Better Healthcare: Review of NZ's Drug Policy

Not much to say other that what others already have stated. Great proposal, and this would help to free up the judiciary to focus on real criminal activity.

Rogena that is a good point. once implemented one of the leading tasks of implementation will be education followed by destigmatization, and then availability to the public by way of "best option" channels.

Intro focus seems to be on abuse

2.1
Third word "laws" needs removal

4.1 portugal ssytem...how and at what point are people presumed to be needing medical help? If one "offends" one faces the three person panel? How does that recognise normal social or medical use? Nz needs to leave alone social or medical users with no "problems" ..it seems the Portugese method "punishes" all users who are caught wether they have a problem or not. ..this is shifting an invented problem to another place..for the MINORITY who have problems it seems like an ok idea..but fails those with no problems? Lowest drug user rates it says...should that be the goal? Should we not be free to use social drugs and only rewuire medical help when abuse has begun? Hmmmmmmmmm it seems the Portugese model is focussed on reduction of use rather than allowing social and medical use without interferring? Last line.." A resounding success" ..yes..if the goal is use reduction..why are we not looking at use allowable..help only if needed? This policy idea should only be for a country committed to drug use reduction and how is that freedom ..what of the many who use social or medical drugs without problem? To me the Portugese model misses the point of freedom but achives the goal, for portugese, of reduction of use.

5.1 Int Party to support ......drug use is a health problem...again good for those with problems but ehy treat those without proboems as if they need help?

5.2 ..support decriming...putting in place a perfect opportunity for the no free Portugese model. Why no support for legalisation period?

5.5 begins by using the word legalise yet uses the word decriminalise within..thus a confusion to my mind ....not clear enough

5.6 speaks of offering help to "Addicts" yet from my brief look at info supplied about Portugal methods as in 4.1 all people will be subject to being cnsidred "Addicts" ..more clarification on this is needed.

5.7 BRAVO

conclusion......fail to see freedom for cannabis use...only see methods of treatments for addicts....how does the majority of non addicted users, especially in relation to cannabis..fit into the scheme of these proposals..it certainly is not clear, does not make drug use free , assumes all users are abusers...

This is not something I could support without clealry making non harmful use free and legal period. Anything else sells short the idea of freedom surely?

Thank you Gregory for the fine tooth comb scrutiny. Will leave it to Tim to answer the wording questions.

I feel overall it still classes drug users as having problems..something to be reduced ..when that should only apply to those actually having problems.

Appreciate the opportunity to comment thank you Grant.

like to see health professionals more accountable for the harm they do with their drugs too.and not whitewash their legal medicine when wrongly prescribed drugs either kill ,or maim

thank you Robert

The aim is sensible, but the expression of it is rather playing with words and shows considerable bias.

This policy, if it became law, would really introduce two levels of social discrimination (which is all 'criminalisation' really means--society judging something beyond the pale in law for its own protection). Those who manufactured, supplied and trafficked would be hit with the sledgehammer and directed into punitive processes; those who possessed for personal use would be tapped with a tap-hammer and directed into clinical processes. But in both cases society would still have used the rule of law to segregate abusers for subsequent rehabilitation.

There is confusion under the headings of medicinal use, partly because of the danger pointed to in 3.2, and partly because the assumption is made that the active ingredient is only acquired by taking the plant in the same form that traffickers push. The active ingredient, if well proved to be effective and safe, should be isolated and supplied in medicinal form, so that there is no confusion between what drug-users and suppliers use and supply and what doctors and pharmacists would prescribe and sell (pills not weeds). Medicinal drugs are not 'recreational' drugs and there should be no confusion between them in law or in fact.

The policy report is decidedly biased in its use of language. 'Clearly', 'undesirable', and all that sort of expression are used in ways aimed at persuading with assertions dressed as facts. The strongest bias is in the use of the word 'recreational', which at heart means to be recreated, to be made better, to be improve, yet at the same time the report says that people who use these drugs need to be rehabilitated, they need to be attended to as sick, and with force of law directed into treatment paths. You cannot have it both ways. Either you are sick, or you are made better. If in law you are classed as sick you cannot in the same law be classed as healthier. The language should be neutral.

And a bit of linguistics in paragraph 3.1. Laws are not enforced 'around' something. They are enforced 'on' it. 'Around' something never lands on it. The modern habit of misusing 'around' as it if meant 'on', or 'for' or 'at', should not be written into law. The law is meant to be well-educated.

And the failure of the authorities to catch up with 48% of the population would not be eliminated by this policy. Their incompetence would simple be under a different label, but the numbers would be the same.

totally agree with Gregory Izgreyanow ; fact is 90% [or more ?] of drug users are not addicts or problem users. but I`ll now read the doco &comment further !

@jessejulian Hey Jesse,

If you read the policy document you'll see our proposal suggests that legalization of cannabis will be the official position of the party.

However we do realize we live in the real world and we must make sacrifices as we move towards our goals and decriminalization for personal use may be an achievable goal while we work towards legalization. We simply wanted to state our position across the board so our voters wouldn't be shocked or upset in the future.

Decriminalization of possession of other illicit dangerous drugs is a system that has worked well in Portugal and it lowered the drug abuse rate by almost half. We are turning addicts into patients instead of criminals with these proposals.

Those who traffic and produce other illicit drugs (not cannabis) will still be treated as criminals, as they should be.

I hope that helps!

This is brilliant reading and very exciting - I love that our party can be so different and brave. It is obscene how much time and resources are spent on criminalising this issue rather than treating it as a health issue.
I do have some questions though (advance apologies if I'm totally wrong on these, I've had a killer headache all day and am feeling a bit dumb tonight):
- Legalisation of possession for personal use - do you mean decriminalisation rather than straight legalisation? And should the decriminalisation for medical purposes be legalisation?
- Does this also include growing a small amount? Say for example up to 3 plants per person/dwelling? In the Decrimalisation for Med it says large scale cultivation (to be determined) will remain illegal.
- Regulations on where it can be smoked? Ie in public places such as parks? (Hardly important right now, just curious as to people's thoughts)
- Taxation and regulation is not included in the proposals - is there a reason why it's not? There could be a large amount of revenue that could be transferred into rehabilitation etc.

Hey Miriam! Thanks for your questions,

1.) I mean decriminalization of possession of Class A, B and C drugs that are not cannabis for personal use should be the party line as that is what the research supports. Full legalization of possession and cultivation should certainly be the party line as again, that is what the research suggests works.

2.) The practical implementation aspects, such as where it can be smoked and the tax and regulation around it, are fairly nitty-gritty particular issues. I chose to leave them out in the sake of brevity; I felt that legalization of cannabis for personal use implied taxation. I referenced the Colorado tax numbers.

I'm sure those details could be added to a final copy of the policy; at the stage this is just a draft after all.

Thanks again for your comments.

@timkibblewhite Hey Tim,

Yes, I did read the proposal, but regardless of what the end goal may be, the road you have planned to get there is a waste of time and resources. Finding people who think weed is a harmful drug is damn harder than finding those who think of it not equal but far less dangerous than alcohol. Going the medical approach is not required here like in the US. A policy with some confidence, instead of this weak one, that plans to do outright what NZ wants and needs is what should be found here, not this slow arduous process of going through so many 'phases'.

Oh and I also had to disagree on this based on the "Let's decriminalize Meth!" component. Some drugs seriously should not be legal, ever, meth being one of them. I think a policy like this, set to decriminalize all drugs, will drive more voters away just based on the position that you want crack posession to not have punishment, and how out of proportion that can easily be blown.

@jessejulian

Hey Jesse,

I understand that you're passionate about this issue and so am I! It's so great that you're comment and I welcome your input so thank you again for that.

It is a shame that we may have to go the decriminalization --> legalization but the policy is designed to reflect the political reality we live in while also stating clearly and directly the parties intent in no uncertain terms. Also please keep in mind this is simply a draft policy as suggested by Grant Kienzley and myself.

As for your 'lets decriminalize meth' comment I feel like you have missed the issue. I'm not suggesting we decriminalize their production, manufacturing or creation. We simply do not want to see people who fall into a life of drugs having to be considered criminals for life when they should be rehabilitated.

The decriminalization aspect is key as it ensures that drug addicts are not seen as criminals and they do not have to wear the 'title' for life. Claims such as 'Let's decriminalize meth!' trivialize what is a very serious issue. The war on drugs has failed, all the research and studies point to this. A new approach is required and that is what this policy proposes. We want to rehabilitate crack users, not punish them.

I would welcome your input on this draft and what you would like to see changed, please continue to give your suggestions. Perhaps you could write a companion document and point out the issues you have and provide the research and studies that support your view? That would be super helpful!

I understand we have signed treaties via the UN that essentially stop us from legalizing, but considering how little push they actually have, ie syria and biological weapons, australia and boat people, united states and guantanamo and so on, it's time for someone(NZ) to stand up and say yeah na we aren't part of your barbaric drug treaty anymore. As for users of meth to not be treated as criminals, while this may seem good, really will not help. Sellers doing drop offs simply never carry more than a 'personal amount' and thus never get nabbed. I am on a tablet, but I will write up a few of my own submissions in the coming days including a drug related one.

Hey again Jesse,

I'd be really interested in reading the references for the points you've provided here, certainly worth looking into. Particularly the ones about the UN treaties that we are a party too? I wasn't aware of those, would like to have a read of them,

Also if you take a look at the studies and research out of Portugal I think you'll see that the results really do speak for themselves! Drug abuse rates were cut in half in the past ten years since they enacted their policies.

Thank you again for taking the time and I look forward to reading your ideas in the coming days, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me at tk@internet.org.nz with any further ideas or question you'd like an immediate answer too (as I am often away from my computer and unable to check loomio frequerently,)

Thanks again! And anyone should feel free to email me directly with any ideas or comments as well :)

@timkibblewhite The UN and its treaties are basically the only reason why countries like the netherlands and probably portugal too, 'decriminalize' instead of legalize. Here is a link that will give you a bit of info but basically every country has signed an agreement saying we wont let people grow or use poppies, coca plant, or cannabis in our country. Just as NZ had the first womens vote, we could set a great example and be the first to turn our back on this archaic system. " The United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 " is the name of it.

The all or nothing approach is not appropriate for NZ society.We should also consider the approach to drug testing regime i.e. same rules like we have for drink driving but no compulsory testing for beneficiary's etc..By the end of the day it is no ones business if you have a smoke or a drink after work as long as you don't drive,or show up at work stoned/drunk and don't pose a risk for you fellow citizens.

I would at some point in the future see a couple of additional things included:
Research and treatment options based on the MAPS.org stuff: psychedelics can have some very good results in psychiatric/psychotherapeutic settings and MDMA is great for PTSD.
Ibogaine is an excellent treatment option for drug addiction of most flavours. Research and funding must be stepped up for this. Early proof positive has been conducted at at least two private clinics here. Full subsidy should be a long-term goal in appropriate situations.
While I certainly agree that "legalise meth" is a silly idea, personal sovereignty is an important aspect in this that needs recognition. If you want to take it, it's your business, unless you hurt yourself. People are going to take meth; it being illegal does nothing to reduce this, and creates massive harm in the community because of policing and criminalisation. Contaminants and varying qualities cause medical problems and the illegal supply networks are almost invariably connected to organised crime.
The war on drugs has failed. It's time for peace on drugs.

Hey @jessejulian

I truly don't see this being a stumbling block to implementing legalization of cannabis cultivation or personal use; both Washington State and Colorado have gone through the process with no issues, as did Uruguay.

The reason it is important to set out our intentions on every stage of the law is a function of MMP - the Internet Party is a minor party and our bargaining power is not as large as the major parties. By stating clearly our intent at every stage we ensure our members will not be surprised if we are unable to complete all of our political goals in our first term in parliament.

I, personally, would rather have a full understanding of where the party stands, where it wants to go and how it intends to get there and the steps that may be taken along that path. This document was prepared with that goal in mind.

After all, aren't we all sick of politicians making promises they cannot keep?

Don't get me wrong, this proposal is better than most, I just think its a bit slow and should take a stance of education and logic being applied on a case by case, drug by drug basis. MDMA being decrim/legalized? Thats a maybe. Meth? No... The research, and reality of the drug, it needs to be fought but in a better, smarter approach.. And trust me, I hate the idea of the war on drugs just as much as you or the next guy. Besides, to the average joe, this proposal will be spun and presented as "Internet party proposes posession of meth be decriminalized!!" which will only hurt voter turnout.

I would like a system where I can buy a licence (21 or older) and grow three plants a year for my own personal use. money from licence fees gets put back into drug education, health and you guessed it the coffers, just a thought.

@grantkeinzley @timkibblewhite @miriampierard1 I propose this publication be used are the basis from which the policy around "regulated cannabis" be formed. "How to Regulate Cannabis: A Practical Guide" http://www.tdpf.org.uk/sites/default/files/How-to-Regulate-Cannabis-Guide.pdf

I also suggest that @grantkeinzley @timkibblewhite and other people involved read this publication, it will be a very useful tool in developing this policy further "After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation" http://www.tdpf.org.uk/sites/default/files/Blueprint.pdf

@grantkeinzley and @timkibblewhite also http://www.tdpf.org.uk/resources/publications/after-war-drugs-options-control - The report provides a critique of the failings of prohibition and offers a framework for regulating drugs and for developing effective drug policy.

I'm really confused. How could we tax something that is illegal to produce, manufacture, sell, supply? I'm very keen for a smoke-free (tobacco) NZ. Tobacco kills and it is addictive to the extreme so it can't be called a 'recreational drug'. There's nothing else good to say about it. So why should corporations get to profit from the deaths of our people? Same goes for P (meths). I think it's a good idea that people who use drugs aren't turned into criminals, but I want people who supply and create drugs to be punished and stopped. I think people should be allowed to grow cannabis for their own personal use, but selling it is supply so should be illegal - how do you tax something that is illegal? I'm still confused.

Morning all, seems I missed a lot last night :)

Having looked over many of the hard hitting questions here, and I thank you all for them, we need to get back to the essence of the draft.

The purpose of this draft was to create a platform, simple and clean that then can be introduced as the party's stance on the matter.

As a platform it introduces some remedial solutions, addresses faults in the current system, and questions government re why we want change.

Although all of your questions are important to the development of this policy, such additions are more likely to come up in the policy forums and after implementation for example: after implemented we have this problem solved so now how do we deal with Meth? and that question will lead to another document pertaining to those rules and exceptions.

In short do you feel this document is good enough to be carried on to the Policy Forums as a policy platform from which then all of your additional points can be discussed further?

again thank you to all participating. NZ's laws need to be changed, and it is up to all of us to measure what changes and make them.

DELIBERATE ACTION IS NOT AN AFFLICTION
Saying that drugs are a health issue, period, because those who take them are sick, is specious and glib. It is true that all who commit anti-social acts--acts that have been discriminated against by rule of law--are sick, ranging from the worst sickness of murder down to the least of shoplifting in a $2 shop. But taking drugs is not a
sickness like catching the flu. It is not an affliction that is the accidental consequence of catching some passing bug, a mere happenstance; it is an addiction that is the consequence of deliberate, repeated anti-social action, the consequence of wilfully taking into the body a substance that is a social disease in order to alter negatively the normal functioning of the brain for the fallacy of feeling good for a while.

The only sicknesses that come close are the likes of developing lung-cancer by smoking cigarettes or
cirrhosis of the liver by habitually drinking alcohol to excess. Those arise from addictions, especially smoking nicotine, which is three times as addictive as heroin--and it has been recognised as antisocial behaviour and is slowly being stamped out by social pressure, legislation and steady increases in price. Abuse of alcohol has not had the same good fortune; the pushers' lobby is too strong and it has been permitted to become well-entrenched. We should take heed of that and be instructed by it.

The proposed policy is roughly the equivalent of the American difference between a crime and a misdemeanour, except that the penalty would be treatment by order via the appointed team of three. But as I said in an earlier post that is still discrimination by force of law; it is still criminalisation, it just has a different label. As the old Roman saying pointed out long ago:'When men cannot change things, they change
words.'

PORTUGAL
That is underlined by the fact that the policy document uses the phrase 'the Portuguese decriminalisation framework', but that is shown to be a biased assertion and a logical sideslip by the description of it that preceded it:

'Individuals who are found in possession of illicit drugs are issued summonses and the drugs are confiscated. The individual is then interviewed by "A Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction." These commissions, unlike the courts in New Zealand, are made up of three people; a social worker, a psychiatrist and an attorney. They have a range of powers raging from banning association with certain peoples, requirement to periodically report back to the committee, community service and more. If the committee finds that the individual is addicted to illicit drugs they can recommend drug rehabilitation.'

Summonses, confiscation, banning associations, requirement to report, illicit drug, etc., etc., are all sanctions imposed by law. That clearly categorises possession as being outside the law, outside the place deemed harmless to Portuguese society by it. That is not decriminalisation. It remains criminal, but the consequence is to be labelled socially sick and penalised with treatment rather than a fine or imprisonment. To pretend that it is some kind of legalisation that removes criminalisation is playing with words.

THE PROBLEM OF IDENTIFICATION REMAINS
The problem of identifying the wrongdoers--the 48%--will remain, whatever the label applied to them. The harm they cause to themselves will remain. The harm they do to society will remain.

There will still be those like the girl I overheard at the ferry terminal, who said to her companions that she had been driving some friends somewhere and had swerved to avoid a green monster in the road. Someone else in the car 'who was not high' asked her why she had swerved. 'Because there was a green monster on the road.' 'There was no monster.'

Yes, it is a sickness. The problem is identification, to find all who are ill so that the enforced treatment proposed by this policy can begin. This proposal does not address that. Until society--which in this case begins with the healthily non-addicted 52% not the biased 48%--is willing to say loudly and repeatedly that this is a sickness that must be stamped out, that it must be declared far more anti-social than smoking cigarettes, that it must be frowned on, campaigned against by all means, shunted out the door, and like domestic violence and child-abuse reported wherever it is seen, we shall not be getting on top of it.

WIDESPREAD ACCEPTANCE FIGHTS TO ENTRENCH ANTI-SOCIAL ADDICTION
But militating against identification is widespread acceptance. Encouraging and reinforcing that is the folly, the erroneous notion, the outrageous fallacy that drugs are 'recreational', that they are OK, that using them makes you 'high', when in fact they take you ever lower, that they do you no good, and that the only drugs you should ever take are the ones tested and prescribed by the medical profession.

Until we get there, we shall not be reversing the decline. We are well on the way with nicotine. We need to get there with pot, heroin, cocaine, etc. The proposed policy does not do that. It reads as if it were written by people who like drugs, who take drugs, but do not want to be called criminal. They appear to want to be called sick, for that is the label they apply at the top--to others, at least. For I doubt that they really mean themselves, I doubt that they would call themselves sick.

(I hope there are none of the 48% amongst our 15 candidates. Were they drug-tested?)

But as AA knows very well It is not till alcoholics are willing to say, 'My name is John, I am an alcoholic' that they begin the path to recovery from anti-personal, anti-social behaviour.

'MEDICINAL' ATTEMPTS VINDICATION BY EVASION
If there are substances amongst the many in a given plant that have medicinal efficacy, that does not justify medicating yourself with the entire plant, because then you get not only the helpful molecules you get all the harmful ones too. The only safe way to get the helpful ones is after they have been identified, rigorously tested and have had worked out for them a safe prescription regime. Then, and only then may they be taken, but only under medical advice and supervision. Growing plants on your window-ledge and puffing them into your lungs and saying you need them for medicinal use is just an excuse to get 'high'; it is nothing but a shallow a lie to yourself to camouflage the harm you are doing to yourself with the pretence of some partial good, real or assumed.

SICK, YES, BUT THE CURE IS...?
Once people have been identified as sick with psychological and/or physical addiction to a drug or drugs, and the team of three has been appointed under the proposed policy by the authorities to bring about a cure, what incentive is there for the sick persons to stick to the regime ordered for them? And if they don't, what
then? Will the cure be enforced by some means? If so, what? And will there be a penalty for failure to get cured? If not, what use is the curative regime? If so, that, again, would just be criminalisation by another name. It would be an admission that no matter what it is called, this policy is in the end identification and treatment under threat of penalty--it is criminalisation followed by reform backed up by penal means. It would just be using less uncomfortable labels. If that works, fine. But it is unlikely, because being mealy-mouthed, evading plain speech never achieves anything of lasting value. 'When men cannot change things, they change words...'

I have just watched this clip with UK Channel 4's Jon Snow; Russell Brand on Drug policy in UK, I thought it sums up a good portion of what is being debated here and internationally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrVe7jJE__M

Its important to me that people understand clearly where problems exist and where they don't.

an example is:

"Pure methamphetamines are bad and should be illegal" is a statement that many would agree with. but its not a true statement, more true would be pure methamphetamine is a chemical compound. we see a link between the way people act while using the drug, particularly over an extended period. their relationships tend to suffer and it can lead to long term psychological and physiological damage to the individual and the affected peripheral social network (that means families, acquaintances, workmates, friends etc). and so should be socially restricted (illegal) to reflect an ethical decision in a democratic nature. - and in my opinion - if the majority of people agree with this view then the restrictions should be more easily be upheld as a social pressure behind the law rather than a governing body imposing from above.

the same can be said of alcohol or tobacco statements such as alcohol causes road death toll rises. or tobacco kills.

the truer understanding is that alcohol on its own does nothing to people before it is consumed or after for that matter. not saying drinking dont make you drunk but you are still the same person after you drink - maybe less likeable nonetheless - the common conception of being 'under the influence' of alcohol could as easily be attributed as being under the influence of bad decision making... we don't tend to point at people who are otherwise unintoxicated and declare that any bad decisions they may have made that afternoon are due to the lunch they ate. the point being the decision to consume is as much the cause - this decision can be seen as the thing that enables the blood chemistry change which effects the body in particular the organ responsible for behaviour, and can lead to abnormal and anti social behaviour, distortion of perceptions leading to bad decision making and ultimately death of self or others.

and tobacco is a plant, it cannot willfully cause injury to anyone because it is incapable of it.

unless with an uneducated and unskillful approach or for what ever reason one goes beyond ones limits or over doses long or short term and causes damage to oneself or others there is no need for any concern. besides this surely we have a very natural right to ingest what ever substances we please.

the 'reality' indicates that within our culture and the way in which we have been educated/ brought up, in our society - we tend to have a high rate of alcoholism and overuse of alcohol causing driving related injury and death and other harmful outcomes such as violence and brutality etc. but it's the mentality and culture and social acceptability which is more at fault here than the substances. and until that idea is grasped by many more of us we have somewhat missed what self responsibility is and hence let someone else replace the notion with ideas like right and wrong drugs...

can we agree on this? if no this maybe partly because of the line of thought that if there were no methamphetamines, alcohol or tobacco in existence then we would be better of, which is understandable and sounds quite reasonable. but its irrational because it does not reflect realistic thinking nor a possible solution, and also misses the point that people have to make their own decisions - understand things before they can make practical and useful decisions - that are going to make a positive difference in the future. for every body.

not to speak of the fiscal attributes and political motives that power the drug industry. nor the obvious link between poverty, crime and unhealthy drug use and the related pharmaceutical industry and private prisons lobby influence etc.

sorry not much practical arguments but i hope this causes a bit of thought about the subject

Legalize pot and be done with it

Hi, this is very well done and definitely heading in the right direction. There is a couple of minor issue I would like to discuss and we will write up a submission to it later today or tomorrow.
Thankz Grant, well done mate.

I think people need to know what's really going on behind the scenes. Everyone involved with Internet Party has wanted a strong and bold cannabis policy including legalisation from the get go. The reason it has taken so long and why this current proposal falls so drastically short is that Hone has been wielding a veto from behind the scenes since the beginning. A coalition with MANA is more strategically important to IP than giving the members what they want and having the best practice evidence based cannabis policy. The only problem with this is that it throws the idea of IP as the supposed 'party of principles' out the window. I just think the membership which is very obviously interested in this issue deserves to be told the truth transparently and not patronised. Everyone is so confused as to why IP is so good and listens to the membership on everything else but not this, well this is why. Hone is anti weed and needs to keep playing that angle to win his electorate. It's what we call a catch 22 and this is why I will not be voting for the Internet party, I wanted to but they have sadly disappointed and I fear this is just setting the stage for future failure.

In answer to queries re Hone's stance on this matter.

Hone has firm reasons to not want legalised cannabis. he has said this publicly and states that it is because of cannabis that people around him, in his region have had a rough time.

No one can argue that, and I am completely sympathetic regarding his reasoning.

However, has recently stated (again publicly) that although he has personal conflicts with the proposal he agrees with it in part because he really doesn't agree that young people should be imprisoned because of using marijuana.

Now onto why I want to see it make it to the policy forums for further discussion is also a personal tale.

some years back me and an Australian friend stopped in at a club for a pint after work. We were working abroad. Guns came out and my friend was stabbed and killed. Why? Because two drug lords decided to have a head to head at the same club we just happened to walk into.

In this regard I too don't like drugs, but on a much bigger scale I really don't like the underground world that deals in drugs.

this policy is my answer to a safer NZ and I don't mind driving it across the line.

Thanks for putting together such a coherent and broad-minded policy. I have comments that I would like to make on two specific clauses:

5.2 "the study of successful models" I suggest that this should be all drug reform models, not just the ones that are deemed successful. There is as much to learn from cases that failed or had limited positive outcomes.

5.4 A system where in-house research or review is conducted only when there is insufficient information available from international sources is similar to the censorship model used by the Office of Film and Literature Classification in determining ratings.
For drug research, there is more scope and more impetus to do research and development here in New Zealand. We have strong body of agricultural, health, biomedical and other scientific research capability, and this kind of innovation can be good for our economy. Positioning ourselves as a world-leader in reliable development of cannabis and other substances for all of their various potential applications as well as seeing what drugs actually do and how harms can be combated could act as a force against the brain drain and is greener than some of the things we currently do with our land and in our labs.
Our small population and geographic isolation has made New Zealand a place where innovation and experimentation can take place. For example, look at our banking technologies from Eftpos to phone apps: it's world-leading because we're a small market, a discrete population where roll-out and monitoring can be simple.
I agree completely that ongoing interaction with international models is important in developing and maintaining rational drug reform policy, but I think more emphasis on producing our own progressive research and development would be beneficial to our nation.

@grantkeinzley
Because prohibition does not curb use but increase it, it merely creates scarcity and gangs/black market manufacturers and distribution networks, form to capitalise on that scarcity.

Before drug prohibition, gangs used to rob banks, banks being the holder of another item of scarcity, cash.

Drug prohibition laws gave gangs exclusive products and therefore, removed their cash flow problems. So they stopped robbing banks and started making and selling drugs.

So if you were sitting in a bank and it got robbed, would you then have a dislike for money?

@grantkeinzley so you are admitting that legalisation can not be in the policy because of Hone's attitude?

Hone needs to be re-educated about the fact that the bad effects on his people are the result of Prohibition not the result of cannabis.

People in his own party have tried to do this unsuccessfully many times. So essentially what you are saying is that you guys would like to have a better policy but you have to compromise not because of what the Public will accept, but because of what HONE will accept. That doesn't sound like the groundbreaking policy process that the Internet Party is supposed to have.

Many people have offered advice on a better policy and it keeps getting watered down by the 'management committee' to try and appease not your own members, but conservative christian Maori who vote MANA! What a sad state of affairs. Just grow a pair and come out strongly for legalisation, you will get way more votes that way.

Like a lot of people, Hone Harawira has had to deal with the affects of prohibition and a completely unregulated drug industry called gangs.

So instead of there being an age restriction on for example buying a joint, there is none except if a tinny house has a conscience....

Therefore kids can buy weed and being too young, the rates of psychosis are high ( the stats show that people that start smoking cannabis under 18 are much more likely to suffer psychosis than those who started later ).

This is much more prevalent in poorer areas, the north being one of those. There is nothing worse than watching a loved one waste away and die because of the affliction of psychosis. I have lost close relatives to this.

Secondly, the ingesting of cannabis via smoking it, like any form of smoking, leads to lung cancer because of the carcinogens released via burning the plant, so if you have had relations die of lung cancer who both smoked tobacco and/or weed regularly, you are going to have a problem with the smoking method.

Thirdly, the scarcity issue caused by prohibition, gives rise to gangs, and jail, so again in poorer areas like the north, its easy to attribute cannabis with prison, police raids, and all the other social ills associated with black marketeering that comes about due to prohibition.

The first issue would be the hardest to address because even legal drugs are still taken by under 18 year olds. The second issue could be addressed as a promotion of the use of vapour inhalers but of course, most NZders would still just smoke cannabis and Hone knows this.

The third is the big one, and would be directly addressed by regulating cannabis rather than prohibiting it.

@grantkeinzley

What's the party stance on "decriminalization" vs "legalization"? 5.5 in the document is titled "Legalise Cannabis for Personal Use" but only discusses decriminalization.

"Hone has firm reasons to not want legalised cannabis. he has said this publicly and states that it is because of cannabis that people around him, in his region have had a rough time."

Yes, illicit drug use hurts people. If it were legal (not just decriminalized) then it would be grown everywhere. There would not be the cost for it there is now. That eliminates 90% of the problems. That the police aren't after you, and you don't have to go to a dealer of illegal drugs to get it takes care of the other 10% of the problems I'm sure he saw. I've seen the same, and I blame them on the system, not the drug.

My father was old. He remembered a time when marijuana was legal. He complained about it when he got older. "When I was your age, I smoked the wackey tobackey, but I also held down 3 part-time jobs and never missed a day, walking uphill both ways in the snow and 45 C heat (at the same time, of course)."

One of the big lies against legalization is about the strength. The claim is that it's stronger, thus more dangerous. That's a lie. For one, "strength" doesn't equal "danger" for marijuana. For the other, the penalties were all per weight of drug, not per mg of active ingredients. So you get lower penalties (per hit/high) if you make it stronger. So the makers did. If it had never been made illegal, nobody would have cared about making it stronger. So the strength is caused by prohibition. And the dose sizes decreased as strength increased.

The central point to me is that cannabis is classified as a class C drug. User possession can be fined up to $500 or even 3 months imprisonment.

Suppliers can be imprisoned for up to 14 years, yet in all the time these laws have been in affect, they have been completely and utterly ineffective in their central purpose, right up there with a law to prohibit looking at the night sky.

Millions of people in this country since 1978 have stated through their use of the drug that they do not believe in that law, sometimes up to 30% of the population will have a puff in any given year, and two thirds of the country will have tried it at least once, including almost all politicians, most judges and cops.

The Governments own science advisor has been telling them this for yonks now ( Sir Peter Gluckman ).

It really needs to be completely legalised, where the only restrictions be say like tobacco where you need a license to grow it commercially, and it not be available to people under 18.

this is a very tricky issue as it has been tainted by such a huge amount of propaganda/disinformation over a100yrperiod as demonstrated by some of the wellmeaning but inaccurate commentary here - so what the party really faces is how to re-educate the public in a doable form otherwise well lose votes,;I feel the current draft is a reasonable compromise but take issue strongly with the framing of drug use per say as an illness - fact is 90% of users do NOT have a problem & in the case of the entheogenic psychoactives ie MDMA,canabis,shrooms ,may/often do derive considerable benefits from moderate /intelligent usage.It is salutary to note that the UN conventions were essentially framed by Harry Anslinger - USdrugCzar 1930-1960- a bigoted,hyper conservative, xenophobic,white US male of the 1930s.Quite staggering really & a measure of the difficulty of this task. Such has been the inertia & propaganda push [ US driven until recently - now more a Russian,chineses ,INCB,Japanese etc agenda.] that we still labour under this reprehensible nonsense of a policy 70 years on despite all the evidence now showing the way forward..Im a slow typer but will add more to this later. Ive spent hundreds of hours researching this over 10years or so - hundreds of articles,commision reports etc. on my hard drive -it all points in the same direction ,This is a severly broken policy guarded by very strong vested interests & bureauocracy`s - hence the decades long inertia & political cowardice/complicity inherent inthis area of policy.

Is Hone anti weed ? It needs to be legal ,

@blairrobson1 The problem with that argument is that we would also need to ban home brewing.

Thank you to all actively involved in this discussion. It has been a strong debate and a fruitful discussion.

To those that abstained and voted no, thank you for clearly stating your reasons. all comments made thus far are going to be and will be considered when the draft is moved over to the party's policy forums for in depth argument and analysis.

as said a couple of times "it is a tough one" and our goal is to make it an easy one so at least for the first time in NZ's history we may get the chance to actually get this across the Govt's big oak table and made into law.

After that as said by many "this is the platform" from which much more can be developed in the coming years.

Keep up the good work people, and keep your suggestions, votes, and comments rolling in.

Better just to go for full legalisation and get all the benefits from that while also removing all the disadvantages of prohibition.

Legalisation of cannabis for recreational use is the only option ...based on the latest research it is safer tha alcohol and should be available to those 18 years and over

1 day left;

63 for
2 not decided
6 against

Request for "Better Healthcare" policy inclusion please.

What is dangerous to private and public health should be kept beyond the legal pale:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140809141436.htm

@nobilangeloceramal Alcohol is also bad for teen brains so we should ban that as well.

The big problem is that prohibition doesn't work and never has done. Reasonable regulations that people understand the reasons for do.