Good discussion from Damien Grant, a committed libertarian. I must be getting intellectually lazy because I want someone to convince me which way to vote instead of making my own mind up. And Grant seems like a good candidate coming down on the 'yes' side due only to the immorality of prohibition, my major impetus towards the same decision. But in the process he highlights the sheer nuttiness of the proposed legislation. This in particular rankles with me. With regard to the new governmental agency to be established, the Cannabis Regulatory Authority :
The Authority must prioritise non-for-profit applicants for licences and applicants that can “...demonstrate a commitment to delivering social benefit to the community or communities…”
I mean, why? The idea is to end the failed prohibition of marijuana by allowing pot-heads to buy their weed from a shop rather than a criminal gang, not tack onto a simple retail operation a range of social justice obligations.
More of the virtue signalling lunacy the Kiwibank is indulging in. Who knows what sort of legislation will develop once given the Green light. I keep feeling as if I am being sold a lemon. What's worse, a useless Green lemon.
So sorry Damien. I am still on the friggin' fence.
I may abstain.
3 comments:
Anybody in a position of political or bureaucratic authority, who thinks legalizing the growing, distribution and retail of marijuana will cut out the involvement of organised crime and bring about social harmony, is deluding themselves.
Because organised crime has perfected the marketing and distribution of the product, let them run it. Don't bury the introduction of free choice under a mountain of bureaucracy. Bring the criminals in from the cold and let them stand shoulder to shoulder with the other king Pins of this countries business and social elite. Many are already doing it, but Nod Nod, Wink Wink, say no more. Whether the cash is under the bed or in the Cayman Islands, the government wants its share. Tax it and lets move on.
Like alcohol, marijuana ain't going anywhere but down the throat of the common people who have an insatiable appetite for a product, which they hope, will help them escape from their lives of quiet despair..
But having said that, I'll either vote no or abstain. Cant make up my mind.
I'm openish to decriminalisation but like Mark am sure that legalising cannabis won't end criminal involvement. If the legal drug is regulated and taxed it will be more expensive than illegal supplies leaving plenty of room for gangs.
I'm also concerned about the increase in use and consequent increase in mental health issues and drug driving and impairment at work.
We've got enough problems with the legal drugs, tobacco and alcohol, without adding cannabis.
For true libertarian believers, the answer is liberalisation, and why stop at Cannabis?
For the rest of us who believe we might have some responsibility, not only for ourselves, but also for the families, communities and society in which we live, a more wholistic approach makes more sense. For those who are 'responsible' adult Cannabis consumers, and for those who choose not to smoke dope, the personal impact of liberalisation is minimal. However for those with addictive personalities, or those who have to live with them in their family, or are faced with having to employ these people and hope they are safe and productive, then a 'no' vote is the most practical option.
Yes, this impacts upon the personal liberties of others, but then we accept restrictions on our liberties in many ways already, as the price we have to pay to live in a safe and ordered society. Driving on the left side of the road is but one example. In every society there is a trade off between liberty and social order. When it comes to Cannabis use, my sense is that we presently have the balance about right.
Post a Comment