by frog
Published in THE ISSUES by frog on Tue, December 6th, 2011
Tags: general debate
General debate, December 6, 2011
Published: December 6, 2011
Comment via Facebook
319 Comments
Hide comments with a score of
or less
Hide comments with a score of or less
“Smallish South Pacific Dominion for Sale….tree, slaves, sheep incl.”
Then we Nationalize the lot and start again
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/02/debt-slavery-%E2%80%93-why-it-destroyed-rome-why-it-will-destroy-us-unless-it%E2%80%99s-stopped/
((this is far too well done to be lost at the bottom of the last GT))
BJ
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
http://whoar.co.nz/2011/a-distraught-whistleblower-from-shin-nippon-biomedical-laboratories-snbl-a-notorious-everett-washington-based-animal-testing-conglomerate-contacted-peta-to-reveal-shocking-allegations-of-mis/
“…The whistleblower weighed her concerns for her job and fear of retaliation against the suffering and deaths of animals that she witnessed every day at SNBL – and repeatedly appealed to SNBL managers and supervisors to improve conditions for animals in the company’s laboratories.
After those pleas were ignored, she felt compelled to contact PETA.
SNBL torments tens of thousands of primates, dogs, rabbits, and other animals every year to test products for other companies.
It force-feeds animals experimental chemicals to intentionally sicken and kill them -
- and infects them with debilitating diseases..
SNBL is the third-largest importer of primates in the U.S., purchasing nearly 3,000 monkeys every year from China, Cambodia, Israel, and Indonesia —
- some snatched from their homes and families in the wild —for use in experiments.
According to the whistleblower, in one experiment at SNBL, monkeys were hooked to their cages with a metal tether through which ice-cold saline solution and test compounds were continuously dripped into their veins.
The monkeys were kept like this for many months and reportedly were so cold that they shivered and their teeth chattered non-stop.
Monkeys had blood drawn from their arms many times a day, resulting in swelling, redness, and bruising of their limbs.
These wounds were considered “routine” and were never treated.
After the first few blood draws, the monkeys’ veins were damaged – and workers would poke and dig around in the limb to find others.
The monkeys winced, screamed, trembled, and shook, and tried to defend themselves.
The whistleblower said, “Eventually, many of the monkeys stop fighting and reacting …
…it is like the life is gone from them.”..”
(cont…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
(this also is too well-done to be lost at fag-end of last thread..)
http://whoar.co.nz/2011/yasmin-alibhai-brown-dont-be-fooled-were-not-all-in-this-together-inequality-is-not-only-an-unfortunate-result-of-the-economic-crisis-it-is-the-ideological-tenet-of-the-right/
“…It would be terribly intrusive – but boy wouldn’t we like to know the pre-Christmas spending habits of the Camerons, Osbornes – and the terrifically jovial, blond Johnson clan?
Shop assistants, sadly, are not whistleblowers, but we can assume the puddings and pies will not come from Aldi, ale will not replace champagne – and there is little chance members of these great houses will be spotted at New Look.
That’s bitchy.
Maybe, enthused by Kirstie Allsopp, loaded queen of crafts, the genteel Laydees have decided to gift down and are knitting bracelets for diamond charms.
It’s all relative, isn’t it?
The Queen, for example, faces a pay freeze until 2015 – only £30m per annum.
See how frugally she lives – storing food in Tupperware boxes, turning the lights off in all the thousand and one rooms she owns.
And this is how we repay her.
Must be why she is cheering herself up with a new filly for £500,000 -
- paid for from her own incalculable private fortune.
Kate is to have her own new palace and her sister Pippa is not doing badly either.
Penguin has, apparently, given her an advance of £400,000 for a book on party piffle.
In the top-range glossy mags there are watches, handbags and coats costing so much -
- each one would feed a family for months.
OK so they have it and flaunt it, as they have through history.
The rich, like the poor, are always with us.
But, until now, nobody pretended that thieving bankers with their bonuses still rolling in -
- and tax-avoiding businessmen and politicians from hideously privileged backgrounds -
- suffer in bad times as much as the lone mum bringing up her kids on benefits -
- the disabled widower in care -
- and the man in the cornershop open day and night making a hard living.
But, they say we are “all in this together” -
- and they are honourable men.
This slogan is a cover for policies which calculatedly seek to “sacrifice” a section of the population and to wreck the welfare state.
Inequality is not only an unfortunate result of the economic crisis -
- it is the ideological tenet of the right -
- as unshakeable as any fundamentalist religious belief.
The haves are the saved, God loves them; -
- the have-nots are damned – and can expect no pity or salvation.
We have witnessed the fervour of this cult in power.
There is to be no Tobin tax to get money out of people who can pay – but just won’t.
They hate public service workers – even though in that sector there is NO tax dodging.
Women will suffer disproportionately – and so too those with vulnerabilities.
Unemployment is rising mercilessly.
But, they say, we are in this together -
- and they are honourable men…”
(cont…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
4 
5 (-1)
bj says “Our situation is the same as in Greece, except…..”
except…….that NZ has govt debt at 30% of GDP compared to 150% of gdp in Greece.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5 (0)
(still jonesing for yr ‘understanding’ with ‘john’…?)
http://whoar.co.nz/2011/national-has-been-accused-of-privatising-welfare-after-announcing-plans-to-contract-out-employment-services/
“..Prime Minister John Key yesterday signed support agreements with United Future leader Peter Dunne and ACT’s John Banks.
In return for the votes of the two one-man parties, they received ministerial warrants and concessions for their policies.
Under the deal with ACT some of the more controversial recommendations of the Welfare Working Group would be adopted.
They include contracting out employment placement services for beneficiaries to private sector and community organisations.
Income management through third parties and payment cards would also be introduced.
Auckland Action Against Poverty spokeswoman, and the Mana Party’s welfare spokeswoman, Sue Bradford said Key was using the deal with a single ACT MP as a cover to implement almost all of the Welfare Working Group’s recommendations.
“This goes beyond changes already announced by John Key and [Social Development Minister] Paula Bennett prior to the election.”
National and ACT saw unemployment as a business opportunity rather than an economic problem the Government had a duty to solve, she said.
“Contracting out assistance for the unemployed has been a disastrous failure in the United Kingdom and it will be the same here.
“If we follow the same pattern as they have we will see jobseekers being forced to work for nothing for large companies like supermarkets that should be paying proper wages.”
Beneficiaries were struggling to raise their children because benefits were not enough to live on, Bradford said.
“Widening state, or other provider, control to the point where people have no choice or self-determination left in their lives will not magically solve this problem.”
“We can expect to see some very dodgy organisations to suddenly appear to cash in on this golden opportunity to get rich at the expense of a very vulnerable group of New Zealanders,” she predicted…”
(cont..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
4 
6 (-2)
“..insulation in our time..!..”
..mmm..???
you will put up with all of that..?
..all just for the sake of a batt..?
..or two..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
8 (-6)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/oecd-inequality-is-growing-almost-everywhere/2011/12/05/gIQAqSbqWO_blog.html
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
bj quotes OECD ““The benefits of economic growth DO NOT trickle down,”
I’m sure the record 300 million Chinese lifted out of poverty would disagree.
Like or Dislike:
6 
7 (-1)
phil – you quote Sue Bradford being horrified that people might have to take jobs in supermarkets instead of being allowed to sit on the dole.
Unbeleivable.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6 (-1)
Good news in the coalition agreements between National, United Future, and ACT: I dont think there is anything in there that any normal person would object to:
In summary:
ACT:
1. Economy-Wide Monitoring
2. Regulatory Standards Bill
3. Legislated government spending limits (that’ll infuriate the lefties)
4. simpifying/unifying the Resource Management Act
5. Expansion of charter schools (that’ll infuriate the lefties and teaching unions)
6. Adopt some of the WWG ideas (that’ll infuriate the lefties and bludgers)
7. Competition for ACC (that’ll infuriate the compulsion-freaks)
United Future:
1. Complete passage of the Game Animal Council legislation
2. Reinstatement Income Sharing Bill
3. Continued development of the long term medicines strategy
4. Reducing elective surgery waiting lists (which National promised to do anyway, from six down to four months)
5. Investigate provision of a no-charge annual health-check up for over 65 year olds
6. There will be no sale of any part of Kiwibank or Radio New Zealand (but that wont stop the lefties scaremongering on the subject)
7. Statutory limits on the sale of public assets to no more than 49% of shareholding to private interests including limits on the extent of single entity ownership (which National were in favour of anyway, and it wont stop the lefties scaremongering on the subject, either)
8. Maintain at least current Budget funding tracks to TVNZ and Radio New Zealand to ensure they continue to fulfil their existing public broadcasting roles
9. Support Public-Private partnerships for major roading infrastructure developments where these are deemed to be the preferred options regionally and nationally, in particular the Transmission Gully highway (which will infuriate the watermelons)
10. Ban helicopter hunting on the conservation estate involving the shooting of game animals from helicopters and the herding and hazing of game animals as part of the hunt, and the inequitable access provisions for guided helicopter hunting in wilderness areas (Yay!)
11. Expand the Families Commission
12. Introduce pre-release assessments for all sentenced prisoners appearing before the Parole Board regarding their alcohol and/or drug dependency; and
13 Maintain free public access to rivers, lakes, forests and coastline
(yay!)
Looks pretty good to me.
Like or Dislike:
5 
7 (-2)
you left out the key-phrase …the ‘being forced to work for nothing’ bit there..photonz..
..believable..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
4 
6 (-2)
Fin says “Photon seems to be arguing that Genesis is a poor performer.”
A 1% dividend to govt is poor use of taxpayers money.
Fin says ” He thinks that privatisation will improve dividends/profit.”
Possibly. Private generating companies have much higher dividends, but competitive power prices. But the real point is poor return for taxpayers investment.
fin says I wonder if he thinks the same about kiwibank? Kiwibank’s profit was very poor compared to the Aussie banks.”
Kiwibanks financial position is very weak and risky because it has been pooly managed and has lent too much money to people who can’t pay it back – much higher levels of bad loans compared to other banks is what has lost it so much money.
fin says ” Why shouldn’t kiwibank screw as much profit out it’s customers as it can? ”
If it can’t make a safe and reliable profit, then it’s customers money is at risk.
fin says “Genesis is providing an essential service to the people, surely it can make more profit.”
Contact and Trustpower also provide an essential service to the people, compete on prices, AND make a modest profit.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6 (-3)
and in fact..that short post couldn’t be a clearer example of yr troll-dom..
there..photonz..
..you pick two segments from statement..(leaving out the key one..)
..and then make those two choices into something they clearly/factually aren’t..
..and use that as the basis of yr troll-attack..
..yr modus-operandi on clear view there..photonz..
…little goblin troll that you are..
(cue photonz crying..’he insulted me!’..)
..yes..i insult you..
..you are a lying/dissembling troll..
..end of story…
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
5 
6 (-1)
New Zealand ripped off
Being that National has managed to more than double our total government debt, could somebody please explain why they’re borrowing so heavily?
photon
Could you link to any data that shows this to be the case?
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
phil says “you left out the key-phrase …the ‘being forced to work for nothing’ bit there..photonz..”
I’d work for minimum wage any day rather than sitting on the dole (and have done many times – for minimum wage and less).
Because when you have a choice between a job and the dole, only one path is going to move your life forward.
If you wait for someone else to come along and improve your situation, you’ll still be waiting when you’re on the pension.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
fuck..!..are you as dumb as a dogs’ arse..?
they ‘are forced to work for nothing’..
..that’s ‘nothing’..
..what do you fucken not seem to understand about that..?
..you dumb fool..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
8 (-6)
Graeme Kates, who was chair of Arthur’s Pass Land Search and Rescue, resigned in protest a few days ago from his LandSAR role and from his DoC visitor centre role, claiming it’s now likely to result in more outdoor accidents and deaths, particularly involving tourists. There’s been a short reprieve and the staff are being allowed to keep doing what they did, but that system’s days are presently numbered. You can read more of Graeme’s concerns on his website, which he’s run for many years as a comprehensive guide about mountaineering in Arthur’s Pass.
Instead, DoC and the Police are now trying to direct everyone (through a website) towards the traditional system of finding their own “trusted” contact and being completely responsible for lodging their own intentions.
DoC doesn’t have a clearly legislated role to be responsible for people’s safety in the outdoors, and probably an accountant’s been through the books and asked why DoC’s doing it, but in its absence it’s leaving a vacuum in some areas. Normally the self-responsibility might work as it already does with locals in most of the rest of New Zealand, but Graeme’s pointed out that 63% of park users at Arthur’s Pass are international tourists, many don’t speak good English, some begin with dangerous plans that only get muted after they’re intercepted by staff, there’s been zero notice for tourist guidebooks to be updated with the replacement system (or lack of it), and there’s no reasonable internet access for people to update intentions if they chance shortly before leaving. Ultimately he thinks, and he’s very qualified to be saying this, that the changes being pushed through will likely result in a lot of tourists heading into Arthur’s Pass doing more risky things without realising, without leaving proper intentions, and requiring resulting Search and Rescue ops to be acting on thin and less accurate information.
But supposedly the Department of Conservation’s hands are clean.
Bizarrely DoC in Canterbury is also now refusing to replace the intention books they have at road-ends, citing that it doesn’t want the responsibility or cost that’s associated and that Search and Rescue is something they’re not responsible for.
It stinks of some of the wacky things that happened after the Cave Creek Accident where DoC made some places more dangerous by removing structures rather than be responsible for them.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Jackal asks “Could you link to any data that shows this to be the case?’
Sure – Interest.co.nz (long) headline from August 2011 is –
“Kiwibank annual profit more than halves to NZ$21.2 mln as provisions for bad loans soar more than four-fold to NZ$87.1 mln”
see
http://www.interest.co.nz/news/55036/kiwibank-annual-profit-more-halves-nz212-mln-provisions-bad-loans-soar-more-four-fold-nz8
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
photon
Most beneficiaries don’t have a choice. There are not enough jobs… it’s as simple as that. With youth rates falling to $10.40 per hour, some young people wil be better financially off staying on the dole. Where is the incentive for them when they are going to be paid peanuts?
Using a stick instead of a carrot isn’t going to work.
You know how you always use the recession as an excuse for National getting us into a huge black hole photon… how come private debt has fallen by $41 billion since National gained power? Any excuses there troll?
Like or Dislike:
3 
6 (-3)
Supermarkets cannot get enough job applicants. Quack.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
Todd (the entity now know as Jackal) complains
Yet complains even louder when job creation opportunities are presented as I outlined here.
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2011/12/05/fonterras-fencing-rule-a-step-in-the-right-direction/
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
photon
As usual you only look at the information you want to see:
Kiwibank still posted a profit of NZ$21.2 million. How does that equate to being badly managed? I don’t recall the New Zealand taxpayer ever having to bail out Kiwibank, unlike other privatized banks.
Being that Kiwibank lends to low income families to purchase their first homes as arranged under the rural lending program, and these people are the most effected by National’s failure to create jobs and mismanagement of the economy… it’s to be expected that more people are unable to service their debts.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
National uses Act as the pretense for introducing Charter Schools. They had already secretly planned to do this anyway, the evidence was there: http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.com/2011/12/charter-schools-in-nz.html
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
Gerrit
So who is paying the wages for these non existent jobs you mention? Quack!
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
Right Photonz…. so the enrichment of the wealthy of Wall Street, and the impoverishment of the people of Main Street are related to the enormous effort that China has been making to reduce its population growth and improve its economic outlook… if you are to be believed.
You made two mistakes…. the first is trying to relate things in different countries to things that happen between countries. The second is to impoverish the people of NZ to enrich the Chinese and the people who sell us out to the Chinese.
That isn’t OUR job Photonz. We work for New Zealand and New Zealanders, and what you’ve just described isn’t anything like trickle down, it is more like siphon off, with a fair amount of everything getting handed over to the already obscenely wealthy.
You really must hate New Zealanders.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
bj says “Our situation is the same as in Greece, except…..”
except…….that NZ has govt debt at 30% of GDP compared to 150% of gdp in Greece.
…and we’re still being asked to sell our asses to pay off the bankers.
Maybe there’s a lesson in there… there is no bottom to their cup. They CANNOT be satisfied.
Therefore – We should not try.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
The farmers who are having the conservation strips planted.
Doh, do keep up ducky!
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
Gerrit
How many jobs has that created then? I can smell some old rotten fruit again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5 (-5)
No jobs have been created. The programme is not underway.
But like the insulation scheme for homes had no jobs created until it started, so this scheme has no jobs. You need to create opportunities to get jobs.
Do you know what opportunities are or you just a duck in a pond?
Like or Dislike:
6 
1 (+5)
Gerrit
Do you know how pathetic your argument is? What you’ve just said is that the unemployed should be working because there is an opportunity for some jobs in the future. Come back when you’ve located your brain old fruit.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6 (-4)
phil says “they ‘are forced to work for nothing’.. ..that’s ‘nothing’..
You mean like every worker in the country who is forced to work equivalent of three months of the year for nothing – with the govt taking all the money from those months work to pay for services and benefits.
That’s working for nothing.
What you want is money for nothing.
Like or Dislike:
5 
10 (-5)
Jackal says “..how come private debt has fallen by $41 billion since National gained power? Any excuses there troll”
You really can’t work that out?…No?
It’s pretty obvious that for the past three years people have been borrowing much less for houses, much less for farms, and much less for business – and all these areas have been paying off their debt rather than taking on more.
It’s not rocket science.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
If it’s such common sense, why has the National government been doing the oposite photon?
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
bj – in your world 300 million Chinese would have been better off staying in poverty.
And you think we’d be better off ring fencing NZ, except when we did that we didn’t earn much money, and couldn’t afford to buy imports OR overpriced NZ goods.
Like or Dislike:
3 
8 (-5)
jackal asks “If it’s such common sense, why has the National government been doing the oposite photon?”
So what would you like slash spending on? – benefits? Chch rebuild? Education? Environment?
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
photon
You can never give a straight answer can you photon? How about we don’t build a few highways that aren’t cost effective… and start to properly maintain the ones we’ve got already.
The Christchurch rebuild will cost the government around $8.5 billion. The recession is costing us a fall of 3.3% in our GDP. Those costs hardly equate to an $80 billion debt hole by 2013 do they troll?
So what are your right wing buddies spending all that money on while borrowing 33% more than is required?
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
jackal – highways?
That’s how you’re going to cut $80 billion of spending (your figure).
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
i prefer ‘gather’ to cut..
..and in that spirit..
..tobin tax..
..capital gains tax..
..reverse tax cuts for rich/corporates..
..much higher sin taxes on booze/alcohol..
..end tax-avoidance thru trusts..
..legalise and tax pot..
..for starters..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
4 
5 (-1)
I have asked this before….Can anyone truly rely upon the vast number of expenditure speculations? I have never once seen any reliable (meaning correct)data to show either point. Cause you know what..there is a 99.9% chance a monkey will fly out of my butt today , but i guess the ONLY things stopping it is that infamous .1%. Thank God for that .1% btw ,but in the end they are still only numbers….
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
in your world 300 million Chinese would have been better off staying in poverty.
It’d be funny if you’d once in a while pay attention. The Chinese did AND DO, what they do. They succeed on their own effort, or not, but certainly not as a result of “trickle-down” economics. Their success is not related to whether someone wealthy gets wealthier… and is even more certainly unrelated to whether someone HERE gets wealthier.
You can’t claim their success as a “result” of trickle-down economics. They have done a LOT of things. SOME may have some relationship to their adoption of more capitalistic arrangements. Not related to us.
The object Photonz, is to improve the lot of New Zealanders. Try to keep track of that goal, it should be the direction you are heading if we are to have a “brighter” future, but the National version of a “brighter” future is a fireworks display. It looks pretty while it lasts, but afterwards you have nothing but a bill and a lot of burned up stuff.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4 (+2)
All good remedial measures there phil u. We could just about pay for Christchurch without borrowing further to pay for the economically irresponsible highways of no significance.
Propaganda to discredit strike
The ports of Auckland strike has certainly brought out the worst in some people, particularly the usual right wing bloggers that wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them on the arse. What they’re ignoring is that the proposal for shipping giant Maersk to move its operations to Port Tauranga has been around since August 2006…
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
bj – the original statement you quoted was “The benefits of economic growth DO NOT trickle down”
It’s obvious that China DID grow.
It’s obvious it DID trickle down.
Ditto with Australia.
Ditto with NZ from 2000-2007.
It’s just that our growth was based on every Kiwi spending $1.15 for each $1 they earned.
Like or Dislike:
5 
7 (-2)
any comment on that list of solutions you asked for..there..photonz..?
..or..troll-like..when ‘called’..
..do you just piss off to yr next troll-subject..
..kinda like a version of a.d.d….
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
6 (-4)
Jim W
You could always try searching the internet for some data instead of just mouthing off.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
photon
You mean wage increases didn’t keep up with inflation… at last you said something honest.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
phil asks “..any comment on that list of solutions you asked for..there..photonz..?
..or..troll-like..when ‘called’..
..do you just piss off to yr next troll-subject..
..kinda like a version of a.d.d….?”
I’ve been working actually. The problem your idea of simply raising taxes all over the place is that you’re hitting the one thing that creates jobs – profitable private businesses.
There seems to be quite a number of people on the far left that still think governments create jobs, but it comes down to just one thing.
If businesses are profitable, they will take on more people. If they are struggling, they won’t.
And money left in the hands of businesses will create more. Take that money away, and you’ll have less jobs.
As for your list of taxes –
- a tobin tax will amke NZ exporters less competitive, so that’s likely to hurt NZ.
- capital gains tax could work if you favour areas you want money to go to – businesses, shares, savings – and hit ALL housing. (but Greens and Labour plans do the very opposite)
- lift company tax – really bad idea. We want companies to make as much money as possible, and reinvest it. Tax it at the point where it goes into private hands
- lift top persoanl tax rates. I wouldn’t be averse to increasing persoanl tax – but only on very high incomes.
- lift in alcohol tax. Not a bad idea from a health point of view.
- end tax-avoidance thru trusts – yes
- legalise and tax pot – no, really bad idea. When Kronic was legal we had really bad problems in schools, getting towards epidemic proportions in some places. That has now been replaced by really big dope problems in some schools where it wasn’t a big issue before.
Turning our children into stoners is not a smart thing to do.
Like or Dislike:
4 
5 (-1)
what’s yr poison there..photy..?..(hic..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
4 
6 (-2)
photon
Such a simplified answer to suit your argument there troll. A business will expand mainly because of growing market share rather than an ability to pay more people. You are thinking of businesses that just churn out unrequired product… which isn’t a sustainable business model.
Nobody is arguing to make businesses less profitable, just that more of their profits should go towards the common good… which is something all businesses rely on to make their money.
We have already exposed John Keys lie that higher wages mean more unemployment.
So you think decriminalization will increase marijuana use. Care to link to any evidence of that?
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
Jackal says “You mean wage increases didn’t keep up with inflation… at last you said something honest.”
You spout nonsense again.
Using the CPI -
$100 of goods in 2000 costs $137.88 today.
$100 of wages in 2000, has risen to $147.71 today.
So wages have risen 10% more than prices over the decade.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
Gosh Photonz… now we’re expanding this into still stranger forms.
First: You have not shown and I daresay you CANNOT show that there is any relationship between the growth of the economies mentioned and the growth of inequality in those economies ( which is an alternative statement of the basis of “trickle down” theory ).
There is in fact significant research to indicate that greater equality is a better path to “growth”.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/09/Berg.htm
Second: When you measure wealth you also have to measure the cost of whatever you are doing to generate it, both in terms of the work you do and in terms of the destruction you leave behind. I haven’t noticed you paying much attention to the latter, nor China for that matter.. and if you are doing it by borrowing then you have, by MY measures made yourself poorer, not more wealthy.
I don’t know how to teach you to think properly Photonz… it is clear that there is a functional brain behind these posts of yours but it is equally clear that it is operating under significant handicaps.
The real world doesn’t support the darwinian societies in right wing fantasies. What you can get yourself, if you eventually have your way, is a bloody revolution. Not a peaceful one. That’s one of the lessons of history.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4 (+2)
So you LIKE subsidizing the Mongrel Mob while doing not a blessed thing to reduce the damage done to the society by the drug trade. Spoken like a true right wing blinder wearing sheeple.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
cannabis is a gateway drug…
i used it as a gateway out of alcohol..
i used it as a gateway out of tobacco..
i used it as a gateway out of heroin..
i used it as a gateway out of cocaine…
marijuana should be made available to anyone trying to quit any of those drugs..
..it’s a little ripper of a gateway..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
8 
7 (+1)
BJ – The original claim was that economic growth does not trickle down.
That was disproved very easily with 300 million Chinese.
Obviously that hurt, cause you’ve started adding regular abuse and put-downs to your debate.
And now your’ve changed your arguement away from whether economic growth trickles down or not, to whether economic growth promotes equality – something completely different.
Like or Dislike:
4 
9 (-5)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
5 
15 (-10)
photon
Care to link to where you have gained this information from?
Your China example does nothing to show the trickle down effect is advantageous to the general public in New Zealand.
You have failed to answer my question concerning decriminalization marijuana increasing use and you’ve failed to answer BJ’s question concerning the drug trade subsidizing gangs incomes while doing nothing to reduce the damage done to the society? Instead you just put the blinkers back on. BJ is right… you’re handicapped by your right wing mentality photon.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
“So wages have risen 10% more than prices over the decade.
Kw..kw…kw…kwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak!
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
Phil – your observation that cannabis provided you with a ‘way out’ of reliance on other drugs is very profound and thought provoking. Photonz1′s response was petty by comparison.
Like or Dislike:
4 
5 (-1)
Greenfly – what a great reflection on the Green party that their representives make animal noises at the CPI index.
That’s a sign real high quality representation. I bet the other parties are envious.
The CPI figures show that since 2000
- inflation has gone up 37% and
- hourly wages have gone up 47%
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/0135595.html
And the minimum hourly wage has gone up by 85% (that’s EIGHTY FIVE percent)during the same period.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
The minimum wage would need to be $15 an hour to be at its 1990 CPI value.
The problem with measuring wages to inflation is that higher top wages drag the average wage level up – I would be more interested in the comparison of the median wage to inflation.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
Hey, photonz – you’re great with figures! Could you do the stats for the past three years, you know, the ones under the John Key Party?
Those are the ones I’d like to see!
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
photon claims that wages have matched inflation and is so obviously wrong it’s not funny. The New Zealand inflation calculator shows a decline in purchasing power of 26% since the third quater of 2000 to the same time this year… 7.3% of that lost purchasing power was between 2008 and 2011 under the John Key party.
Did you also realize that decriminalizing marijuana leads to less use and better health outcomes? But don’t let the facts get in the way of your cult like right wing ideology.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
greenfly asks “Could you do the stats for the past three years”
Since 2008
- CPI inflation including gst rise is 8%
- wage increases 7%
- tax cuts 3.5% (for someone on $48,000pa)
- additional tax cut to compensate for gst 2%
So despite the recession, take home wages have climbed at just over 1% per year faster than prices – similar to the last ten years
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Jackal says “The New Zealand inflation calculator shows a decline in purchasing power of 26% since the third quater of 2000 to the same time this year… 7.3% of that lost purchasing power was between 2008 and 2011 under the John Key party.”
Duh!!!
It’s talking about the purchasing power of the same $1 from 2000.
We don’t get paid the same wages as 2000.
The $7.55 minimum wages has gone up 85% to $13
And average hourly wages have gone up 47% in that time.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
SPC says “The problem with measuring wages to inflation is that higher top wages drag the average wage level up”
Wrong in this case. Look at the figures
Average hourly wages have gone up 47% since 2000.
But minimum wages have gone up 85% ($7.55 to $13) over the same period.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Wrong you say. The typical lie and pretend to the arbiter of truth spin as usual.
So you are unaware that
1. the income gap has grown here over the last 20 years – see yesterdays OECD report says – the gap betwen low and the high has grown.
So a rising average would have to be somewhat influenced by rising top income levels.
2. As you say those on the minimum wage have had their wage increase by more than the average, but the median is further and further behind the top incomes.
3. Given the minimum wage is still below its comparative 1990 levels it is still not very high. In fact it is so low that increases in it have little impact on the average wage compared to increases in the top rates.
For someone who likes to spin numbers you don’t seem to know much about them.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2 (+4)
Of course hourly wages can hide the fact that where less hours are worked weekly income has increased less than the CPI.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
That was disproved very easily with 300 million Chinese.
PHOTONZ !!!! You did not AND CAN NOT link 300 million Chinese doing better to the policy called “trickle down” which I identified as greater inequality….
You are astonishing in your inability to see only the answer you wish to see here.
Connect the dots mate. You haven’t showed cause… you can’t begin to claim it. Yet you rabbit on about it as though it is somehow significant.
Greater inequality? Those Chinese became “more” equal to the Americans they were putting out of work. Since you insist on comparing things ACROSS country boundaries you have to reckon the effect ACROSS country boundaries.
However, and I reiterate it because you seem to have forgotten, we work for the people of New Zealand. Unlike National which works for the banks…
We’d like the whole world to do better, but in terms of resources it is already a zero sum game. The blanket only covers half the people in bed (on this planet) with us already… and whoever pulls more gets more at the expense of others
…and YOU want to sell (let go of) part of OUR blanket… because Oh!My!God! those filthy Greens want us to pay taxes instead of borrowing in order to increase consumption (not production) for the benefit of the almighty fncking banks. Those insane Greenies want to make sure that the funding for schools and hospitals is made of ongoing revenue on a continual and sustainable basis rather than selling off the assets we should be holding in trust for our children piece by piece.
Yeah… We’ll agree to asset sales… when hell is a hockey rink!!!!
Like or Dislike:
6 
3 (+3)
I said “A gateway out of school to drop out and become a no-hoper”
Greenfly says “Photonz1′s response was petty by comparison.”
My wife works with schools who have this year suddenly developed big problems with large numbers of kids screwing up their lives with dope. They’ve got teenagers who had really bright futures who now get stoned every day and seldom come to school.
It all started when Kronic was available legally. Because it was legal lots of school kids started using it regularly during the day. Now there’s an epidemic of kids screwing up their lives, in schools that previously had few problems, ….
….and you think kids throwing away their education and screwing up their lives is petty.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
And now your’ve changed your arguement away from whether economic growth trickles down or not, to whether economic growth promotes equality – something completely different.
Yes, and you’ve left asset sales behind for the promotion of greater inequality as the answer to economic underperformance. For which you still haven’t begun to make a case. First you’d have to show NET economic growth, counting true costs, and then you’d have to show that the greater inequality was causing it. That’s trickle down theory in a nutshell, an appropriate receptacle when you think about it. It’s been tried in the USA quite extensively, and it hasn’t done anything but increase the problem.
[Since 1983], there has been almost no trickle down of economic growth to the average [U.S.] family Almost all the growth in household income and wealth has accrued to the richest 20 percent. – Edward Wolff, Jerome Levy Economics Institute, Bard College, 2000
Between 1947 and 1973, the median earnings of American workers more than doubled – and the bottom 20 percent enjoyed the biggest gains. But since 1973, median earnings have fallen by about 15 percent, and the bottom 20 percent have fallen the furthest behind. More than 40 percent of all earnings gains have gone to the richest I percent. – United States Census Bureau
It really works well…. FOR THE TOP 1%
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb11-157.html
the period from 2001 to 2007 was the first recovery on record where the level of poverty was deeper, and median income of working-age people was lower, at the end than at the beginning.
Maybe you need to stop using numbers to lie to yourself and go outside and actually LOOK at what is happening to your fellow citizens. The ones you don’t usually notice… the ones who don’t make enough to buy stuff from you and don’t have enough for you to buy stuff from.
The civilized world is NOT made up solely of those two transactions.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
bj says “You did not AND CAN NOT link 300 million Chinese doing better to the policy called “trickle down””
I can, and did.
Pretty obvious that China had economic growth and that economic growth trickled down to lift 300 million out of poverty.
As for your comments on hockey, beds, rabbits, blankets, hell, god and dots – they’re not making a lot of sense.
In the meeantime we need to sell our generators, but keep collecting 95% of the recvenue we currently get from them – gst, paye, company tax – (and half the dividend will make 97.5%).
Then we can put the billions to better use than getting a dividend so small that doesn’t even keep up with inflation.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
I think China will be the greatest power in the world pretty soon and one that will not go down so easily.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well no Photonz… you didn’t, because you don’t show a link. Now this has morphed from “trickle-down” to overall economic growth (more reasonable because it does not entail greater inequality in order for it to occur)… but economic growth is not a policy.
You can’t BS your way out of this one Photonz, try though you may. “Trickle Down” has always been primarily an argument for letting the wealthy keep more of what they earn “because they are the ones who are successful drivers of the economy”. That’s what “trickle down” means to everyone everywhere.
If you want to discuss “growth” trickling down you are off in left field talking to yourself. “Trickle down” is and has always been a justification for greater inequality…. and a lie. The father of supply side economics said as much.
Growth isn’t a policy. It is a result.
You ARE slipping.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
how many people die from the effects/side-effects of alcohol..?
..how many people die from the effects/side-effects of cannabis..?
teenagers:..binge-drinking..with all the well-detailed negative-effects..leading up to death..
teenagers:..cannabis smoking…may get hungry and/or fall asleep..
..which would you prefer for your child..?
(and fly..what makes it all the more ‘provocative’..is that i am the walking case-study..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
Photonz
1. We didn’t say to make “Kronic” legal, it is a worse drug than the actual weed is.
2. Nor, given that Kronic was for sale in every corner shop – not at licensed purveyors of find liquors – was it ever as tightly controlled even as alcohol.
Overall there are very few things as stupid as this knee-jerk reaction to a relatively harmless drug… which really SHOULD be kept out of the reach of children AND CURRENTLY IS MORE AVAILABLE TO THEM than alcohol.
Their suppliers now are “the Mongrel Mob” and “Black Power”. People whose respect for the law about the sale of substances to minors is legendary.
Someplace along the line you lost your vision almost entirely. All you can see now is the party line.
Good luck with that.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5 (0)
Ah, photonz1, you tricky little minx! Zig-zagging about the thread, building little straw men and having a super time with your ‘clever’ twistings! I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you’re not aware of your broken-threads comprehension and that you are genuinely unable to keep to a logical line of thought, but it stretches credulity quite a lot. I’ll try not to see you, in my mind’s eye, chuckling at how awfully clever you are confounding those pedestrian Frogbloggers with your devilish wit and dodgem responses, but it’s not going to last if you keep playing dull hands, like your gormless,
“….and you think kids throwing away their education and screwing up their lives is petty” pish.
Do you wonder, as the rest of us do, why the charge that you are behaving in a less than credible way with your ‘debate technique’, is leveled at you by so many commenters here? You’ve decided that it’s they who are wrong perhaps. There’s an expression that describes such a view (I’m okay, it’s everyone else whose got it wrong), only pithier, isn’t there?
Some clever fellow will know it.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5 (+1)
One of the problems with selling off the power generators is who will ensure that the lights will stay on? Given that the gas that fuels many of our North Island generators (and the diesel that fuels Whirinakai) will run out, who will meet the electricity demand then? And that demand will rise, as current gas users are forced to switch to alternative energy sources for heat. Pete Hodgson had enough trouble just with competing SOEs.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
i’ve linked to obama speaking live ..on taxing the rich..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
BJs OECD quote “The benefits of economic growth DO NOT trickle down”
BJ says “If you want to discuss “growth” trickling down you are off in left field talking to yourself. ”
Now you claim the quote we’re discsussing….has nothing to do with the discussion!!!
Take some memory pills.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
Trevor29 says “One of the problems with selling off the power generators is who will ensure that the lights will stay on?”
The Govt has failed several times with that.
And telecom installs and fixes phone lines far faster then when the govt owned it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
greenfly – perhaps you should repeat that without sounding so paranoid.
Clear precise english would be good would make it easier to understand the actualy point you’re trying to get across in your ramblings.
Like or Dislike:
4 
7 (-3)
“Clear precise english (sic) would be good would (sic) make it easier to understand the actualy (sic) point you’re trying to get across in your ramblings.
Feet up for the day, I think.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
I sometimes imagine photon to be a number of current and former National and Act MP’s huddled in a room brainstorming to come up with the most right wing comment their little brains can think of. The troll’s mentality is uncannily similar to people like Steven Joyce and Roger Douglas for instance. Arse up… head buried in the sand.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
BJ says “Their suppliers now are “the Mongrel Mob” and “Black Power”.”
Wrong.
The childrens dope suppliers are sibblings and friends, but mainly their parents.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
greenfly, complains of “a less than credible way with your ‘debate technique’”
Coming from someone who thinks repeatedly making animal noises is intelligent debate, that’s hilarious.
I think I’ll print that out – it makes me laugh each time I read it.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
Photonz..”mainly their parents”…how do you know this is the truth? I’m in awe of your knowledge.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
“The childrens dope suppliers are sibblings and friends, but mainly their parents”
What do you base this supposed fact on?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Feet up Greenfly, plus a foot rub. He just makes it too easy for ya!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Fin and Suz ask how it’s known who is supplying kids with dope.
Simple – ask the kids.
It’s my wifes job to council these kids at many schools and try to make them aware of how they are stuffing up.
It’s the same at other schools, and it’s the same with alcohol.
Parents are the primary source.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Photo.
Taxes go to pay for services which have to be provided. History has shown the State can provide most of these services more cheaply and efficiently than the private sector, so long as they avoid the cost plus corporate model.
In every case in the last 35 years, when services have been corporatised and privatised, discretionary income has decreased as we pay more for the same services.
How many months a year do we have to work now to pay interest on debt which could have been avoided by making wealthy tax dodgers pay their share.
Kiwi Bank has proven its value to the economy by keeping the Aussie banks honest. Didn’t you notice how many fees they removed when Kiwibank started.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
Mearsk left Auckland because of the strike! LOL.
We heard Tauranga had scored Mearsk off Auckland 4 months ago.
Tauranga is owned by POAL anyway so the net effect will probably be that POAL makes more profit. Tauranga is more efficient. Most likely because they do not have 4 HR managers.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Without disrespecting your wife, I think your information source is weak.
Just because some people supply drugs to their kids (was it Craig Norgate and one of John Banks’ kid’s friend?) doesn’t mean that it’s the norm.
Friends of a friend’s friend who grow, would discipline their boy if he was to touch the stuff. It’s worth money ya know..
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
I am in awe of so MANY parents being able to grow and process dope for their kids to consume.
It does just get sillier and sillier. The right wing hasn’t ever been rational on this topic and if pressed they never can make sense.
Just keep asking the right questions and their arguments run in tighter and tighter circles until they disappear up their own assholes.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
Alcohol vs Marijuana
Surely the government could work to reduce the harm caused by treating alcohol as a dangerous drug. From young people binge drinking themselves to an early death to fueling violence and drunk driving, the destructive effects of alcohol are by far the most costly to our wallets and society.
Contrast that approximately 1000 alcohol-related deaths each year with the comparatively harmless drug marijuana, which is widely used and hasn’t killed a single person…
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
Photon, I object to you stating “parents are the main source” as if it’s fact, when your reference is so poor (I do not mean any disrespect, just that it’s basically an opinion).
EVEN IF parents are the drug dealers of pot to under 18s or whoever, wouldn’t this mean that there is a serious lack of education. Wouldn’t this mean that the current system is failing?
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
Kerry says “In every case in the last 35 years, when services have been corporatised and privatised, discretionary income has decreased as we pay more for the same services.”
Yeah right – that’s why the Soviet Union and North Korea are are so prosperous.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6 (-3)
Kerry Thomas
Looks like Maersk might have made the decision to move to Tauranga way back in October 2006.
It’s particularly disgusting that Port Auckland management and the right wing bloggers are all lying to demonize the warfies. They’re trying the same bullshit used in the 1951 waterfront dispute. Unfortunately for them there’s the internet these days to help combat their propaganda. Hurray!
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
bj says “Just keep asking the right questions and their arguments run in tighter and tighter circles until they disappear up their own assholes.”
You used to be more intelligent – now you just resort to abuse each time the real world doesn’t fit your preooncieved ideology.
Now you base your decsiion on what it happening in these schools, not an a single known fact about these schools ( because you know nothing about them – not even what city they are in )- but based on what conforms to your preconcieved ideals.
Then you lecture about being rational.
That’s just like greenfly making animal noises then lecturing on intelligent debate.
My wife has numerous schools on her books and parents are the primary source for dope and alcohol.
Fin – you can object as much as you like about me stating parents are the main source – but that doesn’t change the facts.
Like or Dislike:
4 
7 (-3)
photon
It’s irrational for you to base your belief system entirely on what occurs in your daily life. You make a bold claim that parents are the primary source of supplying marijuana and alcohol to their children, but base this belief entirely on what one person tells you.
Your argument is totally rubbished by this National Institute on Drug Abuse study (PDF) into preventing drug use among children and adolescents, which quotes a number of other studies that don’t even bother to acknowledge that parents encourage their children to use marijuana and/or alcohol. That’s because it hardly ever happens. Instead all the studies are focused of societal conditions and education.
I presume your wife works in Schools as part of Child Youth and Families? Isn’t she the one who claimed all beneficiaries have sky TV while their children starve?
My wife said a guy hit on her today, therefore all men want my wife… quack!
Like or Dislike:
5 
5 (0)
jackal says “Your argument is totally rubbished by this National Institute on Drug Abuse study ”
So you claim a report from another country, done 14 years ago, totally rubbishes my claim that in 2011 parents are supplying dope and alcohol to their children in many NZ schools.
Do you realise how absurd your claim is?
Like or Dislike:
4 
5 (-1)
Photon, If your wife’s opinion results in an indisputable fact inside your head, then you probably have a smooth marriage
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
“Pretty obvious that China had economic growth and that economic growth trickled down to lift 300 million out of poverty.”
Not obvious at all. Apart from considerable debate about purchasing parity which suggests many fewer Chinese were lifted out of poverty than first thought, the means of them getting out of poverty is unclear.
World Bank researchers Martin Ravallion and Shaohua Chen could find no linkage between economic growth and the reduction in poverty. They conclude the reductions were mainly in rural areas and due to changes in fixed prices paid for grain and the breaking up of collective farms. They noted that reductions in poverty preceded China’s manufacturing boom and that poverty reduction seemed to have rapidly tailed off after the agrarian sector reforms.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Many parents in New Zealand provide their children with alcohol and cannabis to take to school. Quack.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
photon
Arguing that the supposed trickle down effect in China means there’s trickle down in New Zealand.
Arguing that the research done in the US concerning how young people are introduced to drugs and alcohol does not apply to New Zealand.
QUACK!
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
photon..the mouthpiece/frontman for his better-half..
(..the all-seeing drug-oracle..)
..is laughed out of the room..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
4 
5 (-1)
i wonder if she wears a superhero-costume on her drug-rounds..
..that all-seeing drug-oracle..?
phil(whoar.co.nz
Like or Dislike:
4 
5 (-1)
and she’s obviously in the wrong job..
..with powers like that she should be stationed somewhere at an airport..
..as a form of super drug-dog..
phil(whoar.co.nz
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
is it a bird..?
is it a plane..?
no..it’s photos’ missus..
..the all-seeing drug-oracle..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
i wonder if all-seeing drug-oracle is available to be hired..?
..by worried parents..
..for teen-scanning..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
Astonishing.
There’s people lining up here to say this problem can’t possible be happening, despite not even knowing where the schools are.
It’s a great example of how many people are so brainweashed by their ideology , that they’ll take a real world situation they have no information about, then categorically deny it’s happening.
That’s very cultish.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
photon
You originally argued that most children who used drugs are introduced to marijuana by their parents, obviously trying to demonize the parents that you think do not deserve their children.
Now you think that we’re all arguing that no parents at all introduce their children to marijuana… when nobody has made that argument.
Your dishonest and obstinate argument has become tedious! Worse yet, you display a mentality that is apparently shared by your wife that is ultimately detrimental to the young people she works with.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
no no photy..
we are ‘lining up’ to laugh at you…
..and the idea of yr all-seeing drug-oracle better-half..
..eh..?
..you and yr table-leg-chewing ideas…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
photon
The Second Edition of the Drug Abuse study into preventing drug use among children and adolescents was produced in October 2003… making it eight years old.
It appears you don’t know how to count properly? Do you know what first and second edition means photon… or are you perhaps too drunk to engage your brain properly?
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
Photon, I have asked you for information to back up your claim that many parents are supplying kids with drugs, and all you have said is “My wife has numerous schools on her books and parents are the primary source for dope and alcohol.”
What is astonishing is that you expect people to believe something because the person who said it “has books”!
You are right that I don’t know much about you wife’s books, if you could shed light on the matter, great.
Has your wife reported these drug dealing parents to the police?
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
fin asks “Photon, I have asked you for information to back up your claim that many parents are supplying kids with drugs,”
As I said earlier, my wife has several of these schools on her books, so she visits them regularly, and confidentially meets and councils the kids with issues.
Her role is as a health professional that they can talk to without getting judged or into trouble – so they open up and she can help sort out their problems and keep them as safe as possible. So they’re quite open about where the dope comes from and much much more.
She’s also had inter-agency meetings with the princials, cyps, public health etc, about the problem of parents supplying dope and alcohol.
It’s astonishing there’s people here arguing this problem doesn’t exist when even 30 years ago there were schools that had dope problems because so many parents were growers and dealers. (though in the recent cases here, a number of the parents supplying could be considered middle class).
And the Teachers association has put out discussion papers several years ago saying how difficult is it to stop students getting stoned, particularly at schools where “a significant proportion of a school’s parents are growing cannabis, using it themselves, and dealing in it”
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
Photonz
Do the parents make bathtub gin and grow their own dope? No. You know that and I know that.
Did it have to be an adult who got the Kronic?
No. You know THAT and I know that. It was for sale far more widely than hard liquor. So lets make sure that that one is labeled as irrelevant to this discussion, because it is.
So…. who provides the dope to the parents?
The gangs.
Who profits from those sales?
The gangs.
Does the gang restrict its sales to adults.
No.
Does the gang pay taxes which could go to harm mitigation?
No.
Does the gang offer ALL the illegal substances including those which are immediately addictive and far more extreme in their capacity to cause harm.
Yes.
Does the gang regulate its supplies so that they are a standard strength and not adulterated.
No.
Does the liquor store pay taxes which go to harm mitigation?
Yes.
Does that store restrict its sales to adults.
Yes.
Does the liquor store offer whatever the hell the customer asks for?
No.
Are the products from the store allowed to be adulterated with other substances?
No.
Basically Photonz, you are arguing that no regulation and no control is better than some… because that is the RESULT you are getting. It is a very expensive very stupid war that has been going on most of my life. I was there when the war on drugs started. Ground-Zero in a NorthEastern US University during the Vietnam War Protest movement. I saw what it was like before the war started, and I saw what it turned into. It is so profoundly stupid that one suspects brain damage on the part of the people who urge its continuance.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
My question for photonz (no ducking now!) is:
From whom do the parents you cite as being the providers of cannabis to their children, buy said stuff?
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
Ha! bj and me, like a well oiled interrogation machine.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
Looks like an inability to comprehend basic maths is endemic of being a right winger.
John Key dyscalculia
Let’s see if John Keys claim that an increase of £7 to the APD is “four or five times the costs of offsetting the carbon emissions produced” is true?
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
Photon, if your wife has information about parents giving their kids (how old are they) drugs, I think she should inform the appropriate authorities.
An assumption that growing cannabis also means you’re giving it to your kids is like saying someone makeing home brew is giving it to their kids. The assumption has little if any basis.
I agree with you that there’s been pot in school for 30+ years; which is why I’m unconvinced about you argument that kronic has made a difference. Don’t interpret that to mean that I think kronic should be sold in dairies..
We all seem to think that the situation with pot usage in NZ needs to change. Has the ‘oracle’ any ideas as to what could be done to reduce drug abuse, especially amongst kids?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Put another way… assuming that the parents are sourcing the drugs… how the hell is keeping it illegal going to stop them from doing that if it is illegal NOW and they are doing it anyway.
Part of the problem here is that there have been so many lies told about Cannabis for so long that only a few of us remember what it was like before the lies. Would you like the cops to get respect? Give them laws to enforce that aren’t based on fantastic tales from the J.Edgar Hoover archives. Tell people the TRUTH. Make the laws RATIONAL. It is amazing how well people will respond to that approach… from cooperating with police and even helping them, to actually finding it in them to better respect government itself….
Not to mention paying taxes to help reduce the harm instead of taxes to jail people up, take them away from their families and ruin their lives still further.
You want to reduce the sway of gangs? This is their blood supply.
Current policy is not rational Photonz… not even close to rational.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
fin – I never said, insinutated, or assumed that because soemone grows dope that they give it to their kids – though no doubt some do.
I’m sure the parents get their dope from a variety of places, from growing it themselves, a lot from friends and acquanitances, and from gangs.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
@ 2.47 “…even 30 years ago there were schools that had dope problems because so many parents were growers and dealers”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
photon
That’s the first intelligent thing you’ve said in ages. There are two main problems:
1. Young people are smoking dope
2. They are often being supplied the dope by gangs
The best solution is to firstly educate the parents and children and provide robust services when there is a problem. Decriminalizing marijuana and treating it as a health issue would remove the financial incentive for the gangs and imposing an age limit would probably be more effective at limiting usage amongst youth.
The bottom would drop out of the drug market thus reducing funds that often go towards other criminal activity. The money and time the Police save could be better utilized to reduce crimes where there are victims and there could even be an overal saving by not having so many people in jail.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
BJ – you completely nullify you own arguement for decriminalisation by comparing how well alcohol is controlled.
Because regardless of all those controls, we still have the same sort of problem – parents supplying alcohol to children.
Like or Dislike:
3 
9 (-6)
Like or Dislike:
7 
3 (+4)
We could do better with cannabis. It doesn’t have the history nor the influence of the powerful breweries to distort the regulations around it.
Like or Dislike:
10 
2 (+8)
fin says “@ 2.47 “…even 30 years ago there were schools that had dope problems because so many parents were growers and dealers”
Here’s an example (I presume that’s what you want)
“She started smoking cannabis in 1981, when she was a 14-year-old at Motueka High School.
“We had a constant supply of dope at school because some of the parents were growers, and it just filtered all the way down.” She found herself beguiled by the mythology around drugs, secrecy and rock stars.”
From
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/features/weekend/5483787/Ascent-from-a-dark-pit
Like or Dislike:
4 
5 (-1)
That can’t be said for the booze, which doesn’t have a profit in it for the gang. There the kid has to rely on someone of age buying for him.
The laws are broken all over the place Photonz, and yet your solution doesn’t help anyone anywhere. All it does is criminalize people who get caught, provide them with a permanent record, a permanent handicap, no treatment to speak of, and a lot of lies for the reason why. You want people to respect the law? Make a better law. The war on drugs is a joke. Drug EDUCATION is a good idea, but try telling the truth. The kids know. They know they are being lied to wholesale on this stuff because they can see that the important damage most people suffer is in the social and criminal penalties for getting caught.
You think hammering people is going to STOP them? It hasn’t in 40 years… what makes you think it will work, or is vaguely close to the correct approach when countries that DID what we suggest have reduced their drug problems AND their drug related crime.
Idiocy Photonz… the approach to the problem is part and parcel of the right-wing authoritarian approach to society. You WILL obey and you WILL like it and you will live the way we tell you to live, and the beatings will continue until moral improves.
News for you. This is a country, not a boot camp and it isn’t working your way, has NEVER worked your way and never will. You can’t legislate morality.
You cannot legislate morality!!! Hell even ACT knows that.
So why is it that you think you can get away with it on this PARTICULAR issue?
BJ
Like or Dislike:
8 
2 (+6)
‘Cause he’s an authoritarian Tory?
Just hazarding a guess, based on observation.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4 (+2)
the link/evidence provided by photo is the harrowing tale of a mentally ill person..
..currently in narcotics anonymous..
..who has been in and out of mental hospitals..
..well..yes..people who are liable to tip over the edge most certainly shouldn’t use pot/alcohol..
..what else is new..?
..and before photo draws the ‘it causes schitzophrenia’ bullshit-bow..
..a study of longterm mental illness rates..
..shows no (expected by lying-prohibitionists) rise since the widespread use of cannabis in the sixties..
..the rate per population has stayed roughly the same.
..which proves that prohibition-lie is just that..
..and of course the other side of the coin is what researchers into alzheimers are calling ‘the hippie syndrome’..
..in that heavy users of pot during the 60′s-70′s are now at an age when the population/age-average should be coming down with alzheimers..
but they aren’t coming down with the disease…
..hence ‘the hippie syndrome’..
..of course investigation is now into whether cannabis should be used for/is a preventitive of alzheimers..
..more food for thought..
..eh..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
phil – it’s amazing how people cherry pick until they delude themselves that dope is 100% positive.
The psyche ward staff would dissagree. Evidence from the Otago Uni long term study shows regular cannabis use by teenagers leads to significant incresases in anxiety, depression, psychosis, psychotic disorders, hallucinations, delusions (and that’s without even mentioning schizophernia), and up to 100 times greater likelihood of progressing to some other heavier drugs than non-smokers.
However only 10 out of 100 smokers are likely to have these mental issues, so they are easily dismissed by those who have predetermined their opinion regardless of the evidence.
As for BJs assertion that people are getting criminal records just because of cannabis – it’s pretty difficult. You have to be REALLY stupid to get a conviction just for cannabis alone.
Four out of five people who get convicted for cannabis use are done at the same time for at least one more serious criminal offence.
And 89% of people convicted in 2008 ALREADY HAD a prior criminal record.
Like or Dislike:
2 
7 (-5)
btw..photy..
well done for your role as a foil on the pot-subject..eh..?
and being such a good spokesperson for the barking mad/totally illogical ideas of the prohibitionist..
..the more sunlight your madness/scare-tactics gets..
..the nearer we get to sane-laws..
..carry on..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Photon, could you please give a link to the Otago study you quote, or at least the newspaper article about the study…
Of course BJ is right about getting a CRIMINAL record for pot! However there is also truth in what you say about selective enforcement of the law. I think that speaks poorly for the law because, as you say, the enforcing of the law may be based on whether the person has a prior conviction. It may even be based on whether the person looks like they could have a criminal conviction i.e. a steroetypical criminal. If a law is really being applied in such a way, surely, it’s an ass.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
photon
I don’t recall anybody arguing for marijuana to be decriminalized for teenagers photon. Considering other studies have found that people with mental disorders are more likely to also have addictive personality disorder ie they’re more likely to turn to drugs and alcohol to self medicate… doesn’t that make the claims of the Otago University study somewhat redundant?
Here’s the Institute of Alcoholic studies (2007) research into Alcohol and Mental Health (PDF):
Symptomatic qualities for marijuana use by those with a predisposition for mental health disorders are pretty much the same for alcohol… so why aren’t you arguing for prohibition of alcohol? Being that nobody has ever died from smoking marijuana.
It’s the misuse of the drug by those who are trying to self medicate that is the issue rather than the drug itself causing mental ill health in those who do not have a predisposition. The study continues:
So the prevalence of those utilizing marijuana or alcohol with a predisposition for mental ill health is about the same.
The question is did their drug and/or alcohol abuse result in mental ill health or did their pre-existing mental ill health lead to their drug and/or alcohol abuse? The Otago University study comes nowhere near answering that question.
So the self medication/lifetime mental disorder dynamic appears to go hand in hand. WHat came first… the chicken or the egg? Quack!
I don’t think anybody is arguing that the mentally ill should self medicate with drugs photon… but as far as I am aware, there’s currently no study that unequivocally show that using marijuana causes depression, psychosis, psychotic disorders or schizophrenia. In fact your Otago University study hardly even mentions a predisposition to mental disorder in those who use drugs.
So what about the effect of legal drugs like alcohol and cigarettes on the use of illegal drugs:
Therefore the best way to reduce illicit drug use is to reduce alcohol consumption and smoking. Reducing the availability of legal drugs by limiting outlets etc would also reduce people with a predisposition for mental ill health to self medicate instead of seeking proper medical assistance.
The question really does come down to a health issue… whereby those with a mental health condition who are using illicit drugs are less likely to come forward to seek proper medical assistance when a criminal conviction hangs over their heads.
Being that 20% of adult New Zealanders experience a mental health disorder, your 10% of marijuana smokers experiencing mental “issues” shows that marijuana smokers are half as likely to become unwell.
I don’t think the Otago Uni long term study categorically shows that cannabis use increases mental ill health, rather that those who have addictive personality disorder and a disposition to use drugs to self medicate are also more likely to suffer a mental health disorder.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
I wonder how much of that anxiety and delusions was caused by the fact that the cannibis was illegal and the users were either worried about getting caught or worried about people dobbing them in? Also dealing with gangs to purchase cannibis is itself a bit scary. And the gateway to harder drugs argument doesn’t hold up if the cannibis could be purchased legally from outlets that don’t sell harder drugs.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
You really need to COMPLETE a thought or two here.
Since you are fond of the personal recollections, my roommate at Uni smoked regularly, pretty much every Saturday night was lost in a haze… with his 2 buddies. It absolutely destroyed him as he only graduated Cum Laude and went on to Medical school and then to a practice in Florida.
The problem you have with your assertion that I have weakened my case by observing that the law is broken anyway, is that MY way of dealing with it doesn’t have additional expense and attendant evils associated with it, and doesn’t support the Mongrel Mob.
As for the assertion that it causes mental illness… and given the nature of the folks I went to school with and grew up with, and the amount of the stuff that was smoked, 3/4 of my generation should be getting Halperidol shots every few weeks… BUT THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN! That same lack of occurrence applies to the fact that we aren’t all now shooting up smack… or Crack Cocaine.
x% of rapists have a stash of “pornography” somewhere… and so do x% of normal guys… it isn’t causal of anything. This is the second time in a very short time you’ve gone to attribute causation when all you CAN show is coincidence, because you CANNOT show that it causes problems in the vast majority of users.
…because it doesn’t.
X % of people who got into some trouble chewed their fingernails… therefore to prevent them getting into that trouble we will prevent them from chewing their fingernails.
DO take some notice of the failure of “logic” to support the continued demonization of cannabis and its users.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
fin asks “Photon, could you please give a link to the Otago study you quote, or at least the newspaper article about the study…”
No problem – Here’s part of one of the studies
http://www.otago.ac.nz/christchurch/otago018744.pdf
BJ – I see you’ve borrowed your causation arguement from the tobacco companies.
I know many people who smoke it and are fine too. I also know someone who is dead because of it, and other previously normal people who have been in and out of psyche wards and struggle to lead a normal life – one a very seldon user, but each time she eneded up in hospital.
I see you’ve made up a strawman arguement. I’ve never claimed it cause serious problems in the majority of users – in fact I’d claim the oppsite – that it’s not a serious problem for the majority of users.
But it does cause significant problems for in a significant minority – often stated in reasearch is 10-15% of people who try it will have significant problems.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
photon
How did they die photon? Very occasionally someone will get killed because of the huge profits to be made. Decriminalization would reduce those profits and thus reduce the likelihood of anybody being killed.
I know people who have mental illness as well. Please read my comment at 10:45 PM to see why your argument that marijuana has caused there illness is not correct.
Please quote the research photon and keep in mind your Otago uni study was done specifically to change the deadlock of the current debate ie they went about gathering specified information instead of looking at all the available research.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Jackal says “Please read my comment at 10:45 PM to see why your argument that marijuana has caused there illness is not correct.”
So your instant dismissal of decades of research, by world leaders in a world reknowned study, is because of
a/ you yourself are a world leader currently working in this field with decades of experience, or
b/ you ignore any evidence that doesn’t fit you predetermined beliefs.
(as evidenced by your ignorant and rediculous claim that the study, which was started over 30 years ago “was done specifically to change the deadlock of the current debate”)
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
What is in your link is:
“There is a sound case for reviewing New Zealand’s legislation on the possession of cannabis to obtain a better balance between prohibition and harm avoidance strategies.”
“there have been ongoing debates about the extent to which the linkages between cannabis use and adverse outcomes reflects cause and effect associations in which the use of cannabis leads to increased risks of various adolescent problems. These debates have focused around the extent to which the existing observational evidence can be used to draw cause and effect conclusions”
I will have another look at it later. It looks like a good study and it is clear about the need for legislative change, don’t you agree.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
http://whoar.co.nz/2011/can-ecstasy-treat-autism/
“…Research shows ecstasy increases empathy and enhances communication by producing playfulness, friendliness, and loving feelings.
A team of scientists at a California non-profit organization just announced a pilot study to determine if Ecstasy might help fight the effects of autism.
This isn’t the first time that MAPS, or the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, has researched the psychiatric benefits of MDMA.
A 2010 study of twenty Iraq veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder found that a combination of Ecstasy and therapy resulted in an 80-percent success rate -
- high enough to convince the Food and Drug Administration to greenlight further studies of the drug.
This newest study is part of an ambitious plan by MAPS and its president, Rick Doblin, to make MDMA an FDA-approved prescription medicine.
MAPS considers itself a “non-profit pharmaceutical company” that focuses on treating illnesses with psychedelics and medical marijuana.
It claims that it’s “the only organization in the world funding clinical trials of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy.
For-profit pharmaceutical companies are not interested in developing MDMA into a medicine -
- because the patent for MDMA has expired…”
(cont..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
..cannabis and ecstascy are the only two i would recommend for general consumption….
..cannabis as a general go-to/harm-free relaxant..
..and a couple of doses of ecstacsy at some time in the life..
..i haven’t used it for ages…and have no desire/need to..
..but as a general tool for clearing away the crap that clutters most minds/emotions…
..it’s a little ripper..
..before the prohibitionists held sway..and it was illegalised..
..therapists were hailing it/mdma as a wonder-drug..
..able to get thru yrs of therapy..
..in one fell swoop/session…
..and i hafta agree…
(n.b:..do not confuse mdma with the crap scumbags here have been making/selling as ecstacsy…
..it is anything but..and it really pisses me off how the reputation of such a useful theraputic-tool has been debased..
..and of course it is yet another reason to decriminalise/supervise drug-use..
..if we had facilities/options where blackmarket drugs could be tested for purity..
..there wd be no market for the vile-poisons (often speed-based) peddled here as ecstacsy/mdma…
..i was fortunate in that my first mdma came from a dutch-chemist…on a mission..to turn the world on to pure-mdma..
..i stopped taking it when the blackmarket kicked in..
..and the crap ecstacsy flooded the market..).
..but like i say..
..i reckon everyone could do with a dose or two of pure mdma..(the hug-drug)..at some time in the life..
..it does a very efficient general clearing out of yr mental-cobwebs..
..and it also helps you see the true good in others..(which helps..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
photon
I have not dismissed the entire study. However it hasn’t looked at the predisposition for mental illness and addictive personality disorder issue… which is the main question.
I don’t need to be a world leader working to reduce the harm from drug abuse with decades of experience to have an opinion. I presume you’re going to tell us that you’re now a world leader… or are you just consulting the oracle?
I have provided information that contradicts what you believe the Otago University study is saying. It’s those who are against decriminalization that are basing their rhetoric on an incorrect belief system.
Decriminalization coupled with proper education and health services reduces the amount of people abusing drugs, it would save the government money because the Police can work on real crimes and less people would be locked up for victimless crimes, it removes a huge cash flow for the gangs (money they use to fund further criminal activity), it saves lives by allowing people to come forward without fear of criminal prosecution to get the help they need, it reduces drug related crimes like robbery and murder and it allows people with serious illness like cancer and rheumatoid arthritis to use one of the best pain medications known to mankind to manage their ailment.
I will find the quote if you like? They did intend to move the debate along… unfortunately they completely ignored the fact that those with a predisposition for mental illness are more likely to have addictive personality disorder. These things usually develop well before people are introduced to or find alcohol or drugs to self medicate with. You also ignore the fact that the vast majority of marijuana users have no ill effect at all. In fact it is most beneficial to them in a variety of ways.
You can keep ignoring those facts if you like photon… just like you’re ignoring all the other questions already posed.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
have you ever smoked pot..there..photy..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
fin – I notice in the paragraph you quote about the cause and effect debate – you removed the context of the final sentence – “Nonetheless, there is an emerging consensus that cannabis is not a benign substance and heavy or regular use may have adverse consequences for a number of areas of adolescent functioning.”
The problem we have is there are a number of people who completely dismiss the problems. Even formerly intelligent people like BJChip just dismissed the overwhelming evidence to links to mental problems based merely on knowing some people who used to smoke but are ok now.
Our local schools are currently dealing with the issue of students who previously acheived well, starting using dope, started missing school, and then dropping out completely.
NZ youth have the highest rate of cannabis use in the OECD. So is it any surprise we then have the highest school dropout rate in the OECD. And is it any surpirse we then have the highest youth suicide rate in the OECD – which no one has been able to explain..
Yet we still have idiots saying cannabis doesn’t cause any harm. It’s a bit like saying that 5 out of 6 people playing russian roulette don’t get hurt, so it doesn’t cause any harm.
It causes a lot of harm to a significant minority. As per my link, “10-15% of the adolescent population who use cannabis in a heavy and abusive way”
Like or Dislike:
2 
5 (-3)
do you have a beer/drink after work there..photy..?
..what is yr drug-use pattern..?
..historical and current…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
phil – yes – for a few years. And lived in countries where it’s effectively legal and much more available and in much more widespread use than NZ.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
photon
Nobody is arguing for marijuana to be decriminalized for adolescents.
Could you explain why youth suicide rates always increase under National?
Apparently somebody has died from smoking marijuana? Did they choke on bong water photon? Quack!
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
why did you stop..?..
..have a bad-experience..?
..was that daily..once a month..twice a year..?
..and in places where it is ‘widely-available’..?..y’say…
..like where john key has his holiday-compound..?
..where..if he chose..he could pop down the road..
..and get a legal-script..
..for some very fine weed
..maybe journos could/should ask key about the social dissolution he must witness on a regular basis..
..when he is staying in his holiday-compound..
..in a place where cannabis can be legally acquired..
..and is his witnessing of this social dissolution on such a vast scale the reason for his continued vehement support for prohibition..?
..has he been traumatised by this..?
..but..back to you photy..
..as in..why did you stop..?
..and what exactly did you like about it when…like many..
..you used it when you were young and crazy..?
..explain for us that arc from toke to joke…
..from toker to joker..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
a person died ‘cos while they were smoking a joint..
..a bale of it fell on their head..
..this is the only recorded death from cannabis..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Jackal says “Apparently somebody has died from smoking marijuana? Did they choke on bong water photon? Quack!”
Piss off Todd – and go and make jokes about someone elses dead mates, you offensive shit.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
photon
Claiming that your friend died from smoking marijuana is wrong! As usual your argument does not stand up to any scrutiny… that’s because you’re a bullshit artist photon. PS my name isn’t Todd.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
Speaking of inappropriate humour… here’s what Cameron Slater wrote about the death of Mamahere Francis Taana, 21 who died from inhaling fly spray:
STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES
Unlike your faux outrage photon about me poking fun at your lies concerning somebody dying from smoking marijuana… Slater is showing that he has absolutely no compassion for the family of the deceased. She is a real person with a family that deserves some respect… not the juvenile insults of a right wing whack job.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
You state “The problem we have is there are a number of people who completely dismiss the problems”. I agree. One problem is that you and I could get a CRIMINAL record for having a joint the next day off work. And there are some people (do you see a mirror) who completely dismiss this.
From your link: “It is clear that the needs of this group will not be addressed by either legislation that criminalises their problems or through drug education and that there is a need to develop effective clinical services for the treatment and management of cannabis abuse and dependence. There are now an increasing number of studies that have examined the use of a number of therapeutic approaches to the treatment of cannabis abuse and dependence. These approaches include cognitive behavioural therapy, motivational enhancement and contingency management training [93-96]. While these treatments have been found in randomised controlled trials to have some efficacy [96], their major benefits appear to be a reduction in levels of cannabis use rather than ensuring complete abstinence from cannabis. These results raise issues about the extent to which such therapy should focus on moderation of cannabis use rather than complete abstinence.”
The Greens (I assume) would love to have a rational discussion with your National mates around the reccomendations in the study you link to, as well as the Royal comission report and any other paper on the matter.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THE PAPER YOU HAVE LINKED TO WHEN IT QUOTES THE GLOBAL CANNABIS COMMISSION REPORT WHICH SAYS “Measures to reduce penalties or decriminalise possession have been adopted in numerous jurisdictions without any upsurge in use. Moreover, these reform measures have had some success in ameliorating the adverse consequences of prohibition.”?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
fin. You talk of countries that have reduced penalties or decriminalised possetion – NZ has effectively reduced penalties and largely stopped prosecuting just for cannabis use.
Convictions are only a fraction of what they were a few years ago, and the police largely ignore cannabis unless something else is going on.
It’s pretty difficult to get done just for cannabis use if you are not also getting charged with something else.
In fact even if you’re stupid enough to smoke it around police, it’s very unlikely they’ll do anything.
And even then, if the police do catch you, in 85% of cases they don’t bother with charges.
Of the cannabis convictions in 2008, 80% involved more serious crimes, and only 2% (111) involved cannabis only, for people with no previous convictions. So tha claim that some make that thousands of lives are being ruined every year by convictions is nonsense.
You’ve pretty much got to be a total diskhead and do something like blowing smoke in police faces before you’ll get arrested.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
So in one year 111 people are labeled criminals JUST FOR POT with serious consequences and you don’t see a problem.
Is the black market created by prohibiton also fine by you?
If, as you say, it is very unlikely that police will enforce the laws around personal use, then doesn’t that mean the law is an ass?
BTW I was looking for a yes or no. DO YOU AGREE WITH THE PAPER YOU HAVE LINKED TO WHEN IT QUOTES THE GLOBAL CANNABIS COMMISSION REPORT WHICH SAYS “Measures to reduce penalties or decriminalise possession have been adopted in numerous jurisdictions without any upsurge in use. Moreover, these reform measures have had some success in ameliorating the adverse consequences of prohibition.”?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
how did your friend die from smoking pot..photonz..?
..how about substantiating this claim that flies in the face of all available evidence..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
fin says “So in one year 111 people are labeled criminals JUST FOR POT with serious consequences and you don’t see a problem.”
I see two problems.
One is thousands of young people’s lives are being ruined. We’ve got a 10-15% rate of people who smoke dope become cronic users. We’ve got the OECDs worst rate for school dropout, worst cannabis use rate in young people, worst youth suicide rate, and bad problems we’re not coping with, with mental health in the young.
The problem you are so concerned about is insignificant in comparison – across the whole country just 100 people a year who get a mild criminal record (compared to 6000 per year who get convicted for non-violent, no-victim alcohol charges like drinking in a public place, breach of alcohol bans etc).
If you read the report, the results of decriminalisation are mixed. Some places that have legalised and controlled the sale of cannabis have had increases in use, because companies now have an interest in getting more people to use their product, and use it more often (a bit like cigarette companies and sly marketing).
In most places usage has not dropped, and there’s little information on usage rates among those who do smoke.
So if you have an arguemnt for decriminalisation, that either doesn’t address how to deal with the very real and serious problems, or worse – pretends they don’t even exist – then you’ve lost my backing right from the start.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Photon, I share your concerns.
What is very clear is that the current system does not address our concerns. Neither does it address my concern about criminalising 80% of New Zealanders.
Probably the biggest problem the current legislation doesn’t address, in fact causes, is the black market and all the serious associated problems with that. I note you seem to ignore this fact.
If you want to address the problems, why don’t you start by looking at your link. I have cut and pasted into a previous post a large section from that talks about efficacious solutions. “While these treatments have been found in randomised controlled trials to have some efficacy [96], their major benefits appear to be a reduction in levels of cannabis use rather than ensuring complete abstinence from cannabis”
Do you actually think that prohibition for adults helps any of your/our concerns?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Let me rephrase that last question, “If you were to take an objective look at the facts, do you actually think that prohibition for adults helps any of your/our concerns?”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
fin asks ““If you were to take an objective look at the facts, do you actually think that prohibition for adults helps any of your/our concerns?””
When Kronic was legal but restricted to over 18s, it flooded into our schools, and when it was pulled it was replaced by dope (One heavy dope user my wife is currently dealing with is 10 years old).
All we ever hear is calls for decriminalisation, and as a token gesture sometimes those in favour of this will ask for more education against drug use.
But as per the reports we’ve linked to, education hasn’t been shown to cut use.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
“All we ever hear is calls for decriminalisation,”
No, that is what you hear.
Some people also hear that: “There are now an increasing number of studies that have examined the use of a number of therapeutic approaches to the treatment of cannabis abuse and dependence…their major benefits appear to be a reduction in levels of cannabis use rather than ensuring complete abstinence from cannabis”
Have a good weekend, I have to go to the GP and get the pieces of brick out of my forehead.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fin – with so many people so concerned about convictions for cannabis, and how much court and police money is spent on it, lets have some perspective.
220,000 – the number of criminal convictions in NZ in 2008.
2% – (4500 or 1 in 50) the percentage of convictions for cannabis use compared to all convictions
0.5% – (1000 or 1 in 200) the percentage of convictions for ONLY cannabis use – i.e. not invoving another crime like violence, car theft etc).
0.05% – (111 or 1 in 2000) the percentage of convictions for just cannabis use, with no prior criminal record.
So out over every 2000 convictions, just one is for cannabis use for someone with no previous record (i.e. for every one, there are 60 convictions for alcohol misdemeaners)
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
The problem I have with drugs criminalisation is not to do with the effects on victims, or on criminal record etc.
The illegality of drugs puts their supply into the hands of bad people, which has the first major effect of the quality of supply, and in particular, the cost to the country of the medical costs of the effects of bad quality drugs.
Worse than this is that drugs are expensive, and thus many drug users use crime as a means of financing their drugs. This is the point where everyday folk get touched by the “drug problem”.
Decriminalising drugs would reduce their price dramatically, and thus the crime associated with drug use.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fin says “Have a good weekend, I have to go to the GP and get the pieces of brick out of my forehead.”
ouch!!!! Good luck with that.
Interesting that these intensive “cut down” programmes work. That’s good news, but with obvious drawbacks
- too late for many
- very expensive
- will only reach a limited number of people
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
phil u
photon is now avoiding the question because he was obviously lying.
photon
You really do have a short memory there photon. Do you not recall our previous debate that linked to studies that show educational programs to be helpful.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
dbuckley says “Decriminalising drugs would reduce their price dramatically…”
And really cheap drugs leads to less use or more use?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
“..(One heavy dope user my wife is currently dealing with is 10 years old)…”
i think you are just picking these ‘tales’ to fit..
..there..photy..
..and probably from that orifice nearest to the back of yr knees..eh..?
..and we are still waiting for the details of yr death by/from pot claims..
..eh..?..
..that other fruit of yr near-knee orifice..
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
isn’t it interesting how photys’-lies are only illuminating the paucities of the prohibitionist arguments..?
..he has to make-up/shout-out sensationalist tabloid-headlines…
..which just make him/his arguments all the more ridiculous…
..a textbook-foil..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
One ignorant right wing troll I know just carries on ignoring the evidence and lying his little off.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Jackal/Todd – you can piss off with your question when you and phil are such offensive shits you only want to make jokes about a lost friend.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
In the context of what I’m saying, its an irrelevant question. I really dont care. It doesn’t matter. It’s not important.
Crime against everyday folk is the issue.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
yr a lying piece of work photonz..
..you make this hysterical claim that smoking pot ‘killed your friend’..
..something..that if true..
..would make medical history..
..and then you refuse multiple requests..eventually becoming outright derison of you..
‘cos of yr continued silence/refusal to answer..
..(just continuing to pump out even more bullshit..eh..?..)
..and then you get all ‘hurt’ at being laughed at..?
..brilliant..!
..hint:..if you don’t want to be laughed at..don’t be such a fool..
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Photon
Who you claimed died from smoking marijuana. Can you let us know how exactly he died from smoking marijuana… or would you prefer to try and sidestep the issue with your disingenuous guilt trip?
Decriminalization leads to less use as already shown. The fact that gangs would not be making profits would probably reduce supply overal… especially to those who are impressionable.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
The present squabble between photonz and Phil et al, is not doing any of the parties involved any good. I believe I’ve heard your story about your friend before, photonz, and while you are genuine in what you say (not lying etc), it was somewhat disingenuous of you to introduce it to this debate and then take offense when others wanted to argue the toss, especially when you are keeping the circumstances around the sad event to yourself. If you wanted Phil and Jackal to understand, you’d explain, but you seem to want to take umbrage. Those who don’t know the details, should, I reckon, tread delicately. If photonz has lost a friend in circumstances that he believes directly stem from cannabis, then it’d be kinda brutish to attack him for believing it.
None of my business of course, but it’s not an edifying spectacle and there are other more tangible, less emotive things we could all lock horns over.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
greenfly
I don’t reckon… and I’ll tell you why. photonz often bends the truth to fit his argument. In the face of overwhelming evidence that decriminalization is beneficial, he throws the “I know someone who has died from smoking cannabis” argument at us and then won’t qualify his statement with details. As a way to avoid the debate he then accuses us of being unfeeling because we question him.
Some of my best friends have died and there was no correlation between their deaths and their choice to use marijuana… however I’ve also had friends who have died who’s deaths are directly attributed to alcohol.
Approximately a thousand people die from alcohol related accidents each year while it remains legal and easily accessible because it can be taxed. There have been no recorded deaths from marijuana while it remains illegal because it is not easy to tax.
Questioning photonz concerning potentially the only death from smoking marijuana is required. If he’s not willing to provide details, then we must conclude that once again he’s lying.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
For a long time Photonz, there WASN’T a known lethal dose of cannabis. It wasn’t even possible to achieve that dubious goal. There is now.. largely due to our obsession with providing the benefits without the “high”. There is a class of people that is never happy as long as they suspect that somewhere, someone is managing to enjoy themselves.
There has never been a documented human fatality from overdosing on tetrahydrocannabinol or cannabis in its natural form, [22] though the synthetic THC pill Marinol was cited by the FDA as being responsible for 4 of the 11,687 deaths from 17 different FDA approved drugs between January 1, 1997 to June 30, 2005.[23]
From Wikipedia.
You can smoke it until you fall over.
You can die from Aspirin and Alcohol more easily.
The issue Photonz, is not that it is “Good” for everyone or good for kids, but that , as you have repeatedly reminded us, it is available to them DESPITE the fact that it is illegal. The stuff they get is often enough, cut with ‘P’ to give it a bigger kick. There is NO control over anything at all in the current method of dealing with it, no ability of the state to intervene in the supply or even ascertain that it is what it is claimed to be. There is only prohibition, gangs, lawlessness and bad examples. All the way through the chain. The state has a law which is sort of like the cherry on the Ice Cream Sundae, as this is another charge that can get added to the list when the cops want to put someone away. Not really needed. As you point out it is seldom used “by itself”. As laws go it isn’t doing a damned bit of good.
However, because it makes the substance illegal for our normal regulated suppliers (liquor stores and pharmacies) it benefits the gangs who have monopolies in their regions and turf wars when they want to expand them… That law prevents us from taxing it. That law prevents us from regulating it. It doesn’t do anything good and it DOES hurt people…
… again… it DOES NOT do anything good.
Comparing the sale of Kronic which was available without any real regulation, at the corner dairy to what a regulated Cannabis marketplace would look like is simply wrong…. and you know it.
You have a law which does no good. Which does some harm. Which denies the state even a limited control over the substance it is trying to restrict and which is based, largely, on lies told by the US DEA half a century ago rather than honest scientific research…. and which supports the gangs.
You really think that it is a good idea?
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Jackal – how about the scenario where photonz attributes the death of his friend to his cannabis use. Perhaps this friend was psychotic and smoked himself into a state of irresponsibility then misjudged, with lethal consequences. Just surmising. Photonz could easily say, ‘cannabis caused my friend’s death’. You might argue that psychosis was responsible, or that alcohol would have done the same thing and so on, but subjectively, photonz may have his own view. Just sayin’
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
I appreciate your reasonable argument greenfly, however I don’t believe it should apply to the troll who has repeatedly displayed a lack of empathy towards a variety of people. Even accounting for his supposed emotional context, the premis for his argument remains defunct… marijuana does not cause fatalities and photonz is wrong to argue that it does.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
greenfly – despite out past battles, I appreciate your humanity. This abusive crap from the resident lowlifes needs to be put to rest.
Keith was a great guy – very outgoing and fun. We travelled together through Africa for seven months. He taught a bunch of us to abseil off rock pinnacles in the Algerian Sahara. Unfortunately he had a bit af a dope problem which just became worse and worse. He actually got married to a fantastic and really fun woman on our trip on New Years eve in Cameroun. But even at that stage he was smoking way way too much dope – he’d usually have a joint at breakfast. I pulled him out of the water one night because he was so stoned he was convinced he was a fish.
The rest of the story is unfortunately way too typical. Back at home his wife got sick of him being stoned all the time so she left him. He was too stoned to do his job properly so lost it. That meant he lost his house. His heavy dope habit ended up costing him everything – absolutely every single thing that meant anything to him. With nothing left, he took his life, and the really sad thing was, that when those of us who knew him heard about it, no one was surprised – with his downward path, in a way it seemed inevitable.
He didn’t have the mental issues, depression, hospital visits etc, of others I know with dope problems. He was a really happy guy. He was confident and intelligent. But his cronic dope use meant he wes on a downward spiral that in reality was only leading to one thing.
Sewer dwellers who make fun of this should take a long hard look at themselves. As a human, it’s pretty much the bottom of the barrel when you make offensive jokes about good people whose drug habit cost them their lives.
How low do you have to be to repeatedly make fun of someones suicide?
There’s no doubt that Keith’s cronic dope habit is what cost him everything he had.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
photonz – with all due respect, Keith’s story sounds atypical. It’s understandable though, why you might extrapolate out to say that ‘dope is bad’, based on your experience, but equally others might say the opposite based upon theirs. My take on decision-making on issues like these is to look to a reliable agency that makes objective analysis then take serious note of what they say. So often, discussions on issues like these get nowhere because the participants personalise the issue. Just so it doesn’t seem that I’m chumming up to you, photonz
, it’s been my observation that conservative, right-wing thinkers are far more prone to do this that liberal lefties. I especially notice it with law and order issues, with education (“my child was treated shamefully by a teacher!”) issues coming a close second.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
“..There’s no doubt that Keith’s cronic (sic) dope habit is what cost him everything he had…”
going on yr rendition..redolent/riddled with huge assumptions/presumptions as it is..
..there is every doubt..
..do you know the differences between causation and correlation..?
..and could you give a more detailed description of the ‘he thinks he’s a fish’ episode..
..personally…i have smoked a shitload of pot..in many parts of the world..
..and have a tolerance/appetite that wd see me smoke most under the table…
..and i have smoked pot/hashish/honey-oil (and combinations of)..of devastating strength..
..never have i ‘felt like a fish’…
..any other tokers out there had the ‘fish’-experience..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
“..I pulled him out of the water one night because he was so stoned he was convinced he was a fish…”
could you tell us what exactly triggered that somewhat extreme reaction from you..?
..i am quite fascinated by your heroic/self-promoting rescue..
..did he tell you he was a fish..?
..and then refused to re-surface..?
..c’mon..!..shovel some more on..!
..keep digging..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
(further to my conversation with the lime-coloured insect..)
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest” Thomas Paine..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
http://whoar.co.nz/2011/why-we-occupy-the-declaration-of-occupy-d-c/
“…Some complain that they don’t know why the occupiers are upset.
In this declaration – adopted by consensus -
- Occupy D.C. clears up the mystery…”
(cont…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest” – Paul Henry?
It’s a fine line, Phil.
There-in lies the art.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
photon
Nobody is making fun a somebodies suicide. We are however questioning your assumption and story telling that smoking marijuana has lead to somebodies death.
Did any of you who weren’t surprised at his suicide try to help? If I thought it was inevitable that one of my friends was going to kill themselves, I would try to help them. If you truly thought his drug use was such a problem, did you organize any type of rehabilitation photon?
You’re confusing marijuana with hallucinogenics. If you’re to be believed (which is highly doubtful) his belief was so strong that it put his life in danger and he had to be rescued. This points towards a likelihood of preexisting psychosis… as marijuana does not cause hallucinations.
Did you realise that if alcohol was an illegal drug, its classification under the Misuse of Drugs Act, using the new 2001 evidence-based criteria, would make it a class B drug along with “ecstasy”. Alcohol has been demonstrated to have the harm equivalent of a Class B drug (High Risk to Public Health), which puts it in the same category as morphine, “fantasy”, “ecstasy” and d-amphetamine. Marijuana is a Class C drug, while there is no evidence that it causes any harm to adults.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
“..It’s a fine line, Phil…”
i tend to veer…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
maybe even lurch..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
jackal asks “Did any of you who weren’t surprised at his suicide try to help?”
The main problem was that Keith was living in Zimbabwe, we were back in London, and others in our group of friends were back in NZ and Aus. The other problem was that he was in complete denial that dope could do any harm – he could parrot every reason under the sun on why it was harmless.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
jackal says “..as marijuana does not cause hallucinations.”
That’s so naive – what utter rubbish.
On many occasions I’ve been places where some of us have been completely freaked out by all sorts of hallucinations. Keith thinking he was a fish was just one of many.
It was pretty common for people to “see” things that were trying to kill them when there’s nothing there. We had a guy fall though our campfire once trying to get away from something that wasn’t there, but more common was people were just too stoned to even be able to move their bodies.
It’s laughable that you and phil claim to know so much about dope yet you are both so ignorant you question someone hallucinating on it (espcially considering that marijuana is even listed as a hallucinogenic plant).
No doubt, that like Keith you’ll dismiss anything about dope that doesn’t fit it’s idolized status. So you can either stay ignorant or look up some facts for yourself.
“Heavy use may cause hallucinations”
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/cannabis_and_psychosis?open
“There are many causes of hallucinations, including: coming down from such drugs as marijuana”
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003258.htm
“In high doses, marijuana can cause hallucinations”"
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/mari.html
Just look up cannabis and hallucinations and you’ll find thousands of sites with info on it.
greenfly – funny you say how people (you claim particularly right wingers) personalize stuff. It seems Jackal and phil have never been stoned enoough to hallucinate, so they argue no one else ever has either.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
there’s an old saying photonz..
..’if bullshit were tarseal..you’d be the great south rd..’
how about you give us a rundown of yr top-ten pot-hallucinations..
..eh..?
..what did ya actually see..?
..(did you have a ‘fish’-moment too…?)
(and..is yr dealer from the time still in business..?..
..i’d like summa that…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
This is not my field of expertise, photonz (ask me about gardening if you will), but I’m not convinced by your argument at all. Though you provided links, there are others that counter yours and I find this summation to be the most likely:
“Marijuana is technically hallucinogenic, and can alter your perceptions and cause memory problems. But it only very rarely produces hallucinations. It is usually consumed recreationally for its mood-altering and euphoric effects, and medically for its ability to calm nausea and perk up appetite.”
I side with Jackal and Phil here, and while there are doubtless instances of hallucinations resulting from cannabis ‘injestion’, I think they are not the norm.
As for citing their disbelief of your claims as a counter to my ‘right-wingers personalise stuff’, that’s a very weak counter and I won’t give it any oxygen.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2 (+4)
c’mon photonz..
..you are naked and twisting in the wind…
..a total joke..
..may be time to strike the tent..and slink away..
..eh..?
..and thanks for yr efforts in displaying the ridiculousness of the pot-hysterics..
..laughter is a great killer of preached ignorances..
..(and thanks to those others that stood in what has been a solitary battle..for what seems so long..
..now..any other vegans out there..?
..about time you stepped up too..
..eh..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
phil – whether or not you beleive what I say, has about as much importance as a speck of shit on a flies arse.
You question hallucinations from dope. You supposedly know all about drug culture, yet you show us that you’re really naive about some things.
If you want to remain ignorant – I can’t change that. If you want some info, do a search for something like –
malawi gold and hallucinations
Even all the dopehead websites claim it’s hallucinogenic.
Why don’t you go tell them they’re full of shit cause no dope is hallucinogenic and they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Hey Photonz1, in the Nelson herald article where “Kate” is promoting her shroud waving book, it says “She blames cannabis for the fissure opened in her mind, when in her mid-20s she began to experience symptoms of a full-blown psychiatric illness and was tortured by flashbacks of childhood sexual abuse” …
It was the cannabis that caused the problems was it?!
You really are a prohibitionist retard troll, Photonz1. (Your writings show that’s all the response you deserve)
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
photon
You’ve failed to provide links that refer to verified information or studies. One of the links even states that being drunk or coming down from marijuana can make you hallucinate. Do you know how laughable that is? Are you suffering from reefer madness photon.
Here’s what some of the relevant studies say:
(Sorry, Pay-walled) SUBSTANCE USE AMONG THE MENTALLY ILL – Prevalence, Reasons for Use, and Effects on Illness
So marijuana could in fact be helpful in treating some mental illnesses… although there’s no research into that possibility.
What about your claims that marijuana causes mental illness? Comorbid mental disorders and substance use disorders: epidemiology, prevention and treatment (PDF):
Summary
Six of the eight major studies I’m aware of into the subject show risk is lower among cannabis users.
So that’s what you’re basing your argument on? FFS! It appears that you’re the speck of shit on the flies arse.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Hang on…
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
c’mon..!..the top-ten hallucinations..!
..if you aren’t bullshitting..
..it should be easy to list them..
..(and you still haven’t given us the details of that ‘fish’-rescue you tell us you did..?
..did he refuse to re-surface..?..
..how did you know you had to mount a rescue..?
..c’mon..!..spin us another one..!
..just like the other ones..!)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Jackal says “So that’s what you’re basing your argument on?”
My arguement is based on four years of first hand experience.
If you WANTED to find facts about dope being hallucinogenic, you could find that out in five minutes.
But instead you show an enormous determination to remain completely ignorant.
Obviously you have some strange need to deny known facts. In your head, steadfastly remaining ignorant must be better than admitting being wrong.
Jackal asks “What about your claims that marijuana causes mental illness?
Not my claims – here’s a list of 30 different studies that show it http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Paul says “It was the cannabis that caused the problems was it?!
You really are a prohibitionist retard troll, Photonz1″
The link was merely to point out that dope gets into schools where there are lots of parents using and growing – even 30 years ago.
I’ve no idea if cannabis caused her mental issues in this case, and never made that claim (you’re obviously seeing stuff in your head that was never written), but again here’s thirty studies that show it does for many people
http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
i ask again the simple question that illuminates yr mental-disease bullshit..
..there has been no increase in the numbers of mentally ill as a proportion of the general population since the explosion in drug use in the 60′s-70′s..
..all of which proves you are a lying fucken troll..
..these irrefutable proofs of yr lies/bullshit are presented to you..
..and you just ignore them..
..and continue to repeat yr lies..
..and if you think i am the only one who can see this/that..
..you are even fucken stupider than i thought..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
I’m afraid Phil’s right, photonz.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Photonz
It is possible that it wasn’t just Marijuana… and it is significant that your friend was in Africa. It is a very unusual effect for just smoking Marijuana here or in the states, one always had to concentrate the substance significantly to get hallucinatory effects.
I did find several references indicating that the stuff in/from Africa is often stronger than what we see here. So I can accept that even though I have never had anyone on grass have full on hallucinations (and I have had a lot of people around me stoned to oblivion at times), it can happen. Either you were hanging with people who had a pipeline to some of the stronger cannabis on the planet or your supplier was cutting your supply with something else. Either way I don’t think it really mattered that much. Your description leaves me with the distinct impression of a guy with something else happening inside him. Not related to Marijuana, not related to anything he might have told anyone at all.
Because the point of Cannabis not being physically addictive is a real one. It isn’t. So whatever happened really didn’t have to happen in terms of simply a bad effect from MJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
photon
Could you tell us about these hallucinations please… because THC does not effect the parts of the brain that are responsible? I guess it comes down to what you believe a hallucination is… some people think that it’s an alteration in perception, thought, or mood. However I tend to quantize hallucinations in a stricter sense:
Hallucinations are defined as perceptions in a conscious and awake state in the absence of external stimuli which have qualities of real perception, in that they are vivid, substantial, and located in external objective space.
If you or your friends have experienced “hallucinations” from merely smoking marijuana, it’s likely it was spiked with a synthetic drug. The cannabinoid receptors that every human being has in their brains effect a number of physiologic systems, particularly beneficial for those who have ADHD, nausea and chronic pain. THC has even been shown to induce the regression or eradication of malignant brain tumors.
Marijuana is a medicine, and like many medicines some people chose to abuse it. Their abuse and the ignorance that you continue to display photon should not allow the medicine to be restricted as a general medice that many thousands of people find beneficial.
Here’s a taste of the studies you linked to:
Is cannabis an anti-antipsychotic? The experience in psychiatric intensive car (PDF):
This study is proposing that mental patients are able to attain large amounts of marijuana while being in a locked ward.
This is what the Cannabis use and psychosis: a review of clinical and epidemiological evidence (PDF) said to dismiss the findings of another study:
Since when is an assumption that another study “probably” did something a reason to dismiss it?
I don’t have time to read all your outdated studies photon… however the ones I did read only show that the research done into comorbidity is sparse and has not yet generated a coherent theory.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
greenfly says “I’m afraid Phil’s right, photonz.”
Be afraid (or deluded) as you like.
BJ asks “It is possible that it wasn’t just Marijuana…”
No – BJ. It was straight dope. There’s a lot of countries with really strong dope – cobs of gold in Malawi, “poison” in Mozanbique, all sorts of weird stuff in DRC Congo (called Zaire when I was there – warning – don’t smoke deep in the forest with the pygmies) , and Ghana, hash from the Rif Mountains in Morocco etc. The other thing is sometimes you could buy a supermarket bag stuffed full of dope for just a few dollars. So as well as being really strong, it cost nothing.
BJ says “…or your supplier was cutting your supply with something else”
No – it’s just what happens to most people when you have way too much strong dope.
BJ – You say it isn’t physically addictive (true), but you ommit mentioning mental addiction – which is the form that all dope addicts have.
jackal – I agree with your hallucinations description. And that’s what happens when you have too much. VERY common if you eat it in cakes and cookies. But not uncommon when smoking too much if it’s really strong. Malawi Gold gave a very very happy high unless you took too much, then it was space out time – watch out for monsters and aliens – they’re coming to get you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Can’t for the life of me understand how stay-at-home-me missed out on these experiences, nor how New Zealand yoofs are under threat from these powerful jungle highs. Proves your point emphatically though, photonz – dope, with it’s monsters and aliens,is a real danger to all New Zealanders!
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Danger! Danger Will Robinson!
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
photon
You ignore the point… when drug use increased dramatically it was not mirrored by an increase in mentally ill patients.
Most people do not have hallucinations when they smoke marijuana, even lots of the strongest gunja. Anybody who isn’t a social retard knows that.
Do you label somebody with chronic pain and a medical certificate to say they can use marijuana on a regular basis a dope addict? Marijuana activates reward centers in the brain, however it is not mentally addictive. Those who display an insatiable appetite for marijuana are probably suffering addictive personality disorder.
As already explained, marijuana in itself cannot chemically induce hallucinations in the true sense of the word. You are also wrong that the THC content of marijuana in other countries is more than what is now grown in New Zealand.
The only real difference is in that many other countries process it into hashish, which is usually stronger than the oil that is most commonly manufactured here in New Zealand. New Zealand currently grows most of the stronger hybrid varieties found in other countries.
Your argument is a complete fabrication photon… what are you on?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
greenfly says ” dope, with it’s monsters and aliens,is a real danger to all New Zealanders!”
No – the large majority are fine. But a for a significant minority ( 10-15% who try it) it will cause significant problems.
You’ve either never been to a psyche ward, or you get a kick out of craping on people with mental health prolems.
There’s people who smoke every day, but haven’t been able to work a single day in years, and they think dope hasn’t harmed their lives.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Jackal says “itself cannot chemically induce hallucinations ”
and
“You are also wrong that the THC content of marijuana in other countries is more than what is now grown in New Zealand”
You think NZ dope is the world’s strongest.
You think you can’t hallucinate on dope.
jackal – please tell me what it’s like living on your flat planet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
6 (-6)
No – BJ. It was straight dope. …Unless you cut it off the bush yourself you don’t know Photonz but I accepted that part of your story, remember? Don’t argue with me because it is a habit here.
Even with the strongest MJ the powerful hallucinations are uncommon. Hashish is concentrated… my point again. Also, unless my geography is at fault Malawi and Mozambique and Ghana and Zaire are all in Africa, which was my point about the African varieties vs the stuff we got at University in the Northeastern USA. A regular supply chain lets you be sure that this is 26% alcohol and that is 200 proof Vodka. A similar measure for the Ganja wouldn’t be a bad thing. A strong argument for regulation of the supply and potency of the stuff. Impossible if it is illegal.
Not an argument for its continuing illegality.
it’s just what happens to most people when you have way too much strong dope.
Well no. Most people who have really strong Marijuana still don’t hallucinate… and whatever it was you were getting apparently gave all of you visuals… and didn’t addict you all. Just him.
==================
I didn’t discuss psychological addiction because it isn’t an argument that helps your point.
Psychological addiction is not dependent on the substance of the addiction Photonz. Gambling is the “worst” as it is a variable ratio reinforcement… and extremely difficult to extinguish. The only thing that limits susceptibility is the degree to which they get a “kick” from winning and their own sense of identity. Psychological addiction exists for risk-taking, gambling, alcohol, cigarettes, reading, tea, coffee, sex, running… pretty much every human behaviour in some degree. It is not dependent on the strength or type of the focus of the addiction. Some of the substances in that list are potent physically addictive drugs, far more physically damaging than the MJ.
Psychological addiction isn’t prevented by the laws we have. It CANNOT be prevented in general… and is absolutely not addressed by making ONE of the myriad substances that it focuses on, illegal. It can be recognized, it can be treated, it can be overcome… but it can’t be prevented because it is (in my opinion) a function of having brains with the power that the human species has developed, capable of creating alternative worlds in our waking dreams. The “addictive” personality is vulnerable to MJ, but it is equally vulnerable to booze, sex and internet and why do YOU come here so often?
So to express the view that MJ, of all the things in the pantheon of things that can serve as a focus for a psychological addiction, is uniquely dangerous and needs to be made illegal and its users criminalized, is not rational… and all the other drugs and habits are legal…. and one can be psychologically addicted to any of them.
MJ was singled out long ago by what was to become the DEA of the United States. It was subjected to a campaign of lies and demonization by that agency and made illegal because it was the drug of choice for blacks and gave law enforcement another tool of control and an excuse to exist once the alcohol prohibition years were ended. “Reefer Madness” was shown at my university to an audience which howled at the inaccuracies in smoke was so thick you could get a buzz standing 100 meters downwind of the hall.
Most of the people in that University graduated and did quite well too.
It turned into a generational warfare thing, with the booze generation which got us into Vietnam vs the pot generation that saw it as a mistake. THAT battle continues to this day.
My point here is (and I’ve drifted from it, and it’s late, so sue me)… is that you can’t prevent psychological addiction by outlawing specific drugs. It does not address the issue at all.
What I see Photonz, is an unreasoning adherence to the DEA “party line” that has been repeatedly excoriated in the science AND the legal system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act
Knowing that this “enforcement” allows seizures that benefit law enforcement and keeps the cops in jobs…
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/forfeiture.html
… leaves one with the needle on the crap detector wrapped firmly around the peg once again.
This law has nothing to do with protecting our kids from dope. Far from it.
The law:
1. Is ineffective at keeping it out of the hands of kids.
2. Assists the gangs by keeping them employed and supplied with cash.
3. Increases the crime rate as all those expensive drugs have to be paid for.
4. Keeps police employed enforcing drug laws instead of solving real crimes.
5. Keeps the crime rate up through the combination of 3 and 4 above.
6. Prevents MJ from being taxed and regulated so that it doesn’t show up on the street cut with ‘P’.
7. Is unnecessary for adults who can decide for themselves which “intoxicant” they prefer to relax with.
8. Prevents MJ from being used as an effective therapy for the range of things that it actually helps.
9. Prevents use of the hemp fiber which makes damned good rope (and darned scratchy shirts) and could be used for other things.
Basically Photonz, I can’t think of a single thing about the law as it is that is actually useful to the nation as a whole… except that it keeps the US DEA happy with us and keeps a lot of people employed… persecuting us it is true, but they ARE employed.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
… those folks (susceptible to psychological addiction) will wind up with significant problems no matter WHAT they try, and they WILL try something eventually. This is not an argument that addresses the question of dope legality. It would be better to get them hooked on reading or running, but you can’t prevent them getting hooked on something by having an ineffective law that makes the illegal suppliers wealthy.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
That certainly covers the issue comprehensively, bjchip. 99% of those following the discussion will have grasped and accepted your summation and will now be thinking about Sunday and the picnicking, reading and gardening to be had. Photonz, otoh, will be frantically constructing a wee man from glue and straw.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
10-15% of people who try cannabis in New Zealander will have significant problems with monsters and aliens. Quack.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
I see a gargantuan, multi-headed duck!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
maybe john key..
..whilst holidaying at his compound …
..in hawaii..
..could have a look out his window…
.. and see…
..how a civilised pot regime ..
..could/should be…?
..and that pigs might fly…?
..we shall see…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
oh..!..’duck’!..it really is a duck..?
..you had me nervous there for a minute..
..i thought you were using rhyming-slang..
..(my freudian-bad..)
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
as in a ‘cluster-duck’..?
one who likes being in groups..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
greenfly says “I see a gargantuan, multi-headed duck!”
That sounds similar to –
“I was looking at a shaddow in my cousin’s car, and it turned into a black frog with a million tounges all lashing out”
or “i lost reality and thought that i was in a penguin world”
And there’s another 11 pages of dozens of people (mainly in america I think) recounting their experiences hallucinating on dope – something that is impossible according to phil and jackal.
http://www.marijuana.com/places-people/44176-hallucinations.html
And greenfly – if you think there aren’t significant numbers of young kiwis getting stuffed up mentally on dope – you’re being very naive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
BJ – to address some of your points
“1. Is ineffective at keeping it out of the hands of kids.”
We saw a large INCREASE in use in children at our local schools when Kronic was legal.
And in some overseas places where it has been legalised rather than just decriminalised, usage has gone up because companies can promote it’s use – either overtly or with less obvious marketing techniques.
“2. Assists the gangs by keeping them employed and supplied with cash.”
The gangs definitely took a hit when Kronic was around, so they pushed harder drugs and looked to other crime.
It’s naive to think that if dope is legalised, the gangs won’t simply move into other areas of crime.
“3. Increases the crime rate as all those expensive drugs have to be paid for.”
Actually, we had a crime wave because of cheap and legal kronic –
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/mental-health/news/article.cfm?c_id=699&objectid=10732492
And if it’s cheaper, people will use more.
“4. Keeps police employed enforcing drug laws instead of solving real crimes.”
See above – there was MORE real crime – not less.
In many places where dope has be decriminalised, the police spend MORE time on it, as it’s a lucrative revenue gathering excercise like speeding tickets. In some places MORE people get done now than previously.
Where police used to think twice about sending someone throught the courts, they’re quite happy to just give them a fine.
The rest of your numbered points 6-9 all seem fair.
I’d probably back decriminalisation if it comes with a good plan that will cut use in children and youth.
But right now most of those promoting it here are in complete denial about the problems it causes.
Hell – even someone like phil who you’d think would know a thing or two about it, makes a complete egg of himself by claiming it’s not possible to hallucinate on it.
So BJ – tell me your plan for keeping it out of schools, lowering our worst dope usage rates in the OECD, worst school dropout rate in OECD, worst youth suicide rate in OECD, an how you’ll keep more of our kids out of the psyche ward.
Because that is where the real problem is.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
Penguin world, eh!
That poor soul’s clearly lost to us – there’s no way anyone could ever recover from an experience like that! Bad cannabis! Reminds me of the widely-held belief that drunkards see pink elephants.
Penguin world! How on earth did that demented fellow compose himself sufficiently to write about his dreadful experience, confined as he surely must be, in his nut-house house cell? The therapy must have been intense, to restore his wrecked mind to a state where he can communicate once again with us non-penguins.
What sound do penguins make? Gronk?
Hee hawwww?
Solkta?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
“…Hell – even someone like phil who you’d think would know a thing or two about it, makes a complete egg of himself by claiming it’s not possible to hallucinate on it…”
yes..i do question the big-lie of 360 degree/total immersion of the ‘i am a fish..cannot resurface..must be rescued by plucky rightwing-troll’-hallucination..
..as peddled by resident rightwing troll..
..our modern version of ‘reefer-madness’…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Warned you Photonz.
Kronic was available at the corner dairy and online. It was NEVER controlled.
So there is absolutely no way to compare its availability to a legalized MJ available through liquour stores.
The fact that it was available to anyone at all without even the level of control that Alcohol has, makes your arguments, pretty much all of them, entirely invalid.
….
and forcing the gangs to engage in other criminal behaviour puts them in a more vulnerable position. They have to break more serious laws to get their cash. That IS part of a strategy of marginalizing the gangs. If the gang sets up a meth lab but also sells marijuana, the community may tolerate it… if the MJ is legal the community doesn’t have that tight a relationship with the gang. So someone may well tip the cops.
What is your strategy for marginalizing the gangs?
My strategy for the schools is much the same as the current strategy relating to hard liquor in schools. It isn’t legal for kids to have it, and it isn’t legal to give it to kids.
Strangely enough that is the same as it is now. I expect it to work a little better than it does now because the source won’t be the street… but it is hard to see how to do better than we do with the hard liquor unless we get parental cooperation.
Better education about the effects of the stuff might make inroads into the parents who act as suppliers of booze and weed.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
bj says “The fact that it was available to anyone at all without even the level of control that Alcohol has, makes your arguments, pretty much all of them, entirely invalid.”
Invalid, like your alcohol control arguement (judging by the groups of drunk 12 and 13 years olds who are in the city every Friday night).
BJ says “My strategy for the schools is much the same as the current strategy relating to hard liquor in schools. It isn’t legal for kids to have it, and it isn’t legal to give it to kids. Strangely enough that is the same as it is now.”
So don’t change anything to what is failing our kids now. Yeah – that will help.
bj says “Better education about the effects of the stuff might make inroads into the parents who act as suppliers of booze and weed.”
What – tell our children it’s harmless to them and that it’s just not possible that it causes any serious problems – just like you’ve and others been doing here?
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
photon
I’ve never said people who are suffering psychosis aren’t capable of smoking some marijuana. Did you read those studies into addictive personality disorder I linked to?
You imagine that there are other lucrative areas to easily make millions of dollars that the gangs have not explored yet? You’re argument is becoming even more ludicrous photon.
The money saved from decriminalization that can then be used for health and drug education would decrease overall consumption and therefore reduce young people being introduced to marijuana. A defined age limit would also help.
Your comparing marijuana with chronic is laughable considering chronic is a synthetic chemical concoction while marijuana is a plant that has been safely used for thousands of years as a medicine.
Do you have any evidence that a widespread black-market leads to less consumption than a regulated market?
Nobody here has been telling their children that marijuana is harmless, you’re being ridiculous again photon.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
phil says “yes..i do question the big-lie…”
Your questioning has no relevance, because you think hallucinations on dope are not possible – which is completely naive.
That’s like someone who beleives the world is flat, saying it’s impossible to travel around the globe.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
jackal says “The money saved from decriminalization that can then be used for health and drug education would decrease overall consumption and therefore reduce young people being introduced to marijuana.”
1/ Decriminalisation will make little difference to police costs. Only 2% of convicitions are for cannabis use. Only 0.5% (1 in 200) convictions are for ONLY cannabis use.
And even with decriminalisation, police will still be issuing fines – possibly even more than the number of convictions now.
2/ According to the Otago study I linked to earlier, drug education has shown to be largely ineffective in reducing smoking rates in children.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
photon
Another ridiculous argument photon. This is what Don Brash recently said:
That’s before taking into account the nearly $100,000 it costs to keep somebody in jail. Including administrative costs, that’s around $500 million each year before taking the lost tax revenue, health and various other incidentals into account. I would estimate that the true financial cost of prohibition of marijuana in New Zealand to be well over a billion dollars per year.
Wrong! Decriminalization coupled with other progressive measures reduces consumption and therefore comparatively less fines will need to be issued. You have also failed to comprehend that a fine means the government gets paid money. This should cover the cost of issuing the fine.
If true, that would show the study is defunct. Once again photon… nobody is arguing that children should be allowed marijuana. Therefore your argument is also defunct.
Besides, you are lying again. This is what the Otago study actually says:
That means increased knowledge does sometimes reduce drug abuse and that without a continuation of the education programme, results decline over time.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
The usual drunken teen is drunk on beer, RTD or Wine… not on hard liquor.
Not to say it isn’t a problem but they get the hard liquor from their parents, AS YOU NOTED, and there isn’t a blessed thing one can do about that except educate the parents as well as the teens.
One of the key truths about educating people is you can’t educate them to a fact that isn’t true for very long. Not if they can through their own experiences and knowledge, falsify the information presented. That is one of the serious problems with the MJ prohibition and efforts to demonize it.
Since I never said THAT maybe you need to revisit this thread, rather than making false claims about my position.
Harm however, is not any different from the harm due to alcohol except that it is a lot harder to kill yourself with simple MJ. The risk of psychological addiction is quite real for both and the use by someone whose brain is still developing is not something I recommend or countenance and it remains something restricted to adults in all Green policy.
Restricted, controlled, taxed, certified… NOT freely available like Kronic and NOT controlled by the gangs like it is now.
You have a real bug up your bum about this stuff, and it isn’t actually rational. I can appreciate the reasons for that, but the reasoning behind it is not valid.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Jackal says “I would estimate that the true financial cost of prohibition of marijuana in New Zealand to be well over a billion dollars per year.”
What – you think is costs on average a quarter of a million dollars per cannabis use conviction?
When they are just 2% of annual convictions (4500 of 220,000).
And only 1/4 of those are for cannabis only (i.e not including other violent or propoerty offenses). (1044 of 4500)
And only 1% of that 1/4 are jailed (9 of 1044)
And only one of those didn’t have a previous criminal record.
And the average sentence is just 1.7 months.
The whole police budget is only $1.6b.
But using your reduiculous figures, that means minor cannabis conviction costs 35 times or 3500% more than than the average criminal conviction.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
photon
You are being even more disingenuous with your argument photon… if that was even possible. Although I am becoming bored with this debate, mainly because of your continued bullshit, could you link to where you’re attaining your data from please?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Just quickly, there are also costs associated with charges… convictions are more pricey, but simply being charged can ruin a person’s life pretty thoroughly.
If you reckon only the costs of the formal police processes you are missing a lot.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
bj says “If you reckon only the costs of the formal police processes you are missing a lot.”
So you’re backing jackals cost of $250,000 per conviction? – 35x more than the average criminal conviction?
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
photon
Are you going to link to the data or not?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
PS It would seem you’re having some cognitive issues photon being that the estimated costings was not only for convictions. If you’re going to be such a stupid idiot, there’s no point continuing this debate.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
I reckon photonz is a dag.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
i reckon there comes a time to say:..
..’enough..!..troll..!
..we are tired of you..
..and your litany of lies/misinformation..
..fuck off..!’
(tho’..thanks for yr slack/gape-jawed presentation of the prohibition untruths..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
phils says “..and your litany of lies/misinformation..”
What – like yours that it’s not possible to hallucinate on dope?
Hillarious.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Yer a wee terrier with yer tiny ‘hallucinate’ bone there, photonz!
I’ve never seen you so pointlessly picky – talk about fixating on trivia.
Get out your meatier stuff and rejoin the debate.
We have grown tired.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
So you’re backing jackals cost of $250,000 per conviction? – 35x more than the average criminal conviction?
Didn’t say that. Said Convictions aren’t the right thing to be counting costs on. You need to count up a whole lot of things, starting with the additional crime to support the habits (all money funneled to the gangs, except for what the police confiscate), the cost of the enforcement itself, the cost of not being able to pursue other criminal behaviour due to the diversion of resources, the cost of NOT treating a health issue as a health issue, the cost of taxes not collected on the sale of cannabis, the cost of the additional health problems due to adulterated weed…. and I am QUITE sure I haven’t got all of them.
You really aren’t doing very well on this topic… if you have to misrepresent my position to keep on arguing.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
greengfly says “Get out your meatier stuff and rejoin the debate”
You mean like your comments? Oh that’s right. You’ve stopped even talking about the subject and reverted to 100% put-downs.
You were doing so well.
BJ says “if you have to misrepresent my position to keep on arguing”.
If you look you’ll see it was a question. A billion dollars for 4500 convictions is quarter of a million dollars per conviction, which is thrity five times more than the average convition (police budget of $1.6b for 220,000 annual convictions).
And convictions for cannabis use make up just 2% of convictions, or 0.5% if you count cannabis use without any accompanying violent or property convictions.
And we still failed to hear any good ideas at all about the major problem – stopping harm from cannabis.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
Advocates of decriminalisation as a way of dealing (puns always intended) with cannabis are indicating confusion not much better than Photonz1′s. Now there’s an insult!
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Problem is Photonz, that the MAJOR problem is stopping harm from non-sensical cannabis prohibitions.
When you ask a question like that it is a criticism and you know that well enough. I told you what the costs were that I am counting and you totally ignored that to repeat again, the costs per conviction, as though that were the only cost to society. That’s simply wrong Photonz, and you know it.
Your notion of what to do about the “harm done by cannabis” cannot be any better than my own as we both render it illegal to give it to kids. The only question to ask then is whether it is worse. I think I have shown ample advantages in terms of control, taxation and “aid and comfort to the gangs”.
Moreover, establishing a more trust and health based approach to all forms of addiction is likely to give better results than demonizing one particular drug… falsely.
The truth is that humans being humans, you almost certainly cannot do any better than we do with hard liquor… except there is no “light” form of cannabis for sale in supermarkets and dairies. I would expect the result to be a halving of the problem within 5 years…. but we might do better.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Not being a wordsmith, unlike many who reside here, coupled with how easy it is to misconstrue the written word, I’d like to make it clear I mean no disrespect or flippancy in my comment.
Photonz: You describe Keith as “happy”, “outgoing” and “confident”. I just wonder if that was possibly a facade, as it sounds like he was self-medicating to a degree that some-one with underlying issues would not want or need to, particularly when it became apparent how destructive his “habit” was becoming (and I think we’re all agreed dope is not physically addictive). I guess I view it as a chicken-or-egg situation, and you and I see it differently. My brother who sounds much like Keith apart from being vehemently anti-dope, also killed himself, and a more outwardly happy guy you couldn’t have met, but who knows what is really festering inside.
I feel this debate has reached an impasse; Photonz, you’re not going to change your stance, as opposing commenters won’t change theirs.
FWIW, I’ve never hallucinated whilst under the influence.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
BJ says “Your notion of what to do about the “harm done by cannabis” cannot be any better than my own as we both render it illegal to give it to kids.”
But to paraphrase your words, that doesn’t work.
And I can’t see how more easily available and cheaper dope will improve things.
We have the worst usage rate among kids. We have the worst dropout rate.
Nothing I’ve seen you suggest would change that.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
BJ: we both render it illegal to give it to kids.”
Photonz: …But to paraphrase your words, that doesn’t work.
So you judge the two answers on the other things they do… and keeping it wholly illegal loses out big-time.
However, the answers are not to be judged in that vacuum. I doubt that the dope would become cheaper for the kids.
So, I’d actually expect that having done what I described we would see an uptick in alco-pop and beer abuse among the kids… and a downturn in Cannabis use. Great result, no ?
I actually don’t like it at all, but the ability to make drinking and taking drugs appear stupid rather than cool is an important side effect of legalization and treating it as a health problem. That’s general.
Most addicts will happily do anything they have to, to get a cheap fix, but depicting the losers who have go to clinics to get their supply of addictive drugs as losers is pretty easy. Depicting drunks as stupid losers is pretty easy too. Both characterizations have the advantage of being true… one should not START on an addictive drug.
Cannabis however isn’t in the addictive drug class, and it isn’t able to be delivered as an alco-pop. So I really do expect that availability to youth would diminish. No parent willingly hurts their kids.
Right now “getting wasted” is a rite of passage… a badge of honor.
Doesn’t matter what substance is being abused. If you want to stop it, make it un-cool. Make sure the girls all know that smoking cannabis increases the appetite and causes weight gain (which has the benefit of being true and easily observed).
Making it illegal/keeping it illegal is completely unproductive.
There is no real difference between illegal for under (18-19-20 – whatever the hard-liquor limit is) and completely illegal as far as the illegality is concerned.
There is a large difference as far as the supplier, tax, gang, purity and community impacts are concerned. A large difference in terms of the ability to characterize the drug.
Nothing you’ve said has altered that. You cannot legislate morality. You cannot win a “war on drugs”. A different meme is required.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Jackal, how about dealing to the black market – what would that do for consumption? I would note that Singapore has an extremely low rate of drug consumption – I wonder why…..
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Singapore and drugs, where do I begin.
Lets start with the difficulty of local production. Singapore is 694 sq km with a population over 5 million. A population of over 7000 people per square km. Hiding something like a ‘p’ lab or a cannabis plantation from your neighbors is shall we say… difficult.
So almost any drug that is to be abused in Singapore has to be brought into Singapore…
—and then—
The Singapore embarkation card contains a warning to visitors about the death penalty for drug trafficking.
—adding—
* a presumption of guilt rather than innocence.
—and—
If you are willing to live in that sort of society, with that level of scrutiny to your private doings and with that sort of punishment regime… feel free to move. I don’t want it here…. and more to the point, you’d never be able to get that sort of system here. Our population density is such that it is dead easy to have a little plantation somewhere… a ‘p’ lab isolated away from the rest of your neighbors.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj – I said my mind could be changed on decriminalisation, IF you could show me a good plan to reduce the harm – particularly usage by children.
Oh – the irony. Your big plan is to make it illegal to give it to kids.
Suz – I know what you mean about suicide. We had an extended family member who was highly sucessful (a doctor), happy, had a lot of good things going on, and took his own life. In Keith’s case, he’s HAD a good life, but lost everything – wife, job, house – because of his habit, so he wasn’t in a good place.
You’re right about the impase. I’m just trying to get people to think of ideas to reduce the harm, particualrly with kids.
BJ is convinced that cheap legal drugs will reduce use – I think the opposite would happen, like it has with cheap alcohol.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
It’s hard to know whether photonz does this sort of shite on purpose,
“BJ is convinced that cheap legal drugs will reduce use – I think the opposite would happen, like it has with cheap alcohol.”, or whether he just doesn’t have the brain-power to construct and follow a reasonable argument. I’m plumping for the former. He’s doing it on purpose. I suppose he gets a chuckle from his misrepresentations, but it’s wearisome. I imagine him sitting at his computer, batting away the comments from other Frogbloggers like he’s playing an old game of ‘Pong’, and snickering whenever he delivers another part-truth or semi-idea that keeps the debate swirling pointlessly around himself.
“bj – I said my mind could be changed on decriminalisation, IF you could show me a good plan to reduce the harm – particularly usage by children.”
Yes, of course it could, photonz, you’ve a history here of demonstrating changes to your thinking. Clearly, if someone could only show you, for the love of God, you’d be right there, with your mind-change and new way of seeing things, but sadly, no one here has the smarts to put up a convincing argument, dull, short-sighted Frogbloggers! The years and years of debate here, are as nought when it comes to showing photonz a good plan to reduce harm from cannabis, so adroit is he at tearing apart our blunt and poorly constructed arguments. We’ve so much to learn from photonz, especially you bjchip, you of the Lilliputian intellect, you sluggardly thinker you – what do you know? What sound argument have you ever posted? Photonz’s rock-solid logic and clever convolutions make you look terribly pedestrian, old bean. I don’t know why you bother.
I don’t know why anyone bothers. Only Solkta has the answer to photonz’s brilliance – the raucous, starts with ‘q’, throaty call of the Anas platyrhynchos.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
greenfly – oh dear. You’ve slipped back into “forget about the topic and just abuse someone” mode.
I can’t recall hearing any solutions from you for our record drug use by children and school drop out rate – ever.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
photon
It’s not just BJ who thinks that photon. Here’s what Parliamentary Services says:
A reduction in consumption after decriminalization has been shown in other countries that also implemented education and rehabilitation programs. What of the actual cost of enforcing marijuana laws?
According to the Department of Corrections Annual Report ended 30 June 2011, the total revenue spent for incarceration was $1,176,097,000. That works out to be $172,397.68 per year for each of the 6,822 prisoners for 2010/11. That’s also not the actual cost for Corrections with total taxpayer funds running at nearly $2.2 billion to 30 June.
Could you link to the data concerning how many people are in jail for marijuana please photon?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
there was a troll – called photy…
who’se reefer-madness – was dopey..
to this end..the truth he did bend…
..with product – plucked from his booty…
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
jackal asks “Could you link to the data concerning how many people are in jail for marijuana please photon?”
No problem – link at bottom
Out of 220,000 criminal convictions in 2008
4500 for cannabis use (just 2%)(page 13)
3500 of these are combined with other “more serious” criminal charges like violence, property and sex offences. When you remove more serious offences, there were just –
1044 for cannabis use only (just 0.5% of total – page 18)
Of these 1044, just 9 were imprisoned. (or 1 in every 24,000 convictions – page 18)
Only one of those imprisoned had no previous criminal record. (page 18)
Average imrprisonment 1.7 months. (page 19)
So if you add 9 people at an average of 1.7 months, that’s a grand total of 1 year and three months imprisonment for ALL convictions in all of NZ for a whole year where cannabis use is the most serious charge – out of your total of 6822 prisoners.
Effectively a rate of around 1 in 6000 prisoners.
So effectively, out of 6822 prisoners (to use your figures) at any one time, an average of ONE – yes, just ONE – will be in just for cannabis use.
Which pretty much blows to peices your theory that a big part of the corrections budget is spent on keeping people locked up just cause they smoke dope.
Any others who are in for cannabis use, have also been convicted of a MORE SERIOUS charge of violence, property offence or sexual offences.
http://www.shore.ac.nz/projects/Convictionreport.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
phil – your poem doesn’t rhyme.
Are you sure you’re not hallucinating?
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
That would be a limerick rather than a poem, and he was close.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh – the irony. Your big plan is to make it illegal to give it to kids.
Sorry Photonz, at this point you are simply lying. I never said nor implied any such stance and EXPLICITLY disallowed it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
BJ is convinced that cheap legal drugs will reduce use – I think the opposite would happen, like it has with cheap alcohol.
Photonz, at this point you have not just discarded logic, you have hurled it from you with great force.
“CHEAP” alcohol isn’t what you get in a liquor store. It is what you get from the supermarket or dairy.. beer, wine, alcopops…
Elucidate for all of us how the liquor store product is cheap? Last time I checked it was pretty damned expensive stuff, as the stats I provided showed… and IT isn’t any more available to kids than the MJ.
Beer and wine and alcopops are your cheap stuff. There is no MJ equivalent.
Just to point out… for the umpteenth time… decriminalization almost never leads to increased use. The market solution is NOT going to give you the right answer. This is perhaps one of the problems with National adherents… they apply market solutions to everything. This is a HEALTH issue.
Market analysis is FAR less relevant here than the social pressure part of the equation.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
bjchip says “My strategy for the schools is much the same as the current strategy relating to hard liquor in schools. It isn’t legal for kids to have it, and it isn’t legal to give it to kids. Strangely enough that is the same as it is now.”
Photonz1 “Oh – the irony. Your big plan is to make it illegal to give it to” kids.
bjchip “Sorry Photonz, at this point you are simply lying. I never said nor implied any such stance and EXPLICITLY disallowed it.”
So first you say we make it illegal to give it to kids, than you claim you never said that, and anyone who says so is a liar.
When you have made your mind up, whether you want to make it illegal to supply kids, or legal to give to kids, please let me know.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
BJchip flipflops again.
First you say legal dope sales will undercut the gangs, cut off their lifeblood, and stop crime due to people commiting crime to pay for expensive drugs.
Then you try to say it will be expensive, like hard liquor compared to beer and wine.
Again, when you make up your mind whether you are going to make it cheap, and undercut the gangs, or expensive….please let me know.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
You didn’t say what you said, bjchip, and you said what you didn’t say!
Photonz cranks up ‘crazy’ to topple the ever-reasoning bjchip.
What can bj do? Throw logic to the winds and mix it with photonz in his wrestling-pit of obfustication, with it’s resident population of red herrings and straw men? Or keep his line and suffer the ditzy warblings and twisted thinking of our own wrinkle in the matrix?
He weaves, he dodges, he throws down a bauble – he’s unpinnable and unreasonable – he’s photonz, Head Goose and gear loose!
What have we learned from him?
When you wrestle…
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
oh dear – greenfly has lost his momentary ability to debate a subject, and has reverted to put-downs.
That’s pretty hypocritical coming from someone who was complaining that people should get back to the debate.
BJ’s argued that dope would be cheaper, and dearer.
He says it should be illegal to give it to kids, and that he’s never stated that.
It’s impossible to debate something when someone flipflops between opposing positions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
photon
Thanks for linking to said report… however your calculations are once again inaccurate. Mainly because the Massey university uses data from 1990 to 2008 while the Department of Corrections report is from 2010/2011.
Interesting to see the Massey study showing the average community based sentence for cannabis use was almost 8 years… WTF is going on there?
The Ministry of Justice has removed their report the Massey study links to… so we cannot verify if their figures are correct.
The Massey report mainly looks at cannabis use, when there are many convictions for other types of “crimes” relating to marijuana. You also seem to be saying that there is no cost unless somebody is jailed… which is of course a defunct argument.
The flip side of your “there’s only one person in jail for cannabis” argument, is that there’s not really any point in keeping marijuana illegal… being that there is (according to you) hardly any deterrent. It should also be stated that the current law is completely ineffectual in reducing consumption.
In 1999 it was shown that 68.9% of people surveyed had tried cannabis by the age of 21. In 2011 80% of those aged 21 had tried cannabis. The current laws are not working to reduce the likelihood of introduction or consumption of cannabis photon. The law is simply being ignored and costing us taxpayers many millions of dollars.
My argument is that there are savings to be made from decriminalization (as acknowledged in the Parliamentary Services report previously linked to), which if done properly with other programs such as education and rehabilitation means a reduction in overal consumption.
Isn’t that what you want photon… a reduction in the amount of people using marijuana? Or are you arguing in favour of keeping it illegal because it gives law and order another tool to use against Maori and also ensures the drug companies are not undercut by a cheap and effective medicine?
Keep in mind that the 2.2 billion the taxpayer gave to the Department of Justice this year does not include Police or Court costs. Factor those into the lost productivity from restrictions placed on those charged and prosecuted, the health consequences from people not coming forward to receive rehabilitation because of fear of prosecution, the cost to society because people undertake crime to be able to afford $500 per ounce*, the cost to society because the gangs retain (often with violence) a major income stream and the lost capital because it is not being taxed… and I think the financial side of the argument to decriminalize is settled.
*This might be an incorrect estimate of the current average price for an ounce of marijuana.
They’re the Department of corrections figures photon. Dakta Green was sentenced to 8 months for three cannabis related charges, so that conviction alone puts your little fantasy land argument out the window.
What about Peter Davies and his partner who has Multiple Sclerosis photon… do you think he should be in jail considering the overwhelming evidence that shows marijuana is a beneficial medicine?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photon
You seem to be a schizo troll photon. Piss off back to the sewer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
jackal says “They’re the Department of corrections figures photon. Dakta Green was sentenced to 8 months for three cannabis related charges, so that conviction alone puts your little fantasy land argument out the window.”
Yeah right – That was for running a warehouse for dealing – not merely for use.
jackal says “What about Peter Davies and his partner who has Multiple Sclerosis photon”
You now bring in a completely different issue – medical use – which may work if done properly so that doctors don’t end up being dealers.
jackal says “….which if done properly with other programs such as education and rehabilitation means a reduction in overal consumption.
Isn’t that what you want photon… a reduction in the amount of people using marijuana?”
South Australia went from 26% use to 36% use after decriminalisation – so there was no reduction there (similar increase to other states)
jackal says “My argument is that there are savings to be made from decriminalization (as acknowledged in the Parliamentary Services report previously linked to)..”
South Australian figures show they saved $0.8m, and nearly doubled the amount they collected in fines, because it was so much easier to fine thousands more dope smokers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
jackal says “You seem to be a schizo troll photon. Piss off back to the sewer.”
My position has always been the same, still is, and I’ve said the same thing before.
The point is you HAVEN’t been able to convince me to that you can decriminalise with a good plan to reduce harm.
You’ve FAILED over and over.
And the reason you fail, is because you are not even taking your head out of the sand long enough to even admit there IS serious harm.
Every time it’s problems form dope are pointed out, you quickly deny it and stick your head down the hole again.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
photon – your argument is very weak!
Could you please link to the data? 10% (if true) isn’t that much of an increase being that increasing consumption is a worldwide trend. Here’s what the UN World Drug Report (15mb PDF) says:
But don’t let that fact get in the way of your dishonest argument photon.
It is not a different issue. Usually in other countries an intermediary supplies the marijuana to people with illnesses that is best treated with marijuana. Doctors prescribe the medicine based on people afflictions. It is clear that you do not have a good argument against this practice.
Are you saying there shouldn’t be any fines?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
photon
I’m burying you in sand photon… kicking it in your little troll face.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
“The point is you HAVEN’t been able to convince me to that you can decriminalise with a good plan to reduce harm.
You’ve FAILED over and over.”
Lordy, but I laughed when I read this!
Laughed and laughed at your arrogance, photonz. You, it seems, are the Decider, the Great Authority who Judges.
Looking at it another way, a more balanced, reasonable way I might add, you photonz, have COMPLETELY FAILED to understand the arguments put to you, have FAILED to adjust your calcified view in the face of reasoned debate, and have STUCK like GLUE to your reefer-madness position regarding cannabis reform. Still, it’s been entertaining. As Phil described, you’ve represented your constituency well; one-eyed, ossified and illogical ideologue that you’ve proven yourself to be. What’s left for us on the other side of the ledger? Mockery, I say. perhaps some lampooning and satire, with you as our little frazzled star.
Or perhaps we’ve had enough and are bored to distraction with your pish – who knows?
Personally, I’m for the ad homs. They’re great fun!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
greenfly – your never one to debate when you can just abuse. It’s like debating with a toddler.
As you admit – you’re more interested in (and get your kicks from) abuse.
Such high quality representation the Green Party has in Southland.
What’s next in the way of intellectual debate from Green Party polititians – more animal noises?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
I doubt that it is any secret that I have been known to consume alcohol and various other substances on occasion. A habit which was, perhaps, more pronounced during my early teen years than my late.
As it stands now, I live one road over from a bottle shop and a supermarket. Perhaps Palmy is not representative of the country as a whole, but despite the proximity of these ready sources of alcohol, the difficulty of acquiring cannabis is about as challenging as acquiring a half-decent bottle of rum. When my consumption of mind-altering substances was at its peak, around 15-18, it was no more difficult to acquire cannabis than it is several years latter. The task of acquiring alcohol was, however, substantially more daunting. Lacking older relations, I doubt I would have been able to obtain such quantities of alcohol as I did were it not for my array of similarly-aged female friends and the propensity of twenty-something males to pursue younger females.
The reason that it was so much easier to acquire illicit substances was because the market for such substances is so much larger than that of under-age alcohol and because the profit margin was so much more substantial. Thus, it made economic sense to deal and to have a decent stock of illicit substances available to willing buyers while there was minimal profit to be made from the sale of alcohol to minors.
While personal testimony is far from scientific, this same story is more the norm than the exception. The prohibition of cannabis fails to stem the flow of the drug. Furthermore, the prohibition of cannabis likely makes the provision of cannabis to minors more proliferate as it vastly increases the potential pool of consumers and thus the practicality of the endeavour. Prohibition fails and merely serves to a) divert funds to places we may not want those funds going and b) create a gate-way effect.
This is the only point I can really spare the time to make; prohibition does not achieve its intended goal. It is up to you to demonstrate that the violation of liberty, which prohibition represents, is justified despite the failing of its primary objective. Demonstrate that the harm done by legalisation, in the manner of alcohol and tobacco, outweighs the costs to society in terms of liberty, finance, and gang legitimacy.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
The point is you HAVEN’t been able to convince me to that you can decriminalise with a good plan to reduce harm.
Photonz, I have, with logic that is really not assailable, shown you that there is an alternative that is AT LEAST AS GOOD as your criminal war on drugs approach in terms of limiting the access for kids. You haven’t touched that set of points and you appear to be “not quite rational” on this subject. I suspect that you recognize that there is some truth in that assessment of your position.
So no, we haven’t convinced you. Jesus Christ with Mohammed and Buddha singing the hallelujah chorus wouldn’t be able to convince you. You have twisted, evaded and avoided confronting reality in this, and it is in fact quite wearying now. No point, as pointed out above, to continuing this torture. You have proved a valuable foil for the arguments but they have all been made… and none have registered with you at any level except the “how do I counter this one” responses you come back with… often incorrectly representing the arguments now… because there is no counter to the actual arguments presented.
We do not HAVE to show that the health based approach with decriminalization and restrictions is more effective at keeping drugs out of the hands of kids… only that it is AS effective.
Since the legality of it being given to the kids is the same in both approaches, it is going to be the same… very very little to choose between them at that interface.
Since the REST of the arguments show that the “war” approach leads to a wide range of societal ills, there is a very clear preference to be had… and it is not to continue the “war”.
You don’t accept/see/understand this at a level that is not actually touchable through logic.
However, this IS quite enough for this thread.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
bj – you said it would be illegal to supply kids, then you slammed that position, now it seems you’ve reverted to your original position.
And I’ve no idea now of whether you think it would be dearer or cheaper – you seem to have argued both cases.
And now you seem to backed off from your position that it would lower use in children.
Which is by far tha single most important thing that needs to be changed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Quack; quack; quack, quack. Quack, quack, quack, quack, quack.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
then you slammed that position
Did I now? I really really don’t think so. I have been quite consistent… The war on drugs is wrong and the drugs need to be controlled through outlets that restrict them from getting into the hands of kids.
*I* think that it would lower use by kids… you were inclined to argue that… but my point is that that is NOT EVEN NECESSARY when comparing the two approaches. I have re-read most of my posts and see no cause for confusion on this.
Everyone else here I think, has understood it quite exactly.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
So good to see a comment from Sapient again. Your decisive reasoning is matched only by that of bjchip’s, and your style by no one. You have though, arrived late for the discussion and might not know the extent to which the protaganist, photonz, has muddied the waters of the debate with his witterings and false claims. Solkta knows though, and has summed up our shared response to the niggly wee fella, with a trademark ‘quack’.
Beyond offering that avian utterence, there is little we can do for the reefer-mad photonz1, but doubtless someone else will have a go. Bjchip titles photonz1 a ‘foil’, but is suspect a spelling mistake.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
bj – so if “legal” outlets are more expensive, and and make it harder to get, what will stop current supply lines continuing to operate IN ADDITION to controlled shops?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Beer in legal outlets is more expensive than home brewed beer. Beer sold in legal outlets reduces the amount of beer brewed at home (probably). The commercial production of beer reduces the home production of beer, and that model would, in my opinion, be mirrored in the case of cannabis. Can you see any reason why it wouldn’t, photonz?
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
Photonz,
New Zealand is one of few countries around the world which allows the possession of stills for the production of alcohol for personal use. Despite this, people readily pay substantial prices at the booze shops.
Perhaps people buy from booze stores because it is more legal. Perhaps because it is safer as they know that regulations must be met. Perhaps, even, it is a product of advertising. Perhaps it is merely culture. The fact remains that they give up this, far cheaper, source of alcohol in favor of this expensive alternative. I have seen the odd home brew being passed around but they tend to be regarded more as an object of curiosity than anything and consumed by the non-brewers only very cautiously.
Tobacco does not have this legal production route. Despite the price of tobacco, there does not appear to be an underground market for this product. The risk inherent in illegally growing this substance is not justified by the obtainable profit margin.
The, tax-inclusive, price of cannabis from the equivalent of a tobacconist need not be equal-to or less-than that of cannabis from a dealer in order to be competitive. The benefits of obtaining the substance legally are substantial.
Personally, I am inclined to think that, even with tax, the price will fall majorly. Hidden production simply can not compete with licensed production in terms of quantity. The more the price falls, and the more customers switch to legal sources, the less economically feasible the illegal growing of cannabis becomes.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Sapient. The problem is, it’s been claimed legalization of dope though controlled channels will do two things -
- make dope dearer and harder to get, so will limit use like hard liquor…AND
- make dope cheaper and easier to get and put gangs out of business.
t it will become cheaper and put illegal sales out of business.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Photonz,
I can not afford the time to go through this thread. As per usual, my posts should be treated as arguments in and of themselves; independent of posts by other authors unless explicitly referenced.
Frankly, I am too lazy to try and establish which of you and BJ is twisting their position. In my view, as stated, the ability for dope to be produced legally will result in a drop in prices and an increase in ease-of-access by adults through legal routes. This will decrease the economic feasibility of the gang dope trade and, because of this, make dope harder to get by those whom are underage.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
bj – so if “legal” outlets are more expensive, and and make it harder to get, what will stop current supply lines continuing to operate IN ADDITION to controlled shops?
There are 3 price points involved, not two Photonz. The illegal substance price, the legal liquor analog price (which would be lower than then illegal substance price) and the price an illegal product might command in competition with the legal analog.
How much smuggling of hard liquor is there Photonz? The ONLY advantage to it would be price, but the disadvantages that that it is illegal so the smuggler is still risking jail, and there’s no guarantee of quality/purity for the buyer. Just how much “cheaper” is that likely to be?
How many people do you know who are willing to take risks for a couple of bucks? “Cheaper” has additional meanings to people who are not happy to have criminal records. That’s most of us.
So for the kid who is trying to score a high, the hard booze is available only with a cooperative (and somewhat stupid) adult’s assistance, as there is not a lot of money in the sales compared to the risks. For the adult who relaxes on a Saturday night there is less risk and somewhat less expense. For the COMMUNITY there is less crime, and the difference between the good-guys and the bad-guys is more clear.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually the legal liquor analog could surpass the current illegal price for the premium of not having a risk of a criminal record. I can’t be sure of that and I said it “would” be lower, which is a mistake. I don’t actually know for sure. At this level the market can figure it out… not my business. All it has to be is low enough to keep the incentives for illegal supply from getting out of hand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good to see you here again Sapient. University treating you to a bit of overtime?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
Good to be back, albeit temporarily. I have felt very out of the loop. lol.
I have just finished one of the three post-grad degrees I was doing and my work holidays have just started. I thus have a small sliver of free time, if I can let myself relax. Thus, I may pop up here on occasion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj says “Actually the legal liquor analog….”
I don’t see many parallels at all.
You need specialist equipment to make moonshine, but nothing to grow dope.
There’s still costs to make your own booze, but it costs almost nothing to grow dope.
Most people don’t drink strong liquor – they prefer beer and wine.
Those that do, judging by the queues at liquorland, are mainly old men.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
bj – did you know that when they decriminialised cannabis use in South Australia -
- people getting done for cannabis use went from 6000 up to 17,000 per year.
- fines received from users nearly doubled
- 50% of the 17,000 didn’t pay their fine, which meant they received a criminal conviction for cannabis anyway.
- which means the total number of criminal convictions for cannabis went UP with decriminalisation.
- South Australia has roughly 1/3 of NZ’s population. So if we did people for cannabis at the same rate as decriminalised Sth Aus, we’d be fining 51,000 smokers per year (over ten times our current rate of 4500, or 50x the rate for cannabis use only).
- could we police at the same rate as decriminalised SA (51,000 per year) for LESS than we currently do for 4500 convictions, or 1000 convictions for cannabis use only?
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Old men and anyone under the age of thirty whom is actually able to afford anything less crappy than Tui. Bourbon is, by far, the most popular. Followed closely by Vodka. After that, Jagermeister, Tequila and Rum are rather up there. Wine and beer tend to be used as a cheap source of intoxication. I am partial to Cointreau and Bacardi, when not skimping and buying Woodstock, KGB, or some other less-than-stellar variant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – but if you include RTDs in with ‘hard liquor” that sort of blows away bjs arguement that it is really controlled and doesn’t get to kids.
Which is where this whole debate started – local schools with a big increase in numbers of kids dropping out due to dope, which is several cases has been supplied by their parents who are trying to appear cool to their teenagers.
My wife was involved in councilling the kids and meetings with the schools and CYFS, but the fact that parents are supplying was met with a barrage of disbelief, derision and abuse that this could ever possibly happen in NZ.
(despite evidence that it’s been happening for decades)
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
photon
Could you link to this data please? You seem to be getting a bit manic with you reefer madness argument photonz… I think solkta had the right response from the beginning of this thread.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jackal – Sth Australia had 6000 cannabis prosecutions per year.
After deciminalisation that went up to an average of 16,000 – 17,000 fines per year.
Over half of the fines were not paid within 60 days, which meant around 9000 cases per year were still going to court for a criminal prosecution for cannabis use.
That’s MORE than before decriminalisation.
And remember, we have three times their population, so they’re catching, fining and prosecuting at a rate roughly ten times more than we are in NZ.
So for every ONE smoker prosecuted in NZ, around 12 will be fined in South Aus, and seven of those will be prosecuted – under decriminalisation.
If you use NZ figures for smoking ONLY (1044 presecutions per year in NZ i.e. remove prosecutions that also included violent, sexual and property prosecutions), then for every ONE smoker prosecuted in NZ, there are 54 fined in Sth Aus, and 32 of those will be prosecuted.
Which shows in reality, NZ is already significantly more decriminalised than places like Sth Aus.
See
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/presentation/single-e.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Anyone who claims NZ is ‘decriminalised’ in regards to cannabis is talking rubbish. We hobble a lot of people with ” drug convictions ” in this country and even if your penalty is only a fine you still get the conviction./
the claim of “kids dropping out” due to pot is also rubbish ….. the truth is they are “expelled”.
What causes the greatest drug harm to young New Zealanders is the No 1 drug alcohol which is pushed at us like no other drug in history. And its marketed to young people ….
You cant even buy your grocerys without having booze shoved in your face ….
The booze results in a lot of death amongst young people and not just by them overdoseing on the stuff like the kings college student did recently.
They die of things like car crashes, falls of buildings, drownings and blood loss when they fall through glass.
The leading cause of facial reconstruction surgery in NZ used to be car crashes, and a lot of them would have had alcohol as the root cause, but apparently its now male on male violence ….. with alcohol as the main cause.
We have drug corruption in this country and its the money and perks the producers of the drug booze pour into pariliament.
Users of the soft drug cannabis get drug convictions
Users of the hard drug booze can sexually assult their four year old daughters and get no conviction at all ………..
This country has many people in it including most if not all of the national party who cant have an adult debate about “drugs”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
So… In South Australia the cops turned a blind eye to MJ because it was just the same as here ( I know, I lived there for 3 years in the late 80′s ), more trouble to them than it was worth to do the full criminal thing except for dealers. Then they changed things to make it an offence that could be “expiated” without a criminal charge.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/332B63EE0E0E0C39CA25703700041DAC/$File/mono37.pdf
So they COULD make money off it by issuing tickets… no crime but you had to pay.
WTF do you THINK would happen? One has to point out that this is NOT what I proposed doing. It remains an infraction in SA and it is now a lucrative arrangement for the cops to write the tickets… AND it is still illegal to sell the stuff. You can get away with holding street dealing quantities IF and ONLY IF there is no evidence that you were selling it. You can’t grow it yourself. You can’t legally deal.
-AND-
WHY IN THE HELL DON’T YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL REPORT FROM THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT PROVIDED THE INFORMATION!!!
I don’t think I need to add anything more.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Photonz,
I did not include RTDs in the category of ‘hard liquor’ anymore than I did beer and wine. The RTDs were a demonstration of preference for the cheaper, crappier, product when finances are tight. I was merely responding to your claim that only older males appear to desire the hard liquor.
Personally, I do not really see what the hard liquor distinction here is about; it is only on the borderline, where parents are balancing appearing cool with some perception of responsibility, that parents will tend to supply Tui or Woodstock in preference to Jack Daniels. I would much prefer that it was as illegal for a parent to supply their child with alcohol as it is for the booze shop to do so. I would like to think that this same thing would apply to cannabis.
While it is certainly true that a lot of parents do try to appear cool, I doubt that most of them would violate the law to do so. Without going back over previous posts, I seem to remember that the parents you discussed were not supplying the cannabis to appear cool, but to turn a profit.
BJ, etc. seem to be clued up on figures and such. I think that this will be the end of my five cents, at least for this thread.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Photonz1@ 9:37 AM December 7
“The childrens dope suppliers are sibblings and friends, but mainly their parents.”
Photonz1@ 10:11 PM December 13
“…kids dropping out due to dope, which is (sic) several cases has been supplied by their parents…”
Mainly? Several cases?
Which is it photonz1?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
“..My wife was involved in councilling the kids and meetings with the schools and CYFS, but the fact that parents are supplying was met with a barrage of disbelief, derision and abuse that this could ever possibly happen in NZ…”
photy is actually the oracles’ offsider…
..fighting against the waves of ‘derision’ she faces..
..for her barking-mad ‘reefer-madness’-ideas…
..he’s just defending his missus..
..from the ‘barrage of disbelief, derision and abuse’..
that she faces on a daily basis..
..for those baking-mad-reefer-madess-ideas..
..(offsiders must always leap to the defence of their ‘oracle’..it’s in the manual..eh..?..)
(aww..!!!..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
I might assert that a parent is more likely to buy the RTD for their kids than for themselves. The availability however, remains a matter of SOME adult breaking the law to give it to a child. I would not think this is done “for profit” when it is a parent serving their child and friends.
We’re not doing that well with alcohol. It is still “cool”… when it is actually stupid to set out, purposely, to get drunk. Not good.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
nznative says “the claim of “kids dropping out” due to pot is also rubbish ….. the truth is they are “expelled”.”
Duh – There are 30,000 children truant from school EVERY day in NZ – THIRTY THOUSAND.
Sapient says “I doubt that most of them would violate the law to do so.”
I agree. But it only took a few parents to do so for their children and a large roup of friends to start coming to school stoned, then not coming to school at all.
Sapient say ” Without going back over previous posts, I seem to remember that the parents you discussed were not supplying the cannabis to appear cool, but to turn a profit.”
No, it wasn’t to make a profit. It was just the same as the large number of parents who supply their teenagers with booze.
Although there’s little doubt that some parents use their kids as part of their supply chain. Gang members and criminals are parents too (we used to have a family in the neigbourhood who got their kids to carry out burglaries for them, cause they couldn’t get done if they were caught).
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
phil – you obviously get your kicks from slagging off the very people who spend their lives cleaning up the mess left by deadbeat parents. Nice.
greenfly – In the group of kids I was talking about, most of the dope was supplied by parents. This has also happened at other schools, so there are several cases of it. There will obviously be other cases where it comes form elsewhere.
It’s not complicated – do you feign confusion, or do you really not comprehend this?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
photon
You’re cherry picking information again. Stop it. This is what the Canadian (outdated) report states:
Despite this report clearly stating that decriminalization has not caused the increase in use of marijuana, you claim that it has.
Truancy is not the same as dropping out, which is not the same as expulsion.
Piss off back to the sewer photon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jackal says “Piss off back to the sewer photon.”
I’m not the one in it.
jackal says “Decriminalization coupled with other progressive measures reduces consumption and therefore comparatively less fines will need to be issued.”
Yet South Australia went from 6000 to 17,000.
Are you still claiming cannabis prosecutions cost NZ $1b per year (a quarter million per conviction – 35x more than the average conviction for robbery, assault etc).
Or it costs corrections a big part of their $2b budget to keep their average of 1 cannabis use prisoner locked up?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
..it’s getting a bit boring/samey/samey
i’ll see your dope-smoking 10 yr old..(supplied by parents – of course..)
..and raise you with a p-dealing 9 yr old..(whose parents are cooking for him..)
..go on..!
..top that..!
..oh fool that just keeps on giving..!
..i think that singlehandedly you may have put the cause of prohibition back decades..
..eh..?
..to illustrate/argue against yr particular brand of insanity..
..now we just need to (mutely) point people/questioners at this thread..
..well done.!..that troll/foil…!
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
photon
So you’re out of it then? Figures! The sewer is your natural home troll, off you go.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
phil ask “i’ll see your dope-smoking 10 yr old..(supplied by parents – of course..)”
The ten year old is now locked away in a secure home. His parents refuse to have him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
i’d blame cannabis..if i were you photy…
..that one is pretty much the apogee/nadir of yr strawman folk-tales/urban-myths…..
..almost ‘too much’…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
phil – people who clean up the mess left by useless parents, ten year old druggies, suicide victims – any other people get off on, by taking the piss out of?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
just the bullshit-artist author..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
So the facts about South Australia are not relevant – lets us know where we really stand in this argument.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj..bj..bj..
good luck with that..
i’m still trying to get the gory-details on the plucky-troll saves life of cannabis smoker who thought he was a fish..and refused to resurface…story..
..treat him as he is…a fool..
..’reason’ dosn’t/won’t work..
..that much we know..
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
bj says “So the facts about South Australia are not relevant – lets us know where we really stand in this argument.”
You’re right – Sth Aus is relevant in the arguement for and against decriminalisation, but if you’re arguing for complete legalisation then it’s not relevant.
phil – that’s you’re again taking the piss out of someone who commited suicide says a great deal about your calibre as a human.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
nah..!..photy..!
..hold that guilt-trip-strawman..!
..it is you i am taking the piss out of..
..you..the gift/troll that just keeps on giving/bullshitting..
..c’mon..!..tell us what spurred you to mount yr heroic-rescue..
…how did you know he was a fish..planning on not resurfacing..?
..you lying little dweeb..eh..?
..how is her-indoors/the oracle..?..btw..?
..any new pronouncements..?
..there..?..you cd share..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
photon
The fact that you’re claiming people are making fun of someone who’s committed suicide when it’s clearly not the case, shows that your a piece of troll shit photon.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Todd and phil – you deliberately make fun of a friend who killed themselves, to try and score some sort of sick points against me.
Only a total loser would do something like that.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
yada..yada..yada…
..listen..you lying little piece of crap..
answer the question of ‘why did you mount yr rescue..?..”
..that bullshit-foundation-stone upon which yr whole fantasy is based..
..eh..?
(and speaking of ‘sick’/'loser’..
..what sort of sick fuck uses a personal tragedy..
..involving a (supposed) friend..
..as a bullshit prohibitionist-tool..?..
..around which to construct lies..?
..photy..that’s who..)
..go cry yr crocodile-tears elsewhere..eh..?
..we aren’t buying it..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Only a total loser would use their dead friend for cheap troll points.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
The relevant bit of South-Australia is that the Australian Federal Government evaluated the “increases” in South Australia vis-a-vis the states that still held it as prohibited by law and found that there was no significant increase in usage in South Australia. Other states had weekly usage stats that grew more.
As for the “arrest” stats, those actually aren’t comparable in any case, as the cops had better incentive to hand out the tickets and the people had less incentive to be really really careful about getting done by the cops.
Not a fan of South-Australia in this regard, but you are correct in that their experience is not relevant to my approach to the problem at all.
Facts remain:
1. Prohibiting it for youth and prohibiting it for everyone leave exactly the same legal restriction on youth – “prohibited”.
2. The additional bad effects from having it prohibited for everyone (listed above, no need to repeat) are still bad and NOT present for a youth-only restriction.
3. There are logical arguments, still not addressed by you, that the youth-only restriction with sales to adults through restricted outlets, would in FACT reduce the access to drugs (particularly drugs of uncertain quality) that is currently the case here in NZ.
Addressing the culture that makes “getting wasted” equate with “cool” takes a bit more effort.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Anybody else want to add their name to the “I’m a loser” list?
I see sokta already has.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)