So what was the point of your response?

Legalising marijuana will have the same positive effects on the "wellbeing" of low income people as the legalisation of pokies, suburban all night liqour outlets and the increase in tobacco prices.

If, of course, anybody actually gives a shit.

Isn't it more that the rich pricks in Remmers can go and get some to have with their lattes and sauvignon blancs without having to mingle with the current dealers?

Isn't it more that the rich pricks in Remmers can go and get some to have with their lattes and sauvignon blancs without having to mingle with the current dealers?

Let's keep on eye on the polling when the tax reform group's report becomes public. As one commentator aptly put it, the Nats would happily talk about tax all year if they could.

Legalising marijuana will have the same positive effects on the "wellbeing" of low income people as the legalisation of pokies, suburban all night liqour outlets and the increase in tobacco prices.

If, of course, anybody actually gives a shit.

National have to find somebody other than Bridges that's for sure. A fresh candidate to motivate the voters could do a lot. With Bridges at the helm National's stuck in 2nd gear.

Isn't it more that the rich pricks in Remmers can go and get some to have with their lattes and sauvignon blancs without having to mingle with the current dealers?

Kirk's 3rd Labour Government got the boot in 75

By then wasn’t it was Rowling’s?

Big Norm died in 1974.
Pity.
One of our best Prime Ministers.

This will be slightly awkward for Ardern after bowing to Trumps wishes over Huawei so soon

UK say they are fine to help with building 5G

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12204757

He's just going off there like a balloon let go, all huff and no substance. His empty hysterical rhetoric isn't based in fact and he's refusing to come back and argue simple basics, he prefers to maintain the bluster. That's what he's paid to do I guess, so it's all we'd expect... she just maintains the civil discourse and points out his errors and conflation calmly, without getting into any herself. The points she makes are valid, anyone concerned by the current situation related to weed in NZ should also see the sense in regulating the supply alone, without getting into any of the other strawmen he flung around in there like a desperado.

I had a conversation with a lady in a campground the other day about the revenue issue. It was all she could see in the whole debate... as if the idea of trying to regulate the availability of weed was only about revenue. That's a distraction, unfortunately it seems to be one that must be mentioned after decade of cost / expenditure arguments, that there will be an economic advantage to doing this but that's not the key issue here...

the issue is harm minimisation. That's what we're really talking about here and people like Garner hijacking debate are actually arguing for harm to continue unchecked.

Why on earth would you say that?

Get the feeling you’re consistently on the wind up with bugger all to say enzedder

Interesting and sad that people have so much resentment for (financially)successful people in Nz though .. social media is full of it

No matter how that advert was filmed there was always going to be a way for identity politics to attack it. I'm waiting for the call for it to be racist because they're all white actors.

In other news

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/02/cannabis-clash-chloe-swarbrick-takes-on-duncan-garner.html

Duncan Garner imo was completely owned in this interview by the more impressive by the day Chloe Swarbrick. Needs to become a pornhub meme 'middle aged man wrecked by young girl'

Something Garner touched on which she didn’t really answer, save to question which studies/reports he was referring to, was the 80% increase in students suspended for drugs, which lends credence to the argument that legalisation leads to legitimacy, so rather than decreasing harm it could be increasing it.

Where is that happening and how does that lend credence to anything? What's the context? If kids in NZ are being suspended then it has nothing to do with legalisation because that's not the reality here.

It’s one thing to say that any kid today can get hold of the drug anytime they want to, but the fear of breaking the law probably stops a great many of them

a bigger issue would be peer pressure and the desire to conform... one thing she said that directly addresses that is that where laws have been changed to accommodate weed, kids are starting to see it as boring

Finally, if regulating and controlling drugs is primarily about harm prevention, why are they stopping at marijuana, there are plenty of drugs out there that are potentially lethal because of bad mixes etc, why not those drugs?

well... weed is a gateway drug if you want reform, start with the easy stuff and work up. Or of course, we could look at Portugal and just do what they did

They appear to have jumped the gun

Why on earth would you say that?

To expand on the above. the article is full of cheery picking quotes fro selected sources. In a nutshell, the 5 Eyes Alliance were nervous about Huawei, including the Brits for your and the article Author's information.

If they have now set their resources to digging out some further intelligence that doesn't support their initial suspicions, they quite rightly, and within their rights, change their stance based on that information. In light of new information, I would expect them to reappraise their current stance. Why you, or anyone, would think that any belief, suspicion or statement must be for ever set in stone beggars reality.

... the British government has now concluded that it can mitigate the risk from using Huawei equipment in 5G networks

Personally I have no real problem whether weed is made legal or not as long as the restrictions are sound and the quality is regulated.

It won't stop gangs doing their thing like people say, but not much will.

What I do have a problem with is as usual they have highjacked the medical side of things which is more important and should be sorted first and foremost.

That and no one goes to jail for smoking weed these days, so why bother?

Well the cynical side of me thinks they are hijacking an election by having a referendum at the same time as an election.

I too have no real problem with it(legalising it) just don’t bullshit about the reasons, the war on drugs, particularly this one is unwinnable, so they are trying to now get control of it.
This minimising harm really is a crock IMO, if they regulate the strength too much, the gangs will just take over again...not that they’re going anywhere. It will eventually become a great source of revenue for the government, just like alcohol is. Like I said very cynical view

So that you don't have to scroll back to my edit:



More:


Now even Spark is couching the issue in terms of "concerns" that they may be able to find a way to "mitigate".

On nther other hand, if GCSB had sat on this, or the Govt had not reacted smartly, some would be spewing outrage equivalent to those vilifying the GCSB and Govt now.

Jambanja, what do you mean by regulating the strength too much?

Don’t know what Portugal did? Have they gone full legislation

The drug policy of Portugal was put in place in 2001, and was legally effective from July 2001. The new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. However, the offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than a ten-day supply of that substance.[1]

In April 2009, the Cato Institute published a White Paper about the "decriminalization" of drugs in Portugal,[2] paid for by the Marijuana Policy Project [3] Data about the heroin usage rates of 13-16-year-olds from EMCDDA were used to claim that "decriminalization" has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates. However, drug-related pathologies - such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage - have decreased dramatically.[2][4][5] In 1999, Portugal had the highest rate of HIV amongst injecting drug users in the European Union. The number of newly diagnosed HIV cases among drug users has decreased to 13.4 cases per million in 2009 but that is still high above the European average of 2.85 cases per million.[1] There were 2,000 new cases a year, in a country of 10 million people. 45% of HIV reported AIDS cases recorded in 1997 originated among IV drug users,[6] so targeting drug use was seen as an effective avenue of HIV prevention. The number of heroin users was estimated to be between 50,000 and 100,000 at the end of the 1990s.[7] This led to the adoption of The National Strategy for the Fight Against Drugs in 1999. A vast expansion of harm reduction efforts, doubling the investment of public funds in drug treatment and drug prevention services, and changing the legal framework dealing with minor drug offenses were the main elements of the policy thrust.

So that you don't have to scroll back to my edit:



More:


Now even Spark is couching the issue in terms of "concerns" that they may be able to find a way to "mitigate".

On nther other hand, if GCSB had sat on this, or the Govt had not reacted smartly, some would be spewing outrage equivalent to those vilifying the GCSB and Govt now.

When Garner was interviewing Chloe, they discussed the fact that the stuff in the States was very potent, to which Chloe said that that was one of the benefits of being able control the drug, I.e control it’s potency, if they do that to too great an extent, like speights mid, then they will drive customers away into the waiting arms of the gangs...imo

Nobody has jumped any gun and what it "appears" is wrong. If Australia's banned Huawei NZ pretty much has to do the same.

When Garner was interviewing Chloe, they discussed the fact that the stuff in the States was very potent, to which Chloe said that that was one of the benefits of being able control the drug, I.e control it’s potency, if they do that to too great an extent, like speights mid, then they will drive customers away into the waiting arms of the gangs...imo

I think Garner was absolutely bullshitting about 80% of kids... where did he get that from? What is the verifiable source for that? He should be made to account for the statement and why is it that his statement is allowed through and believed when her statement is questioned?

As for Portugal, everyone with a stance on drug strategies really should have a look at what they did...

from Wiki...




That's a very brief summary. There is a lot to it and critics have been able to draw negatives from the outcomes but in the main, those negatives have been something of a reach to try and argue it down. They targeted harm reduction and it worked. On most measures... crime, social harm, health issues and the like, their drug policy worked and continues to work.

Latest poll: 1 News/Colmar-Brunton