper? He’s no more “qualified” than the next person to make these pronouncements.
Oh wait, in this instance I’m the next person and I’ve actually spent time in a prison. In that case, he knows comparatively **** all.
Certainly they’re not run as well as they should be, and staff are barely able to cope. They’re under incredible stress and most do an excellent job despite, rather than because of, the facilities they’re managing (while a large number have simply given up and become automatons).
And why is this? Well for one thing it’s because narrow minded one-note idiots with no clues on correctional systems keep insisting we have “sensible” sentences which see offenders who could actually repay their debt to society by doing something positive for the community instead being stuffed, in ever greater numbers and for ever-lengthening times, into our prisons.
Now, if only we could identify the idiots responsible for encouraging that trend through their increasing tantrums every time a sentence is handed out with which they disagree, we could refer them to Mr McVicar for a damn good thrashing…
McVicars the only drop kick who will speak out against such transgressions thanks to his fort knox protected house, all lovingly paid for by supporters of SST. Sounds similar to someone else who preaches….
Bring back the death penalty I say.
Once more than 10 maori are hung/drawn/quartered, Turia and Sharples might walk the talk instead of blabbering on about shit.
McVicar will then have nothing to talk about – after all SST is all about “hang em high” policies to anything that involves biblical crimes.
Sit back, and watch crime rate drop accordingly. Turia will blame neoliberal post colonialism as a reason for maori getting hung, while conveniently ignoring the history of tribal warfare.
Even reinstating it for 2 years would be enough of a disincentive to not murder/rape/pillage/plunder. Bearing in mind that 98% of criminals caught in this country have a rap sheet longer than my arm, and are the ones who committed such atrocities.
But who can blame maori. They’re simply acting out their post colonialism tribal aggression.
BTW: Im fully aware of the fact that maori is a noun, I just choose not to give them capital status. Just Capital Punishment.
I’m all for harsher sentances, providing they are for crimes that have a real victim.
I’m sure if we got rid of our silly cannabis laws, the prison population would shrink, and we would have more room to keep the real bad bastards locked away, rather than someone who gets caught with a spliff.
BTW: Im fully aware of the fact that maori is a noun, I just choose not to give them capital status. Just Capital Punishment.
say what???
What does it say about the general population who seem to agree with the McVicars of NZ?
“Why does anyone take this man seriously?”
Option A: journalists who’d rather cut and paste a press release than find a real story
Option B: editors who have an interest in promoting the rantings of Mr McVicar
“What does it say about the general population who seem to agree with the McVicars of NZ?”
that they’re being lead by the nose by an msm with very obscure journalistic standards.
I’m once again in agreement with MikeE. There’d be less people in prison if there weren’t so many pointless laws. We lock people away from society because they pose a risk to themselves. It’s patently absurd. Legalise it… all.
I’m addressing a conference on Restorative Justice next week (along with a whole lot of people with far more knowledge than I on the subject) and have been doing my level best to get an Aussie journo or two along. I’ve just got yet another “sorry, I’ve got better things to do” response. Yeah, like regurgitating press releases from the local equivalents of McVicar, for instance. *sigh*
Mike E, QtR: Instant fines for possession of small amounts of cannabis have been the policy in several Australian states for some time now. NSW has trialled a policy of issung Criminal Infringement Notices (on-the-spot fines) for minor offences such as offensive language, minor cases of common assault (pushing and shoving basically), obstructing traffic and first time shoplifting*.
This frees up police from paper work and helps unclog the courts and the offender doesn’t end up with a criminal record.
Predictably there’s an outcry as other states try to introduce a similar scheme, complaining we’re “going soft” on “crims”. *sigh*
* Only if it’s a first offence, the goods are worth less than $300 and the shopkeeper agrees.
People take him seriously because I think he had a family member that was a victim of a crime, and he was put through hell through the system and saw the system was set up to help the criminals and not the people who were victims.
Rex – We want it legalised. I don’t want to see some system of fines in place. It ought to be legal as should every other drug. One thing on that list: offensive language! I would hate to see the day you got a fine for offensive language. IMO there is no such fucking thing (libel is another matter). I don’t actually know what the laws are in New Zealand surrounding “offensive language” but I do recall being in a fairly inebriated state and telling a police officer using a few choice words what I thought of her profession and merely getting an indifferent response.
Wow you’re really showing your wisdom now. Great idea. Lets legalise heroine and cocaine and PI. Great thinking there QtR.
On behalf of every medical professional in NZ – QTR you are a dingbat !
We certainly do not want all drugs legalised in NZ – legal and illegal drugs cause more than enough problems already.
GC – I’ve always thought that and said so many times on this site. You may wish to disagree with the freedom of a person do with their own body what they wish, but it’s something I believe in. It’s also something MikeE coming from the opposite end of the economic/political spectrum as I agrees with. IMO P, heroin, cocaine, ecstasy,mescaline, LSD, BZP, PCP, DMT whatever it is if people want to take they shouldn’t be criminalised for it. You might find this site interest: Law enforcement against prohibition. It’s a more commonly held belief then you may think ginger.
PS – GC what’s wrong with a heroine.
HS – Go back to kiwiblog.
On behalf of every medical professional in NZ
How about you just speak for yourself HS, unless they had a vote and named you chief bloviator.
They’ve pretty much legalised heroin in Switzerland, had a referendum, about 65 percent in favour. Hard core junkies can get their fix of uncut smack at the pharmacy. Heaps fewer needles lying around in parks and I hear about a third of the junkies on the deal have since quit their ten year plus habit. Funny that.
The war on drugs has been a miserable failure, though it’s funded lot’s of narco wars and given the CIA and other such high minded individuals decent funding for deniable adventure with excellent blowback opportunities going forward. So if you’re into that sort of terror and bullet in the back of the head hijnks, it’s not a complete loss. And it mostly only happens to the not white people and third world failed staters so meh, eh?
I don’t think its a commonly held belief. A wee few perhaps but I don’t see many asking the argument for legalising all drugs. There is certainly opinion around cannabis that i think is legitimate. But when not a single political party or even a minority of people talk of legalisation of all drugs, you can hardly call it a common held belief.
Now that is your opinion so your certainly entitled to it but I think its a poor argument to bring criminal numbers down.
—-
I’m still wondering why Jasper has not been banned. That was the most disgustingly racist thing I’ve ever read here.
GC – I didn’t say it was a commonly held belief I said it was a more commonly held belief than you may think and linked to that site to help my case. You may be surprised ginger, for example Pen and Teller. Here’s the show rather than me arguing the point with you and taking this thread further off topic.
Actually the call has been to de-criminalise (can’t spell!) marijuanna, which is not the same as legalise. Might give police more important things to worry about?
Ginger, why do you think it’s a poor argument re criminality?
For the sake of argument let’s posit that we legalise the lot, regulate suppliers similar to alcohol etc, and have quality controls so that users know what they are buying etc.
Way I see it, beyond the obvious fact that users and dealers would no longer be criminals, you’d also eliminate all the crime surrounding the market. Competitors in the alcohol business don’t tend to murder each other. Retailers only rarely find that their new supplier has sold them coloured water and shot through to Sydney or Jo-berg with a quarter million in cash, requiring the time consuming and dangerous task of locating and extracting the specialised, expensive, and not very nice debt recovery services available. Similarly Liquorland doesn’t feel the need to employ enforcers to beat the shit of slow paying creditors. Alcoholics seem to be able to find their fix cheaply enough and reliably enough that they don’t need to steal up to grand a week in widescreen TV’s and XBOX360’s to keep the DT’s at bay. There wouldn’t be millions locally and trillions globally floating around needing laundry services and payoffs to everyone from border officials and politicians to police, judges, bankers, lawyers and god knows who else. (disclaimer/sidetrack deflection – I’m not saying that outright corruption is a big problem in NZ, but I wouldn’t say it doesn’t exist, and those millions do get laundered somewhere).
Narcotics are estimated to be, I understand, right up there with oil and guns as the most traded things on the planet. The war on drugs just transfers all that cash to bad, bad men.
Do you disagree? What would you suggest we do to start ‘winning the war on drugs’, if you think that is possible?
Garth McVicar wouldn’t know, and neither would the ‘just say no’ crowd. They’re big criminal narco’s bff. Pump up the margins and pass the cut merchandise baby.
There has to be a better way to regulate than this surely? IMO etc.
GC – I haven’t been banned because while I was busy snorting coke, smoking marijuana and cooking P, I must have dazed off into a dreamland where I wished that my husband, neice, nephew, sister in law, mother in law and several cousins would all be goneburger.
Somehow my rant was only taken seriously by you. Are you one of the fawning masses who drool over McVicars every word too?
Tane – apologies if it came out as being moderately serious and not in the same style as a McVicar rant… I must have been slightly more coherent.
QtR – Fully agree. Legalise all dugs. Government gets revenue, stigma goes away, it’s no longer a “cool” drug to do as there’s no element in getting caught. Most drug takers only do it for the thrill.
Canberras decriminalisation has led to a massive drop in the number of people with MaryJane in that state alone.
Funny. Captcha is Competent There.Who is?
PB,
The argument you make is a very good one. It makes sense on the pragmatic level you pitch it to. Yet I cannot help but still have reservations.
Where an act has a direct social dimension (eg murder or theft), we seem to have no problem enacting and enforcing laws against it.
By contrast where the direct victim of an act is also the perpetrator of it (eg drug use) enforcement becomes far more problematic. There is no doubt that drug abuse (and I include alcohol) carries an enormous indirect cost to society as a whole.
Let me try these numbers. Crime in NZ is estimated to cost about $8-10b pa. About 70% of that can be directly linked with alcohol abuse. Something like 30% of all accidents and medical costs are probably related to it, and I would suggest that lost workplace productivity and opportunities probably amount to at least 5% of GDP. Add all those up and alcohol abuse alone probably costs this country close to $20b pa. (Not to mention all the uncountable human misery. And if only we could invoice LiquorKing for this cost we might be able to afford some real tax cuts.)
We seem to happily accept the staggering social cost of alcohol abuse, while deploring (as we should) acts like murder, rape and child abuse that probably have a somewhat lessor total impact on society.
What drives this distinction? Why is it that we find crimes like murder relatively easy to reach a social consensus about (leaving aside the question of capital punishment for the moment), but twist ourselves in moral and intellectual knots over drug abuse?
Jasper:
That’s the downside of satire; sometimes it’s impossible to distinguish from reality.
I can’t see how legitimising the use of dangerous drugs as a good thing. In a commercial content arguably the drugs would be safer but they’re still dangerous and very open to abuse. That is one concern. Secondly, we know that by lowering the age of alcohol use there has been an increase in young people drinking and the health costs and criminal activity attached to that law change has increased. We know being liberal about alcohol laws means poorer areas see huge growth in liquor stores etc. In the legalisation of all drugs that same increase would be seen. And who would suffer more than others? Why the very people that are Labour’s core voters. They constantly vote Labour and the left That surely is a concern? Because you legalise drugs and the biggest increase would be the South Aucklands, the Aranuis of Christchurch etc etc.
Likewise, in legalising drugs you will see crime increase. The changes in liquor laws have seen more and more criminal offences by drunk people. That would also extend to drug users. You don’t think places that sell drugs won’t be targeted by criminals? I beg to differ. You’d also see a rapid rise in health costs as more and more people use drugs. See I don’t think legalising drugs will make less people use them I would think there would be a considerable increase in drug usage and there would thus, be an increase in health costs and criminal costs.
—-
Jasper I really don’t care if you were joking or not.I just saw what you wrote as racist, non-funny and offensive. I like some of what Garth McVicar has to say and I believe some of the things he does is in the interest for New Zealand and something that has a general concensus. I also think he goes way too far and often ignores white collar crime.
QtR: I agree fines are just a bloody nonsense for possession, and have nil value as a deterrent (which is presumably why they exist). I was just pointing out that even a small step in the right direction gets decried.
I also agree with you re legalising it all, for precisely the reasons so eloquently enumerated by Pascal’s bookie above.
Higher Standard: normally you talk sense, but before you start speaking for the entire medical profession have a word with some of your colleagues. I’d recommend starting with Andrew Byrne, an incredibly compassionate GP who’s become a specialist in addiction treatment. He’s seen the misery addiction can bring and is certainly no proponent of the “let’s legalise it so we can all party” POV (which I detect a slight whiff of from QtR… my apologies if I’ve read you wrong).
But Andrew and others who’ve worked with addicts (including, in a small way, myself) know full well that the intervention of some Plod with a charge sheet has never done anyone an ounce (pardon the pun) of good.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to see any drug (including alcohol) abused. But if GPs are still hanging their hat on prohibition as a prophylactic, then they need to do some professional development, urgently.
Red – But what is it you advocate – that we should prohibit alcohol? It seems to me that you’re the one tying yourself up in a moral knot. I’m certainly not in any. The point of our argument is that prohibition has been an absolute failure. We saw so plainly what a failure alcohol prohibition was in America (and interestingly enough in Russia) and I think it’s plainly obvious the immense failure of the global war on drugs fought since the early seventies. Drugs are easier to access and cheaper in the U.S. now than before the war began and I think it would be comparable worldwide. Calling for an end to prohibition is not in any way advocating drug use. Humans are always going to look to use psychoactives it’s just a plain fact of life. You can’t suppress it anymore than you can suppress sex.
Ginger – You give me one example where prohbition has actually led to a significant decrease in the rates of use. Then you’re argument will have some merit, but otherwise it doesn’t and I know of no instance where it has. I don’t think the argument that lots of people will start taking drugs if it was legal and crime would increase bears up to any scrutiny. Alcohol prohibition did nothing to use and crime increased as Al Capone and the like went on murdering sprees. The wiki article quotes the New York county lawyers association thusly:With aid of these distinctions, we see that present drug policy appears to contribute to the increase of violence in our communities. It does so by permitting and indeed, causing the drug trade to remain a lucrative source of economic opportunity for street dealers, drug kingpins and all those willing to engage in the often violent, illicit, black market trade.
Meanwhile, the effect of present policy serves to stigmatize and marginalize drug users, thereby inhibiting and undermining the efforts of many such individuals to remain or become productive, gainfully employed members of society. Furthermore, current policy has not only failed to provide adequate access to treatment for substance abuse, it has, in many ways, rendered the obtaining of such treatment, and of other medical services, more difficult and even dangerous to pursue. ‘
Rex – I’m not adverse to little smoke here and there, but I’m no party animal.
Give me evidence that legalising drugs somehow benefits society. Any legitimation of drug use will have problems and that you can’t see that I find dumbfounding.
Also I never actually said the prohibition of drugs cuts usage but I believe it has to be better than legitimising and legalising dangerous drugs.
As for your arguments about alcohol QtR yes making alcohol prohibited saw an increase in gangs etc but one thing you can’t deny. That the opening up and acceptance of alcohol and new liberal laws around alcohol sales etc. Has caused social issues, increases in admissions to hospitals etc and increases in crime.
—-
Are our current laws in terms of illegal drugs wrong? Possibly. But I don’t favour decriminalising anything other than cannabis and I frankly do not see the benefits of making current illegal drugs legal.
Personally I’m very liberal socially, and happy for people to do whatever they like as long as it doesnt have a real negative impact on the rights of others. But it is funny to see alcohol used as a justification for the legalisation of other drugs. We clearly need more of the problems that alcohol provides, though on the other hand prohibition is a clearly worse solution.
The damage caused to our society by alcohol abuse is far more widespread and expensive than any other drug – apologies for that sweeping statement to any individuals on the receiving end of any drug related trauma.
The solution is simple but unpalatable to most of our society. Decriminalise drugs, supply them legally, tax the hell out them, provide rehab services and have draconian penalties for possessors of unlicenced narcotics. Might as well raise some tax revenue from an inelastic commodity – it may help pay for the lost productivity, increased medical costs etc society as a whole incurs. And run the same sort of campaign against, dope, party pills, P etc that we now run against cigarettes.
Why are cigarettes unacceptable but dope, party pills aren’t? (Always amuses me when fussy, greenie, “natural is good” types take party pills – there’s consistency for you.) Cant understand the logic disconnect there. Oh, and minimum sentence of (pick a number greater than 1) years for anyone driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. I don’t want a doped up idiot running over my kids as they walk to school. Though if said doped up idiot stays in his bedroom eating pizza I don’t really care.
Garth McVictim is an absolute joke. My mind often wanders when I’m stuck on menial tasks at work, and I was thinking today about he really aught to fess up that the policies he advocates have been shown to increase crime, he really aught to be honest to people that hes willing to live in a more dangerous society, in return for getting a bit of revenge.
The others are right in identifying a significant racist element in his work, when Jack Nicholas was shot, in McVictims general area, that was a big turning point for the SST, they really used it to pump up their profile. This was all kind of based around the expectation \ assumption that the person who shot him would be a Maori growing a crop of dope on his land. Bit of a shock to McVictim when I turned out to be a white fella, but that’s the way the chips fall.
The other thing about drug prohibition that I don’t think has been covered here is the example of Vancouver’s safe injection site. Similar too other programs, clean gear provided, medical supervision ect (but drugs not supplied like some other places). Two benefits not really mentioned that have been seen in the Vancouver set up is it tends to have all the users in the near by area, while this is at the expense of that area, things are a lot better in the rest of the city for it.
It also takes drug use out of the shadows and provides much better access for medical and psychological treatment for the users. Many of which their drug use has gone well beyond about using or pleasure from a drug, its just pure addiction and dependence. The safe injection sites result in a much higher rate of getting people clean.
Red, I’m not suggesting that drug use is without cost. Why we tie ourselves in knots? I don’t know. But what is undeniable is that for a large number of humans, in pretty much any time and place you care to mention, ‘recreational’ drug use has been important to them, socially, spiritually and emotionally. I don’t think that is going to change. At present society offers only one legal drug. One that when abused makes people violent and dangerous. Much more so than many of the other drugs that are illegal. Ask cops about whether they feel safer visiting dance parties or pubs after 4AM. And where they make more arrests. P is a menace, it’s also a crap drug that’s easy to make and powerful. Black market mana.
gc
“legitimisation” is a red herring. People that want to take drugs, and that is a lot of people BTW, take them now. They are very widely available, through criminals who will sell them to anyone, restricted only by their personal sense of who they want to sell them to. These are the only people users can buy them off, they would far rather get better quality safer product at licensed dealers.
Most drug users manage fine. Alcohol is one of the most damaging personally and socially IMO, yet the biggest dealers of that drug are widely respected pillars of the community.
Think Douglas Myers, what is the difference between him and the guy selling Ecstasy tablets? Answer: The guy selling e’s is a criminal with fewer deaths on his hands (as a result of the product).
What we need to do is minimise the social harm done by drugs. Most of that harm is due to the criminality of the enterprise, and the fact that alcohol is legal. It still cracks me up that at events like the Gathering you used to get around ten thousand people camping out for 3 days, alcohol prohibited, a low police presence and trained folks on hand to look out for problems. Hardly a single problem with violence or non drug crime despite 95 percent of the punters being out of their gourds as much as they liked on pot, e, mushrooms, lsd etc. I guarantee if alcohol was involved there’d have been a lot more problems and a lot less fun. Down the road in Nelson there’d be a couple of hundred piss heads get together for one night at new years eve,- riots, dozens of arrests heaps of property damage etc and so on.
Given the choice, lots of the people that at the moment cause problems due to alcohol, (young males) would be using drugs that are less aggro, and don’t mess with your head in the same way that alcohol does.
One question:
Does anyone think the clever people at the big pharma companies would not be able to develop safer recreational drugs than those we use now, if the stigma was removed from the idea that using drugs to have fun is ‘wrong’ ?
Any rational reasons why that isn’t happening?
People get nervous about the idea of legalised drugs. Given the problems illegal drugs cause I find that ridiculous.
Ginger – I also see the issue as a wider issue than the pragmatic side, the social cost, the economic cost, etc of the drug war, I see it as a moral one in that I don’t think the government ought to control what we put into our own bodies. I think that is a basic point of difference between our views that is irreconcilable. Yes you are dumbfounding GC. The pragmatic side is obvious and you really can’t argue it, you don’t even bother. You yourself said you didn’t say that prohibition of drugs cuts usage. So what’s the point in prohibition then? Just an incredibly bizarre and expensive game. I think the best quote is from someone on the National research council in the U.S: “the drug war has no interest in its own results.” In countries with relatively liberal approach to drugs such as the Netherlands there is actually less drug use than other nations with harsher approach to drugs. Answer me this if cocaine was legalised tommorrow would you suddenly start snorting cocaine? I think your answer would be no and I think that answer is the same for most people. The argument that usage would actually increase with legalisation is just plain wrong. Drugs are already readily available and easy enough to acquire the people that want to take drugs do take drugs prohibtion or no prohibition. Also I believe that harm reduction can be much better achieved if the people we are trying to treat are not criminalised and the money saved on law enforcement and mass imprisonment was spent on healthcare and education. Your side of the argument is not only untenable from a moral perspective it’s untenable from a pragmatic perspective. Another interesting quote from that article, since I know you didn’t bother to read it. Martin Friedman said: “See, if you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That’s literally true.’
Also answer me this ginger Do you drink alcohol, smoke tobacco or drink coffee? If the answer is yes then you are a drug user. Did you know that when the U.S drew up its list of drugs to make illegal on such and such’s law (I can’t remeber the name), violating their own constitution, coffee was short listed, we’re just lucky that it wasn’t arbitrarily made illegal like so many other drugs, as the rest of the world followed America’s lead.
Just because he was a victim of crime doesn’t mean he’s an authority on prisons I’m afraid.
gingercrush asks:
The vast – and I do mean vast – numbers of people who wouldn’t have been burgled, robbed at knife / gun / syringe point, mugged, car jacked, stood over for money and just plain stolen from (thought that’s mainly partners, friends and family, specially mums and dads – it’s the public who get the really nasty stuff committed upon them) by a junkie who needs to spend hundreds of dollars a day on a drug when decriminalising it would lower the price and make it affordable.
The kids of junkies who might get fed if mummy and / or daddy could afford a fix and food.
The medical staff, spcially at hospital A&Es, who wouldn’t have to deal with violent addicts withdrawing and demanding drugs they’re not legally allowed to prescribe and could get on with treating people who needed help (or, sadly, drunks who’d had too much and glassed one another, but that’s another story).
The cops who wouldn’t have 80% of their time taken up with the above.
It’s nigh on impossible to extract reliable drug-related crime data from the overall statistics – especially crimes not involving drugs, but committed to fund their purchase, because no one really collects it.
But spend a while in the “justice” system in any capacity at all, from judge to crim, and you’ll soon see the enormity of the crime committed to purchase illegal substances. Crime that would virtually vanish overnight if those substances were decriminalised and affordable.
It’s like Frank Gallgher says in the opening title sequence of the brilliant Shameless; “Make poverty history: cheaper drugs now” 😀 To which I’d add “And make most crime history too”.
Killinginthenameof:
Misprint, or confession? 😀
ginger- the argument (interestingly, both sides argue from facts, not ideology) that we should decriminalise is based on the assumption that certain types of drugs are harmless enough that the black market that supplies them, and other trappings of criminalisation, such as ignoring drug addiction as a health problem both mental and physical, exceed the harm of simply letting people have the drug.
Most people with any slant on drug decriminalisation believe that cannabis is probably the best candidate, and certainly worth a try given the drug-related crime statistics in the only country that has to any degree decriminalised it. (Most of the incidents are foreigners who came to the country specifically to smoke, which seems to be evidence for decriminalisation.)
Would you agree for instance that removing penalties for possession only is likely to still allow police to go after people who really are abusing the system- like growers and dealers- without having to bust people for choosing to endanger people for their own health?
QTR
“I see it as a moral one in that I don’t think the government ought to control what we put into our own bodies”
And who’s responsibility is it for paying and cleaning up the mess resulting from what people put in their bodies ?
QTR your comments are the same sort of drive I used to spout decades ago before I grew up.
Rex
“The medical staff, spcially at hospital A&Es, who wouldn’t have to deal with violent addicts withdrawing and demanding drugs they’re not legally allowed to prescribe and could get on with treating people who needed help (or, sadly, drunks who’d had too much and glassed one another, but that’s another story).”
Rex addicts withdrawing and demanding drugs is more of a problem at secondary care level, the majority of drug/addiction problems in A&E is self harm or harm to others caused by the patients abuse of drugs (prescription and non prescription, legal and illegal)
For secondary care read primary care (GPs)
(I think you mean “whose” 🙂 )
Ideally their own, but keep in mind that the long-term cost of treating addicts is probably a lot lower than the long-term cost of arresting them.
PB:” At present society offers only one legal drug.”
Two – tobacco is pretty bad as well – ask anyone who gives up.
Lynn, true that.
McVicar may come across as a bit of a buffoon at times but he quite clearly represents the utter frustrations of a very significant proportion of the population who have suffered from crime and the justice system and who see massive flaws in it.
They won’t go away until things improve for them. And good on them quite frankly.
I don’t understand why some have a problem with their wailing at the politicians.
VTO: Because if they give McVicar and his lot what they’re after it sure as hell won’t improve things and could very well make things worse.
HS – Speaking on behalf of the galatic federation… You grew up HS but Noam Chomsky, Milton Friedman, those guys who signed the american constitution, all those classic liberalists like John Stuart Mill, Julian Critchley former head of the U.K’s anti-drug coordination unit, all the former and current law enforcement persons at LEAP, and so on and so forth.
All of them are immature young people and you are the wise old man isn’t that right HS. Two quotes for you the afformentioned Julian Critchley:I think what was truly depressing about my time in UKADCU was that the overwhelming majority of professionals I met, including those from the police, the health service, government and voluntary sectors held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those intelligent, knowledgeable people were forced to repeat the nonsensical mantra that the Government would be ‘tough on drugs’, even though they all knew that the Government’s policy was actually causing harm.
and Albert Einstein:The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this.
I didn’t know you were a member of the galactic federation.
QTR – I don’t think one needs to look past the effect of lowering the drinking age to see what the likely effects of across the board drug legalisation or decriminalisation would be. In terms of what I would consider one of the less harmful drugs that could be considered for decriminalisation have a look at the issues below.
“The Swiss Experiment: Tolerant drug policies in Switzerland have resulted in an influx of drug users. In 1987, the Swiss Government permitted drug use and sales in a part of Zurich called Platzspitz, or “Needle Park.’ By 1992, over 20,000 drug users congregated in the park, and the surrounding areas were overrun with crime. The park has been shut down and the experiment has been terminated.”
“The Canadian Experiment: The aggressive decriminalization effort in Canada has resulted in the highest levels of pot use in 25 years. The Canadian Government released a report indicating that marijuana usage had increased to the same levels as the late 1970’s. Kids were getting mixed messages about the dangers of marijuana during the 1990’s when the decriminalization discussion was going on. According to the November 24, 2004 Canada Addiction Survey, marijuana use among Canadians has doubled since 1994. A decade earlier, 7.4% of respondents indicated they had used marijuana; usage levels are currently 14%. The study also indicates that there has been an increase in the number of Canadians using an injectable drug: the number rose from 132,000 in 1994 to 269,000 in 2004.”
“In Ireland, the number of children treated for mental disorders caused by smoking cannabis has quadrupled since the government downgraded the legal status of the drug, according to an article in the Sunday Times (September 18, 2005). Addaction, an Irish drug charity, told the Times that “three months after police stopped arresting anyone found in possession of small amounts of the drug, the overall number of users treated for such conditions rose 42%.’
“Mayor of Maastricht Pushes Cannabis Cafes to Edge of City: According to a New York Times article (August 20, 2006), “The mayor (of Maastricht) wants to move most of the city’s 16 licensed cannabis clubs to the edge of town, preferably close to the border’ (with Belgium and Germany). Mayor Gerd Leers is reacting to growing concerns among residents who “complain of traffic problems, petty crime, loitering and public urination. There have been shootings between Balkan gangs. Maastricht’s small police force is already spending one-third of its time on drug-related problems.’ Cannabis clubs have drawn “pushers of hard drugs from Amsterdam, who often harass people on the streets.’ According to a police spokesman, the clubs have also attracted people looking to buy marijuana in quantity. Piet Tans, the police spokesman also stated that “People who come from far away don’t just come for the five grams you can buy legally over the counter They think pounds and kilos; they go to the dealers who operate in the shadows.’
Lynn apologies for the cut and pastes – linking not working for some reason.
JFTR,
HS’s quotes seem to be taken from a D.E.A. website. Which is useful to know.
HS – First of all the swiss experiment, only yesterday in the press they had an article on swiss voters Swiss voters have overwhelmingly approved a move to make permanent the country’s pioneering programme to give addicts government-authorised heroin.
It goes on to say:The heroin programme has helped eliminate scenes of large groups of drug users shooting up openly in parks that marred Swiss cities in the 1980s and 1990s, supporters say.
Second of all citing the Netherlands to defend your case is ridiculous. The Netherlands has a soft approach to natural drugs Cannabis, mushrooms, etc and the use rates of hard drugs are correspondingly lower than the rest of the EU and the use of Cannabis use is lower than countires with a much harsher approach to Cannabis like the U.S. Furthermore deaths from drugs are lower than other nations and the rates of AIDS due to intravenous drug use is also lower. That quote from the police woman could easily support an argument that Cannabis laws should be further liberalised in the Netherlands as people are going to criminals “who operate in the shadows” to buy large quantities instead of a shop.
Thirdly, the average consumption of alcohol in New Zealand is average on a world scale, we’re mormon tea drinkers comparable to some countries, wealthy european countries for instance.
Fourthly you’re all over the place with your Canadian example. Injectable drug use is up all over the world, the reason is Afghanistan. Also you give numbres not percentages so you’re not accounting for population increases. The Netherlands has a softer approach to Cannabis then canada and their rate of use is around 6%. The use of Cannabis in Canada is about the same as that in our country and as you say about the same as when the laws were harsher in the seventies which supports my view that prohibtion or legalisation will not really change the number of people doing drugs anymore than making sex illegal would have an effect on the number of people having sex.
Fiftly – In Ireland that is just as anyone supproting an end to prohibition would expect, that once the criminality of a drug is removed it would be easier for drugs users to seek treament. The quote from the New York county lawyers association I put in an earlier comment says that current policy has not only failed to provide adequate access to treatment for substance abuse, it has, in many ways, rendered the obtaining of such treatment, and of other medical services, more difficult and even dangerous to pursue. Furthermore Cannabis use in Ireland is relatively low less than half of what it is in this country.
Now what have you to say about my earlier comment are you still maintaining that all those people are immature and young?
Two things. If some form of decriminalisation occur, it is likely that the recorded incidence will rise as there is no reason to hide. Think of the apparent rise in recorded incidence of violent crime when publicity encouraged reporting of domestic violence. (sort of the same.) One small country with decriminalisation in some form is sure to attract a huge number of outsiders. If all countries were in, there would be no need for the congregation.
And the legal use of alcohol does not prevent problems arising from its use. But if alcohol was a banned substance I think the serious consequences would be even greater.
QTR
Your Einstein quote refers to the prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 20s – I can’t see it’s relevance in relation to your wish to make all drugs of abuse legal and I hardly think that’s what Einstein was suggesting when he made that statement.
Though one could argue that prohibition of a previously legal substance may cause major issues ……. although the prohibition on smoking in restaurants etc certinly hasn’t caused any great problems, so one could expect different issues dependent on what is prohibited and what restrictions are placed around drugs of abuse which is hardly surprising.
Secondly you seem now to be making the argument that we need legalisation of drugs of abuse so that we can make medical services and treatment to get people off the drugs of abuse more freely available – which is bordering on the non-sensical.
I doubt we’ll ever see eye to eye on this issue as my position will remain is that drugs of abuse are harmful and need to be treated and restricted as such whereas you appear to take the libertarian view….
“I see it as a moral one in that I don’t think the government ought to control what we put into our own bodies. I think that is a basic point of difference between our views that is irreconcilable.”
….having seen the damage caused by legal and illegal drugs of abuse I find I can’t agree with at all
Ianmac
I tend to agree with your position on total alcohol prohibition although it would never happen in NZ and we wouldn’t know unless we tried it. However what would be the effect of having a zero limit for drink driving with very harsh penalties – would it lead to a furthering lowering of alcohol related road fatalaties over the next decade.
HS – Well I see the alcohol prohibtion a perfect example of the failure of prohibition and the same things that went on with alcohol in America in the prohibition era is the same that goes on with other drugs now, that is poorly made drugs causing harm to users, bath tub gin in the days of prohibition, drug cartels controlling the market, we all know about the gangsters in the prohibiton days and we can see the drug cartels and gangs in action today. Remember all the while during prohibiton of alcohol cannabis was legal, opium was available in snake medicine and heroin was prescribed for sore throats. When many drugs that are illegal are more innocuous than alcohol your argument against prohibiton of them is hypocritical in the extreme if you are not calling for the prohbition of alcohol. You take issue with my Einstein quote fine, but what about the rest, are they all immature young people? You decided not to aruge any of the points I raised only the health issue. I make the argument against prohibition for many reasons not just that. Many people in law enforcement and health care have made the same argument that harm reduction can be much better achieved if prohibition was ended. You believe that the number of users would increase, I do not. You haven’t provided any examples to back up your argument. As I’ve said before those that want to use drugs or try them have or will, prohibition or no prohbition. The war on drugs has done nothing to the availability or cost of drugs, they’re now cheaper and more readily available then before the war on drugs. the only thing that would make your argument work is that if you could prove that prohibiton does anything to the number of people using and trying drugs and you can’t prove that. I asked ginger whether he’d start using drugs if they were legal I’ll ask yout he same question; If cocaine or heroin were legalised tommorow would you start using them? In conclusion your argument is indefensible from any moral or pragmatic level.
P.S. You’re a freedom hating wowser.
QTR
“In conclusion your argument is indefensible from any moral or pragmatic level.”
So your position is that it is both moral and pragmatic to legalise drugs – right then
“If cocaine and heroin were legal tomorrow would you start using them”
No,
“Many people in law enforcement and health care have made the same argument that harm reduction can be much better achieved if prohibition was ended. You believe that the number of users would increase, I do not. You haven’t provided any examples to back up your argument.”
Try the article below
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/single-e.htm
or
http://pb.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/22/4/230.pdf
or
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7627/967
I’m pretty much in total agreement with the comment the author makes…
“Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal; they are illegal because they are dangerous. A child who reaches age 21 without smoking, misusing alcohol, or using illegal drugs is virtually certain to never do so.Today, most children don’t use illicit drugs, but all of them, particularly the poorest, are vulnerable to misuse and addiction. Legalisation and decriminalisation—policies certain to increase illegal drug availability and use among our children—hardly qualify as public health approaches.”
There are also other links that argue for an end to prohibition so an interesting read form both perspectives as I have said previously my perspective is from that of someone who has to clean up the mess caused by drugs of abuse and as a parent who does not only want more restrictions placed on the availability of alcohol and tobacco but would exit NZ in an instant if the government moved to make currently illegal drugs legal as per your heroin and cocaine argument.
And in regards to being a freedom hating wowser – no not really I’m just not in favour of people killing themselves and others as a result of their abuse of legal and illegal drugs.
Wowser – Right, so I skimmed over you first link (bloody long) and found this in the conclusion:Decriminalisation measures in the U.S. and Australia were much less radical than their name implies. The new laws involved a change in penalties whereby cannabis possession offenders were no longer subject to potential jail terms, which had already been an uncommon sentence in most jurisdictions, as well as providing the opportunity for possession offenders to avoid a criminal conviction and the resultant problems. In both countries, these so-called decriminalisation laws did not appear to have had a major impact on rates of use, as many feared that it might have.
Tha’s what I’ve been saying laws or lack of will not change usage and if they don’t is there in any point in the whole war? I will read in more detail and check out the other link later.
QTR
But your not arguing decriminalisation are you ?
Your arguing for “..Rex – We want it legalised. I don’t want to see some system of fines in place. It ought to be legal as should every other drug”
I’m happy to argue against either to some extent but would certainly view option 1 as the lesser of two evils.
Wowser – Your second article is by its own admission totally inconclusive. I simply don’t agree with the third article and many in the health profession and in law enforcement do not either. We could both sit here and cherry pick others’ opinions forever if we wish. Back to the first article I think it proves my point that liberalisation even if it’s just a small move like decriminalisation does not do anything to the number of users and that criminalisation is no deterrent and has had no effect on the number of users. The people that want to use drugs do and those that don’t don’t and the changing the laws won’t change that fact. From the article:
The presumed benefit of the criminalisation of cannabis possession is the deterrence of cannabis use. There is, however, little evidence of a strong deterrent effect. Substantial increases in marijuana use occurred in the 1960s and 1970s despite the application of criminal penalties for cannabis possession both in the U.S. (7, 23, 44) and in Australia (17). These trends in cannabis use do not constitute conclusive evidence regarding the lack of a deterrent effect, as it is not known whether rates of use might have increased even more if cannabis possession had not been prohibited. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that nonusers rarely cite fear of legal consequences as a reason for their nonuse (34, 44). Rather, the simple lack of interest or fear of adverse health consequences are the most commonly given reasons for abstention from cannabis use
The available data indicate that these decriminalisation measures substantially reduced enforcement costs, yet had little or no impact on rates of use.
Changes in rates of use appear to be more strongly connected with changing perceptions of health risks rather than availability or any changes in the legal status of the drug.
Cannabis use is very popular, being by far the most widely used illicit drug in both countries. The cannabis market has been described in the U.S. as being “near-saturation” (23) and this would probably also apply to Australia as well.
Under these circumstances, it should not be surprising that the reduction of penalties for cannabis possession to a fine only did not lead to significant changes in rates of cannabis use.
Am I to take it that you are now in favour of decriminalisation?
Arghhhhh you’re not your … I’ve caught SP’s disease.
No I’m not in favour of decriminalisation I merely stated that it’s the lesser of two evils.
Are you now in favour of only decriminalising cannabis or are you still wishing to legalise all drugs of abuse ?
I would also point to an rather obvious point that appears lost on you – make something easier and cheaper to obtain, and you increase the number of people who will try it.
If we have indeed got saturation usage of cannabis this may not be the case with this drug of abuse, but to extrapolate that to other drugs of abuse or new drugs of abuse is foolhardy.
We know that keeping an activity illegal deters many people from taking part in that activity. Remove the penalties or sanctions, and many more people will take up the activity.
We can learn from history here. After Europe imposed the opium trade on China in the mid-19th century, by 1900 there were an estimated 90 million opium addicts in the nation. When British physicians could write prescriptions for heroin in the 60s, the nation’s junkies increased thirty to forty-fold.
HS – No I still support legalisation.
We know that keeping an activity illegal deters many people from taking part in that activity. Remove the penalties or sanctions, and many more people will take up the activity.
Now you’re just making blind assertions. The article you linked to on Cannabis decriminalisation comes to the exact opposite conclusion:Changes in rates of use appear to be more strongly connected with changing perceptions of health risks rather than availability or any changes in the legal status of the drug.
You said: I would also point to an rather obvious point that appears lost on you – make something easier and cheaper to obtain, and you increase the number of people who will try it. It is not an obvious point. I would say it is false. As I asked you if you’d start taking heroin or cocaine if they were legal and you said you would not. My point as I have made many times is that drugs are easy to acquire, available in abundance and relatively cheap and those that want to try them do regardless of the laws. I’ve made this point: the war on drugs has done nothing to the availability or cost of drugs, they’re now cheaper and more readily available then before the war on drugs. It’s you who doesn’t seem to get the point that after years of mass imprisonment, executions, spraying of vast swathes of land, many deaths on both sides law enforcement and criminal absolutely nothing has been achieved by the drug war. Nothing. And as I said drugs are actaully cheaper and more readily available then when the war started. I think the quote I put in an earlier comment sums it up best: “the drug war has no interest in its own results.’
As to your spurious comments about heroin in Britain, I have no doubt that you have absolutely no understanding of the situaiton. Your numbers are way over the top. First of all British physicians could write prescriptions for heroin since the twenties to help addicts so your claim is laughable. The laws actually became harder in the 60s and seventies in Britain surrounding many drugs. Now there was an increase in heroin users in the sixties, I’ll allow you to draw own conclusion on the fact that when the approach to drugs became harsher use increased. There is a long article here about supplying heroin legally to addicts.
Here are some quotes from it:
Bv 1924, when the Rolleston committee met, the disastrous effects of the United States decision to refuse legal opium, morphine, and heroin to addicts were conspicuously visible. Dr. Harry Campbell came to the United States in 1922 to observe what had been happening during seven years of enforcement of the Harrison Act. What he saw flabbergasted him. Upon his return to England he informed his medical colleagues of the astonishing conditions he had observed: … In consequence of this stringent law a vast clandestine commerce in narcotics has grown tip in that country. The small bulk of these drugs renders the evasion of the law comparatively easv, and the country is overrun by an army of peddlers who extort exorbitant prices from their helpless victims. It appears that not only has the Harrison Law failed to diminish the number of drug takers-some contend, indeed, that it has increased their numbers-btal far from bettering the lot of the opiate addict, it has actually worsened it; for without curtailing the supply of the drug it has sent the price up tenfold, and this has had the effect of impoverishing the poorer class of addicts and reducing them to a condition of such abject misery as to render them incapable of gaining an honest livelihood.
And the sixties:In short, Britain had begun to adopt American antidrug propaganda methods, and was beginning to reap Americanstyle rewards in terms of a rise in youthful addiction.
I still can’t understand your ket reason for making substances that are harmful to oneself and society legal perhaps you should list your rationale again.
But to cover some further points.
“We know that keeping an activity illegal deters many people from taking part in that activity. Remove the penalties or sanctions, and many more people will take up the activity.Now you’re just making blind assertions.”
Nope
During Prohibition in America, consumption of alcohol declined substantially, as did the cirrhosis death rate for men (cut by two-thirds between 1911 and 1929), and arrests for public drunkenness (dropped 50 per cent between 1919 and 1922).
When Muslim societies removed restrictions on hashish in the 15th century, it is said that this resulted in “a large number of people from all walks of life [being] in a constant state of intoxication’.
Some advocates of legalisation claim that such a move will reduce drug-associated crime. Even if we assume that lower prices will cause addicts to commit fewer offences, there is a very real possibility that this will be offset by the general crime increase associated with the increase in users.
Any health professional or police officer will tell you that a person on drugs will be more likely to neglect a child, abuse a spouse or take a life. It’s not just that people do bad things to get drugs; drugs make them do bad things.
Consider some statistics:
-A 1991 US federal survey found that a majority of those arrested in 24 cities for robbery, assault, burglary and homicide tested positive for drugs.
-In New York in 1987, 73 per cent of child abuse cases involved parental drug abuse.
-A 1994 study of 31,000 abused and neglected children in Cook County, Illinois found that more that 80 per cent of the cases involved drugs.
-A 1992 study of NSW inmates found that 67 per cent of prisoners had been on drugs while committing the crime they were imprisoned for.
Also, cheaper drugs do not necessarily mean less crime. When inexpensive crack cocaine flooded America in the early 1980s, the rate of addiction soared, as did crime rates. Indeed, police noted that wherever drugs were the cheapest, crime rates were the highest.
Some would argue that we’re fighting a losing battle but consider that several decades ago around 60% of all adults and young people smoked cigarettes. But now, due to education, health warnings, and government restrictions, that figure is declining as is well below 20 per cent. Social trends can be reversed.
By declaring certain things illegal, the law sends out a moral message that such activities are wrong and to be avoided. Correspondingly, to legalise a previously illegal activity sends the signal, especially to our young people, that such an activity is now morally acceptable. What society was once seen to disapprove of it is now seen to endorse.
HS – You don’t give up do you. I will have the last word no matter how many days it takes. Each time you come up with some bullshit I debunk it and you don’t even bother to defend it you just divert to some new erroneous claims. The heroin supply to addicts was a case in point, you were clearly bested when I pointed out to you that heroin was supplyed by those in the medical profession since at least the twenties and probably well before that. Furthermore there was the own goal with the link on Cannabis decriminlisation which further strengthed my case (I don’t think you even read it). Now you’ve come out with another clearly mistaken claim about alcohol prohibition. You clearly don’t look or don’t wish to look at the evidence.. At the beggining of alcohol prohibtion use went down, but as soon as the bootleggers and rum runners got into business it soon went back to normal. Also you must remember that prohibition was hardly enforced in much of America for obvious reasons. From the drug library alcohol section: In discussing the relative successes and failures of Prohibition, most observers conclude that the undertaking failed.
Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became “organized”; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism.
Although some view the theory of prohibition as reasonable, it is generally conceded that the realities of manufacture and distribution make it unworkable, for in one form or another, alcohol can be easily produced by farmers, high school chemistry students, and ordinary citizens.
The per capita rate for the Prohibition years is computed to be 1.63 proof gallons. This is 11.64% higher than the Pre-Prohibition rate (Tillitt, 1932: 35). Based on these figures one observer concluded: “And so the drinking which was, in theory, to have been decreased to the vanishing point by Prohibition has, in fact, increased
The trend of death from alcoholism reflects hardly anything else than progress in the treatment of the so-called diseases of chronic alcoholism. Nevertheless, statistics of death from alcoholism have been used by both Drys and Wets to prove that Prohibition or repeal has greatly improved the rate of death from alcoholism. . . . Death from alcoholism is simply not an index of the prevalence of inebriety. Death from alcoholism could fall to zero in response to medical progress, while at the same time the rate of inebriety might rise many fold (Jellinek, 1947: 39).
“In making out death certificates (which are basic to Census Reports) private or family physicians commonly avoid entry of alcoholism as a cause of death whenever possible. This practice was more prevalent under the National Dry Law than it was in preprohibition time” (Tillitt, 1932: 114-115).
Nevertheless, gross statistics drawn from 383 cities indicate that arrests for drunkenness per 10,000 population reached a high of 192 in 1916 and fell to 71 in 1920. From this level, they rose steadily again to reach 157 in 1928 (Warburton, 1932: 102). Of course, arrests prior to Prohibition may not bear the same relation to the use of alcohol as they did subsequently, Warburton theorizes:
. . . [U]nder Prohibition, especially during the early years, police were more strict in making arrests, and . . . a larger proportion than formerly of persons appearing on the streets under the influence of liquor are arrested. Also, since the sale of liquor is illegal and cannot be obtained in public saloons, and when the police are more strict in arresting intoxicated persons, it is reasonable to suppose that drinking is less public and that fewer drunken persons appear on the streets relative to the quantity of liquor consumed (Warburton, 1932: 103).
You’ve also got to ask yourself why there was such a clamour for the repeal of prohibition if it was as in your eyes so successful. Are you advocating alcohol prohibtion?
I’m not arguing with you about the harm that drugs can cause. I’m arguing that prohibition achieves nothing and harm reduction can be better achieved where prohibition is ended.
P.S. 15th century muslim societies you’re clutching at fucking straws there.
ooh look plagiarism.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5490/is_200203/ai_n21310571/pg_2
I’m surprised what with hs being a Doctor that teaches at the Uni and all. It’s really not hard to use some quote marks and say “as Bill Muehlenberg said…” HigherStandards aren’t what they used to be.
A few questions I’ve not seen you answer there doc:
Do you think the ‘war on drugs’ approach is actually working?
Are you happy with the current state of affairs re the effects of drugs on society, locally or globally?
How could we make the ‘war’ more effective?
Most importantly, please answer this one because it’s destroying whole nations in S. America and other places (Russia and Mexico not the least):
Do you think it best that the at least hundreds of billions of dollars spent globally on drugs currently go exclusively to criminals and terrorists who foster corruption and outright warfare to protect that income? How do you plan on stopping that hs? It’s only been getting worse for decades. (hint: getting consumers to ‘just say no’ is the current plan = epic fail)
Because if you can’t answer that question, you are ignoring the costs of prohibition and your analysis is not worth anything because it only looks at the benefits. (hint: getting consumers to ‘just say no’ is the current plan = epic fail)
Would it not be smarter to take the successful approach we have used with tobacco instead, with taxing it and having state funded education and support?
You can say that the state does offer such support now, but it is compromised by the fact the people most in need of it, fear legal sanctions, and that much of the information is propagandistic nonsense (‘drugs of abuse’ indeed) that users find to be completely separate from their own personal experiences.
“I’m not arguing with you about the harm that drugs can cause. I’m arguing that prohibition achieves nothing and harm reduction can be better achieved where prohibition is ended.”
Nice to see that you’ve amended your argument from where you were originally position…
“Rex – We want it legalised. I don’t want to see some system of fines in place. It ought to be legal as should every other drug.”
and
“You may wish to disagree with the freedom of a person do with their own body what they wish, but it’s something I believe in. It’s also something MikeE coming from the opposite end of the economic/political spectrum as I agrees with. IMO P, heroin, cocaine, ecstasy,mescaline, LSD, BZP, PCP, DMT whatever it is if people want to take they shouldn’t be criminalised for it. ”
Now there can be no doubt that your comment that prohibition achieves nothing is patently absurd when if prohibition wasn’t in place all those substances would be freely available to NZers to experiment and possibly become addicted to and become a considerable burden on and potential harm to society.
In terms of harm reduction being better achieved when prohibition is ended it would be interesting to see the relative numbers of persons seeking assistance with their addictions because of the criminal justice system or of their own free will.
PB
Do you think the ‘war on drugs’ approach is actually working?
With some drugs and in certain countries Yes in others No
Are you happy with the current state of affairs re the effects of drugs on society, locally or globally?
No
How could we make the ‘war’ more effective?
How about the death penalty for manufacture and supply ?
I also find the example of tobacco to be odd…….. the suggestion would involve legalising and making more freely available harmful substances so we can then embark on a major campaign to educate people against using them .
Dude, drugs are freely available now.And they are cut with all sorts of crap. It’s easier for kids to get P or pot than vodka. Why is that do you think?
With some drugs and in certain countries Yes in others No
cop out
How about the death penalty for manufacture and supply ?
Really? But not for anyone you know or their families aye? Oh no, it would be probably. No worries, you’ll pull the switch right?
HS – How have I amended my argument? I haven’t. My position is the same as it always has been. All drugs should be legal. All I said was I’m not arguing about the harm they cause becasue I know they cause harm and you can spout statistics till you’re blue in the face. I’m saying prohibition isn’t doing a damn thing to reduce that harm all it’s doing is putting profits into the hands of gangs, drug cartels and terrorists, criminalising people that shouldn’t be, killing innocent people, and costing an immense amount of money. The drug war is absurd in the extreme. As PB points out and as I’ve said many times drugs are readily available and easily acquirable, prohibition has achieved nothing. The burden of proof is on you to show that it has and as yet you haven’t come up with anything that isn’t refutable.
PB
“Drugs are freely available now” ……….. ah no they’re not
“With some drugs and in certain countries Yes in others No”
“As PB points out and as I’ve said many times drugs are readily available and easily acquirable, prohibition has achieved nothing.”
So you are now arguing that the legalisation of all those drugs you listed (including heroin, cocaine, ecstasy,mescaline, LSD, BZP, PCP, DMT whatever) would not make them more easily acquirable what utter piffle.
And with all due respect it is you who is arguing for a change to current law therefore it is for you to provide the burden of proof that legalisation will improve the drug problem. My opposition is the same as that of retired District Court judge Kenneth Gee QC “Legalisation is really a counsel of despair, almost irreversible once embarked upon. It should not be tried. It will not work.’
And PB I don’t lecture at university.
HS – I’ve come out with lots of facts to show that prohbition has been a complete failure. Read through my comments. You have yet to come up with one that I can not rebuke. Look at your little quote. Remember mine from Julian Critchley former head of the U.K’s anti-drug coordination unit:I think what was truly depressing about my time in UKADCU was that the overwhelming majority of professionals I met, including those from the police, the health service, government and voluntary sectors held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those intelligent, knowledgeable people were forced to repeat the nonsensical mantra that the Government would be ‘tough on drugs’, even though they all knew that the Government’s policy was actually causing harm.
Here are some quotes from LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition:
District Court Judge Whitman Knapp: After 20 years on the bench I have concluded that federal drug laws are a disaster. It is time to get the government out of drug enforcement.
Retired Chief of Police Bob Owens: This country is long overdue in recognizing that not only have we lost the “war” on drugs but we have squandered billions of dollars and untold numbers of lives addressing a medical and societal problem using the criminal law
Former Vancouver Police Officer Gilbert William Harold Puder: My belief that the war on drugs must end arises from the damage being done to both policing and the society it serves. The tactics, weaponry, and propaganda of our 20th Century narcotic prohibition have been borrowed from a Western military model, yet in their misguided application have generated nothing other than systemic conflict that has overwhelmed our justice and health care systems. Being a frontline police officer, I am deeply troubled by any example of counterproductive law enforcement. Talented officers diligently perform what many honestly believe to be their duty, placing themselves and others in harm’s way to intervene in matters of personal choice. Unwittingly, however, this merely raises the stakes in a game where criminal cartels meet the demand that our forefathers rather arbitrarily declared to be illegitimate. And while we attempt the impossible with increasingly limited resources, elected officials abdicate responsibility for legislation needed to reduce the harm to society. In a pointless civil war at the turn of the millenium, we need to, “unlearn the habits we have taught ourselves, or we shall not survive.” Rather than assigning victory or defeat, Canadians must fundamentally change the strategies of several interwoven social institutions, policing being the keystone among them.
Judge Eleanor Levingston Schockett: I retired from the circuit bench Dec.31, 2002. (I served two six-year terms). I was referred to this organization by John Chase of the November organization. My interest in this subject dates back to 1958 when I wrote my senior paper at Tulane Law School on the administration of the drug laws in the United States. Matters have only gotten worse in the intervening years as I observed when in the Criminal Division of the Court. The main reason I did not take senior judge status is that I wanted to have my civil rights back, so I could speak out on political as well as judicial issues. I am in full agreement with your mission statement and would like to do whatever I can to contribute to a more responsible drug policy.
There’s an article from her here when she came to NZ.
HS – HS here are some videos for you to actually watch and I mean watch not like how you skim over my comments and misrepresent what I say and repeat things I’ve already covered.
Counterproductivity: The Failure of the Drug War.
American Drug War-Last White Hope Part 1 of 12
“I’ve come out with lots of facts to show that prohbition has been a complete failure.”
No you’ve come out with lots of quotes from persons as have I – I think we’ll never agree on this issue as you stated above.
Are you aware the Alaska’s residents voted in 1990 to recriminalize the possession of marijuana … hmm now why was that ?
No offence but I won’t be watching the youtube videos.
The Alaskans who vote for Sarah Palin as governor? The women who didn’t know Africa was a continent. It doesn’t surprise me that they wouldn’t vote for socially responsible legislation. I have given you lots of facts to debunk your claims not just quotes. That recent comment was just to show you that I can play the quote game too. Except that I can acutally link to the quotes so that you can verify them. And furthermore I haven’t been plagarising like you, as PB found out. You won’t watch the videos because you can’t handel the opposing argument can you because let’s face HS you’re not the sharpest knife in the drawer. You provide one peice of solid evidence to the success of prohibition and I’ll shut up and leave this thread alone. Otherwise I’ll continue t debunk your claims and show you up as the ignorant fool that you are. I think the hypocrisy and contradictions that riddle your mind and those of other conservatives are subject to a wall of cognitive impenetrability because you can’t seem to accept reality. Here are some more facts for you from Drug war facts (they’re for the U.S.):
It is important to note that each of the most violent episodes in this century coincide with the prohibition on alcohol and the escalation of the modern-day war on drugs. In 1933 the homicide rate peaked at 9.7 per 100,000 people, which was the year that alcohol prohibition was finally repealed. In 1980, the homicide rate peaked again at 10 per 100,000.
Of the 1,841,182 arrests for drug law violations in 2007, 82.5% (1,518,975) were for possession of a controlled substance. Only 17.5% (322,207) were for the sale or manufacture of a drug.
Although people may think that the Drug War targets drug smugglers and ‘King Pins,’ in 2007, 47.4 percent of the 1,841,182 total arrests for drug abuse violations were for marijuana — a total of 872,720. Of those, 775,137 people were arrested for marijuana possession alone. By contrast in 2000 a total of 734,497 Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses, of which 646,042 were for possession alone.
“There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.” Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr., “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base,” Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999).
“In 2003, a total of 20,687 persons died of alcohol-induced causes in the United States (Tables 23 and 24). The category ‘alcohol-induced causes’ includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of alcohol, but also accidental poisoning by alcohol. It excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to alcohol use as well as deaths due to fetal alcohol syndrome.” Source: Hoyert, Donna L., PhD, Heron, Melonie P., PhD, Murphy, Sherry L., BS, Kung, Hsiang-Ching, PhD; Division of Vital Statistics, “Deaths: Final Data for 2003,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 54, No. 13 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, April 19, 2006), p. 10.
“Tetrahydrocannabinol is a very safe drug. Laboratory animals (rats, mice, dogs, monkeys) can tolerate doses of up to 1,000 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram). This would be equivalent to a 70 kg person swallowing 70 grams of the drug—about 5,000 times more than is required to produce a high. Despite the widespread illicit use of cannabis there are very few if any instances of people dying from an overdose. In Britain, official government statistics listed five deaths from cannabis in the period 1993-1995 but on closer examination these proved to have been deaths due to inhalation of vomit that could not be directly attributed to cannabis (House of Lords Report, 1998). By comparison with other commonly used recreational drugs these statistics are impressive.” Source: Iversen, Leslie L., PhD, FRS, “The Science of Marijuana” (London, England: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 178, citing House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology, “Cannabis — The Scientific and Medical Evidence” (London, England: The Stationery Office, Parliament, 1998).
“There were 2.4 drug-related deaths per million inhabitants in the Netherlands in 1995. In France this figure was 9.5, in Germany 20, in Sweden 23.5 and in Spain 27.1. According to the 1995 report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in Lisbon, the Dutch figures are the lowest in Europe. The Dutch AIDS prevention programme was equally successful. Europe-wide, an average of 39.2% of AIDS victims are intravenous drug-users. In the Netherlands, this percentage is as low as 10.5%.”
You might find this graph interesting: Addictive Properties of Popular Drugs.
An estimated 112,085,000 Americans aged 12 or over (46.1% of the US population aged 12 and over) report having used an illicit drug at least once in their lifetimes.
“Overall, it is important to note that supply reduction — that is, reducing the availability of drugs — does not appear to have played as major a role as many had assumed in three of the most important downturns in illicit drug use that have occurred to date, namely, those for marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy (see Figures 8-4, 8-5, and 8-6). In the case of cocaine, perceived availability actually rose during much of the period of the downturn in use. (These data are corroborated by data from the Drug Enforcement Administration on trends in the price and purity of cocaine on the streets.) In the case of marijuana, perceived availability has remained very high for 12th graders over the past 31 years, while use dropped substantially from 1979 through 1992. Perceived availability for ecstasy did increase in association with its increasing use in the 1990s, but the decline phase for use appears to have been driven much more by changing beliefs about the dangers of ecstasy than by any sharp downturn in availability. Similarly, amphetamine use declined appreciably from 1981 to 1992, with only a modest corresponding change in perceived availability. Finally, until 1995, heroin use had not risen among 12th graders even though availability had increased substantially.”
Interdiction efforts intercept 10-15% of the heroin and 30% of the cocaine. Drug traffickers earn gross profit margins of up to 300%. At least 75% of international drug shipments would need to be intercepted to substantially reduce the profitability of drug trafficking.
To achieve a one percent reduction in U.S. cocaine consumption, the United States could spend an additional $34 million on drug treatment programs, or 23 times as much — $783 million — on efforts to eradicate the supply at the source.
“Despite 2 years of extensive herbicide spraying [source country eradication], U.S. estimates show there has not been any net reduction in [Colombian] coca cultivation – net coca cultivation actually increased 50 percent.”
“The long-run elasticities provide a basis for estimating potential benefits from changing the current policy mix away from enforcement and interdiction and towards education and treatment. Applying the estimated coefficients, a 10 percent reduction in expenditures on enforcement (about 1 billion dollars by the late 1990s) would be associated with a long-run reduction of over 20% in both the number of deaths and the age-adjusted death rate. This would imply that close to 3,000 deaths a year might be avoided with a shift away from enforcement approaches to drug control. Adding the billion dollars to education and treatment would represent an 18% increase in 1998. The estimated elasticity of 1.59 implies a reduction of close to 5,000 drug-induced deaths per year as a result. Thus, the underlying estimates suggest that very substantial improvements in public health may be achieved by emphasizing education and treatment over enforcement and interdiction.”
A study by the RAND Corporation found that every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers $7.46 in societal costs.
The RAND Corporation study found that additional domestic law enforcement efforts cost 15 times as much as treatment to achieve the same reduction in societal costs.
…and I could go on and on. Your turn.
Many thanks for my turn – it will be my last, but feel free to respond and let’s just accept that neither of us are likely to change our position.
Let me restate why I am against legalisation of any and all drugs – or as you put it “IMO P, heroin, cocaine, ecstasy,mescaline, LSD, BZP, PCP, DMT whatever it is if people want to take they shouldn’t be criminalised for it.
and
” We want it legalised. I don’t want to see some system of fines in place. It ought to be legal as should every other drug.”
and
” One thing on that list: offensive language! I would hate to see the day you got a fine for offensive language. IMO there is no such fucking thing (libel is another matter). I don’t actually know what the laws are in New Zealand surrounding “offensive language’ but I do recall being in a fairly inebriated state and telling a police officer using a few choice words what I thought of her profession and merely getting an indifferent response.”
oops discussion for another day perhaps, however I must admit to being quite prepared to tell kids off for f-ing and c-ing at each other and adults.
Back to my point I am against legalisation for the following reasons
1. This drugs cause harm to the individual taking them (some more than others obviously) – I think we are agreed on this point.
2. People under the influence of these drugs may cause harm to themselves, others and property.
3. Those likely to be at the highest risk of experimenting with these drugs are likely to be the younger members of society.
4. Many of these drugs are addictive.
5. Society is expected to clean up any attendant mess cause to or by individuals taking drugs.
6. Legalisation of the currently illegal drugs clearly sends a message normalising their use.
7. Legalisation and normalisation of any previously prohibited activity has tended to increase usage while restriction and prohibition have tended to have a reverse effect – (put another way make it easier to access and more people are likely to try it especially the youth – as a rather obtuse example imaging remving the speed limit how many (more) young men would be tempted to travel down the motorway at 200kmph)
8. Legalisation in NZ would lead to a influx of for want of a better word “scum” of all sorts.
As a discussion piece read the article below which ended with the comment..
“I would not be proud if we were to be seen by our neighbors as a narco-state,” says the Public Health Ministry’s Dr. Bunning. “We don’t want people to come here just to gawk at the girls in the windows and get stoned. We have a culture and a history of which we are proud.”
He sighs. “With drugs we are in the realm of theory. There is no simple solution to the drug problem. No one nation, not the U.S., not England, has the answer. But our solution in Holland is not ideal either.”
As below……
“The revised Dutch drug policy was based on Parliament’s 1976 acceptance of the recommendation of a commission headed by Pieter A. H. Baan, a psychiatrist and expert in rehabilitating drug addicts who was serving at the time in the Dutch Office of Mental Health. The Baan Commission’s report proposed distinguishing between so-called List One drugs-those that present “an unacceptable risk ( heroin, cocaine and LSD )”–and List Two drugs–cannabis products, such as hashish and marijuana–seen as less dangerous and “softer.” Essentially, Parliament depenalized the possession of 30 grams of marijuana or hashish–enough, the legislators calculated, to meet an average smoker’s needs for three months. At the same time, the parliamentarians vowed to continue the fight against both domestic and international trafficking in the more dangerous List One drugs.
Shortly after accepting the commissions primary recommendation, Parliament went a step further by authorizing the commercialization of cannabis products through their open sale in a network of licensed coffee shops. Those shops were subject to a number of legal constraints: they were not allowed to sell more than 30 grams to a customer; no hard drugs were to be sold on their premises; and they were neither to advertise, sell to minors, nor operate within 500 meters of a school. Out of respect for Holland’s international treaty obligations, the import, export, production, or sale of cannabis products outside the coffee shops remained illegal.
At the time the Baan Commission report was adopted, Holland had what was considered a serious heroin addiction problem, albeit one roughly comparable to that of its European neighbors. The nation was relatively untroubled by major international drug traffickers, with the exception of a number of Chinese “triads” ( gangs ) whose trafficking was pretty much confined to the Dutch marketplace. ”
How has that situation changed today? First and most revealing, Holland ( in the words of senior customs and police officers in the United Kingdom, France, and Belgium ) has become ‘the drugs capital of western Europe”–and not just of those soft drugs depenalized by the Dutch Parliament but also of hard drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and now ecstasy.
Britain’s Customs and Excise Department figures that 80 percent of the heroin seized in the United Kingdom either passed through or was temporarily warehoused in Holland. The Paris police estimate that 80 percent of the heroin consumed in the French capital comes from Holland. The forthcoming 1998 figures for France’s Central Office for the Repression of the Illegal Traffic in Drugs will, one of the organizations senior officers says, show “an explosion” of drugs coming into France from the Netherlands.
Worse, the greatest drug problem facing European youth today comes from synthetic drugs like ecstasy and amphetamines that have spread across Europe like a virus since they were first introduced in Holland in 1987. British police estimate that a million of these pills are swallowed every weekend in British discos and clubs. Overwhelmingly, these synthetic drugs are coming from and being made in Holland. British customs states that virtually all the pills seized in the United Kingdom last year were manufactured in Holland or Belgium. Ninety-eight percent of the amphetamines seized in France in 1997 came from Holland, as did 73.6 percent of the ecstasy tablets. During an official briefing last summer, a senior Dutch police officer admitted to former General Barry McCaffrey, the U.S. drug-policy czar, that “Holland is to synthetic drugs what Colombia is to cocaine.”
Holland’s emergence as the drug capital of Europe is not due solely to the decision by the Dutch government to commercialize the sale of cannabis products in the nation’s now-famous coffee shops. But many Europeans believe it is the consequence of the tolerant attitude toward drugs that grew out of that policy. That attitude, defined by Dutch foes of the policy as the “coffee-shop mentality,” now permeates Holland’s criminal justice system.
“If you want to do drugs, Holland is the place to do them,” notes one of France’s top drug police officers. “The light sentences they hand out [and] the liberal attitude of their judges has resulted in an explosion in the number of international trafficking groups operating out of Holland.”
As the coffee shops boomed between 1984 and 1996, marijuana use among Dutch youths aged 18 to 25 leapt by well over 200 percent. In 1997, there was a 25 percent increase in the number of registered cannabis addicts receiving treatment for their habit, as compared to a mere 3 percent rise in cases of alcohol abuse. In 1995, public Ministry of Justice studies estimated that 700,000 to 750,000 of Holland’s 15 million people–about 5 percent of the population–were regular cannabis users. A much more recent study just completed by Professor Pieter Cohen of the University of Amsterdam disputes those figures, claiming that only 325,000 to 350,000 Dutch men and women are regular cannabis users. Unfortunately, however, his survey discovered that those smokers are particularly concentrated among the young in densely populated areas of Amsterdam, Utrecht, and Rotterdam. In the last three to four years, these same areas have witnessed a skyrocketing growth in juvenile crime and the number of youths involved in acts of violence associated by many Dutch law-enforcement officers with the abuse of “soft” drugs. With remarkable candor, Amsterdam Police Commissioner Jelle Kuiper declared more than 18 months ago, “As long as our political class tries to pretend that soft drugs do not create dependence, we are going to go on being confronted daily with problems that officially do not exist. We are aware of an enormous number of young people strongly dependent on soft drugs, with all the consequences that has.” A few months later, his counterpart in The Hague, the de facto Dutch capital, echoed his views: ‘Sixty-five percent of the persistent rise we are seeing in criminality is due to juveniles and above all juvenile drug users.”
Today, according to Holland’s “grass guru,” Professor Adrian Jansen of the Economics Faculty of the University of Amsterdam, the annual Nederwiet harvest is a staggering 100 tons a year, almost all grown illegally. And it does not stay in the Netherlands. Perhaps as much as 65 tons of pot is exported–equally illegally–to Holland’s neighbors. Holland now rivals Morocco as the principal source of European marijuana. By the Dutch Ministry of Justice’s own estimates, the Nederwiet industry employs 20,000 people. The overall commercial value of the industry, including not only the growth and sale of the plant itself but the export of high-potency Nederwiet seeds to the rest of Europe and the United States, is 20 billion Dutch guilders, or about $10 billion–virtually all of it illegal and almost none of it subject to any form of Dutch taxation. The illegal export of cannabis today brings in far more money than that other traditional Dutch crop, tulips.
In the 1970s, advocates of Holland’s coffee-shop policy argued that providing soft-drug users with a shopping outlet in which to buy their drugs would keep them from falling prey to drug-peddling criminals. At the same time, they would be corralled off from hard-drug users into a congenial environment of their own. Petty criminality would fall, and hard-drug consumption would be cut by offering young people an attractive alternative.
That was the theory. Unfortunately, it did not work. A 1997 report on hard-drug use in the Netherlands by the government-financed Trimbos Institute acknowledged that “drug use is considered to be the primary motivation behind crimes against property”–23 years after the Dutch policy was supposed to put the brake on that. Furthermore, the Trimbos report put the number of heroin addicts in Holland at 25,000, a figure so low that critics of the government say it “Promotes a policy, not a reality.” That statistic is based, the skeptics note, on the number of heroin addicts who actually come into contact one way or another with the nation’s social or justice departments. The real figure, they maintain, is far closer to 35,000.
But even if one accepts the Trimbos figures as correct, they represent almost a tripling of the number of Dutch addicts since the country liberalized its drug policies. They also mean that Holland has twice as many heroin addicts per capita as Britain, which is known for having one of the most serious heroin problems in Europe. Furthermore, the number of heroin addicts being treated in the methadone-maintenance programs run by the Ministry of Public Health went from 6,511 in 1988 to 9,838 in 1997, an increase of just over 50 percent–hardly an indication that heroin use has declined since the introduction of the coffee-shop law.
Dutch supporters of their lenient soft-drug policy argue that cannabis does not inevitably thrust the heavy smoker across a threshold into hard drug use. They are right. There is no compelling physiological link between cannabis smoking and heroin use, and by no means do all heavy pot smokers move on to hard drugs. But in France, for example, 80 percent of heroin addicts also are heavy consumers of marijuana or hashish. Koopman of the Hope rehab center says more than 90 percent of the heroin addicts that his institute has treated developed their habit after first becoming habitual grass smokers.
The sale of hard drugs at the coffee shops was strictly forbidden by the law that created them. That was an edict honored for years more in the breach than in the observance. Michel Bouchet, now an officer of the French Ministry of the Interior but for many years the head of the Paris narcotics squad, regularly sent his officers to Holland undercover to see if hard drugs were being sold in the coffee shops. Almost inevitably, they discovered that they were.
Some European advocates of liberalizing drug laws, such as Paul Flynn, a Welsh Labour member of the British Parliament, argue that by making cannabis freely available to their youth, the Dutch have turned these kids away from heroin. And it is certainly true that in Holland, as in most other European countries, the heroin-addicted population is growing older. On the other hand, heroin addiction is usually a slow, insidious process; the youth who begins to consume it at 19 will probably take four to five years to reach the level of dependency that will force him or her to seek help.
But Koopman, at Dordecht’s De Hoop rehab center, says that 40 percent of the 250 addicts awaiting treatment at his facility are younger than 25. You get the real answer about what is happening among young people in Holland from talking with young addicts in the Rotterdam headquarters of Storm’s Junkiebund. The picture that emerges is remarkably similar to the youth drug scene elsewhere in Europe today.
“Kids are into everything now,” says Dominy, 32, who has been smoking heroin since he was 15. “When I came into the scene, it was just heroin. Now it’s coke, cannabis, ecstasy, speed, a blow of heroin to calm you down when you’re up too far.”
The real drug concerns in Holland today, as in the rest of Europe, are the skyrocketing rise in pill-popping and Holland’s pivotal role in the manufacture and sale of ecstasy and amphetamine pills. Unfortunately, little is known about the long-term consequences of sustained ecstasy use. The best study so far, published in October 1998 in the British medical journal The Lancet, was done by the Biological Psychiatry Branch of the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Although the sample that the scientists employed in their study was small, it did reveal that prolonged, regular use of ecstasy can result in apparently irreversible damage to the serotonin receptors in the brain. The consequence could well be that some of today’s heavy ecstasy users may find themselves burdened with chronic depression later in life.
HS – You make the point that many of these drugs are addictive which is of course true, but many are not. In particular the hallucinogens or psychedelics are usually not. For example LSD is not addictive. Another example is the strongest psychedelic known to man Salivia divinorum which is perfectly legal in this country have you noticed any problems Dr. Another point is the dependence and physical harm, etc does not I repeat does not correlate with a drugs legality. If you bother to watch the first video I linked to you’d have seen the results in the U.K of a study: “The study found little correlation between actual harm and legality. In fact, one researcher said “if alcohol were invented today… it’d be illegal” Statistically, U.K. drug laws have a 0.372 correlation value with harm: Which is not a statistically significant relationship.”
Your talking again about decriminalisation of Cannabis. First of all if you bothered to read the article you linked to on that very subject you’d have found as I’ve already pointed out:
In both countries, these so-called decriminalisation laws did not appear to have had a major impact on rates of use, as many feared that it might have.
The presumed benefit of the criminalisation of cannabis possession is the deterrence of cannabis use. There is, however, little evidence of a strong deterrent effect. Substantial increases in marijuana use occurred in the 1960s and 1970s despite the application of criminal penalties for cannabis possession both in the U.S. (7, 23, 44) and in Australia (17). These trends in cannabis use do not constitute conclusive evidence regarding the lack of a deterrent effect, as it is not known whether rates of use might have increased even more if cannabis possession had not been prohibited. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that nonusers rarely cite fear of legal consequences as a reason for their nonuse (34, 44). Rather, the simple lack of interest or fear of adverse health consequences are the most commonly given reasons for abstention from cannabis use
The available data indicate that these decriminalisation measures substantially reduced enforcement costs, yet had little or no impact on rates of use.
Changes in rates of use appear to be more strongly connected with changing perceptions of health risks rather than availability or any changes in the legal status of the drug.
Back to the Netherlands, I think you’ve once again come up with a complete fabrication 200% I think is as bullshit as your heroin in britain “facts” which I managed to debunk like all your other erroneous claims thus far. The quotes you provide are in acutal fact in no way damning. Here are some facts:
The number of problem opiate/crack users seems to have remained relatively stable in the past ten years (3.1 per 1000 people aged 15-64 years). In the past decade, local field studies among traditional groups of problem opiate users have shown a strong in-crease in the co-use of crack cocaine, a reduction in injecting drug use, and an increase in psychiatric and somatic comorbidity.”(2007)
Which supports what your article is saying despite Cannabis decriminalisation the Netherlands has had no increase in hard drug users and still has much lower use rates than most other western countires.
The figures for cannabis use among the general population reveal the same pictures. The Netherlands does not differ greatly from other European countries. In contrast, a comparison with the US shows a striking difference in this area: 32.9% of Americans aged 12 and above have experience with cannabis and 5.1% have used in the past month. These figures are twice as high as those in the Netherlands.”
So despite the U.S. tough stance towards Cannabis which sees thousands upon thousands of users, not dealers, locked up every year they still have a much higher rate of Cannabis use. So this is the main thrust of my argument; what has prohibtion achieved. If it is not doing anything to the number of users then what is the point in it. From the first video I linked to Lifetime prevalence student’s cannabis use: US 45% UK 33% Canada 29% Netherlands 28% Germany 27% Notice something? The countires with the more liberal policies (Netherlands, Germany and Canada) have lower Cannabis use.
To the trafficking side of things. I don’t know what you’re getting at. First of all hard drugs started to become a problem in the seventies and in response to this the Netherlands started decriminalising what it viewed as natural drugs. It has always been a centre for drug trafficking in europe. heroin is trafficked thorugh the “balkan route.” The Netherlands also has an important role in cocaine trafficking from the carribean. It is afterall a major maritime nation. The fact that the Netherlands changed its drug policy in response to the hard drug poblem and the fact that use of hard drugs is now much lower in the Netherlands than other european nations makes me think that once again you don’t know what you’re talking about and don’t look at your spurious sources of information with anything of a critical eye, just as you did with your laughable british heroin “facts”. I for instance am reading much of what I just wrote off of The 202 page Report to the EMCDDA by the Reitoix National Focal Point The Netherlands Drug Situation 2006. Sorry no link it’s a pdf, just search for it. Which is to me not very recent, but then again the article which you quoted above which I found no thanks to you was from 1999. Back to your article. In the report I just mentioned it has the following facts relating to your article: XTC-production seems to spread to other countries (Belgium, Australia, Canada, Indonesia); the Netherlands still play an important role in XTC production.
With regard to the production of ecstasy in laboratories in The Netherlands data suggest that this problem descends.
Back to young people and Cannabis: The latest surveys indicated that drug use had stabilised or decreased among secondary school pupils between 1996 and 2003. A large-scale regional school survey in the South of the Netherlands revealed decreasing prevalence rates for all drugs between 2001 and 2005.
Let me give my concluding statements in this tussle. Supply and demand; the supply of drugs is there and as I have shown you the war on drugs has done nothing to diminish that supply. The demand as I’ve always said is there and will remain there. The laws against a drug do not seem to deter a person’s demand for that drug and the U.S. is a case in point. You cannot diminish the demand for drugs anymore than you can diminsh the demand for sex. Ever since the war on drugs began demand for drugs has actually increased. If it has not achieved to decrease demand or supply then what on earth is the point of it? Under prohibition the supply of drugs is provided by gangs and drug cartels and has been used to fund terrorism. Ending prohibiton would take the profits out of the hands of these people. Drug profits also lead to massive cases of police corruption around the world this would also be finished with when the cartels are. Money spent on drug law enforcement could be spent on education, rehabiliatation and healthcare which as the studies by RAND in one of my earlier comments can attest gets better results for less money. Drug impurities kill many users, if prohibition was ended regulation would change that just like it did with alcohol after the end of prohibition in America. Drug addicts are sick and should not be treated like criminals. It has been shown that provision of drugs from the medical profession to addicts has had positive effects on use rates and deaths caused by these drugs, as we saw with Switzerland and the U.K before the drug war. The vast majority of drug users (this can be borne out by the sheer number of drug users see my ealier comments) are oridnary functioning members of society, who hold down jobs have families etc they should not be treated as criminals for their choice of pastime. Many drugs are not as harmful or addictive as legally available drugs, yet they are still illegal. This clearly demonstartes the arbitrary nature of drug laws. Durg prohibition is also a barrier to drug research. I could go on and on, but I’ll stop with this: Lastly what right does a government or conservative misfits such as yourself have to tell other people what they can or can’t do with their own bodies and ultimately their own minds?
“Lastly what right does a government or conservative misfits such as yourself have to tell other people what they can or can’t do with their own bodies and ultimately their own minds?”
Well in my case it’s the medical degree – and I note that you comment that
“It has been shown that provision of drugs from the medical profession to addicts has had positive effects on use rates and deaths caused by these drugs, as we saw with Switzerland and the U.K before the drug war.”
So you appear to be suggesting that even under your proposal of legalisation that I (actually more likely colleagues in primary care and psychiatry) would still be telling people what they can or can’t do with their own bodies and ultimately their own minds.
And the right of a government to tell people what they can or can’t do with their own bodies – as you well know this is based on the government’s perception of the risk, cost and harm.