Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

14 Comments

  1. ‘Only 12 per cent were opposed to this law change – including just 15 per cent of National Party voters – with a further 12 per cent undecided…’

    so why do we need a (non-binding) referendum…?

    1. it would be instructive to get a reply to that basic question of ‘why a non-binding) referendum’..?

      why/how is that not just a useless/waste of time/energies/resources..?

      ..all it would tell us what we already know – that most new zealanders favour ending the (economic) madness that is cannabis prohibition..

      (..they aren’t dumb – they have seen how it works so well in colorado etc..)

      so beyond that – confirming what we already know from polling – what would be the/any benefits be..?

      ‘cos for the life of me – i can’t see one…

      ..and think that time/energy should be spent lobbying mp’s/political-parties – underlined by more polling.

      ..this i see as the best way forward on this issue..

      ..the referendum-idea is a dead-end alley..

      ..and is bordering on bone-headed..

      1. gee mr fowlie..!..it’s been a couple of days now..

        any chance of a reply to that most basic/bleeding-obvious of questions..?

        in two words: referendum – why..?

        (i’m not asking you to explain particle-physics – you are advocating this what i think is a gobsmackingly time-wasting/expensive/useless/bad idea..)

        ..and you can’t won’t even answer ‘why?’..

        ..seriously..?

        1. Phil, we have the option of treating this poll as de-facto legalization, but most reformers want to go further and actually have legislation passed telling the cops to back off the cannabis culture. Confirming or improving on these results in a binding referendum held by the same body that holds our governmental elections makes it that much more official. The politicians that vote for the bill that legalizes and regulates, can point out that the people have spoken, and they are just following their lead as representatives ought to.

          Also, it’s another network of people making sure pro-legalization voters are on the electoral role and ready to vote for change. Many don’t sign up out of fear their details will be delivered to someone sinister, and it takes quite an effort to get your name on the unpublished roll if you have privacy concerns. This has been discussed elsewhere on TDB.

          1. strpey..thanks for replying –

            – if it were a binding referendum i would be gung ho in support..

            ..but it is not…therefore it is a huge black hole of cost/energy/time…and can just be ignored..

            how will any end result be any different from a much cheaper batch of polls..?

            maybe even a couple of years ago i wd have supported a referendum – but that horse has now bolted..and we don’t need the vehicle of the referendum to publicise/ argue the case..

            that/this is already done….

            ..now it is full-steam ahead for full legalisation/cannabis-clubs/whatever…

            i repeat..a referendum is to test/gauge the public mood on a particular issue…

            ..we already know that mood – and that mood is for change – now…

            this is why a referendum is just going over old/already tilled ground – and that is why i feel it is a bad idea..

            ..in fact a referendum plays right into the prohibitionists hands – another period of no change..another delay..

            ..to end up with a non-binding referendum result…

            ..which would just again bring us back to where we already are now..(i wd submit that would be an example of madness..)

            ..and that further delay is not good/soon enough for the lady with cancer (not a relative..) that i find myself forced to help…

            ..to deny her would be inhumane…

            (and she is one of the lucky ones – she has me..i feel for those that don’t have a ‘me’..and are forced to just suffer..are denied access to this proven salve to their miseries..)

            ..and this is the true evil of prohibition/prohibitionists..

            ..people suffering here/now/today – that don’t need to be…

            ..a referendum only extends that delay/misery..

  2. The banning of synthetics happened due to street protests.
    This may be be the easiest way forward from here.
    Countrywide matches in every main center demanding law reform.

    Thing is, most pot marches in UnZed are a small motley bunch with most weed supporters avoiding being seen at all due to careers and legal consequences, so maybe that wont work.

    It seems where are now at the final hurdle.

  3. You have a powerful alcohol lobby and a pharmaceutical lobby to deal with also both would loose profits

    1. what dunne is trying to do is capture the weed market for big-pharma – with his demanding of ‘proven pharmeceutical medicines’.

      (this of course fits in well with dunnes’ work over the decades for big-booze and big-tobacco..)

      both alcohol and big-pharma have much to fear from legal cannabis..

      ..alcohol consumption has dropped in colorado..(+ drops in violence/domestic violence esp…)

      ..and with weed – with the different types producing different reactions – ranging from from enervating-energy – to a desire to curl up and go to sleep – much of big=pharmas’ product is challenged/bettered by this humble miracle-weed..

      ..who needs big-pharmas’ addictive ‘anxiety-meds’ when chosen strains of cannabis will take care of that..?

      ..who needs addictive sleeping pills when a knock-out-pot puff of a somnambulant strain will do the same trick..?

      who needs appetite-stimulants when cannabis will do this..?

      ..and on and on it goes

      ..so in a sane/legalised world – such as in colorado – people can walk into a pot-shop and ask for the type of cannabis that best suits their personal/medicinal-needs..

      .no need for pill-pushing doctors/big-pharma..

      ..this is why dunne is working feverishly in his prohibitionist/patch-protection efforts for big-pharma..

      ..and this is why full legalisation is the best option..

  4. “Four out of five supporters of a strict approach that requires a doctor’s prescription would also support having medicinal cannabis sold as a herbal remedy at health food stores.”

    Can’t come soon enough for us.

    Gonzo: “The banning of synthetics happened due to street protests.”

    Weren’t they legalised in the first place due to street protests? Maybe my memory is wrong and legalisation came about through submissions to the responsible Minister.

  5. So it looks like it’s not a vote loser after all. Will National do it to try to attract the ganja vote and hold onto power, or will Labour and the Greens make it a key part of their platform in 2017?

    1. They all got their hands in each others pants playing pocket billiards.
      Best approach to go forward is not relying on pollies.

      I cant see the turnout for pot legalisation marches being strong, like with banning synthetics marches peopled by concerned moms, christian groups and such.

      However, pollies are fudging all the way, and creating a bottleneck, not good to rely on them either.

      Remove or clear the bottle neck.

  6. My real worry is if something really harmful like alcohol was made legal and commercially sold, en masse.

    Oh…..

    1. All drugs should be legal, and available en masse. ALL DRUGS.

      Prohibition is a failure, and only by teaching personal responsibility and self control, will we ever evolve beyond the luring and lurid temptation of the hidden fruits.

      When the fruit is ripe and freely available, like say for example nudist beaches….. will we ever be able to say
      ‘meh’
      ‘so what’
      ‘who cares’
      ‘big deal’
      and ‘I’m over it’.

      Until then, titillation and tabloid like infamy will render us scandal mongering zombies of the global apocalypse.

      [Datura flower scent pervades thru an open window…. BAN THE FLOWERS!!]

      you’re welcome

Comments are closed.