by frog
Given the main stream media’s love of over-reporting violent crime in New Zealand, I find it strange that yesterday’s killing of a 16 year old boy in Murupara barely made the papers today. There is a complex confluence of issues at work here so I am asking questions rather than offering firm opinions.
TV3′s Sunrise programme devoted quite a bit of airtime this morning to the incident, and it is worth watching the interview. Two questions sprang to mind instantly when I heard the broadcast:
Was it really the yellow shirt that Jordan Herewini was wearing that ultimately got him killed or some other aspect of the subsequent fight that broke out between his brothers and the visiting Mongrel Mob members?
Will the entrenchment of gang culture in New Zealand bite us in the bum as the economy sags and tempers fray among the economically disadvantaged?
I have no doubt that I am reading far too much into a single incident, but I still wonder if allowing an obsession with gang colours to flourish is setting us up for serious strife further down the road.
Anecdotally, I hear stories of youngsters refusing to play with toys of certain colours and that sort of thing, presumably because of the gang association.
This incident follows on the heels of a man being killed by a gang prospect for coming to the aid of a woman being assulted by a gang member.
On the one hand we have the nanny state response which is to ban all gang colours and insignia in public, such as Chester Burrows’ Prohibition of Gang Insignia Bill. To think that unleashing the fashion police in Wanganui is going to make anyone feel safer, let alone actually safer, is laughable. It also flies in the face of many basic civil rights.
On the other hand we have the lock-em-up and throw away the key brigade, who also miss the point in their effort to whip up some sympathy for their failing political ambitions.
Having said that, both of these parties now form the backbone of our coalition government, so their messages, however unsuitable to solving the gang problem, do resonate.
For my part, I just worry about raising a generation of kids who are not divided along racial or ethnic lines, but rather along the colour of their clothing. None of the solutions on offer from the government will make this better. Burrows’ Bill will make it worse, and codify in law that gang insignia, including colours, actually mean something and represent what is good and evil under the law.
There must be a better way. There must be a more constructive way to approach the gang problem that doesn’t reinforce it in the long term.
Published in Justice & Democracy | Society & Culture by frog on Thu, January 29th, 2009
Tags: chester burrows, gang, insignia, killing, murupara, prohibition of gang insignia bill
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
We already know one. If the government abandoned the WAR on drugs with respect to Cannabis and organized legal use through the medical approach the risks, and costs would be reduced mightily, property crime could be reduced and … the principle source of money that the gangs have would be taken away from them.
Moreover, there would be far less gateway effect of introducing kids to the criminal subculture.
That’d be one move.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A sensible move, I agree bjchip. Hit ‘em where it hurts – in the wallet!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The rise of organized crime in the USA corresponded with prohibition. Its decline at the end of prohibition continued until the new prohibitions on drugs encouraged the growth of the cartels.
History shows clearly that the damage to individuals from drug abuse is VASTLY less than the damage to societies from attempts to prohibit those drugs. Well-meaning folks always focus on the individuals who very well may be harmed but mistake that for a reason for outlawing their self-abuse. The effects of creating an entire new class of outlaws and a newly profitable illegal industry are invariably overlooked.
We (New Zealand) can do better. The Party has this policy right enough.
Beats the heck out of regulating our sartorial choices.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The things that do and do not get media coverage in NZ are a strong indicator of the state of the nation’s psyche.
I was surprised to return to find there is an effective ban on reporting suicide numbers, apparently because they’re so high.
But denial of a problem, a willingness to look away from that with which we can not cope is the surest way of perpetuating the problem.
I hardly bother with the local media anymore – there is work to do, and though signs of a willingness to change appears here and there, by and large the media here are part of the problem, not part of the answer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’ve always lived in working class suburbs and the gang thing has always been around so it’s kinda part and parcel of the lifestyle. But why is it? Is it because we look out into a society that keeps all the cream for itself and only offers us the scraps while hiding behind such catechisms as “anyone can be successful if they just put in the effort”
The reality of capitalism is that it’s pyramidal and as long as you keep the fruits for those at the top you’re going to have echoes of that system manifesting, in lesser degrees, throughout the overall system. As above, so below.
Accept those fruits behind your screens of apparent need and justification and you’ll always have to look upon mirror images of the same denial.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Interesting comment…gang culture fulfills a social need rather than an economic one i feel.
People (children) who grow up with insufficient family structure, who grow up with a sense of low self value, find their like in the Gangs, and these become the individual’s primary structure, safety and outlet…they will be around long as children grow up without the necessary bonds of love, discipline and/or respect.
They behave exactly as we have taught them to behave (chemical abuse included)…our Police seem to get their methods from Bruce Willis movies…part of the problem, and I hear all kinds of spurious stuff about ‘necessary evils’ etc.
With more care and less brute force our society can grow significantly through the polarizing attitudes that stultify attempts at change.
It is easy for a Computer to Label and Pigeonhole a human being, yet impossible for it to understand.
Therefore the news is good – because the answers are very much in our own hands and progress will come swiftly with the correct approach. New Zealand has tons of undeveloped potential in terms of social development.
However, this work is almost totally taken on by unfunded volunteers – the knowledge is there to heal – just not (apparently) the institutional honesty or willingness.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mark
The social-need being satisfied is a true thing, but the structure of the larger gangs, their power, their “prestige” and their reach into the society is partially predicated on the fact that they also have access to the drug money.
The subculture is important though. It used to be that we’d send kids to boy-scouts and to camps and we had time to spend with them ourselves. Now both parents work and scouts has nothing like the attraction of the more violent machismo world of the gangs.
Can’t say what the result would be if much of the money were removed. I don’t think it solves the whole problem. Yes it takes something away, but it also leaves the competing social entities (such as scouts) still without the strength in those poorly served communities to add to the social fabric.
There are these things and there are also the disparities in opportunity.. The schools MUST serve as equalizers of opportunity, and be seen as such. I am appalled by the lack of basic knowledge and the equally impressive lack of opportunities. What other result could there possibly be?
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi BJ; Don’t disagree with any of that. Have devoted some thousands of hours of volunteer work in this area, and am a Green supporter because I think this is by far the most likely Party to produce well-informed, pro-active Policies that will make a difference.
At the moment I cannot even (for example) obtain a simple detox for anyone needing it from the local Hospital.
This makes change for victims darn near impossible.
It is disheartening to see some young person take their own life when you know that if there was a willingness to help, flowing from the top down – it could make all the difference in the world.
regards Mark
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ…I can’t believe you are arguing that the gang problems are related to the illegal status of cannabis, and that you support legalisation or whatever as a means of damaging the gangs.
I suppose after that you would have to do the same with “P” and any other lucrative drug that came along??
Appeasement and “decriminalisation” will never actually solve the problems caused by those who will not accept the rule of law. Such people believe only in their own standards. Not in externally imposed standards. Removing or lowering standards is a cowardly response.
The real cause of most gang tensions in NZ is that Maoridom embraces tribal/whanau divisions as being more important than any form of national or global view.
It’s not unique to Maoridom however, one only has to look at the mindless thuggery embraced by the South Island white supremacists to see that the same level of smallmindedness can exist in any cultural group.
It just happens to be a strong central theme in Maori culture.
It seems to me that this attitude is based on a strange concept that personal mana is only derived from the strength of the group. The individual is of no consequence relative to the maintenance of the tribal/whanau self-esteem. (which is of course why many maori treat their children so badly).
Ironically, this same attitude also makes Maori largely unable to accept an over-riding national government (national, not National) or a global one…to them their own tribal/whanau group is the most important entity of all.
A good example of this is the importance they put on the hapu/iwi/whanau subdivisions that are so important to them at present. It almost seems impossible for them to stand alone. They have to fall back upon the importance of their iwi and their ancestors.
This is in strong contrast to many other cultures who embrace both individualism and globalism.
Young people who are taught to study, train and excell do not need to get their sense of belonging from whanau, iwi or gang. They have the moral strength to forge ahead, achieve noteworthy things and do good for the world.
Take a look at the families and cultures that provide society with it’s doctors, scientists, inventors and great statesmen and you will find that none of them put their own tribe/whanau ahead of broader humanity.
Which is why so many Maori youth never go onto higher achievement. They are stuck in that strange mode of revering their tribe/whanau/iwi ahead of the rest of the world.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Greengeek
If you can’t believe I would act rationally with respect to Cannabis you really don’t know me very well.
First: you aren’t fighting a war.
Second: Cannabis is far more widely distributed than ‘P’ and
Third: Cannabis is not even as harmful as alcohol. A lot of lies are and were told around the consequences of its use.
Fourth: Because of item 3 there is widespread acceptance of Cannabis as a recreational drug.
Fifth: Because of item 4 there is a huge market for cannabis.
Sixth: Cannabis actually has medical uses. In some circumstances its use is therapeutic rather than recreational.
I suppose after that you would have to do the same with “P” and any other lucrative drug that came along??
No, I do NOT have to do that. Each drug is different. Cannabis can be almost unrestricted, much like alcohol. Heroin use needs to be managed medically. ‘P’ is IMHO, so destructive that its use will ultimately kill the user no matter what is done. That’s an opinion. I’d want a more qualified medical evaluation before I determined to stop it…
- however –
If I DID determine that it needed to be stopped (and I have no doubt that there would be drugs that simply are too dangerous to be used), AND I had decriminalized Marijuana and medicalized heroin use – the gangs would only be able to make money from the ‘P’ addicts.
The population at large, the community, would not need to associate with criminals or pay them money, to get their fix. Some of the money flow into the gangs would be diverted to government and health and the community itself.
The pusher, because he is no longer associated with any “innocuous” substances would be far more exposed and vulnerable to law enforcement. The legal-free highs available with no risk associated would supplant the riskier illegal-expensive ‘P’ over time.
The changes to the society from the prohibitionist legal combative approach would, for the bulk of the community, be a massive relief. More resources would be available for socially useful activities, fewer would be required for courts and jails.
Since I did not conclude that this was a sufficient means of reducing gang influence but only one of the tools in the toolbox, I don’t feel it particularly damaging to allow that there may be cultural issues that allow the gangs more scope here than they might have in more westernized cultures.
I don’t however, put it down to the importance that Maori place on their hapu/iwi/whanau subdivisions. At least not the way you do. Disadvantaged communities do not provide the world with a lot of scientists and MDs. There may be an element of truth in what you say, but it is impossible to separate it from the far better documented relationships of economic advantage and achievements.
Was there really a big gang problem before we started the “war on drugs”?
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think the “war on drugs” came long after the gang problems started.
The gangs are made up of very selfish people, emboldened by the courage that comes from being with other like-minded people, in the absence of adequate external restraint and control.
Cannabis is only one of their sources of income, and I think it is wrong to suggest that cutting cannabis out of their income stream will change things very much.
1) Not everyone wants to grow their own, so the gangs would still continue to provide cannabis at a profit.
2) With greater tolerance of cannabis, greater numbers will use it.
3) Plenty of cannabis customers use it because the thrill of rebellion makes it worthwhile. Remove that thrill and they’ll move on to MDMA, P etc etc.
4) Although you say that P is not widely used, I think you are mistaken. It is very widely accepted amongst many professional groups (especially truckies) and those I have spoken to have every confidence they can use it carefully and to their advantage. Much the same sort of approach as cannabis supporters have.
Not every P user goes on a rampage.
If you support allowing canmabis users to make up their own minds, I don’t really see how you can take a different approach to “ecstasy”, P, BZP etc etc.
The gangs don’t care about where our laws draw the line in the sand. They need to be marginalised and policed much more heavily. They are just like children who get away with terrorising their brothers and sisters. As time goes on they become more selfish and brazen.
A good parent would not tolerate such behaviour from one child, and would act to prevent such a child blighting the lives of the other children in the family.
If gang members can’t respect a law, it should hardly surprise us, and we should not jump to assume that the law is wrong – they’ll just find another law to break.
We need to double the number of police, tighten up the justice system and be harder on gang behaviour, especially amongst youth in their early teens.
The remainder of us have nothing to fear from doing this, because we choose to stay on the right side of the law.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Greengeek
If Cannabis is sold in the liquor store, there’s no need to grow it and no profit to the gang unless it takes up farming the now legal drug. Gainful employment, paying taxes… sounds like a game-changer to me.
There is no “thrill of rebellion” psychology involved. You are making this up.
Remove the illegality and they will continue on as before, except they are not exposed to the pusher of P or the risk of jail and they don’t spend as much money.
You err in a number of ways about drugs, but I agree with the need to marginalize the gangs.
I simply point out that you will NEVER be able to do this as long as the drug war continues.
The problem with the more dangerous drugs is that the government has decided to lie about the dangers of not-so-dangerous drugs and as a result has zero credibility on the street. NOT lying about things and having the medical research to back it up, makes it easier to teach people the truth. To a large extent people should have accurate information and be allowed to make up their own minds. We don’t do that in the war though. All we do iis take prisoners.
Any physically addictive substance (Heroin, Alcohol, Tobacco, P) contains inherent dangers. Overdoses cause death. Cannabis users do not face these risks but wind up in jail.
People don’t break laws in order to break laws. They break laws to get things or accomplish some other goal, power women… not for the sake of breaking laws.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Opps, I replied to the gang and drug issues in depth on another post without realising they were separate: http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/01/27/armstrong-should-know-better/#comment-70017
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
With respect to taking a different approach with cannibis, BZP, P, ectasy, etc I would point out that we are already doing just that – with alcohol and tobacco. It should be a case of taking each drug on its merits and consequences, and I believe we have it a bit wrong. P, heroin, etc have consequences which are intolerable and should remain illegal (or potentially only administered medically). Cannibis and BZP are in a similar league to alcohol and tobacco – not necessarily good for the user but not bad enough to warrant a complete ban. Tax them, regulate them and educate people about their harm, and develop tests for them that can be used by road transport and other areas where their influence would be dangerous.
If anyone is going to make an unearned profit from the sale of these substances, why shouldn’t that be the government (who has to pay to clean up the effects anyway)?
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Trevor
Even a heroin user can function provided he/she is not ever cut off from a supply and the stuff is of know qualities and the needles are sterile. It isn’t good, but supervised use is quite feasible. Used to be done that way.
I am less inclined to think about methamphetamines that way.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No disagreement here BJ. However the supply and use of heroin outside a medically controlled setting should be illegal.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You guys stun me. You are so wrong about the attitude most of society has toward cannabis etc.
Even if “most” people have tried cannabis (which isn’t true anyway) by far the majority of those “triers” do not go on to become “users”.
It suits your purposes to have a different view but you are incorrect, and out of step with the real majority.
I am blown away that you actually believe this nonsense. The thrill of rebellion is the main reason why any teenager pushes beyond the boundaries. And it is the main reason why good parents keep the boundaries tight.
If you are right about this (and I believe you are wrong) why does Canterbury have such a huge problem with boy racers churning up the streets and bottling the cops???
The reason is that those involved get their jollies from breaking the law.
Not from driving fast and dangerously – if that were the case there are many outlets for such activities.
They get their jollies and derive their self esteem from breaking the law and indulging in activities that thumb their noses at any kind of authority.
There is one other reason why they do it…it is part of the “coming of age” for male teenagers to grow into “their own power” and shrug off the restraints of the previous generation. It is the same thing as young male lions challenging the dominant old male.
That is what generates the thrill of rebellion.
With human behaviours it is the domain of the old male to have wisdom and we should not turn our backs on that wisdom just to placate overheated youthful egos.
Or to indulge overheated gangster egos.
Crush the gangs. Burn their houses, their cars, their Harleys, their women and offspring.
The same scorched earth policy that freed civilisation from the nazis is the only one that will free us from the ravages of those who prey on our families and youngsters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
GreenGeek,
Read a history book; Scorched earth whilst being a great military tactic for economic decimation is never a good idea and only ever works to worsen the situation, be it weeks, years, or decades latter.
While there is certainly a level of rebelion in the motivations of youthful activities this is not the predominant cause for drug taking behaviours. Does it occur to you that the reason some people consume alcohol or smoke may not be that different to the motivations for consuming E or cannibis?
The motivation for legalising certain drugs is not because of the rebelious actions of naive youth but because of logical conclusions drawn from medicine, economics, and social psychology. Prohibition of the light recreational drugs only causes hurt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greengeek
I actually do not give a rat’s hindquarters what the rest of society “thinks it thinks”. You cannot legislate morality, you shouldn’t try, and if you DO try the harm you cause is invariably worse than the offense.
THAT is a law of human nature. Violate it at your peril.
Blowing you away is apparently all too easy.
The principle reasons kids try Cannabis is:
1. Peer pressure
2. X did it and he says it was cool.
3. Grown-ups say not to (they lie about everything)
The principle reason they continue to use it…
1. It feels good.
2. It doesn’t seem to hurt anything.
Note that rebelliousness has NOTHING to do with the use, though it may affect the experimentation.
Boy-Racers are a different category, I doubt that there is more than a 5% overlap of that group and the organized gangs we are discussing. Nevertheless, the motivations of motorheads are all about being fastest and best, having the fastest car the quickest reflexes and the least fear. This is adolescent male behaviour in every country on the planet and has, again, nothing to do with a desire to flout the law.
You really do have your priorities screwed up here….
“Crush the gangs. Burn their houses, their cars, their Harleys, their women and offspring”
You want to try to do THAT but NOT take away their principle source of income? You must like bloody mayhem but you are absolutely living in a dreamland if you think it will work like that in New Zealand or any other civilized country.
Cannabis was freely used in the USA and elsewhere in the world for thousands of years without causing the death of the human species or impairing the development of reason. The facts are when it was legal there wasn’t a problem. The problem came after the prohibition started, just as it did with the liquor, and the drug-WAR exacerbated the problem.
The huge tax that this lays on the society as a whole has to be tossed aside and a more rational approach taken. We’ll never win the war.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Despite the obvious fact that you guys still want to keep pushing cannabis, the real issue here is that the gangs are getting stronger and unless they ARE more strongly targeted we will continue to head towards a society that more closely resembles 1930s America.
Bring back Eliot Ness, and go with the scorched earth policy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient, normally you and BJ talk a good deal of sense.
Unfortunately you are both pushing a pro-cannabis barrow over this one.
Any history book I ever read showed clearly that appeasement can often be the worst approach, and that scorched earth is a good way to get rid of insidious evil people.
The misguided efforts of Bush et al should not put us off from targeting the real enemies of freedom (who actually live within our borders) and destroying them.
If you can’t handle the harsh realities of life take yourself off somewhere and have a quiet puff
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hang on a second. Let us look at countries that do not have a drug problem, such as Singapore and see why they do not have such a problem – that is because if you are caught with drugs in Singapore, the full force of the law is brought down hard on you; perhaps it is time that we pass measures that make people respect the law again, perhaps it is time to make prison harsh and the sentences long.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greengeek,
You should know by now that handling the harsh realities of life is something i am much better suited for than most on this blog; that i live in the nature state whilst many of the rest live in the dream state. I dont smoke cannibis, but when i was more youthful than i presently am and i did experiment with such substances said consumption immersed me no more in the dream state than in my everyday life.
Using scorched earth you create a perception of victimisation, in creating that victimisation, if you do not totally and utterly destroy all reminants, you create a bubbling hatred that can justify anything. This hatred gave birth to the LTTE, the IRA, the NAZI, every genocide in history, and the attacks against america which you cite. I have previously cited many scientific studies of such hatred on this forum.
The legalisation of cannibis is not appeasent it is the removal of a victimless crime and the gutting of a source of funds for the criminal community. And as for appeasement; appeasement has been extremly effective, just not when implimented by chamberlin
. The benefit is a great social good that was origionally implimneted in its present form in rome and did much to ensure social stability, the work-for-the-dole form is even older than that and was what built the pyrimids.
Appeasement and scorched earth can both be extremly bad, but they can work well if implimented correctly, such as the dole or the complete elimination of the tasmanian population by the dutch. the thing with scorched earth is so long as there are survivers there will be an even bigger wave resulting. In the case of gangs the wave will result even if you eliminate every member of said gang. with gangs you must be more tactical.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
oh yeah! lets hang people whom are caught with drugs! cause that wont result in a police state…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It is only a matter of time before the US government is forced to abandon its wicked “War on Drugs” (really a war against its own people) and abolishes prohibition. At that point, most of the rest of the world will follow suit. The power of the gangs will just wither away.
It’s just a question of how many more lives and entire societies are wrecked in the meantime by the gangs, corruption and violence that prohibition brings.
Maybe it will take the complete collapse of Mexico for this to happen, but that doesn’t seem too far off…
Until then, if you find yourself on a jury, simply never vote to convict anyone of any drugs offense – buyers or sellers. Jury nullification is the ultimate defense against state tyranny – which is what the War on Drugs is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wat…a question for you…did the power of the gangs wither away when prostitution was made legal???
Nope.
And neither will it wither away when people such as yourself manage to get cannabis more accepted.
The gangs will always find ways to make profit from marginal activities.
Who knows, if you did actually succeed in removing cannabis from their repertoire maybe they would simply move on to child prostitution, just as they have already moved towards using 15 and 16 year olds as their burglary primaries.
I like John-stons comment: let the law be respected.
Otherwise do away with it altogether and see what happens to our society when the decent people no longer have to respect it.
That would bring change for sure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greengeek
Creating the monster of organized crime was easy.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/troy/4399/
http://mises.org/story/2269
However, once organized, gangs turned to other sources of income when the prohibition ended and the great depression had turned the rest of the economy into a wasteland.
After the end of prohibition gangs organized around the alcohol import itself did decline. However, once organized, gangs do turn to other sources of income when the prohibition ends and the great depression had turned the rest of the economy into a wasteland.
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ObjectivismQ&A/0320_1.shtml
Moreover, that other great gang, the FBI, began the scare about Marijuana, so as to justify its own continued existence, and Marijuana was made illegal in 1937. The law enforcement community gets far greater funding in pursuit of this war. This should not be overlooked, particularly in the USA where assets can be seized under the RICO statutes, to the benefit of the police.
Finally, the incentive of being able to tax alcohol sales (given that income tax revenues had fallen precipitously) may well have been as important as the failure of prohibition to end any of the vices it was purported to address.
No mistake Greengeek… the prohibition against Marijuana and other drugs has had a bad effect on this and other nations. The likely effect of repeal will be improvement on several measures, and the gangs, desperate for revenue (as opposed as they are to gainful legal employment), WILL look for other things.
As a rule, those other things are more difficult to hide and profit from than the supply of drugs, and they are crimes that have real victims, as opposed to the supply of drugs, and there is no reason whatsoever to assume that ALL crimes will be permissible if this one law is removed from the books. That did not happen in the USA when prohibition was repealed either, though the murder rate did drop, and gang killings declined as a percentage of overall homicides.
http://tinyurl.com/dz34p5
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
- “Wat…a question for you…did the power of the gangs wither away when prostitution was made legal???”
Well, from making money controlling illegal prostition it did, yes. The same as when alcohol prohibition was abandoned. But of course there’s an aftermath. That’s part of the folly of prohibition: You create a monster which won’t die overnight. It will take decades to recover from the War on Drugs.
As a jury member, I would always vote to aquit a drug dealer who killed a policeman whilst defending his home during a police raid. The police are there to uphold property rights, not smash them down.
One of the many problems of prohibition is that it eventually turns the country into something resembling a police state (witness the US) with corrupt police, violent house raids by thuggish SWAT teams, state monitoring of everyone’s financial transactions, long prison sentences for people convicted of victimless crimes (though not so often if you’re white and well-connected) etc.
Madness.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Our drug problem (90%) is largely down to alcohol abuse – though cigarettes cause more (offically) deaths.
On a scale of psychotropic damage, cannabis rates lower than coffee and tea (didn’t retain this research link) – the main problem with cannabis being that people smoke it – not good.
However when emotive terms like ‘War on Drugs’ are used – people who don’t know have their vision skewed.
Done thousands of hours of work in this area and have yet to be called out to a crisis where alcohol wasn’t the problem. Second to that I would say that ‘P’ causes a lot of outlandish criminal behaviour and when mixed with alcohol becomes lethal.
No other ‘drugs’ come close, in terms of damage to our community.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yep, second that, Mark.
I can vouch for long-term harm done by alcohol in family structures; and I don’t think I’ve heard a date-rape story yet that didn’t involve alcohol consumption, although combinations of drug & alcohol are also the ‘soothers of choice’ for sexual predators.
It’s very unnerving to be a mature student on a NZ campus at Orientation time (due to start up in a couple of weeks), as the newly emancipated 18-year-olds throw themselves into the drinking patterns they’ve observed amongst their family members over Xmas and New Year, and wipe themselves out in a binge of independence in the first week of activities on campus.
Like the ad’s are saying, it’s the way that we’re drinking.
http://www.alcohol.org.nz/
ALAC website
MUCH bigger problem than cannabis use in Aotearoa, to my mind.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Katie
do you support freeing up cannabis laws to make its availability more similar to alcohol as some here seem to want?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip Says:
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:07 am
> However, once organized, gangs turned to other sources of income when the prohibition ended and the great depression had turned the rest of the economy into a wasteland.
This has always struck me as analogous the the prey-switching problem you get in conservation management. When you get a boom in the mouse population (for example), the cat population rises because there are so many mice to eat. Then the mouse population drops away, and the cats become desperate for something else to eat, and often turn to eating the eggs of native birds.
I think the sloution has to be to time a crackdown on gang activity to come just after the legalisation of marijuana, in the hope that the combination of the crackdown and the loss of their main income earner will weaken the gangs in a way neither can do by itself.
Unfortunately, the gangs have already switched to getting a fair amount of their income from methamphetamine, and it would be irresponsible to leaglise that because it is addictive and makes people violent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Look, I don’t blame Michael Phelps for apologizing. He has a living to earn, so he did what he had to do.
In the meantime, I merely note that this broken wreck of a man’s failure to win any more than a pathetic fourteen Olympic gold medals (so far) is a terrifying warning of the horrific damage that cannabis can do to someone’s health – and a powerful reminder of just how sensible the drug laws really are.“
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
economic reasons/imperatives are what will bring an end to the drug wars on cannabis…
as everything turns to custard…
..there will be less political will to p*ss this prohibition-enforcing money up against the wall..
..each and every year..
..conversely…a sensible govt-rated/controlled retailing of cannabis to over 18′s will be ‘a nice little earner’ for the gummint…
..(and i mean..remove the moral panic around this issue..
..and the case for prohibition turns to ash..
..eh..?..)
i am optimistic both obama..and eventually key..
..will ‘see the light’/will need the monies for something far more sensible..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“..perhaps it is time to make prison harsh and the sentences long..”
just like in america..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greengeek..
you aren’t d4j in drag..?
.are you..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
more on the economic case for legalisation..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/memo-to-john-keya-recent-study-by-the-legal-action-center-found-that-drug-law-reform-coupled-with-some-prison-closures-could-save-new-york-state-around-270-million-annuallyfood-for-thoughteh/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strictly ‘P’ based gang financing would make them more vulnerable.
It is harder to create P than to grow MJ but more importantly I think, is that the dealer is basically restricted to selling ‘P’ if there is a legal supply of the less damaging drugs… and the education about drugs sticks to TRUTH telling rather than scare-mongering.
The kids aren’t that stupid that they don’t notice the lies.
Wat – Who are you quoting? That is a good line.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Too true. And it will be interesting to see if John Key and co get that desparate, or if they retain some degree of moral fibre and stick with the status quo.
However, only a fool who did not understand human physiology would sanction an R18 tag instead of R25.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wat… great quote. Sadly most here won’t realise that Phelps actually WAS sorry. He was drunk when he inhaled, and realised later what a dick he had been to risk millions in potential income.
Congratulations to all the high achievers who have the self respect to avoid falling so low.
Bet you don’t see Phelps make that mistake again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, moral fibre. That’s what this is really about. It seems wrong to even seem to condone drug use, so we keep prohibition no matter what damage it causes. Only a fool would support such a status quo.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis…you don’t see any value in moral fibre?
It is the gangs lack of moral fibre that makes them a danger to the rest of us.
They don’t give a damn about prohibition.
Why do some people keep on insisting that removal of prohibition is a suitable alternative to good personal decision making? Weird.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Valis…you don’t see any value in moral fibre?”
Heaps, but not as an excuse for poor judgment.
“It is the gangs lack of moral fibre that makes them a danger to the rest of us.”
Sure, but we were talking about John Key. What gang is he in? Don’t tell me, I know. Very dangerous, the Blues
“They don’t give a damn about prohibition.”
What’s that got to do with Key’s support or otherwise for prohibition?
“Why do some people keep on insisting that removal of prohibition is a suitable alternative to good personal decision making? Weird.”
What’s weird is no one has said that, but you hear it anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I can’t believe a blog on my son’s killing has turned into a debate about drugs. Or maybe I can believe it. Just another failure to grasp the issue. The initial blogger was right – it wasn’t about Jordan’s t-shirt – he didn’t die for a colour – that colour was the ‘tip of the iceberg’. He died because his brother – his so called caregiver at the time – got him involved in adult gang warfare – something none of them had any business being involved in but something that picked up on some of their macho posturing and the idea that males need to prove themselves through needless violence. My son was a victim of that wider culture of violence. The mongrel mob creature that murdered him is an ‘outside evil’(for whatever reasons) who should have been given a wide berth. His brothers – they knew Jordan and supposedly cared about him yet they invited that evil into their lives. And it killed my beautiful boy. Not them. It killed HIM. He was only 16 and had so much potential. His so called brothers, let’s face it, do not. There is not justice or fairness in the world. It is fucking random. From Jordan’s Mum.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Natalie; I’m sorry; conversations tend to evolve away from the Topic – sometimes they are outright hi-jacked.
As someone who has suffered random unrequited violence – my feelings are alongside yours on this.
I go to church.
I will remember you and Jordan there.
It’s all I can think of doing today.
Please accept my apology.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Break up the gangs.
Stop pussyfooting around them, they’re laughing in your faces.
The one thing they understand is force.
Meanwhile, our children die.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
At least this forum provides some intelligent discussion and debate. Upon reflection I suppose that veering off topic is evidence that people are actually thinking of the wider issues. And there have been some thoughtful comments posted here. I don’t agree with all of them – maybe I used to.
After losing a son, barely 16, to senseless, brutal murder (murder is mostly senseless and brutal), a lot of things that were once ‘political’ are now intensely personal. Restorative justice? There’s nothing to restore. Can it bring back my son? Jordan’s murderer was not part of my ‘community’ and I have no wish to be around gang members. Of course he has shown absolutely no remorse – quite the opposite. He and his supporters have shown nothing but contempt. The comment by ahurewa is right. They are laughing at us. They think it’s funny that my son is dead. According to one of them he “shouldn’t have got in the way”. In the way of what? A murderous rampage? They brag about it in the public gallery in court. But of course the murderer is pleading not guilty. They are pathetic. They do act like children – extremely dysfunctional children – and their mentality is just staggering.
The ‘justice’ system won’t be able to punish this man, or the others involved in Jordan’s murder. Prison is part of their lives. A second home. So yes, use all the forces available to wipe them off. Let’s start again with some decent social policy so the children of today don’t become the gangs of tomorrow. It’s too late for the seasoned gang members now. Especially the ones of this particular gang who thought nothing of cruelly taking a young life they knew nothing about.
Are some gangs ‘better’ than others? Maybe there are degrees. But a gang can’t exist without a rival, a ‘demonic other’. So red is pitted against blue and yellow. Good grief, save us all. It is more understandable when you see children acting this way. But these grown men? Why do we have to wait until they’re in their 50s or 60s and too tired and jaded to fight anymore or until they find god? They need dealing with now. And so do the teenage boys who are heading to join their ranks.
But no, we’ll have to wait until there’s another murder, where there will be more hand-wringing by politicians and members of the public who don’t have to live anywhere near the spectre of gangs. Then nothing will happen. Where are the new policies? Why aren’t the police using the powers they already have? Too hard basket.
Actually, there was another gang-related murder. A 17-year-old was murdered in Murupara in October last year, in the name of ‘red’ and ‘yellow’. Following that there was an attempt at the local level to send a message that violence was unacceptable. Anything at the governmental level? Still waiting. Are these boys’ lives not valued because they happened to be in small, seemingly ‘dysfunctional’ towns that just don’t register with the nation until something bad happens? Because they happened to be Maori and were seen to be involved in gangs themselves, therefore, hey, sad, but was to be expected? Jordan was not a gang member, nor a prospect. As far as I know, neither was the other boy who was murdered. They had futures – ones that didn’t involve gangs. Now they’re forever consigned, in the public imagination, to ‘gang-related fatalities’.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)