In this interview (mp3, 1.3MB, 7’40”), he talks about the challenge of his new role, resuming his work in the Justice portfolio and letting go of the drug law reform area.
9 Comments Posted
The national figures for usage suggest that polling adults over 30 would show at least one in three has used by that age. In some demographics, that usage ratio is in place by age 18.
Decriminalisation would make it easier to get accurate figures on usage over lifetime, as many are intimidated into denial by the end-use made of surveys .
Treatment for those who need help would be easier to administer if criminal conviction was not an also-ran outcome of requesting treatment.
“I smoked but I did not inhale” sound familiar to anyone?
At least Nandor and Meteria are not hypocritical about their experience with Cannabis. They speak from a knowledgeable place, which is better than many who criticise them.
For gawds sake Ben we just can’t please you!!! 🙂
It’s a fairly common perspective – there’s a reason drug use drops as you move through population bands.
And it’s a demographic that it is important to get onside.
And another perspective, of course, is that a drug using MP has credibility only amongst drug users – many others will simply stereotype them as in it for themselves. Having a non-using MP fronting it may, just possibly, allow some people to see past their prejudices and figure that there really is a rational case for decriminalisation.
I’m not sure why it undermines the decriminalisation case. Decrimalisation benefits society in general as well as current users. Having non-users supporting decriminalisation surely enhances the case.
That’s one perspective, which serves to undermine the decriminalization case. Hence my disappointment.
Metiria has come out about her drug use.
“I used cannabis from 15 to 21 then I gave up because I found it unpleasant”.
I hope so. But he’s such a natural front for it. His comments have a credibility that people who haven’t come out about their drug use don’t.
The drugs policy is still there, it’s just not Nandor presenting it.
I’m personally disappointed. Nandor and his drug policy was a major selling point for my green vote. I was disappointed he didn’t get in. I think it’s pandering to ‘the mainstream’, and lacks principle. I don’t think drug policy hurts the Greens. I was very impressed by Jeanette saying quite clearly during TV interviews that the Green policy on drugs was not to buy votes, but simply because they saw it as right, for moral reasons of their own. It is a sensible policy and it could lead the way to a more sensible society.
If people dismiss him as a druggie, they will continue to do so. But anyone who spends any time listening to him has many of their perceptions about druggies altered, since he’s intelligent and articulate. It’s a long fight to turn peoples opinions around, and this seems like giving up, copping out. Might as well vote for Labour if copping out towards the mainstream is what you’re about. At least they don’t get bitter on my muscle car or rave about the evils of GE.
I think that Nandor can work on his other strengths aside from drugs. Too many people just dismiss him as a druggie and don’t listen to what he has to say. (This has probably been said plenty of times before about him lol)