Teach your parents well,
Their children’s hell will slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams,
The one they fix, the one you’ll know by.
– Graham Nash
THE HIGH TIDE of the political movement to decriminalise cannabis came, appropriately, in the millennium year, 2000. The Greens were in Parliament, and they’d arrived bearing the hopes and aspirations of tens-of-thousands of New Zealanders who had hitherto been scorned by the political establishment. Many of these Kiwis lived a more-or-less marginal existence far away from the so-called “mainstream”. Some did this out of necessity, but many more did so by choice.
The political champion of this “other” New Zealand was the Green List MP, Nandor Tanczos. With his dreadlocked hair and his hemp suit, Tanczos quickly became a one-man public relations campaign fordecriminalisation. Not only did he look the part, but he was fearsomely well-briefed and extremely articulate. Unsurprisingly, the news media couldn’t get enough of him. Nandor “rocked”.
Credible surveys of New Zealanders’ drug-taking habits consistently report one in three citizens using cannabis at some point in the previous six months. With the use of the drug so widespread, and with a criminal record and incarceration still the devastating consequences of conviction for all but the best defended middle-class offenders, the potential constituency for cannabis law reform was huge.
This was as true in 2000 as it is 14 years later. Tanczos and the Greens knew that if they could persuade those young New Zealanders approaching voting age that the decriminalisation of cannabis could be their generation’s big contribution to the liberalisation of New Zealand society, then there was every chance those first-time voters would go on voting Green for a very long time. With this in mind, Nandor began requesting secondary schools to give him access to their Year 12 pupils.
The reaction was as predictable as it was vicious. Secondary school principals, practically to a man (and they were, overwhelmingly, men) absolutely refused to allow Tanczos to so much as set foot on their school grounds. Debating cannabis law reform – even with people who would be voting in the next election – was out of the question.
Who were these public servants to refuse access to a member of the New Zealand House of Representatives and deny the young adults in their care the opportunity to discuss and debate an issue of direct relevance to both their present and future lives? A good question.
What the Greens had failed to factor into their decriminalisation strategy was the enormous power wielded by school principals. Their authority extended well beyond the day-to-day business of educational administration to include the pastoral care role formerly shared with the churches. New Zealand may have been turning into an increasingly secular and heterogeneous society, but school principals were in no mood to surrender their role as the community’s moral guardians. And what did frightened and morally compromised parents most want their children to be guarded from? Drugs.
The level of hypocrisy over the vexed question of drug-use (and even drug education) in schools was astonishing. By 2000 most of the parents of teenage secondary-school students would have themselves been teenagers in the 1960s and 70s. A huge percentage of these “Baby-Boomers” would have used cannabis regularly throughout their late teens and well into young adulthood. Many of them would still have been occasional, (and a lesser number frequent) users of the drug. And yet, when Nandor came calling, few – if any – of them were willing to defend their kids’ right to be politically informed.
Something odd was at work here. These Baby-Boomer parents knew from their own experience that cannabis is, except in those rare instances of dependence-forming over-indulgence, a harmless psychoactive substance which makes music sound, food taste and sex feel absolutely-bloody-fantastic. And yet it remains illegal.
Did they not recall the extreme paranoia that gripped them whenever they found themselves stoned in the vicinity of a policeman? The knowing for certain that if they were caught it would mean good-bye to the big-OE they had planned, the profession they had studied so hard to enter and/or the job they were about to apply for. Why wish those same fears upon their own children? Why not support the Greens in abolishing what has always been an essentially victimless crime?
I would like to think that the answer has something to do with the Baby Boom generation knowing that the sunshine days of their youth, lived out in a country with full-employment, university bursaries and three percent State Advances home loans, has gone forever. Looking at the grim times in which they will be required to live, I would like to believe that the Baby Boomers decided to do all within their power to give their kids a good start. That, recalling the old Aesop’s fable about the grasshopper and the ant, they want their kids to emulate the drug-free, hard-working ant – not the stoned grasshopper.
But then I ask myself who the hell was responsible for turning the bright summer world of my youth into a wintery anthill? Or, more accurately, who failed so miserably to fight for its preservation?
It is one of the great wonders – and the great tragedies – of the last 30 years. How the Baby Boom generation who, in their youth, got so joyfully stoned and then so righteously angry; all those blissful hippies and staunch protestors of the 1970s and 80s; somehow metamorphosed into the grasping, pitiless and, God save us, conservative defenders of the established order we see all around us today? How did they so lose faith in the values of sunshine and innocent pleasure to close the gates of their children’s schools to Nandor Tanczos?
How I wish Nandor had refused to be turned away. How I wish he had hired a flatbed truck and a decent sound system and declaimed across those school fences to any and all who cared to listen. How I wish the rest of the Greens had not taken fright at the principals’ reactionary construction of “pastoral care”. Because it was at the gates of New Zealand’s secondary schools that the tide of cannabis law reform was met, resisted and turned back, and it was there, too, that the Greens ceased to represent the grasshoppers and threw in their lot with the ants.
Brilliant post Mr Trotter! I’m glad you have stopped bashing Cunliffe over the head. The phenomena of the baby boomers short-sightedness is because they have turned into their parents, ha, ha*$%#=!!*??
lazy hippies, still !
great post
To be yourself, Grasshopper, feel the heartbeats of others, above your own.
Thank you, Chris – interesting and thought-provoking. Born in 1946, I am an early baby-boomer. I began secondary school teaching in 1970, and had to smile at the refreshing optimism of Nandor T, hoping that principals would allow anyone to question the war on drugs in their schools. Even before the debatable ‘improvements’ of Tomorrow’s Schools (which increased the element of competition between schools, thereby making all schools try to quash the publication of any bad news) principals were already averse to any kind of negative publicity, especially the kind that would upset the ‘pillars of society’. (The middle-class blow-hards.)
I think there is another aspect to that ‘betrayal’ by the Baby-Boomer generation. I taught for 7 years, then left teaching to live in Europe for 5 years. During all those 7 years of my teaching, the students universally claimed to hate school uniform, and it was always a cause of conflict with authority. Then, in France and Germany, I found there were no school uniforms, and although I was not teaching in schools there, I noticed how schoolkids dressed, and discussed it a few times with parents or kids that age.
I returned to NZ convinced that the kids had been right, and that all the justifications for uniforms were a load of rubbish.
I was lucky enough to be re-employed at my old school in the same community. A few years later, students started saying to me, “You used to teach my mother/father.” And uniform was, as ever in NZ, a point of contention.
The principal decided to settle the debate by polling all the parents in the school’s community.
I seriously expected 80% of those parents to vote against uniform, because that was how they spoke as students.
Funnily enough, it came out that the vast majority of those hypocrites were now heavily in favour of uniform. My tendency to cynicism was greatly increased.
What happens is that the majority of rebellious youth rapidly turn into the repressive oldies as they age. Sad to say, that is human nature.
I reserve my greatest contempt for those who believe the silly saying: ‘If you are not a Socialist in your youth, you have no heart. But if you are not a Conservative in your later years, you have no brain.’
Utter rubbish. People in that category are shallow social climbers, with no real philosophy of their own – they simply gauge what they are think are the majority view important for them, and change their principles accordingly. Hollow people.
In that respect, the baby boomers are no different to any other generation. The loudest and shallowest rebels in youth will become the loudest and shallowest pillars of conservatism as they age. That will not change, because it is human nature. That is why we baby boomers are as we are.
Only better universal education can take us ahead – but the educational aspect of the media is stymied because the mass media are now firmly in the control of the marketing industry, and that same industry is now trying to penetrate the Education sector, with good-looking ‘What harm can it possibly do?’ kinds of apparently generous sponsorship.
Ant and Grasshopper? A good analogy, but maybe the Fox and the Crow (manipulation through emotions) fable is equally relevant.
amend – ‘what they think IS the majority’s view’
Great and comfortingly human post Chris Trotter .
Drug debates , like sex education certainly divides the Great Unthinking .
Isn’t it interesting , that the media can portray people killing each other and doing unmentionably horrible things to each other without raising an eyebrow , but show people having sex , or God forbid smoking a joint THEN having sex ? Outrage , MSM job losses and condemnation !
I suspect that the reason for these absurd laws , stupid prejudices and mind blowingly ignorant views are as a result of really , really dumb people being able to be educated beyond their intelligence . Thank you very much free education .
It’s an excellent opportunity for the Moron to place their big flat foot print on society . A bit like politics . Any dumb clump with a drool mop can gab their way into serious power . And once there ? Look what harm they can do ? Awful , awful stuff .
Putting people inside cages for growing and smoking a herb that’s fun and useful is an indication of what I mean surely ? No genuinely intelligent person is going to do that to others .
And just you try to reason with the Moron Class ? You can’t do it . You can spend a life time leading those dopy buggers to logic but you can’t make them think . Was it Mark Twain who said “ Never argue with a fool . They’ll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience . “
Honestly , I’ve met garden Slugs with more raw intelligence than john banks for example . But see ? John Banks is as thick as a plug of tobacco and yet he’s rich by all accounts and has risen to the dizzy heights of high society to have a cup of tea with an equally rich lizard .
And they are our masters . They are our Masters . Let that sink in a little .
So , what to do ? Well , there you have our Masters . Dumb as clay , most are violently ugly , fat and dress like some sort of vulgar chicken on LSD and who look like they became stuck in thick paint . I’m thinking paula bennett and her frocks . They talk as if they only read the ‘ Personals columns ‘ and think the expression ‘ Aw , Mate ‘ was penned by Shakespeare .
I mean ? What would you say to jonky if you bumped into him at a barbecue ?
“ Dollarzup aye ? “ He’d be comfortable with that .
These are the people who are supposed to be at the very cutting edge of our society . They’re required to be erudite , well travelled , interesting and intelligent human beings with a deep sense of the human condition . But what do we get instead ? Yes , that’s right .
peter dunne . Hair Man . Those cruel little lips . That bow tie ? WTF ? And OMG ! How embarrassing . A six figure man ( ? ) and look at him ? Just look at him ?
He’s one of your Masters .
“How the Baby Boom generation who, in their youth, got so joyfully stoned and then so righteously angry; all those blissful hippies and staunch protestors of the 1970s and 80s; somehow metamorphosed into the grasping, pitiless and, God save us, conservative defenders of the established order we see all around us today”…….speak for yourself, Chris!
Nothing to do with baby boomers many of whom still smoke dope.
Its all about the neo-liberal counter-revolution and the need for a war on drugs to criminalise and demobilise the working class. Its about class not generation.
As much as I like Nandor, I think his image was one of the reasons why the laws didn’t change. Back 10-15 years ago there was still a lot of the War Generation around and I doubt they would have even listened to Nandor, despite his logic and reasoning.
I think a lot of the boomers would be into law changes, but it has to be suggested by someone who doesn’t look like they waked-and-baked. Sadly I think it’ll take a John Key of David Cunliffe type figure to push it over the line.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Key pushed for decriminalisation just before the 2017 election – it may win him his fourth election. He’d shrug his shoulders and say ‘I never smoked the stuff, but each to their own’…probably more chance than Labour suggesting it. Key’s a populist who has the ability to tap into people’s subconscious, whereas Labour leaders combine risk aversion with focus group results
I thought Nandor Tanczos was a superb representative, and an articulate and knowledgeable speaker (Green Party seem to excel at this), and while you are probably right about “why” – perhaps that “why” needs to change rather than people like Nandor.
Two fairly bland aphorisms I have tried to instill in my children:
1. It is not how someone looks, it is how they act
2. It is not what they say, it is what they do.
If parental indoctrination is any good – and I have my doubts – these are two that I hope will see them through the rest of their lives.
I believe we need to have a new idea about who we listen to. Paul Henry’s tirades on tv on the appearance and names of other people, give us a prime example of where the emphasis and baseline for normal is now. It needs to change.
I fully agree with you about Nandor Molly, I wish Nandor was co-leader of the Greens. Within my lifetime, the two MPs I’ve had the most respect for are Nandor and Sue Bradford. I can’t speak highly enough of both those people. I had the opportunity to see Nandor debate with Anderton over drug laws years ago and Nandor destroyed him.
My point about the way Nandor looked was how Nandor’s argument would resonate with older and more conservative people. Going back to the Nandor vs Anderton debate I saw, I was young at the time and found that Nandor’s argument resonated with younger people, but I also noted the look of disgust on the faces of the Anderton supporters. It became clear to me then that the old and conservative people would be turned off a drugs debate if they had to debate with a dreaded rasta.
I agree Molly that this dependence on image is sad, but the left are just as guilty of it. If the left voted on evidence and policy, MANA would be at 20%
The best way to get our cannabis laws changed is through a clean cut MP from National or Labour, not a dreaded rasta who skateboards to the beehive (that’s not an attack on Nandor, it’s an attack on the NZ public and media)
…you had me at MANA would be at 20%…
Apparently, if everyone voted on preferred policies, the Greens would be on 80%*.
*Something I’ve heard through the grapevine but I do wish that the actual study would get released.
I think in the UK they have an independent online questionnaire you can fill in to find out what party’s policies fit you best…we really need one in NZ.
Is there such a thing here?
Haven’t heard of such a thing.
@ fatty..
..today i toyed with the idea of key decriminalising..under urgency..
..before this election..
two reasons:..this legal-high clusterfuck has still got a ways to run..
..and it will likely get really ugly in a couple of weeks..
..(i expect burglaries/robberies of shops/warehouses…)
..and of course all those people forced to go cold turkey..from who-knows-what..?
..this may all escalate to something so drastic a circuit-breaker like ending cannabis prohibition will be called for..
..reason two for key to go now..
..is that if..(as i expect)..the internet party comes out with a sensible decrim/regulate/tax policy..on pot..
..they will likely earn themselves a serious wedge of votes..(especially from the young..)
..so if key goes early/soon..that serious amount of votes will be lost to the internet party..
..and surely that outcome must appeal to key/national..?
..key could sell this as a solution to this legal-high crisis..
Good points Phillip.
I think this would have happened if ACT was their main supporting partner, but NZ First, Dunne, the Maori Party and the Conservatives could be needed and they all have a social conservative element to them. Perhaps it’s the possibility of future partners that has restrained Key thus far.
Key has been very socially liberal since he’s been in, and this has worked well for him – leading the way on drug reform is a real possibility for him. Key is happy to go with the wind, or the future winds, in regards to ending smacking and marriage equality.
The continued criminal status and implementation of life-affecting sentences has driven the legion of those continuously and currently indulging in cannabis — a totally superior relaxant and non-addicting, recreation and medicinal substance — underground. The support for cannabis is not vocal as it attracts the threat of police attention. A conviction screws your chance of a visa overseas. I don’t use now, but did once for social participation. I’ve had no cannabis on or around me for 30+ years, so I’m free to assault the authorities that, based on corporate dictated law, make this effective and harmless alternative to alcohol,tobacco, and other legal stimulants, illegal. I can shout — but many others need to do so as well. It is the fear of reprisal that drives cannabis support into subservient — not subversive–silence. I say legalise herb cannabis now, and legalise growing it for personal use NOW!
“Reality is for those that can’t handle liquor and drugs” one of my hedonist associates used to say as if he meant it, whereas others would claim the reverse.
There are so many angles to this one. Individual freedom, societal good, animal testing, political expediency, corporate and small business interests, conflation by some of chemical concoctions and actual cannabis, medical and scientific opinion, community workers and families that deal with the fallout of misuse and overuse. “legal high” sellers like budget liquor stores, pokies and loan sharks seem to prey on the poor too, not so many outlets in the leafy suburbs.
Personally I don’t use cannabis, but many people I know do, and sure would like the medical version at least to be easily available as an option for say those having cancer treatment. Ultimately imo all personal drug use should be legalised to cut the crims out (really how many people would want to sit around out of their gourds on opiates for example), with addiction treated as a medical not criminal issue. And liquor and tobacco looked at harder too.
In a society which values freedom, people are free to do whatever they want, harming none. Therefore, if someone (say a “government”) wants to enforce rules against another person’s behaviour, the onus is on them to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person’s actions are harming another, or unreasonably limiting another’s freedom. Following from this, it seems logical to me that if the “government” wants to enforce a ban against the possession or sale of any “drug”, they have to prove, beyond reasonably doubt, that it is more harmful than “drugs” they do not enforce bans on, such as alcohol.
This is why both the Misuse of Drugs Act, and the Psychoactive Substances Act are anti-democratic. The MoD enforces bans on numerous “drugs” which have proven to be less dangerous than alcohol (Nutt et al, the Lancet, 2007). The PSA is worse. It effectively allows a government to arbitrarily declare a substance to be a “drug” (there is no clear boundary between what is and is not “psychoactive”), and totally reverse the burden of proof, forcing people to prove the substance is “safe”, or have it automatically banned, even though it may be much safer than alcohol. This is a disturbing extension of government power, akin to the central government takeover of Environment Canterbury, the Canterbury Earthquake Recover Act, or the Terrorism Suppression Act.
Any political party which supports the democratic principles limiting the powers of government must support two things:
* a bill enacting the immediate decriminalization of all non-commercial drug use, home production, and “social dealing”. All special powers to arrest, search, or question people for these activities should be immediately removed from the books.
* a new drugs bill, replacing the MoD and the PSA, which regulates commercial supply of all medicinal and recreational drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, based on principles of personal freedom, social responsibility, and harm minimization.
Hmmm, a bit harsh here, Chris…
But the rest of your analysis seems spot-on.
‘harsh’..but true…
http://whoar.co.nz/2014/original-whoar-cartoon-russel-norman-passes-the-dutchie-on-the-right-hand-side/
I think that this all comes down to tactical and strategic factors. The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party is a single issue purist party and leaches votes from the Greens. It is opportunist and only seems to care about pot, although some of its members spout unrealistic rhetoric about total drug legalisation. It is an impediment to its own cause. As for NORML, it needs to realise this and repackage its message in an evidence-based focus on harm minimisation and risk reduction, as well as the abundant evidence available about the benefits of medicinal cannabis and its derivatives.
Haa Countryboy ,,Haa ,Good one,, Woodstock 1969 ,, ,,Free love peace ,,Flowers in the hair ,,, Mav Yasgurs dairy farm in the town of Bethel ,, Hey you should have had a woodstock on your farm ,,,,Woodstock 69 most who were there don’t remember being there , ,If you remember being there you were on the wrong planet or dsl..Is that the wrong way around man ,,
Chris: “Many of these Kiwis lived a more-or-less marginal existence far away from the so-called “mainstream”. Some did this out of necessity….”
Those would be the dope smokers, right?
😉
Comments are closed.