Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

10 Comments

    1. I would agree with you & I gave up decades ago. I would like to see decent health information & warnings against the risks of daily use. Using the Licensing Trusts has to be better than what supply methods exist now.

  1. I think like prisons being universities for crime, and pubs and bars creating p[b]eer pressure for light imbibers to consume more, the club model could *raise the ceiling* in a light user and move them toward higher use.

    I noticed this in myself and others at The Daktory. Getting really stoned a few times means that one will use more than previously, to get the same effect. Same with any drug, alcohol or coffee.

    When you take a light recreational user and put them in a social environment with higher users, the light user will gravitate toward the mean.

    I imagine to pay the clubs bills, cannabis sales would be needed. It stands to reason that higher sales and use will be encouraged to provide income for the club.

    The lure of a *den of inequity* for socially isolated users who self medicate their loneliness [the neuro-diverse and bullied] or other socially limited peeps, may be two sided:

    -providing a place to meet similar other cannabis users who have social deficits, and be a place of companionship

    -put them in the realm of gangsters or bullies who may prey on them or torment them for kicks

    The Daktory was a source of companionship for many socially limited people who preferred cannabis to alcohol, and that is all goodness.

    It also increased their usage toward problem use, and put them in company of dodgy peeps, and that is not goodness.

    If the club model goes ahead for Westyville, ideally smaller places instead of a big barn like the Daktory, would mean vulnerable people [or otherwise] could pick and choose, and not be tied into a bad scene.

    And many do go rotten.

    When The Netherlands shut down 30% of their cafes about 5 yrs back, they were cleaning out the bad operators, who had developed problem use and behaviours among staff at these cafes.

    In NZ, this is likely to happen more-so than among Netherlanders, who are probably more sophisticated.

    Then there is drug driving.
    -whilst I firmly believe driving very stoned to be as safe as driving after 1.3 units of alcohol [one small beer] for those who are used to it
    – and is also confirmed by a federal study into the effects of cannabis driving
    -the fact remains newbies who have just got the most stoned ever, down the club with their new smoking mates, will be a hazard until they acclimatize to heavy use and develop tolerance, like their heavy using new mates.

    These club newbies will be the low hanging fruit for the cops to take licenses away…. due to their impairment being greater due to lack of tolerance.

    Personally I believe small amounts of cannabis should be compulsory before driving, for certain people like ADHDers, as these drivers once a bit stoned will slow down and be more considerate! Probably 10% of the general population have ADHD, and many do drive in a rushing, haphazard way.

    Alcohol testing stopped people going to pubs, this may happen with cannabis clubs too, depending on policing measures.

    Product quality also needs to be tested by an independent authority to guarantee safety for consumers. But I guess thats another subject.

    Toodle pip.

    1. I’d like to add another social club example to Chris’ list, Whakamana Cannabis Museum, which has been operating here in Ōtepoti for a couple of years now:
      http://www.cannabis.kiwi.nz/

      I visited the Daktory on a number of occasions and Gonzo raises some valid concerns, but I’d like to address a few points.

      “I noticed this in myself and others at The Daktory. Getting really stoned a few times means that one will use more than previously, to get the same effect.”

      Well, there is a thrill in feeling free to openly smoke after years of hiding in the shadows, which fades as the novelty wears off. Yes, people will tend to drink more at the pub than at home, but if that becomes a problem there’s a simple solution; don’t go to the pub. Making pubs illegal encourages the same problem drinking to happen at parties in people’s homes, with illegal hooch, compounding the problem. I think exactly the same applies to cannabis. Plus, would parents keep their ganja at home if they could buy it and smoke it at a social club of cannabis cafe? I think not, so children would not be at risk of stumbling on a parent’s stash.

      “Same with any drug, alcohol or coffee.”

      Exactly. The existence of a completely unregulated free market in espresso coffee (containing high levels of the addictive stimulant caffeine) doesn’t seem to push people to ever higher levels of coffee consumption. Most people will find a level that works for them and stay there, maybe consuming more on special occasions (Christmas drinks etc). The minority who struggle with addiction will find some way to get high regardless of any prohibition (watching people sniff paint fumes in parks is one of the saddest experiences of my life), and this is a sign of serious mental health problems for which they need help and support, not judgment and punishment.

      “I imagine to pay the clubs bills, cannabis sales would be needed.”

      Chris addressed this in the principle that states:
      “The supply is organised in order to meet the demand of the members, not vice versa.”

      A not-for-profit social club needs much less revenue than a for-profit business, as it only has to cover expenses and could be run by volunteers. But even in a regulated free market like Colorado or the alcohol market in NZ, it’s possible to make rules that prevent vendors from encouraging or enabling overuse, and punish those who break those rules with loss of license. In contrast, black market dealers face no consequences for encouraging or enabling overconsumption.

      “It also increased their usage toward problem use, and put them in company of dodgy peeps, and that is not goodness.”

      Most of the social problems the Daktory faced were the consequence of being an illegal social experiment, under constant pressure from *both* gangsters and cops to cooperate with the business-as-usual of the NZ black market in drugs. Those running the Daktory did a good job of maintaining a friendly, welcoming environment (especially after Gizzy got involved), and keeping the gangsters at bay, despite their organisers being under constant hassles from cops and court cases.

      “If the club model goes ahead for Westyville, ideally smaller places instead of a big barn like the Daktory, would mean vulnerable people [or otherwise] could pick and choose, and not be tied into a bad scene.”

      The Daktory building was chosen because it was large enough to house MaryJane the CannaBus and other campaigning vehicles bought with donations made to the Daktory organisers. Obviously if social clubs or commercial vendors were legal there would be a wide variety, each set up in a venue that suits its members/ customers. Bad operators can stay in business under prohibition, because of shortages and the hassles of finding good dealers, in a regulated market they would either fail to retain customers, or (ideally) fail to get a license.

      “Product quality also needs to be tested by an independent authority to guarantee safety for consumers.”

      Agreed. Just one more of the many benefits of legalizing and regulating. There is no independent quality control of black market drugs, which makes them much more dangerous than when the same drug is supplied by a responsible vendor, from a quality-controlled source.

      1. Good points.
        I imagine the stress of cops and gangs on Daktory management would have been too much for most people.
        It would be like the ground constantly moving from under you.

        Both The Daktory, The High Tea Cafe, and Auckland Green Cross had the situation of a venerable leader.

        Ideally a commitee with a constitution of sorts would keep everyone honest and egos in check too.

        There are so many points of view and considerations its probably enough for a text book.

        My purpose for originally commenting was to be a voice for the disaffected.

        The consumer who is genuinely medical, even with undiagnosed or invisible conditions and continues to suffer in the dark and self medicate, much more fragile than most, who tends not to have a voice, yet, may make up a larger portion of the cannabis *user* demographic.

        It would be a shame if their situation became worse due to poorly managed establishments. But from my experience at the Daktory, the companionship and freedom to toke in freedom was hugely uplifting and stress relieving after hiding behind mum and dads shed their whole lives.

        When I was among hill tribe people in Northern Thailand, I ended up in this bonging competition with an eighty year old man. I got totally blitzed sitting in the main street of their ramshackle ‘town’. No paranoia, smiling and waving as locals and travelers walked about.

        Using cannabis in company is healthy, rather than hiding in a closet fearing the shadows.

        Many issues though, especially driving and the law!

        Meeting stoner girls is a real high point! as well as friendship.

  2. Having lived in parts of the city where those two bit, blatantly predatory independent liquor stores seem to be on every corner, I’ve really grown to love the effect of the licencing trust in Waitakere.

  3. Great article Chris, It’s clear that if we don’t develop a framework for change, we can’t logicically expect anything to change.

    I think my only reservation to a referendum has been, how do we frame a question to such a complex set of issues with a simple YES or NO, when No has so clearly failed.

Comments are closed.