Page 8 of 9 First ... 56789 Last
Results 176 to 200 of 202

Consuming Cannabis ...

66 people have voted on this poll. You may not vote on this poll

... is a health issue (discuss)
30 45.45%
... is a criminal act (discuss)
5 7.58%
... is like smoking and should be discouraged (discuss)
13 19.70%
... could be done another way (discuss)
18 27.27%
  1. Post
    Edward Diego wrote:
    You have assumed that your first predicate is true without showing why. How do you know it will increase drugged driving?
    You could apply that argument, but I believe that drugged driving will increase, so I will be voting no, unless shown otherwise. Hopefully enough people share my view and we can be shown that there are going to be measures in place to combat it. Just use the money from taxing the stuff to detect it, not hard.

  2. Post
    I just don't know why you think that'd be ruled out.

  3. Post
    Edward Diego wrote:
    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...-approach.html

    You have until the 28th of June to make submissions
    Copied from the link:

    National leader Simon Bridges has criticised the Government for not acting quick enough on improving drug-driver testing.

    He said earlier this week the document was received by the Government in December 2017, "but 17 months later it has still not been released".

    This highlights my concern, cannabis is going to be more readily available and the government doesn't sound like they will be ready. But thankyou for the link.

    BTW, this was interesting, as it is assumed a certain level of alcohol impairs all users the same! I know that I am well impaired at lower than the alcohol limits, so if we are using this as a starting point we are screwed!

    "For example, unlike alcohol breath tests, drug tests can only detect the presence of drugs or medication. They cannot test if a driver is impaired."

  4. Post
    bradc wrote:
    I just don't know why you think that'd be ruled out.
    I don't, but I don't think the discussion is heading that way.

  5. Post
    You think funny.

  6. Post
    This is going to be a wildly unpopular statement, but the only time I ever questioned my driving while under its influence, was on the back of a 60 hour physically demanding work week combined with job security issues. In this state ended up in the right lane trying to turn right. Nothing came of it, but it was a major wake up call for my own mental health. Afterwards I would still spark up for my daily commute to and from work for the next year without incident or close call.

  7. Post
    How do you even improve drug driver testing with regard to cannabis? I think I've only ever been through a handful of police stops in my entire life, and those were timed and placed to coincide with late night drinking. I just don't see how you can effectively prevent it in the first place without massively inconveniencing motorists. I understand testing when accidents occur, but random stop checks for cannabis would be difficult as it's not really a "party drug" like alcohol. Look at the post above ^, he lights up for his commute. I've never seen a police stop during commuting hours.

  8. Post
    "For example, unlike alcohol breath tests, drug tests can only detect the presence of drugs or medication. They cannot test if a driver is impaired."
    I do not understand this logic. Aren't breath testers solely used for detecting the presence and degree of alcohol in one's system? If they are over the limit then they have violated the law, regardless of perceived impairment.

    If cannabis testing becomes as easy as using a breath testing device, then surely it's a matter of determining the maximum ('safe') limit and applying the rules accordingly. Is there something I'm missing?

    Also aren't those devices known for inaccuracies - hence why people opt for blood tests? Either way it's going to increase the work required by Police for proper enforcement.

  9. Post
    Lethargic wrote:
    I do not understand this logic. Aren't breath testers solely used for detecting the presence and degree of alcohol in one's system? If they are over the limit then they have violated the law, regardless of perceived impairment.

    If cannabis testing becomes as easy as using a breath testing device, then surely it's a matter of determining the maximum ('safe') limit and applying the rules accordingly. Is there something I'm missing?

    Also aren't those devices known for inaccuracies - hence why people opt for blood tests? Either way it's going to increase the work required by Police for proper enforcement.
    I did wonder the same, it seems to me it is more a stalling tactic, there are swabs used in Australia to detect all sorts of drugs, so there is president there, the cost could come out of the tax take on cannabis and some. Like I said, if the discussion indicated anything more than detection is too hard then I would have no issue voting to legalise.

    As for the post up two... no words.

  10. Post
    s0cks wrote:
    How do you even improve drug driver testing with regard to cannabis? I think I've only ever been through a handful of police stops in my entire life, and those were timed and placed to coincide with late night drinking. I just don't see how you can effectively prevent it in the first place without massively inconveniencing motorists. I understand testing when accidents occur, but random stop checks for cannabis would be difficult as it's not really a "party drug" like alcohol. Look at the post above ^, he lights up for his commute. I've never seen a police stop during commuting hours.
    I have a friend, who I feel is about to become very wealthy, that is working on/about to launch a roadside test unit that can detect a myriad of drugs in lightning quick time.

    It isnt far away.

  11. Post
    Pennywiser NZ wrote:
    I have a friend, who I feel is about to become very wealthy, that is working on/about to launch a roadside test unit that can detect a myriad of drugs in lightning quick time.

    It isnt far away.
    The testing time isn't the only factor though. It's the slowing of traffic I'm mainly thinking of.

  12. Post
    dickytim wrote:
    As for the post up two... no words.
    While it is obviously irresponsible, I wouldn't be surprised if most people have driven, at some point in their lives, when they were severely exhausted or under the influence of some prescription/legal depressant. Point being, there will always be outliers who take risks. What is important is what the majority of people do the majority of the time.

    I feel education and awareness campaigns are better at prevention than overbearing enforcement.

  13. Post
    s0cks wrote:
    How do you even improve drug driver testing with regard to cannabis? I think I've only ever been through a handful of police stops in my entire life, and those were timed and placed to coincide with late night drinking. I just don't see how you can effectively prevent it in the first place without massively inconveniencing motorists. I understand testing when accidents occur, but random stop checks for cannabis would be difficult as it's not really a "party drug" like alcohol. Look at the post above ^, he lights up for his commute. I've never seen a police stop during commuting hours.
    Police routinely run checkpoints on morning commuter routes, and have done for decades.

    s0cks wrote:
    The testing time isn't the only factor though. It's the slowing of traffic I'm mainly thinking of.
    Checkpoints are nothing new. They've been a fact of driving in NZ since before I started driving, over 20 years ago.

    Where they checkpoint busy arterial routes they only let the queue get so long before letting traffic through to relieve it.

  14. Post
    Yeah, I've been through a breath test at 9am before and while they don't usually do them on arterial routes when they're busy, they just wave a lot of drivers through if it's starting to cause a traffic problem.

    Obviously most breath tests are in the evening on the weekend near the pubs though.



    In NZ the laws for driving under the influence of drugs say that if you have class B and C drugs in your system, you're only in trouble if you were driving like shit but if you have class As in your system you're busted regardless, similar to alcohol. So unless the law is changed, failing a random roadside cannabis test won't mean anything unless you had just crashed into the side of the testing bus.

    Basically:
    A person may not drive or attempt to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of drink or a drug, or both, to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM434523.html
    It is an offence to drive while impaired and with evidence in the bloodstream of a qualifying drug. The presence of a qualifying drug alone is not sufficient for an offence; there must first be impairment as demonstrated by unsatisfactory performance of the compulsory impairment test.

    https://www.transport.govt.nz/legisl...reddrivinglaw/
    tl;dr driving while stoned is legal as long as you do it properly.

  15. Post
    GaR wrote:
    Police routinely run checkpoints on morning commuter routes, and have done for decades.



    Checkpoints are nothing new. They've been a fact of driving in NZ since before I started driving, over 20 years ago.

    Where they checkpoint busy arterial routes they only let the queue get so long before letting traffic through to relieve it.
    Fair enough, though I have never been through a commuter one. I never said they weren't used, or were something new. I'm questioning how effective they are. Do we have any data on that in relation to alcohol?

  16. Post
    Never seen a morning checkpoint here in Welly in 35 years of commuting would just cause havoc.
    Have seen them at the weekend though.

  17. Post
    Just because it's plausible that people smoke up before commuting doesn't mean police would blockade streets during rush hour. Not only because it would be a major impediment to traffic, but there's a pretty vast difference between the likelihood of a serious accident whilst crawling home at 20 km/h at 5:30PM vs what can happen at 11PM when you're heading home from the pub on empty streets.

  18. Post
    Pennywiser NZ wrote:
    I have a friend, who I feel is about to become very wealthy, that is working on/about to launch a roadside test unit that can detect a myriad of drugs in lightning quick time.

    It isnt far away.
    Testing positive for cannabis isn't testing positive for impairment though.

  19. Post
    kierbear wrote:
    Testing positive for cannabis isn't testing positive for impairment though.
    Yes, there would be a requirement to measure volumes like alcohol, a simple detection test would need to be followed up with something else, a blood test? That opens a whole new can or worms.

  20. Post
    dickytim wrote:
    Yes, there would be a requirement to measure volumes like alcohol, a simple detection test would need to be followed up with something else, a blood test? That opens a whole new can or worms.
    Unless the detection window can be shrunk for saliva tests, that will yield far too many false positives. And obviously a blood test for proof is just not going to happen. Gonna have to be cop discretion.

  21. Post
    This is a strange debate to me

    The people who are for voting no seem to be under some impression that the current system is working.

    I struggle to think of anything that has been so persistently pursued and so consistently failed as the war on drugs.

    The only possible metric for success that can be pointed to is larger seizures or greater numbers incarcerated. Somewhat ironically both of those metrics actually indicate degress of failure.

    The war on drugs is a war on human nature and thus is destined to fail. Unfortunately, it's taken nearly 100yrs and millions of lives lost or ruined before we even start to consider there might be a better way. It is mind boggling if you look at it objectively.

    tl;dr the current prohibition scheme has failed and will continue to fail, all it does it produce a greater number of 'criminals'. Anyone that wants illegal drugs can get illegal drugs, prohibition is a failure, it is well past time we tried something else.

  22. Post
    Snuffles wrote:
    This is a strange debate to me

    The people who are for voting no seem to be under some impression that the current system is working.

    I struggle to think of anything that has been so persistently pursued and so consistently failed as the war on drugs.

    The only possible metric for success that can be pointed to is larger seizures or greater numbers incarcerated. Somewhat ironically both of those metrics actually indicate degress of failure.

    The war on drugs is a war on human nature and thus is destined to fail. Unfortunately, it's taken nearly 100yrs and millions of lives lost or ruined before we even start to consider there might be a better way. It is mind boggling if you look at it objectively.

    tl;dr the current prohibition scheme has failed and will continue to fail, all it does it produce a greater number of 'criminals'. Anyone that wants illegal drugs can get illegal drugs, prohibition is a failure, it is well past time we tried something else.
    Let's not forget that the war on drugs was started for racist reasons and continues to be racist today.

  23. Post
    Go on then, explain how that is?

  24. Post
    He's stretching a bit.

    dickytim wrote:
    Yes, there would be a requirement to measure volumes like alcohol, a simple detection test would need to be followed up with something else, a blood test? That opens a whole new can or worms.
    Remember what I posted about the laws on impaired driving. Testing positive for cannabis while driving isn't a crime in and of itself. It only starts becoming illegal if you're too ****ed up to pass a roadside coordination type test.

    Snuffles wrote:
    The war on drugs is a war on human nature and thus is destined to fail. Unfortunately, it's taken nearly 100yrs and millions of lives lost or ruined before we even start to consider there might be a better way. It is mind boggling if you look at it objectively.

    tl;dr the current prohibition scheme has failed and will continue to fail, all it does it produce a greater number of 'criminals'. Anyone that wants illegal drugs can get illegal drugs, prohibition is a failure, it is well past time we tried something else.
    Yeah but look at it in an NZ sense. Very few lives are lost or ruined by cannabis and I think we're probably going to make it legal eventually. The cops don't have an official policy on it but possession is such a lowbie crime (I think you go to court and get a ~$100 fine) that most of them just take it off you and throw it down the drain rather than spend all night booking you for it.

    Methamphetamine on the other hand is a legitimate concern and definitely shouldn't be legalised. If you could buy cheap meth from the shop it would be a ****ing disaster.

  25. Post
    With a full legal range of options .. people still gonna go the meth??

    take half of what was spent on prohibition and spend it on drug/mental services and everyones ahead

    anyone licensed to supply anything is also contributing into national health fund. Greater likelihood of harm greater amount contributed?

    I don't claim to have a great solution, but what we currently doing (re substances) is inhuman really. The scheme above would be a more logical/sensible approach to substance use. I had wanted this to just be about cannabis, but i guess it makes sense to extrapolate out to the logic of legalisation in toto.