bye bye BZP
So called ‘party pills’ are to be outlawed, Jim Anderton annouced this afternoon. Metiria’s response is here.
Green Party Drug Law Reform Policy is here, and a summary here.
There seems to be general consensus that the ‘War on Drugs‘ is a bitter failure. This recent Independent article doesn’t even begin to mention the misery that ill advised prohibtion has created all around the world.
It will be interesting to watch the fall-out from this - some other parties are chuffed, though think the ban should come into effect faster. Others, like UF, are clear in their disapproval but reluctant to support a ban. The ‘party pill’ industry, unsuprisingly, will be dead set against it. We will be painted, once more, as the crazy, hippy lushes who are coming after your tween with a handful of drugs.
But it’s actually about more than all that. What’s the feeling here?
June 28th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
party pills are low-rent crap..
but supposedly..it’s a free world..
phil(whoar.co.nz0
June 28th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
BZP is harmless playschool.
The idiot pollys have just moved everyone onto P…..
June 28th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
From Met’s release: “I’m very much looking forward to the upcoming review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Two of the most harmful drugs in New Zealand are the two legal and readily available ones. Any review of drug legislation should include alcohol and tobacco.
For the sake of equivalence of harms, I’d agree. Too bad it will never happen. From page 3 of Jim Anderton’s press release:
What about alcohol and tobacco products and other drugs?
Alcohol and Tobacco are already governed by their own legislation. Illegal drugs are controlled by the Misuse of Drugs legislation and their framework will continue.
Can anybody spot the circular reasoning?
June 28th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Decriminalise E, which is no more harmful, and nobody would bother with BZP, because it’s a crap drug.
Not often I agree with PEL, but he’s got it right here. The more that drugs at the lower end of the harm scale are forced underground, the more the gangs will promote the heavy stuff. Heaps more P addicts doing burgs and beating people up will be Jim Anderton’s legacy from this piece of lunacy.
Once I admired Jim Anderton for his stand against Roger Douglas - now I think he’s just another authoritarian R. Sole creating a serious social problem. Prohibition doesn’t work - it just puts the drug trade into the hands of organised crime.
What’s next on the list to be a Class C drug Jim - alcohol? Whoops, I seem to recall that you like the occasional wine or whiskey. Well, that won’t happen then, will it?
June 28th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
I wonder if loads of dairys are going to go bust?! That’s gotta be one of their top earners. Not to mention all the head shops and adult stores, will they all survive? So mr regional economic development Anderton causes lots of small businesses some pain. And dairys are going to get hit with another whammy soon when fags are removed from sight.
Meanwhile it is pretty amazing to see a reasonably sensible PR from UF, advocating regulation rather than prohibition, they seem to be a bit more moderate recently since the wacko christian fundies all left.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Crazy stuff. Another legislative attack on social liberties.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:38 am
i would agree with toad on decriminalising E, its not something ive ever used but from what i know of it its apparently quite good with minimal negitive effects. i would rather have people using E legaly than P illegaly.
Sapient
June 29th, 2007 at 2:29 am
Didn’t russia try to solve its acohol abuse problem by limiting vodka supplies? And all they really achieved was lots of death from glycol poisoning from illicit vodka.
And americas prohibition made the mafia king of the illegal drug trade.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:03 am
What drugs has Turei taken? She welcomes a review of the misuse of drugs act to encompass legal drugs under a new class. Suggesting a new class of legal drug under an act governing illegal drugs is pretty dumb, really.
Andertons decision is dumb enough.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:13 am
I’m not sure about BZP and potency; to me it seems like something with 1/10th the potency of E. Of course, because it’s currently legal in NZ, perhaps people take it 10 times as often, I don’t know.
The problem with drug control policy is that no one’s really looking at the science of the thing, instead going with a standard: “Drugs are bad” or “Freedom is good” methodology.
To me this is simple.
If you want to make BZP illegal, it should be proven to have a non-negligible harm on it’s users or those affected by the actions the users take. (To me, if it’s about as harmful as a drink of whiskey, for example, it should be governed by the same restrictions as whiskey.)
If this harm can be scientifically shown, backed with evidence, then the next step is to create a delegalization program with low jail time (2 days per 10mg misdemeanor sound fair?) and keep a close eye one what happens to consumption of the drug in the illegal market. Does it go up? Does it go down? Do people engage in risky behavior in order to get the drug? Do BZP users move on to harder drugs?
Any act which makes a previously legal thing legal should have a very, very short sunset clause on it - less than 18 mo., I should think, so that the impact can be reevalutated.
Personally, I think it’s a load because many people equate recreational drugs of any type to be morally wrong, regardless of whether or not they’re actually harmful.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Hah… try to get some “smart drugs” , nootropics like piracetam, dhea, selegiline… you can’t get THOSE, but all this other cr@p is available and will continue to be available on the street.
The stupidity seems to be self-reinforcing.
respectfully
BJ
June 29th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
http://nootropics.com/
June 29th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
I think the Green party needs to campaign solidly on this one and ignore the flak from the right.
250,000 NZers used BZP last year and we vote. Coupled with Sue’s bill for votes at 16, the Green’s could easily paint themselves as the natural party of youth and the other parties as seeking to do down anyone who isn’t approaching retirement.
June 30th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Dave, the misuse of drugs act is about ‘preventing misuse’ (if only…), not about illegality. Total Prohibition is what it has become foolishly (corruptly?!) based on, to the detriment of civilisation as we know it.
with regards to class D, i totally agree with Met that alchol and tobacco should be considered alongside the other drugs and regulated under the same legislation… it is a pity she seems to have forgotten that the Greens have a cannabis reform policy - and class D is the logical place for this very ubiqutious herb, which cannot be justified as criminal.
In fact class D was first mooted in NZ by the Mild Greens about 7 years ago - specifically to find an appropriate place for pot. BZP went in there initially because it was much easier politically, and in regards to pot it most easy to leave the law review hanging incomplete after 3 years of select committee bullshit(2000-2003).
Let us not forget, fellow frogbloggers, that cannabis is still the #2 intoxicant of choice in NZ, and remains Nz’S REAL prohibition (double standards) problem. It is also the policy which got the greens on the map in the first place (1999 election)
regards
June 30th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
This argument has parrallels to the Trans-Tasman Therapeutic Agency debates - substances which are helping many are to be outlawed because of possible harm to the few - because the patents aren’t held by the major players in the “medications” market (note: I carefully didn’t say “drug”).
If Pharmac were honest - and hospitals reported every reaction to prescription medicines honestly - there would be a lot less “approved” medications for Dr’s to prescribe available here.
Many drugs used to treat allergic conditions have proved to sensitise their users, to the point of creating allergic responses - which never show up in clinical trials of short duration. But these events don’t get any publicity, and Dr’s just quietly revise their contra-indication schedules as they’re told of adverse reactions in their community.
Upside to this current debate:
Thanks, BJ,
you’ve just alerted me to the *other* applications of an alt tonic my very interesting doctor prescribes for me (which is expensive, and not subsidised by Pharmac…), to counter some of my immunologically-related symptoms.
There’s always something on the net that I haven’t stumbled across yet..
I may have to bookmark that website!
June 30th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
How can this law possibly be less harmful than the current? Even my old man’s pissed off about this law. National’s been pushing labour as the “nanny-state” brigade, and here they are voting with them for nanny-state laws. Time to make a point of difference, greens.
You’ve probably already lost the “conservative parents” vote by asking them not to smack, so don’t sweat their reaction. This country desperately needs a socially liberal voice, and it’ll either be you lot or UF (of all parties) going into 2008. Get loud on this sort of crap. If BZP’s harmful, regulate it’s sale, *tax it* to fund the treatment of any problems it gives, don’t send folk back to the black market.
June 30th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
The core issue surrounding Czar Jim’s ‘progressive’ drug plan is that is identifies everything that is wrong with ABC classification for ’sending messages’ its purpose is more for criminal sanction/punishment levels than to have drugs ranked usefully and thus educationally according to net harms.
The Medical Research Council covered the UK system of ABC and in short, found it to be a crock of shite. ‘Deterrence’ is a myth, there is no ‘evidence’ deterrence works… Jim’s banning of BZP (in spite of there being some harms, more people present to emergency clinics for anaphylactic shock from peanut butter) misrepresents the evidence his rules work, making Jim a big fat hypocritical liar….
For what the head of the House of Commons (UK) Science and Technology Chair said of ABC see
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com/2007/06/anderton-should-be-embarrased.h tml
/Blair
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:11 am
Scientifically alcohol is classed as a class A drug.
The reason it’s not banned is because it has been around so long. The general populace wouldn’t take it.
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Phil
From that other thread…
If you smoke weed, the tar goes in your lungs and messes them up, no better than cigarettes. The munchies were real too… though neither is really a big deal unless you’re smoking way too much AND have enough money to buy both the weed AND the food. Have it your way if you like, but I remember the parties in the dorms.
respectfully
BJ
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:17 pm
um..bj..at whoar you will find links that disabuse yr ‘tar’ allegations..
so what are we left with.?
your ‘anecdotals’/found wisdoms.. from 40 years ago..?
that’s not much to go on..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Phil
Where are your links? I looked in at your site but didn’t quickly spot them.
respectfully
BJ
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:43 pm
I’m waiting for a nice joint reply from ACT/Greens showing their socially liberal roots and jointly opposing this ridiculous ban, which is only going to result in a rise in Meth usage in NZ.
July 2nd, 2007 at 5:01 pm
hey BJ, I’m with Phil on the tar issue. Recent large studies by prominent lung researchers have discovered no damage to lungs from smoking pot …
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0002491F-755F-1473-B55F8341 4B7F0000
AFAIK the meme that cannabis contains more tar than fags is FUD that is based on a few theoretical journal papers that were full of mis-conceptions, but were then reported widely by the MSM.
It is to Donald Tashkin’s credit that when he actually conducted a large scale medical study of actual real humans and actual real lungs, he changed his mind about cannabis.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Mikee: I think Mets was pretty clear in the linked press release.
The only thing I could find on ACTs website was this from 2001:
http://www.act.org.nz/node/23153 “Parliament must stop easy access to ecstacy-like drugs”
I think that BZP consumers aren’t wealthy enough to have their property rights defended by ACT - perhaps if BZP was $1000 a tab?
July 4th, 2007 at 12:22 am
BJ,
Is the marijuana connection an indirect lifestyle effect or a direct chemical effect?
For instance the relationship between religion and obesity is indirect. Women tend to gain weight after multiple pregnancies and this is reflected in the birth weights of later siblings. Since many religions encourage large families it results in the average believer being heavier than the average non-believer.
July 4th, 2007 at 5:41 am
kevyn..could you please your definition of ‘the marijuana connection’..?
connectioin to what..?
and what about it..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 4th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Phil,
I was curious about bj’s claim about a link between marijuana and obesity. That was posted on the Angela Davis discussion, so here’s what bj originally said:
>>The lungs of the smoker aren’t the brains of the smoker, which is one thing I was referring to in this case. The other thing is the tendency towards obesity.
>>I reckon that when it comes time to warn my daughter to go easy the “it makes you fat� argument is a lot more truthful and will go a lot further than the “it makes you stupid� argument.
July 4th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Kevyn — Phil
http://www.hivpositive.com/f-Nutrition/MedicalMarijuana/MM-Appetite.ht ml
http://www.cannabis.net/munchies/index.html
http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/marijuana/facts/munchies
… people who eat more than they burn gain weight…
…or are you going to deny that too Phil?
Phil and Stu…
You should note that I didn’t say that it was more dangerous than the Tobacco. I am simply pointing out that anything you smoke IS going to damage your lungs. Folks who smoke weed aren’t going to smoke it like a cigarette, it costs too much and for all but a very few there’s no desire/need to have that kind of high all day every day. Tobacco however, is massively addictive and the addicts will (I have seen this) resort to scraping ashtrays and using newspaper to roll a hit if they are experiencing withdrawal. The person who did this also reported to me that the tobacco products produced an addiction harder to break than Heroin… and he was going through a pack a day. Weed is basically non-addictive unless it’s being cut with something else to produce a bigger hit. Legalization allows standardization and quality control.
As for the smoke… it IS different…
http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/marijuana/facts/smoke
… and it may not be AS damaging gram for gram, but there is no way in hell that inhaling smoke from burning anything is, in the long term, good for your lungs. Please, a LITTLE common-sense here.
A bumper sticker from my youth (LSD was also popular)… “Acid Indigestion? Check your source”
Basically I would agree with the proposition that the most dangerous things about Marijuana are that it exposes you to the possibility of arrest and jail, it exposes you to people who are likely to be selling other less benign substances and you can’t really be sure what you’re getting. In particular the alcohol makes me nervous because teens tend to be massively overconfident and alcohol makes them braver, less restrained and even less competent behind the wheel. Pot… just doesn’t do the same thing.
http://www.norml.org.nz/Marijuana/Driving.htm
The minor issues I bring up above, are very minor compared to the downsides for the legal and available alcohol and tobacco. Overall, the pot is healthier (IMHO) for my kids than the other two.
Nothing is perfect.
respectfully
BJ
July 4th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
yeah kevyn..bj is just ‘blowing smoke’/grasping at ‘anti-pot straws’..eh..?
(using forty year old anecdotals to stake his claims as being an ‘expert’ on weed..getouttahere..!
i’ll listen to him if he is talking about what he knows..but that’s the ‘rub’ here..)
(pot makes you fat..!..(heh-heh..!..)
(beer makes you fat bj..not pot..)
and bj..it makes you stoned..it dosen’t ‘make you stupid’..
(it wears off..eh.?..)
and um..!..b.j..wouldn’t you rather your daughter smoked pot with friends..?
as opposed to going and getting pissed/legless in bars..?
(sheesh..!..i know which i’d prefer.).
pot is by far the benigner of those two..
(and bj..i hope you followed the link stuey gave you..so you can now put ‘the tar myth’ to bed..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 4th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Phil, you’re going to feel a bit silly when my last post (which is still in moderation due to the number of links) gets posted. You do go on and on and on… cause you are overreacting to a couple of things that are simply true.
First, there’s nothing I know of that you can burn and inhale the smoke of that is good for your lungs. Smoke=Bad. The particulates and the chemistry differ but there is not one thing you can burn and inhale and not do some damage.
Second, if you eat more without burning off those calories, you gain weight, and the appetite-enhancing effects are part of the medicinal argument for weed. You want to deny that too?
Now when YOU start posting sensibly, I’ll take you more seriously, but right now you are just blowing smoke and reacting to my critical look at your uncritical cheerleading. Nothing is perfect, not even weed.
Frog… I would appreciate it if you would ensure that the time sequence of my response to Kevyn and Phil’s insults is properly maintained, just to ensure that it doesn’t look like I was answering Phil with it.
BJ
July 4th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
the feeling fwwog is them BZP mn thing make yous so tired even depress next day,
July 4th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
bj said..
“..my response to Kevyn and Phil’s insults..”
um..what insults..?
how is saying you obviously know diddly squat about pot..an insult..?
(save a few illfounded threads of reactionary hysteria..)
(and sigh..!..i have neither the time nor energy to relitigate that whole subject..)
and you are just providing a red herring to the issue of medicinal marijuana..
medecine that can provide relief to people who are suffering..
(as you read this..)
that no action is being taken on this issue..(fear of redkneeck backlash..?
rerally sucks..eh..?
or is it just the greens (again/still) trying to be all things to all people..?
hey..!..wake-up call..!..yr on 4%..!
your audience is not identifying with/listening to you..!
and you must ask yrselves why this is..?
see..cos’ trying to be all things to all people ..means you are overlooking your core audience..
and succeeding in actually getting through to very little..(c.f…4%.)
y’know..!..you are no longer the only only green-game in town..
and you are not labour..and you are not national..
you are the green/environmentalist..(in all shades)..party..
(that includes such ‘difficult’ subjects as animal welfare/medicinal-marijuans..and radical..yes..!..radical ideas to deal with pollution/emmissions..)
cos’ really..if not you..who..?
how about getting back on course..?
you seem to be a bit ‘lost’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 4th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
yea BZP gives you a massive down the next day, i used party pills for awhile but they benifit you so little and cost you so dearly the next day that i stoped, lol.
BJ, the air we breath is full of particles, most of them toxic and carciogenic, most produced by cars as they drive past us, we dont have much control over that, we could make catalytic converters compusary but the fumes would still be bad, would you propose making driving illegal? along with heavy industry?. if one uses a vaporiser the toxic particles inhaled from weed are much smaller in number than without.
If you want your daughter to be safe it would be more wise to incourage her to get stoned with mates than to go out drinking with them, especialy if you aquired it for her
, atleast if she isint heavily drinking the chances of her coming home with a random every few nights are smaller, the chances of obeasity are smaller and the chances of being involved in criminal activity (except of course the use of weed) and beinging on the reciving side of rape are smaller.
can someone point me to a good definition of the distiction between different drug classes? all the ones i can find just define Class A as those which are injected and lists some of those which fall in the definition.
anyway its not about should you take the drug but about should you have the right to choose to take the drug.
as John Stuart Mill once sad;
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.”
“Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”
i do not see weed, if it was legal, doing any harm to others, especialy compared to alcohol and tabacco. by having the lighter drugs illegal we are effectivly harming the general population by funding, indirectly or dirrectly, gangs and increasing the tendancy of indivduals to move onto harder drugs which are more likley to use all their money and result in higher levels of unemployment and poverty, also by being illegal we prevent effective recovery, as such prohibition harms society.
Sapient
July 4th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
as phil says we do need to stop trying to cater to everyone, we need to find our cache or we need to split into several parties which can pursue their own caches
Sapient
July 4th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Phil
Since my prior post still has not appeared I am going to push back a bit.
Did it occur to you Phil, that I did not say anything that indicated that Pot should be Illegal?
Did you notice that I never once said it was more harmful than cigarettes?
That I never once inferred that it was more harmful than alcohol?
Did I say it made people stupid? No, I said that was a poor argument without giving the reasons.
Did I say in fact, ANY of the things you are so incensed about?
All I said is that it is not perfectly harmless and there are some things that are truthfully, reasons not to take take too much of it. I noted the two issues and was immediately labeled ignorant, even though those two issues are real. It is, or would be if Frog ever posts my message, clear to you that I know every bit as much about weed as you do. Which means that your ill-informed diatribe is worse than insulting and quite unnecessary and it is pretty clear why people get p!ssed off at you. You don’t pay attention to what people say, preferring to attack them for things you imagine they might have said.
I suggest, that you re-read my posts on this topic and work out where you are putting words in my mouth. I don’t expect you to apologize… but actually reading my posts would be a change for the better.
Sapient… smoking sh!t doesn’t improve things and the fact that there is a shocking amount of sh!t in the air does not remove the deleterious effects of adding to it. You’re siding with Phil as though I said it should be illegal WHICH I NEVER EVER SAID!!!!
Got that Phil? I NEVER ONCE SAID THAT!!!
BJ
July 4th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
sheesh bj..!..chill out/skin up..or something..
(and hey..your attitudes to pot amuse me..they don’t ‘insense’ me..
u r the 1 giving a god impersonation of insense-in-action..
eh..?..wot with all yr shouting..)
get a grip..!
i am pushing the case for medical marijuana..
(and ‘prodding’ a ‘lost’/directionless green party..)
and as i have already said..i have absolutelyno desire to re-litigate the pot issue with u ..b.j..
btw..is there any subject at all..you are not a world authority on..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 5th, 2007 at 12:30 am
bj, thanks for answering my question. Similar to the way driving a car causes obesity, then.
PS, can I take it there was a comma missing from your request to frog in your 2nd-last post? Hate to think my curiosity was interpreted as insulting.
July 5th, 2007 at 5:40 am
sorry to be a grammatical-nazi..(esp me..eh..?..)
i think you’d need two commas..
i cd understand him snarling at me..(y’know..history)..
but he diid have me rereading yr words to see just where you had diatribed/insulted him..
(it could be hormonal..what is the date today..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 5th, 2007 at 6:48 am
Yeah Phil
Like your ability to call people who think almost EXACTLY the same things you do ignorant is a symptom of internal incoherency. Maybe there IS something missing from your diet. I repeat my challenge. When did I say or imply any of the things you keep insinuating in your belligerent stream-of-unconsciousness?
Kevyn, you’re right, I did drop a comma. I also responded in FAR more detail far up this damned thread. That post still has not appeared and if it is positioned properly it will point clearly at just how bizarrely far from the truth of my “attitude” Phil’s misrepresentations actually are.
YOU Phil, should refrain from insulting language unless you actually read the other guy’s actual words. You can’t even speak civilly to people who actually agree with your position and you wonder why people get upset with you? With friends like you NOBODY needs enemies.
BJ
July 5th, 2007 at 7:12 am
To be frank I am p!ssed off at having my thoughts and attitude misrepresented by ONE person on this thread and then having a whole bunch of other people piling on with useless comments about how I should prefer this and think differently about that.
ALL total bnllcr@p because they are responding is to a misrepresentation.
Just how thorough that misrepresentation was and how useless the suggestions will be clear if my longer response on points is ever brought out of moderation and put where it belongs, ahead of most of yours.
However, none of what I posted that the blog did not eat justifies any of those suggestions.
That’s bad manners people. Read the originals. Don’t jump in unless you’ve checked out what was actually posted and by whom…
BJ
July 5th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Phil
If you noticed, I have not said one word about BZP. I know nothing much about the “party pills” and I don’t post on the topic. When I don’t KNOW stuff I listen and learn. Since silence doesn’t jump out at you, you don’t notice it.
So yes, there ARE things I am “not a world authority on”, but they don’t show up much in my posts or my conversation.
Since Frog hasn’t been able to catch up I will summarize.
BEFORE you posted here :
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2007/06/28/bye-bye-bzp/#comment-28 935
I pointed out (in the swallowed post) that:
A. The characteristics of the smoke were different and linked to an analysis of the difference.
B. The harm from Tobacco smoke was far more likely because of the way IT is smoked.
C. That Pot is non-addictive.
D. That it is safer than drinking if you’re driving.
E. That it does not make you stupid.
F. That I would prefer my daughter used it than either of the LEGAL drugs
G. That it would be better if she hung out with users than boozers
H. That the chief problems with Pot are its illegality and the resulting lack of quality control.
.
.
. at least those are the ones I remember. It was a long post.
Now. if you re-read carefully the things I did actually say that the blogware did not swallow, you will still find that saying that I know “diddley-squat” about this topic is simply a reflection of your failure to read those things properly in the first place.
However, given the content of that post… the very fact that it went missing added greatly to my anger because it allowed the misrepresentation to gain traction here. Since some of that anger spilled over on you and that is perhaps unfair to you, I apologize for the intensity of some of my posts.
I note too, that since the blogware swallowed a perfectly innocent post and has allowed me to flame in a pretty unrestrained way, that perhaps it is not optimally set?
respectfully
BJ
July 5th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Al Gore’s son busted for drugs in hybrid car
Sort of summarizes the problems in society today.
BJ
July 5th, 2007 at 9:46 am
BJ
I agree, Al Gore and hybrid cars are indeed a major problem.
Oh and BTW, keep pushing the “make dope legal” barrow and you will not make the 5% threshold, Kiwi’s are never going to accept illegal drugs.
July 5th, 2007 at 10:12 am
BB
“Kiwi’s are never going to accept illegal drugs.”
The definition is the problem. MJ being illegal was a choice made in Washington, not here. It was a mistake, is well documented as a mistake and cannot be justified on any sane review of policy or effects of using or even misusing the drug.
However, your point about pushing that particular barrow at this point, is well taken. We’re in a vulnerable position with a number of liabilities to be exploited by our opponents. Adding this is not likely to be wise.
respectfully
BJ
July 5th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Thank you Frog. - respectfully BJ
July 5th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
so bj..now that we’ve cleared that up..
(and seeing as we are handing out advice wholesale..maybe you should work on ‘clarifying your messages.?..just a thought..!..)
and what are your thoughts on why metiria/the greens are doing nothing about/with metirias private members bill..?
would you like to take on my bet that we won’t see hide nor hair of it before the next election..?
and are you with me in thinking that would be negligence of the highest order..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 5th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
btw b.j..does it p*iss you off as much as it does me..?
that the likes of frog/metiria/nandor..et. al…
refuse to deign to answer reasonable questions…?
posited to them in this forum..?
does it seem to you..as to me..to have more than a tinge of arrogance/contempt/disdain about it..?
as if we are not ‘worthy’ of being involved in this dialogue/of responding to…
(not that ‘good a look’..really..eh..?..)
and is this swooping in from metiria and nandor..and then refusing to respond to any questions raised by their utterances from on high..
is that the extent of the (frog) promised higher degrees of involvment by the green mp’s here on frogblog..?
doyathink..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 5th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
BB, given that something like 33% of the population support cannabis being legalised, then surely if the Greens continue to support decriminalisation it makes it more likely that our support will grow rather than fall. I could understand where you are coming from if our support was above 33% but not when it is 5%.
BJ, agreeing with that line of reasoning from BB just means that we will become another grey party, with no points of difference from the others. Which controversial policy of ours will you ditch next?
Phil, playing devils advocate, maybe you are not worthy of being responded to, so long as you continue to aggressively attack fellow participants?
Also I expect it would be easier for people to answer your questions if they were asked in concise posts and not hidden in screeds and screeds of one liner ellipsis-filled rants™.
I reckon that if you don’t receive an answer to your question the first time, that you should assume it has been missed by the intended recipient and politely ask it again. Only after a few attempts to get an answer would I start to be offended or start to form conspiracy theories. You have to accept that the Green MPs have a lot of other things to do apart from reading your every utterance looking for the questions that you have asked in order to answer them. You have to accept that you are not the centre of the universe. Anyways, please don’t shoot the messenger.
July 5th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
hey stuey..i have asked about five times..
(about the progress of metirias bill..
why is that such an ‘awkward’ question..?
i have also asked direct questions in response to comments posted here by nandor..got no response..asked again..no response….
(great two-way communication/basic respect..eh..?..)
and am i the only bloody one here who cares about this medical cannabis issue..?
the silence here is feckin’ deafening..
and as for your critique of my writing style/presentation of ideas….?..stuey..?
hey..!..right back at you..!
yes..you do dot your i’s..and cross your t’s..and use capital letters..don’t you stuey..?
aside from that..?..
mm..!!
and..quite happy to stumble to defeat ..are you stuey..?
4%..and rising..?
or will strong green policies from labour and national doom this middle of the road model of a green party to irrelevancy..
and um..!..what would we lose..?..exactly..
imho..the greens still haven’t got over their ‘we’re with them!’ campaign of the last election..
and have spent so many years suppressing the green voices within the party..
in their efforts not to scare the horses..
that we have ended up with a washed-out/insipid model of a green party..
meaning nothing much to anyone..except those grouped around the party leadership..
(who all just seem to have a plan of just holding their breath ’till the next election..
and that one..or more..of them..will become a cabineyt minister..
that is sure as hell how it looks from out here..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 5th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Stuey
Do you have a link to support your 33% comment?, I would love to know how that question was asked.
I refuse to believe that 33% of NZer’s would reply yes to “Do you support our kids being exposed to drugs?”
July 5th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Stu
I reckon you have a point. I am pretty nervous about the next election given our showing in the last and the liability of S59, and that is what’s advising me at present, but I would’ve expected the support to be even higher than 33%… thought New Zealanders were smarter than that. Which does indeed argue that we can go at it as hard as we like.
Phil… I don’t know that this is the correct place to expect Green MPs to answer questions. I know that I received a polite (if not completely satisfactory) answer from Sue when I wrote to her office and I expect that if I were to post a question to Met it would get answered as well. They are able to “drop in” and so might give the impression (false) that they are available here all the time.
That said, I have accepted Stu’s proposition that it really is a Green issue and one that we may pursue without (it is likely) damaging our position.
I would focus a bit of the argument on the fact that this prohibition was imposed at Washington’s suggestion, as part of their war on drugs, and is working about as well as all the other wars they’ve started. The medical MJ bill, if that’s what we’re pushing to the front, would make a good start. If the folks who go flat out one-issue on MJ were to recognize us as carrying the flag we’d have less trouble with 5%.
respectfully
BJ
July 5th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
BJ
The problem the Greens face is that all and sundry are trying to squeeze into the middle ground, even John (Neville Chamberlain) Key is trying to position the Nat’s as a center party.
I note that he is going down the ridiculous PC track of looking for more ethnically diverse candidates, what ever happened to the idea of selecting the best person for the job?
The way I see it the Greens need to try and develop a point of difference if they wish to survive, suggesting that we legalise evil drugs is not going to be a vote winner, come to think of it you should also steer well clear of any more social engineering policy such as S59.
I still believe that animal welfare is the way to go, I did say a few months ago that the Greens should have forced an early election as they risked being squeezed out as the main parties “discovered” Green issues but that advice was not accepted.
July 5th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
BB
Greens have no intention of legalizing “evil” drugs. We just disagree strongly with any characterization of MJ as evil. People who think it is evil need to get their facts straight or their logic circuits checked. There is a wrong answer being obtained. Some of us know from long first hand experience, others have scientific evidence and some of us have both. What do you have?
We know too that pressure was put on NZ to join in the “war on drugs” and make MJ illegal here from Washington. I reckon that for that sort of loyalty we should have a Senator of our own there… at least. The propaganda mill has been churning for ages on this, and it’s easy to get taken in… but when you have the advantage of seeing how the different substances affect people… a lot of that propaganda is so clearly fraudulent as to be laughable… or it would be if people weren’t being thrown in jail behind it.
Here’s a substance for which there is no known lethal dose. You can kill yourself with Aspirin or Alcohol but not with MJ. It is not physically addictive. It does not appear to do anything significantly bad to you.
This is “evil” ???
Is there room left for good???
BJ
July 6th, 2007 at 12:15 am
As an aside bjchip, apparently the US Supreme Court has ruled several times that Americans are allowed to injest any drug, especially if they’re an addict.
Read up on Supreme Court Judge James P. Gray. Interesting guy.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/cops_against_the_drug_war/judge_james_p_gray
http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=341461
It is against the law to be under the influence of controlled substances in every state.
“If that is true, why do we continue to prosecute addicted people for taking these drugs, when it would be unconstitutional to prosecute them for their addiction?”
The courts don’t, they prosecute for possession, purchase, and sale.”
Hilarious
November 2nd, 2007 at 6:21 am
I see that the vast majority of Kiwi’s now agree with me, will this alter the Greens position on POT.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4258425a10.html
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:15 am
BB
I don’t generally change my mind because someone else thinks something different. If they have some new evidence I reconsider the evidence, but I have seen nothing new yet.
I know you have a low opinion of us, but this post is beneath you. You KNOW we don’t give a rats behind about what people think of us… why ask ?
respectfully
BJ