Dunne calls ‘sophistry and bollocks’ on party posturing on cannabis referendum

Peter Dunne has blasted the Government and the Opposition, calling their posturing on the proposed cannabis referendum sophistry and bollocks.

sohistry: The use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.

bollocks: Nonsense; rubbish (used to express contempt or disagreement, or as an exclamation of annoyance)

So quite strong language from Dunne.

Newsroom:  Sophistry and bollocks on the referendum

Next year’s referendum on recreational cannabis will be the first Government-initiated referendum not to have an immediate definitive outcome. Despite being styled as a binding referendum, it will, in reality, be no more than an indicative vote whether or not people wish to change the legal status of cannabis used for recreational purposes along the lines to be set put in a proposed Bill to accompany the referendum.

But this Bill will not even be put before Parliament, let alone passed, until after the referendum has been held, so voters are being asked to take a great deal on trust.

The Justice Minister has given a commitment that the current three Government parties will treat the outcome of the referendum as binding, and that the Bill will come before the next Parliament. But he has given no assurances that the Bill will be the same as that to be released before the referendum, or that it will not be substantially strengthened or weakened by the select committee process to follow, or even when during the term it might be introduced and passed.

Meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition says he cannot say what his party’s position will be until they see the proposed legislation. The Minister tries to justify his position by saying that no Parliament can bind its successor Parliaments.

This is, to put it politely, pure sophistic bollocks.

sophistic bollocks: deceitful nonsense

Every piece of legislation passed and regulation promulgated by every New Zealand Parliament since our first Parliament met in May 1854 has to some extent or another bound successor Parliaments. Indeed, if those successor Parliaments have not liked laws passed by their predecessors, they have either repealed or amended them.

That is the stuff of politics and political discourse is all about, and governments have always reserved the right to upend the legislation of an earlier government if they have not liked it, and to replace it with something more akin to their own way of thinking.

From the referendum on compulsory peacetime conscription in 1949, through to the 1967 and 1990 referenda on extending the Parliamentary term to four years, and those referred to earlier, governments of the day have used the process judiciously to allow the voters to determine controversial issues that either the politicians cannot decide upon, or, in the case of electoral law changes, should not decide upon.

And the prime example of the dangers of having a binding referendum with little defined, and then trusting politicians to follow the will of the majority, is Brexit. It is not just a mess on leaving the EU, it’s making a mess of the whole political system in the UK.

The notion of a government-initiated referendum that might or might not be binding, or implemented quite as people expect, has been completely foreign to all of those earlier examples. Yet that is precisely what New Zealand now faces with this Government’s, all things to all people, recreational cannabis referendum.

But it is actually worse than that, which could produce more uncertainty than it seeks to resolve.

On the assumption the referendum passes, the country faces a period of uncertainty while the legislation is considered and wends its way through the Parliamentary process, over at least most of 2021, and possibly the early part of 2022, assuming the Government decides to proceed with it as a priority, and that is by no means a given.

I can’t remember how many times I have heard the current Labour led Government say a promise or policy is ‘not a priority’, which is doublespeak for ‘get stuffed, we’re not doing it now’.

Trust politicians?

All this uncertainty creates a potentially extraordinarily confusing situation, which could have been avoided had the specific law been in place before the referendum, to be triggered by a positive vote.

Everyone would have known not only where things would stand once the law changed, but it will also occur immediately, removing instantly the uncertainty likely to accrue from the inevitable post referendum delay and confusion the government’s current approach will surely cause. However, without that, the current disgruntlement about the inconsistent way the current law on cannabis operates, is likely to give way to a new disgruntlement about its replacement.

The way this issue has turned out is another example of how this unwieldly administration seems at sixes and sevens when it comes to major policy development.

Nothing ever seems to be able to be implemented quite the way it was promoted two years ago when the Government took office. The compromises necessary to keep Labour, New Zealand First and the Greens may well be examples of MMP government in practice but they are increasingly looking like weak excuses for missed opportunities.

Is cannabis law reform therefore about to join welfare, tax reform, electoral reform and a raft of other things this Government says it would “love” to do properly, but, when the crunch comes, just cannot ever quite manage to bring together in a cohesive and comprehensive way?

The only think making the deceitful nonsense from the Government look so bad is the matching deceitful nonsense from the opposition.

 

 

 

Leave a comment

52 Comments

  1. duperez

     /  10th May 2019

    When someone starts speaking and is quoted as if knowing about a subject it is reasonable to question their credentials.

    To wit, does Peter Dunne recognise ‘sophistry and bollocks’? Does he have experience with them?

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  10th May 2019

      One doesn’t have to do them to know them and I am sure that he does, even if he did say ‘sophistic’ when he meant ‘sophistical’.

      Reply
  2. Gerrit

     /  10th May 2019

    “Nothing ever seems to be able to be implemented quite the way it was promoted two years ago when the Government took office.”

    Reflects badly again on Ardern. No leader of people, no manager of the coalition and lacking in political awareness.

    What will it take for Ardern to call a snap election for reasons that Peters is stymieing virtually everything Labour does.

    What chance NZFirst getting free reign in the Northland electorate. Slim to none if Ardern had the political wherefore, strength and party backing to make decisions.

    National are right to not back a referendum that the voters have no idea in what the final law will look like. A couple of promissory bullet points is not lawmaking.

    The ball is firmly in Labour’s and Ardern’s court to bring out the law we will be voting yes or no on.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  10th May 2019

      NZF seems to be having free rein (not reign) in a lot of things.

      Labour should never have appointed an inexperienced MP (was she ever even a Minister?) who had other commitments as leader. She is way out of her depth.

      They should have been wary of Winston Peters with his past record.

      Reply
  3. Ray

     /  10th May 2019

    Surely in 18 months they can knock out a bill that can then become law in the new term, it’s not as if there hasn’t been some preliminary work been done!
    Though there is a developing meme that this Government’s people were not prepared for the job and are just plain lazy, I guess this will show if again they over promise and under deliver.
    My really big worry is if the referendum delivers a close finish, either way. What happens then?

    Reply
  4. Sunny

     /  10th May 2019

    Perfectly reasonable request from Bridges that we have an actual bill with some details. Especially given the current Brexit situation. Why should the COL be able to compel another government to make a law that they are not prepared to risk political capital on, by drafting and stating their position clearly themselves. “I was a mormon, now I’m not a mormon. I’ll let other people determine what that means.” and what the legislation will be.

    Reply
  5. Duker

     /  10th May 2019

    Dunne of course knows all about doing drugh reform right! Ah the hypocrisy of that man

    Psychoactive Substances Act (PSA) passed 2013 and immediately things started going wrong
    is the numbers of deaths from ‘synthetics’ over 50 by now ?

    But still hes shameless about the law ‘that was his baby’
    Peter Dunne championed the PSA. He also watched it fail. Since stepping down from Parliament last year, Dunne can talk candidly about what went wrong.

    “It’s devastating because it’s everything we were trying to prevent,” he says about the 25 deaths from synthetic drug use.’
    What a tool . Apparently consequences are not his problem because of a misguided belief that magic thinking over the results will be OK.

    Seems his magic thinking hasnt changed a bit much like many others
    As his original idea was :
    “So Dunne proposed an idea that; instead of wasting time reactively banning products, the Government could pass a law that legalised synthetic drugs if they could be proven safe at the cost of the manufacturer.

    He argued that regulating the market was more effective than criminalising it.

    he didnt just make that mistake then in his magic thinking- which has moved to cannabis regulatory approach
    Yes there was more

    But the bigger problem was the regulatory regime wasn’t set up for two years despite the Ministry of Health advising Dunne that it would be up-and-running in two weeks. Without the regime in place, no drugs could be deemed “safe” for public use and the Act was basically just a law banning all the substances, pushing them into the black market.

    Then Dunne ran into another problem; in order to prove the drugs were safe for human consumption, the synthetic substances needed to be tested on animals, specifically dogs and rabbits. That was, of course, hugely unpopular amongst the public and all political parties so as part of the emergency amendment, animal testing was also banned.

    What a tool . So far out of his depth and in thrall to his magic thinking and the ‘regulatory approach’

    https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/375177/a-drug-experiment-gone-wrong

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  10th May 2019

      Yes, he oversaw a worthless piece of legislation that was supposed to ensure only safe synthetic cannabis product would get sold here & seems to have been unable to prevent serious harm & fatalities for users of synthetic cannabis. (I dunno whether these are from legal or illegal products?)

      And his son acting as a Chen & Palmer lawyer for the synthetic cannabis industry, even though there was claimed to be no conflict of interest, was a really bad, bad look.

      And yes, he’s great at “Elder Statesman” pontificating about how politics & law should be done when it seemed he’d happily sell out his principles to any party who’d give him a portfolio during his Parliamentary career.

      He’s a hypocrite. But is he wrong here in what he says about this government’s sophistry & cunning on the cannabis referendum? I think not.

      Reply
      • David

         /  10th May 2019

        I am not Dunnes cheerleader or anything but it always seems tough to pin one sub optimal piece of legislation as the sum total of his career is too tough. He made some really useful tax changes which while not headline grabbing certainly were effective particularly his ridding us of the pernicious gift tax that raised very little revenue but he removed the state from what are private transactions, contemporaneously, before my stalker strikes, creditors were given the ability to go back 2 years to reverse dodgy transactions and the ability was given to reverse prioritized creditors.
        I agree the synthetic cannabis legislation was a bit rubbish but I think the guy brought a bit of decorum to our politics and is an interesting voice given his experience.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  10th May 2019

          The tax stuff was all nationals doing, he was merely the vehicle as revenue Minister.
          He became an assoaciate health minister es[pecially to do the legislation on synthetics, it was his baby so to speak and no doubt he became a footstool on may other issues to get thios one through.
          Accountability means he takes the can yet this ‘Dunnce” is still around spouting off about how others should be doing it – as night follows day the same mistakes will be made.
          The problem is most Mps are university types who think that their occasional drug use will be replicated and when they ‘grow up’ it will be mostly a thing of the past.
          They dont have boring as hell jobs in a factory/cafe /call centre ( or no job) for years on end and end up smoking morning and night 7 days a week

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  10th May 2019

            Interesting comments on ‘drugs’ from Dunne back in 2003
            “It is good to know that the Greens’ pro-drug policies won’t actually kill us all, even though it may leave us paranoid, forgetful, dopey, depressed, battling psychiatric problems and struggling with the ravages of cancer,” he continued.
            hell I wouldnt even go that far!

            https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3524922

            Reply
          • Gezza

             /  10th May 2019

            I reckon more of that article is worth a look, cos it made me lol

            “Stuart Young, who runs the Greens’ website, sent an email to Mr Dunne calling him a coward for refusing to debate cannabis law reform with Green MP Nandor Tanczos.

            The email exhorts “dirty lunger”, “Peter Dunhill” to “smoke cannabis, not tobacco, its (sic) better for you” and calls him an “extremely rude hypocritical scumbag” for not supporting cannabis law reform.

            Mr Dunne said he believed the email was typical of Green political debate.

            “It never lifts itself above the level of crude personal abuse, it lacks good grammar and spelling; and all its assertions fail the test of being backed by reasoned logic,” he said.

            Mr Dunne said there had been media reports that smoking cannabis did not increase one’s chances of dying.

            “It is good to know that the Greens’ pro-drug policies won’t actually kill us all, even though it may leave us paranoid, forgetful, dopey, depressed, battling psychiatric problems and struggling with the ravages of cancer,” he continued.

            “On reflection, perhaps death would be preferable to the Green’s idea of a drug-fuelled nirvana.”

            The long-running feud has seen Mr Tanczos and Mr Dunne exchange insults and press statements for the past few months. At one point Mr Tanzcos said it was time to end the personal attacks and get down to business in a public debate in Mr Dunne’s electorate. But Mr Dunne did not like the idea of sharing a platform with the Green MP.

            “I wouldn’t have Nandor in my electorate – it would lower the house values.” “

            Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  10th May 2019

            Smoking a substance that is known to be potentially lethal is not the only resource open to anyone with a boring or badly paid job, or none. These ‘fake cannabis’ drugs are not cheap.

            Nobody is forced to use them, after all.

            Reply
        • Kimbo

           /  10th May 2019

          I am not Dunnes cheerleader or anything but it always seems tough to pin one sub optimal piece of legislation as the sum total of his career is too tough.

          Two problems with that:

          1. People died in part because of the legislation when, as per Duker’s post, those outcomes should have been predictable given it was a form of the failed policy of prohibition. Speaking of which…

          2. Continued drug prohibition, especially for marijuana was not something peripheral to Dunne the politician. Instead it was his flag-ship policy, especially used to demonise the Greens (can’t believe I’m actually sticking up for them! 😬), and designed to garner the morally-panicked parent vote. As a result, Dunne deserves every bit of opprobrium for the deaths that occurred on his watch.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  10th May 2019

            People die because they know the risks and still take the chance.

            That unlucky baby died a hideous death because his parents and grandmother forgot him when they were stoned on one of these illegal drugs, and I don’t know how they can live with themselves.

            In the end, people have to take responsibilty for their own actions. Making excuses for them will achieve nothing as anyone who has had to deal with an alcoholic will know. The alcoholic will only change when they take responsibilty for themselves and other people stop making excuses for their drinking.

            Yes, I do know this from personal experience ! (not as the drinker, as one of the ones who had to stop shoring up the drinker)

            Reply
            • Kimbo

               /  10th May 2019

              Indeed. But public policy does play a part in the mix. And the failure of prohibition has been evident for some 100 years (centenary of the passing of the Volstead Act on October 28).

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volstead_Act

              Hence politicians who ignore the lessons of the past while preying on parental fear for their own electoral gain deserve a negative judgement, even scorn.

    • the PSA wasn’t a failure, the politicians were.

      Harm reduction means accepting that people will get addicted and sick, but ensuring the resources are there to mitigate that. This also controls the market so that leathel products arent available.

      under the PSA, the media kicked up shit about a couple of sick teens, the PSA was iced, and only after that, was there a measurable body count.

      Reply
      • Kimbo

         /  10th May 2019

        There is a measure of truth in that…and yes, I remember the typical moral-panic nonsense item John Campbell ran (which Dunne should know about because when it came to the drug legalisation issue, that was his MO)! with Dunne observing the results.

        But that is where politicians, including Dunne have to show some guts. A Rob Muldoon would. They are elected to run the country not John Campbell. And this is how you deal with a media moral panic:

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  10th May 2019

          not a bad performance from a confirmed Slippery Eel And Liar(SEAL).

          Should open with him balancing a ball on his snoze.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  10th May 2019

            You have no right to call someone a liar when you have no evidence.

            Their holding different views to yours doesn’t make them one.

            Reply
      • Kimbo

         /  10th May 2019

        …or this!:

        https://www.nzonscreen.com/title/tonight-muldoon-interview-1976

        “Prime Minister, according to Janes Fighting Ships…”

        “Prime Minister, it is customary for the interviewer to ask the questions”.

        “I don’t much care for what is customary…” 🤣

        Reply
      • Duker

         /  10th May 2019

        magic thinking par excellence
        “Harm reduction means accepting that people will get addicted and sick, but ensuring the resources are there to mitigate that”

        Toss it over the fence for [insert existing under resourced group here] to deal with . Are you sure there isnt more magic thinking about ‘education’ you left out…yes thats for schools to deal with wouldnt it. And of course some things like pyschiatric illnesses are the ‘users problem’ and just bad luck if your life is ruined by it as not to worry , its been ‘mitigated’

        eg Does the money/tax from gambling and alcohol ever go to meeting the need for the social harm caused, so lets throw some more harms their way , shall we.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  10th May 2019

          Mr Le Brun is of course NOT from the mitigation side of things
          Strangely doesnt claim any medical background but was previously in Air Force ?and now in “IT” is spite of being the voice for the Medical Cannabis Awareness NZ. The secretary having a PhD in – you guessed it , IT

          Reply
  6. NOEL

     /  10th May 2019

    Well there is bollocks.
    Decriminalisation a Health Issue quick!y dismissed because supply would remain i illicit.
    Legalisation a choice issue to be supported by a legal supply.

    Reply
  7. David

     /  10th May 2019

    National cant take a position until this lazy government actually writes something down, its just bullet points at the moment.
    This crowd doesnt exactly have a fantastic reputation legislating with everything watered down to pretty much no change so far.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  10th May 2019

      Cant take a position?
      You havent heard ‘Tattoo Club’ Paula ripping shred out the idea up and down the country, amazing when you say ‘that they know nothing’

      Reply
      • David

         /  10th May 2019

        She has a different opinion and so does 40 odd percent of the population some of which she represents and who want someone to advocate, its called debate which happens in civilized society and generally without very personal abuse. You can be quite an unpleasant person and it detracts immensely from most of what you post.

        Reply
  8. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/inside-parliament-flashback-nandor-tanczos-calls-cannabis-decriminalisation-in-2000

    Ras-Nandor in 2000, talking about Cannabis law reform, parliament.. he/we may finally get it 2 decades later ?

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  10th May 2019

      Decriminalisation is the same as what the reeferendum will propose?

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  10th May 2019

        I dont keep up on the detail but this bill is currently halfway through parliament

        https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_85104/misuse-of-drugs-amendment-bill

        Essentially it decriminalizes personal possession , which has been common practice from police for some time but this makes its official

        6 Section 7 amended (Possession and use of controlled drugs)
        After section 7(4), insert:
        (5)To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that there is a discretion to prosecute for an offence against this section, and a prosecution should not be brought unless it is required in the public interest.
        (6)When considering whether a prosecution is required in the public interest, in addition to any other relevant matters, consideration should be given to whether a health-centred or therapeutic approach would be more beneficial.

        Reply
        • David

           /  10th May 2019

          I guess that is existing law because if its not plod could decide it was in the public interest to prosecute because they felt a therapeutic approach wasnt beneficial in this circumstance.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  10th May 2019

            Its a new law, there is no existing obligation on police to do anything other than prosecute. I suppose the therapeutic approach is require them to go to rehab. of course if prosecuted the lawyer could point out the new law to the judge, who is the one who does the sentencing not the police.

            Reply
      • ‘Decriminalisation is the same as what the reeferendum will propose?’ sez Duker

        “WRONG !” sez I

        ‘Decrim.’ is a word without clear meaning.. some think it means legal to use, but not grow or sell. Others think it still means, no conviction but with on-the-spot fines.. as was suggested in 2000

        The current proposed bill.. to be put in the reeferendum uses the word “Regulation’ (as far as I’ve read) meaning ‘Legal BUT with strict rules’, around use.. age R20+/homegrow/licensed supply etc… not just a ‘free for all’ as, has been suggested by the ‘naysayers’ & the opposition. Paula B. often ranting on, about ‘Legalising MARIJUANA’.. (‘For God’s sake think of the Children’); Fear-mongering to the MAX !

        I still cant believe that people even listen to Dunne (no credibility) after he said that Synthetics were ‘low risk’ but the Natural herb is NOT.
        **He is now, on the board of a med-Cannabis (natural herb) startup Company

        Reply
  9. Gerrit

     /  10th May 2019

    Headlines in the article screamed “Driver had smoked synthetic cannabis before crash”. That is not going to do the yes vote much good.

    Technically it is not the same substance but anyone reading the headlines sees cannabis to blame.

    Reply
    • Pickled Possum

       /  10th May 2019

      “Technically it is not the same substance but anyone reading the headlines sees cannabis to blame”
      Really Gerrit!! only if they have 2 brains
      1 is lost and the other one is out looking for it.

      Reply
      • Gerrit

         /  10th May 2019

        Perception possum, perception. I notice the headline has been changed and the word “cannabis” removed.

        Reply
    • ‘…..sees cannabis to blame.’ sez Gerritt

      Maybe the totally ignorant, may do so. BUT I think most folks accept that ‘sensible people’ should not drive, while intoxicated on any DRUG (esp. Alcohol) but also cannabis

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  10th May 2019

        “Maybe the totally ignorant, may do so”

        hehehehe.. so smoking leads to improved decision making and puts a possible driver into the ‘sensible’ category. Can you see the flaw in your argument

        Reply
        • Zedd

           /  10th May 2019

          did you read the rest of my comment ?

          ‘BUT I think most folks accept that ‘sensible people’ should not drive, while intoxicated on any DRUG (esp. Alcohol) but also cannabis’

          Having tried ‘Synthetic cannabis’ once only BUT the natural herb.. more than once. I have ‘actual experience’ They are NOT the same.. as some seem to think.
          The Synthetic CRAP (chemicals sprayed on lawn clippings ?), seemed stronger & lasted longer too.. FILTH !! 😦

          Reply
        • Griff.

           /  10th May 2019

          Yip we just nos we dont need that bloody evidence crap .

          The prevalence of both alcohol and cannabis use and the high morbidity associated with motor vehicle crashes has lead to a plethora of research on the link between the two. Drunk drivers are involved in 25% of motor vehicle fatalities, and many accidents involve drivers who test positive for cannabis. Cannabis and alcohol acutely impair several driving-related skills in a dose-related fashion, but the effects of cannabis vary more between individuals than they do with alcohol because of tolerance, differences in smoking technique, and different absorptions of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient in marijuana. Detrimental effects of cannabis use vary in a dose-related fashion, and are more pronounced with highly automatic driving functions than with more complex tasks that require conscious control, whereas with alcohol produces an opposite pattern of impairment. Because of both this and an increased awareness that they are impaired, marijuana smokers tend to compensate effectively while driving by utilizing a variety of behavioral strategies. Combining marijuana with alcohol eliminates the ability to use such strategies effectively, however, and results in impairment even at doses which would be insignificant were they of either drug alone. Epidemiological studies have been inconclusive regarding whether cannabis use causes an increased risk of accidents;
          in contrast, unanimity exists that alcohol use increases crash risk

          https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving

          Alcohol: Alcohol was the largest contributor to crash risk. The unadjusted crash risk estimates for alcohol indicated drivers with a breath alcohol concentrations (BrACs) of .05 grams per 210 liters (g/210L) are 2.05 times more likely to crash than drivers with no alcohol. For drivers with BrACs of .08 g/210L, the unadjusted relative risk of crashing is 3.98 times that of drivers with no alcohol. When adjusted for age and gender, drivers with BrACs of .05 g/210L are 2.07 times more likely to crash than drivers with no alcohol. The adjusted crash risk for drivers at .08 g/210L is 3.93 times that of drivers with no alcohol. Drugs: Unadjusted drug odds ratio estimates indicated a significant increase in crash risk. For the active ingredient in marijuana, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), this yielded an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.25. However, after adjusting for gender, age, race/ethnicity, and alcohol, there was no indication that any drug significantly contributed to crash risk. The adjusted odds ratios for THC were 1.00, 95 percent CI [.83, 1.22], indicating no increased or decreased crash risk. Odds ratios for antidepressants were .86, 95 percent CI [.56, 1.33]; narcotic analgesics were 1.17, 95% percent drugs as an overall category were .99, 95 percent CI [.84, 1.18], and prescription and over-the-counter medications were 1.02, 95 percent CI [.83, 1.26]. Alcohol and Drugs: Analyses found no statistically significant interaction effects when drivers were positive for both alcohol and drugs. Although initial analyses suggested that the combination of alcohol and other drugs were contributors to increased crash risk, additional analyses adjusting for other risk factors indicated no significant effect. When both alcohol and other drugs were consumed,alcohol alone was associated with crash risk

          https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/812355_drugalcoholcrashrisk.pdf

          SummaryDiscussions here have focussed primarily on two particular series of studies, because these studies stand alone in the cannabis and driving literature. In her comprehensive review of the effects of cannabis on simulator and on-road performance, Smiley (11) concluded that, when driving under the influence of cannabis, the more realistic the driving situation the better the performance. People experiencing the effects of cannabis appear to be aware of their impairment and where possible they compensate by, for example, slowing down, focussing attention and not taking risks (like overtaking). However, this compensation is not possible when the driver encounters unexpected events and/or when the driver is placed in situations requiring increased mental load or continuous attention (11, 15).In short, there appears to be some driving-related performance impairment associated with cannabis consumption, particularly in relation to SDLP. However, unlike alcohol, the potential link between this impairment and any changed crash risk has not yet been fully determined.

          https://acrs.org.au/files/arsrpe/RS010054.pdf

          So from this we can say that yes cannabis does have a small effect on driving
          But it is nothing like that of alcohol and those driving while stoned mostly compensate for the effects.

          I will also point out that studies that use drug testing after accidents are not testing for cannabis impermanent they are testing to see if the person smoked pot in the last four weeks or so. this makes any such research unable to give any conclusion beyond a questionable spurious correlation.

          Reply
  10. The thing that often gets me, about this whole debate; most of the ‘naysayers’ about cannabis &/or reform, usually are the ones who say “I have never tried it” & when asked why they have these negative opinions.. then, often start spouting all the ‘Reefer madness’ B-S & FEAR-mongering they have heard, as opposed to any real ‘EVIDENCE’.

    I think they need to actually realise that, ‘reefer madness’: cannabis supposedly cause insanity & creates a gateway to ‘HARD DRUGS’ etc. was widely discredited in 1960-70s. BUT it is still being rammed down our throughts, mostly by those folks in society, that are benefiting from the continuation of prohibition/status quo.. ie: Prohibition Industry (Cops, courts, prisons) & the Black-marketeers etc. who are making their living from locking us up or ripping us off.. 2 sides of the same coin (IMHO)

    May i just suggest.. you all ‘pull your heads out’ of the sand (or your A) & actually look at the alternative views ??
    Then you may actually see, that you are being misled & made a fool of. :/ 😦

    Prohibition did not work with Alcohol in 1920s USA & it is not working with Cannabis/other drugs. It actually just creates the Black-market & the ‘forbidden fruit mystique’ that actually attracts people to ‘illegal drugs’ rather than, drives them away.

    Point of fact: Drug use is just as high, (if not higher) in the countries that still persist with prohibition, as in those that have already reformed their laws.. check it & see !!

    RANT OVER.. enuf sed today 😀

    Reply
    • Gerrit

       /  10th May 2019

      Rant all you like. Unless a good case is made that legalising cannabis has positive outcomes for the general populace (not just the population demographics that are occupied by ZZZ’s), the referendum will fail.

      Just like prohibition did not work, neither does legalisation.

      “However, there is little public awareness, and close to zero media attention, to the near-doubling of past year marijuana use nationally among adults age 18 and older and the corresponding increase in problems related to its use. Because the addiction rate for marijuana remains stable—with about one in three past year marijuana users experiencing a marijuana use disorder—the total number of Americans with marijuana use disorders also has significantly increased.

      It is particularly disturbing that the public is unaware of the fact that of all Americans with substance use disorders due to drugs other than alcohol, nearly 60 percent are due to marijuana. That means that more Americans are addicted to marijuana than any other drug, including heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, and the nonmedical use of prescription drugs”

      https://www.rivermendhealth.com/resources/marijuana-legalization-led-use-addiction-illegal-market-continues-thrive/

      If the state regulates the potency, the black market for higher potency cannabis will remain.

      “Yet despite the expansion of state legal marijuana markets, the illegal market for marijuana remains robust, leaving state regulators two uncomfortable choices: either a ban can be placed on the highest potency—and most enticing—marijuana products which will push the legal market back to products with more moderate levels of THC, or the current evolution to ever-more potent and more attractive products can be considered acceptable despite its considerable negative health and safety consequences. If tighter regulations are the chosen option, the illegal market will continue to exploit the desire of marijuana users to consume more potent and attractive products. If state governments let the market have its way, there will be no limit to the potency of legally marketed addicting marijuana products.”

      It is background information like this that will tip the balance of the referendum to the no vote (in the population demographic I talk to at least).

      Reply
      • Griff.

         /  10th May 2019

        Yip Gerrit
        Now why would a addict treatment company be pushing that garbage.
        Good for business.

        Cannabis addict.
        Ooooooo scary shite man. Reefer madness…
        Cannabis addiction is not like heroin, aclohol or nicotine addiction.
        I have seen a junkie missing his fix they are not even human more like a smegal. Alcohol withdrawal can actually kill you. Apparently Cannabis withdrawal is at worse a mild cold. I have never had any issues stopping smoking pot even back when I was a heavy user.

        As to high strength.
        Think of beer, wine and spirits.
        Do you guzzle whisky like you drink beer…. knock back a half a liter on a Saturday after noon after doing the lawns?
        No thats just stupid The stronger the piss the less you drink.
        Spirits come by the 30ml shot ,wine by a 100ml glass,and beer in 340ml cans, you are still having the same amount of alcohol in each.
        Same goes with cannabis we used to roll joints @about 1/2 a gram nowadays with stronger dak you just have a cone @about 1/10 a gram. When we could get hashish back in the 70’s we only used about 1/20 a gram to get high.

        If you smoke to much weed you just get couch lock, you feel like crap, get real lethargic, maybe a headache even and dont really get any more stoned . Most users lean there is no point smoking to much as it is not a nice state to be in.

        Reply
        • Gerrit

           /  10th May 2019

          “Now why would a addict treatment company be pushing that garbage.”

          Yep, maybe they know something you dont? Just maybe, just a tenee weenie maybe, they are more in tune with their local environment than you can ever understand?

          An sure that when the populace comes to vote in the referendum they take on board your scientifically researched opinion that cannabis overuse just sees you sitting on the couch in a stoned stupor with a sore head.

          Yep that should swing the vote to “Yes”.

          As a marketing exercise to get voters to say yes, all the for argument presented so far are not going to swing the deal.

          Reply
      • ‘Just like prohibition did not work, neither does legalisation.’ sez Gerrit

        I think this is why, the MPs organising the ‘reeferendum’ are saying ‘Regulation’ (legal with strict defined rules.. similar to booze)

        The things that will likely ‘sink the ref.’: APATHY, Mis/Disinfo., Fear-mongering..
        SO.. we on the ‘Pro’ side need to be vigilant & cut through this B-S & tell folks ‘WAKE UP its 2019, not 1959″

        ‘Reefer madness’ is nonsensical DRIVEL.. stop listening & repeating it

        Reply
  11. btw: the biggest issue (raised by ‘Naysyers’) is that law reform will ‘open the floodgates’ & there will be MORE people, esp. Teens using it. Again; Disinfo./FEAR-mongering. This is not seen in other countries, that have already reformed their cannabis laws.
    This is why they are proposing R20+.
    Under the Status Quo.. anyone with cash-in-hand can get ‘illegal weed’ from the Black-market… even children ! This will just continue, IF the Ref. fails.

    The idea of Regulation is to focus on, keeping it from those <20.. NOT ZERO-tolerance. What happened to 'Adults having.. Freedom of Choice' ?

    I keep hearing that law reform will not, stop the black-market.. likely True, but currently this is all we have. Anyone who believes, that this is the better option, needs to 'get a reality check' & be reminded that this is the exact same reason, that Alcohol Prohibition was REPEALED in 1920s USA: 'bathtub Gin' was often stronger & caused more harm, because it had no details on the bottle about actual contents or alcohol percentage etc.

    I also keep hearing that 'the weed today is MUCH stronger than the stuff the 'hippies' smoked in 1960s' AGAIN.. likely true, BUT; this is it a result of the totally UNREGULATED Black-market, whose main kaupapa is 'maximum profit for smallest quantity'

    oh dear… we're still hearing the B-S though.. from those with 'reefer madness' in mind & their fingers in their ears.. to anything else.

    Definition of Insanity: decades on & still repeating these failed policies, expecting something different :/ 😦

    Reply
  1. Dunne calls ‘sophistry and bollocks’ on party posturing on cannabis referendum — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s