National Leader John Key promising a crack down on 'p' and gangs while Liarbour admits defeat.
However, I am increasingly open to arguments to legalise such evil drugs as 'harm minimisation' to take out the crime elements associated with them.
But I'm open to the debate.
Same country, different views
11 minutes ago
8 comments:
There's a big difference between pot, tobacco and booze on one hand, and between P on the other.
Simply introduce an absolute defence to murder or manslaughter if the target is under the influence, carrying, supplying, manufacturing, or assisting in any of the above.
And for the police, offer this defence on the basis of "reasonable suspicion", and include gang membership or association.
Still a plethora of anonymous fascists on this blog, I see.
FFM: if you find an Opposition campaign of the last 30 years that didn't promise to crack down on gangs, do let us know...
This is one case where Labour are (sort of) correct (but only a little bit).
The War on drugs is an unwinnable war, always has been, always will be. You can't have a war where the enemy is a product! Its kinds of hard to kill a pound of hasish, or a point of P.
So far, Nat policy has set to increase consumption of P not decrease it.
The Ban on BZP is a good example. In clubland we saw a marked decrease in the open consumption of P at gigs, I remember back when I was 18 and seeing the glass pipes and crackheads down at Cube on high street every weekend. When BZP became widespread this decreased markedly. I personally know people who have moved off the stuff with the help of a bit of hummer.
Of course the Nats (and labour) decided that thsi was a bad thing and gave the monopoly back to the gangs, and now we see an increase in drug related hospital admissions as a direct result.
Next the nats promise to crack down hard on gangs (who have a government sanctioned monopoly on illicit drugs) due to the presence of P. Obviously they've never heard of the prohibition era and the Iron Law of Prohibition that goes along with it "the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes."
All the incentives are that with harsher drug related law enforcement that we will see more dangerous, stronger P, along with more addicts and more ruined lives. This is what we get for treating drug consumption as a criminal rather than health issue.
All Key and his cohorts are going to do is increase the drug problem, increase law abiding citizens interactions with criminal gangs, increase teh incomes of gangs such as the mongrel mob, head hunters, more recently the killer bees etc.
National don't care about fixing New Zealand's drug problem, they care about dog whistle politics, and getting a few people thrown into jail for votes. None of this is going to solve the drug issue, but it is going to ruin lives, and it is going to make P use more widespread, not less.
What we need is the potential for safer, legal alternatives provided by the private sector, with all the quality controll that goes along with it. Destroying the illicit market, getting the money away from criminal gangs, and a focus on improving the outcomes for the consumer. That is a full and proper policy of drug harm minimisation, and throwing people in jail doesn't do this. It simply empowers the gangs and breeds contempt for the police.
I'm surprised this gummint hasn't spent taxpayer money on an advertising campaign against "P".
"Ya'all do P, but it ain't for me" featuring big rap stars like 10cent and Platypus.
Crystal Meth: it’ll be ya death.
Stop fooling with Speed, it defin’itly ain’t weed.
This Methamphetamine, I glean, it fucks you real mean, it’s on the scene, on it you won’t BE clean
"Cullen, the sullen, will take all ya bullion, But if you're chillin, you can make a killin, dealing in the death that is crystal meth”
(c) 2008 The Clunking Fist
Also in the speech (I was there...) was the promise to include any drugs influence (alcohol, P, BZP, whatever) as a mandatory Aggravating factor (not a mitigating factor) when considering sentencing for any crime.
Oh, and gang membership, too.
Simple adjustment in incentives. and Incentives Always Matter.
"Also in the speech (I was there...) was the promise to include any drugs influence (alcohol, P, BZP, whatever) as a mandatory Aggravating factor (not a mitigating factor) when considering sentencing for any crime."
Thats bullshit.
How is theft any worse if the theft was committed while high? How are you moreof a victim if a gang members steals your car vs some petty thug.
Crime should be judged based on the harm done to the victim, not who the criminals mates were.
(1) Which bit of today's NZ Herald story showed Labour admitting defeat?
True, Harpoon, this gummint is like Monthy Python's Black Knight.
Post a Comment