We have a single policy, which is to legalise cannabis.
Cannabis legalisation affects multiple other political issues, mainly by providing additional revenue from tax revenues and the cost savings from not enforcing cannabis prohibition.
But still we get asked questions like, e.g., “What is the ALCP’s policy on the use of 1080?” One ought to be able to answer such questions by recourse to first principles.
Here are the ALCP’s principles. (This is a draft list. Some of the principles below have yet to be ratified by the ALCP Board.)
1. Truth
We support honest, transparent government, making rational decisions based on the best scientific and empirical evidence available.
2. Freedom
We support personal responsibility and freedom of choice.
3. Justice
We support the rule of law, upheld by common law courts and an impartial justice system.
4. Peace
We support non-violent conflict resolution and the non-aggression principle.
5. Ecology
We support protections for the natural environment and conservation of native plant and animal species.
6. Commerce
We support economic growth, fiscal responsibility and job creation based on a sound supply of money.
7. Treaty of Waitangi
We support the principles embodied in te Tiriti o Waitangi.
8. Limited Authority
We support constitutional limits to the powers of the State, particularly where they undermine human rights or national sovereignty.
9. Personal Beliefs
We support the free exercise of religion or spiritual beliefs without involvement from the State.
10. Democracy
We support participatory democracy, representative government and parliamentary procedure.
Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.
I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.
All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or back gammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men.
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
To vote ALCP, you’ll need to make sure that you’re registered to vote. Are you on the electoral roll? Enrol, check or update now!
But, dear readers, I do appreciate that you may not want to vote for the ALCP. In fact, you may not want to vote at all. Not voting at all is certainly better than voting for any of the other parties on offer! (With the possible exception of the revivified ACT Party.) And not voting is your democratic right. At least, it is in New Zealand.
Across the ditch, voting is not a democratic right, it’s a democratic duty! That’s right, in Australia voting is compulsory. But compulsion is tyranny! The day that voting becomes compulsory in New Zealand is the day I never vote again. I hope that day never comes.
If you don’t want to vote at all, you don’t need to be on the electoral roll, right? So how do you get off of it? There ain’t no easy way.
About 70,000 local election enrolment packs have bounced back to Registrars of Electors marked ‘gone no address’.
The Electoral Commission mailed update packs to the 3.1 million people on the electoral roll at the start of July, to make sure everyone who’s eligible is correctly enrolled to vote in this year’s local elections.
“If you are one of the 70,000 or so voters whose pack has come back to us because you’ve moved house and not updated your enrolment details, you have been removed from the electoral roll, and won’t be able to vote unless you re-enrol,” says Murray Wicks, National Manager, Enrolment Services.
So one way to remove yourself from the electoral roll is to intercept your election enrolment pack, tell a little white lie by marking it “gone no address” and send it back whence it came. But telling lies is bad, even little white ones.
Death is another option, but it’s a tad extreme. How do dead people get removed from the electoral roll, anyway? I’m not sure. Across the ditch, at least voters are provided with a means to remove a dead relative. But here? I couldn’t find anything on the Electoral Commission’s website.
It looks like moving house is the only other option. And then hoping that the new residents of your old home return your election enrolment pack marked “gone no address”. Instead of simply binning it. Which is what I’d probably do …
I suppose the reason that there’s no easy way to get off of the electoral roll is that it’s compulsory to be on it. But why? Why does the government need a list of all eligible voters? I.e., a list of all adult New Zealanders not already in prison? Isn’t that what the Census is for? Sinisterer and sinisterer …
My outlook for Thursday was good but Thursday turned sour when I read the following report and watched a 3 News interview with Grant Hall of the legal highs industry lobby group the STAR Trust.
Today is a global day of action for groups around the world campaigning for drug law reform.
Really? It’s the first I heard of “a global day of action for groups around the world campaigning for drug law reform.” I belong to (at least) a couple of groups in New Zealand campaigning for DLR. I’m the Vice President of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis and a member (and former board member) of drug law reform umbrella group NORML. I’ve been a drug law reform activist for more than a decade. While it’s entirely possible that I was told about it but was paying no attention, I don’t recall ever hearing of a global day of DLR action on a Thursday. At the end of June. I spoke to a couple of other DLR activists and they hadn’t heard of it either.
(The global day of action for groups around the world campaigning for drug law reform is, in fact, the first Saturday in May. In New Zealand, we celebrate J Day. In Nimbin, Australia they celebrate the Nimbin Mardi Grass. Elsewhere, the Global Marijuana March is held in cities around the world.)
In New Zealand, advocacy group the Star Trust has released research it says shows that the Psychoactive Substances Act was working, before synthetic high products were pulled from the shelves.
I’m not sure what Grant Hall means by “working”. The Psychoactive Substances Act was supposed to ban all new psychoactive substances not already banned by the Misuse of Drugs Act, with the exception of products containing psychoactive substances that had been shown to pose only a low risk of harm after being submitted to a battery of scientific tests, which products would then be approved for regulated, legal sale. That was its stated intent. While all new psychoactive substances have now been banned, none has yet passed the scientific tests. The Ministry of Health, in charge of implementing the Act, has yet even to tell us what the scientific tests that NPS must pass actually are. I don’t call that “working”. I call that prohibition. (As for the fiasco that was the so-called “interim” period, during which untested, unsafe NPS were temporarily approved for sale, don’t get me started.)
The trust’s Grant Hall says they would like a “compassionate” approach to dealing with drug harm, instead of the current “punitive” regime.
What does a “compassionate” approach to legal highs retailers look like?
“All of the data during the interim period of the Psychoactive Substances Act… there were two things that came out of it that are really interesting,” he said on Firstline this morning.
“There was a reduction in crime – we saw a 22.7 percent reduction in cannabis-related crime… quite a significant number.”
There is no such thing as cannabis-related crime. Cannabis does not cause crime. So we saw a 22.7% reduction in what? A 22.7% reduction in cannabis use? A 22.7% reduction in arrests for cannabis “offences”? I say that the reason there’s been a 22.7% reduction in “cannabis-related crime” (whatever that is) is because it’s an election year.
Watching the actual interview, Grant Hall indicates that the reduction is in cannabis use. But people smoking less cannabis isn’t a good thing, because what are they smoking instead? Less safe, less fun synthetic cannabinoid products manufactured by the industry for whom Grant Hall is spokesman.
He says only 14 people contacted the Ministry of Health about addiction problems with synthetic highs, out of 11,000 people using them a day.
“We would say that’s a pretty good outcome.”
I’d say that’s a pretty good outcome, too. If only 14 people experienced addiction problems. But it wasn’t only 14 people, it was hundreds of people who became seriously addicted to legal synthetic highs. The 14 people who contacted the Ministry of Health were just the tip of a very large iceberg that advocates of the PSA’s interim period simply don’t want to know about.
I’ve been blogging on the PSA for a couple of years now. Synthetic cannabis addicts would sooner comment on my blog posts than contact the Ministry of Health. I mean, why on earth would someone with an addiction problem even contemplate for a moment calling the Ministry of Health anyway?
Synthetic cannabis addicts are regularly in the headlines. Here‘s a chap who appeared in the MSM the day before Grant Hall’s interview. Did he phone the Ministry of Health in between committing aggravated robberies, I wonder?
A “polite and well-mannered” South Auckland teen with an unblemished record committed two aggravated robberies in four days, driven by his synthetic cannabis addiction.
What the legal highs industry should have done is proactively investigate reports of addiction to their products. They should have front-footed it. But they don’t want to know.
Someone else who doesn’t want to know is Peter Dunne. He doesn’t want to know about the miraculous and thoroughly well-documented healing properties of natural cannabis. Anecdotal reports are not hard science but they do stack up. Here‘s one that’s hard to dismiss.
Christine said the cannabis oil had an immediate and dramatic impact. Ellen’s seizures reduced from hundreds each day down to only a handful, allowing her to return to school for the first time in five years.
“She’s gone from 120 hospital admissions in 2012 to just eight last year. It’s quite amazing. She is still on some pharmaceuticals. We’ve found that combination with the cannabis oil has been hugely beneficial.”
But Peter Dunne dismisses it.
“I have yet to see any evidence that cannabis in any form has contributed in any way to help children, or indeed anyone, recover from serious diseases,” he said.
I know that Grant Hall is a veteran campaigner for medical cannabis. Good on him. I know that Grant Hall wouldn’t dismiss any of the numerous reports of the benefits of medical cannabis as anecdotal. And yet he chooses to ignore the numerous reports of the addictive nature of synthetic cannabis.
In fact, the legal highs industry is well aware of the potentially addictive nature of some of their products. That’s why Matt Bowden was up front. His Stargate products came with appropriate warnings, e.g.
Frequent or daily use is not recommended, users should be aware that development of dependence on this type of product has rarely been reported, and appropriate limitations on use may be required in some individuals.
A report I read about a year ago, of a Nelson man arrested for selling natural cannabis to get the money to feed his synthetic cannabis addiction, should have sounded the alarm with the legal highs industry. That’s when the plot lost them.
Now Hall says people are turning back to hard drugs like P, and that synthetic highs were only banned because of the upcoming election.
Bullshit. We put people who are addicted to opiates on the methadone progamme, because methadone itself is an opiate and it substitutes for other opiates. Methamphetamine (“P”) is a stimulant. Synthetic cannabinoids are not stimulants. If I wanted to find the energy to stay up partying all night or simply do the housework … P would be great … but the last thing I’d do is smoke some synthetic cannabis. It’s not a stimulant and doesn’t substitute for other stimulants. I’d get nothing done at all and then fall asleep.
Speed freaks were taking stimulants before, during and after synthetic cannabis.
[Hall] There was a reduction in crime. So we saw a 22.7% reduction in cannabis-related crime during the interim period, now that’s quite a significant number.
[3 News] Was that inevitable? Because they’re just going to synthetic highs.
[Hall] Yes, but isn’t that a good thing? That’s a good result, isn’t it? So we’ve transitioned those people away from the black market into the white market where they are controlled …
Transitioning people away from safe, natural black market cannabis to unsafe, synthetic white market cannabis is harm reduction? Not in my book.
Check out what Grant Hall has to say about “congestion issues” and “restricted retail environments”. Weasel words! They had congestion issues and a restricted retail environment in Colorado in early January, and nothing bad happened. (Except that the cannabis ran out, obviously.)
As for the claim that “synthetic highs were only banned because of the upcoming election.” Actually, no. Synthetic highs were banned because a group of mothers whose teenage children had become addicted to synthetic cannabinoids or otherwise schizzed out kicked up one hell of a fuss. And then got on Campbell Live.
The reality is that journalists have got more power and influence around this issue than the scientists.
Grant Hall got that much right. It will be John Campbell who legalises cannabis in the end.
The demonisation of cannabis (and other drugs) started in earnest with prohibitionist propaganda campaigns like Reefer Madness in the ’30s. I’d say we reached peak demonisation in the ’70s. 1970 was when Keith Stroup, funded by a $5,000 grant from the Playboy Foundation, founded the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) in the U.S. That’s when drug law reformers started in earnest to undo the decades of prohibitionist propaganda damage. It’s taken 40 years of hard slog to counter all the prohibitionist lies and misrepresentations about cannabis.
I’m work shy. So it irks me when anyone, be they prohibitionists or non-prohibitionists, tells lies about and misrepresents the harms (whether by exaggerating or downplaying) of any drug. How are we ever going to have sane, evidence-based drug policy when those making and influencing the policies refuse to face up to the facts? I’m work shy but I’d still much rather spend my time getting the word out to the masses than spending it patiently pointing out to my fellow DLR activists that they’re doing it all wrong.
I’d like to see Grant Hall quit the STAR Trust and return to his roots. I reckon he’d make a great spokesman for GreenCross New Zealand. They could use a level head.
Man comes home
woman is glad
until she discovers
that man is mad
Not again, not again, not again!
please make him leave me alone
woman’s prayers go unanswered, he hits her
as she lets out a quivering moan
man feels power so strong
such joy to hear her weep
how can he leave it at that
woman is still on her feet
he strikes her again on the face
this time she falls to the ground
she is hoping that blackness will come
so the world will stop spinning round
instead the spinning stops
with a blinding jolt of pain
woman’s pelvis starts trembling and twitching
as he kicks her again and again
man’s pelvis is twitching as well
though pain is not the cause
his foot changes course to her head
he erupts as he walks out the door
Woman is left in a heap
blackness is coming on fast
child is crying, the journey is long
child’s bedroom she reaches at last
unable to stand woman crawls to the crib
stretching her arms through the bars
she pacifies child while drifting
to a blackness of tiny white stars
[Being as how today is the 20th anniversary of the Bain murders … here’s an unfinished post I started writing last year. Now published as Part 1. Part 2 will be on the evolutionary psychology of blood feuds.]
I’m irked. In particular, I’m irked by people on Facebook screaming for vengeance. Screaming for vengeance against David Bain, Ariel Castro, Kim Dotcom … to name a few. I don’t get irked easily. But my irk threshold is exceeded when the screams for vengeance drown out the calls for justice. This post is about vengeance and justice.
David Bain mostly got what he deserved. But then there was a travesty and no more justice was served. I figure Bain’s got a clear run between now and Judgement Day. (I also figure that now is a good time to post a pic of Bain cavorting with some silly bint on a beach in Rarotonga. What is it with women and murderous psychopaths?) Folks over at the Facebook group I belong to had better get used to this. Folks mostly have. And Justice For Robin Bain is something still worth fighting for.
Ariel Castro got sentenced to … plus 1000 years. Well, that was never going to happen, was it? Castro’s body rots as we speak. I figure it’s playing catch-up with his soul. (In the U.S., wishful thinking is thinking that a 1000 year sentence is a 1000 year sentence. In NZ, it’s thinking that life means life. Let’s not forget that one of the most important reasons for putting people in prison, if not the most important, is to keep the rest of us safe from psychos.)
Check out this Facebook comment.
Dotcom is a thieving liar who will soon be deported to USA for his piracy, and hopefully thrown in jail for 100 years. The only people that support him are people that think that stealing an artists life’s work is OK
100 years in jail for running a file sharing service? Takes screaming for vengeance to a new level. And then the rest of it. Personally, I don’t believe in IP. But my co-blogger Tim and Mark over at Life Behind the IRon Drape do. They’re staunch Dotcom supporters and I’m quite sure that they don’t “think that stealing an artists life’s work is OK.” Facebook. Where pap is always on tap.
I’ve never been the vengeful type. I came to libertarianism from the left, so I have liberal sentiments. For example, I’m more Howard League for Penal Reform than I am Sensible Sentencing Trust. Jesus made it abundantly clear that Christians are supposed to visit and look after those in prison. As opposed to simply locking them up and throwing away the key. (I have a Christian friend whose choice of penpals is inmates on death row. How awesome is that?!) And the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews reminds us
Continue to remember those in prison as if you were together with them in prison, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering. (NIV)
God has always been the vengeful type. And he’s really big on justice. God is a just God. But, whereas God delegates the task of doing justice to us (well, to Reed mainly)
He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? (ESV)
he reserves for Himself the right to avenge. The key verse is found in the Old Testament and quoted twice in the New Testament. God says,
It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them (NIV)
So that’s the Biblical perspective on vengeance and justice. Justice is a Christian virtue. (And one of four cardinal virtues in Roman Catholicism.) Whereas revenge is an unchristian vice. Vengeance is justice without mercy. And you really don’t want to be on the receiving end of that, do you? So
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. (KJV)
Revenge has temporal as well as eternal consequences. This is noted in the Book of Proverbs.
The merciful man doeth good to his own soul: but he that is cruel [unmerciful or vengeful] troubleth his own flesh. (KJV)
But the Bible doesn’t really do, er, justice to the full, horrible extent of revenge’s temporal toll on those consumed by its lusts. Ladies and gentlemen, please give a big round of applause to … (drum roll …) evolutionary psychology!
I wasn’t physically present at yesterday’s NORML conference—one of the few usual suspects who wasn’t—but I was there in spirit and by live stream.
The conference went well. Credit where credit’s due and credit is due to Phil Saxby who put in a colossal effort organising the event. Thanks, Phil. Job well done. Also, thanks to Vinny Eastwood and Gary Chiles for setting up the live stream on YouTube.
It’s no secret that I’m at loggerheads with some of the peeps in NORML. There are right ways and wrong ways to go about implementing drug law reform. To hell with the Psychoactive Substances Act! Dissent to be continued …
Here’s the event in two parts, the morning session and the afternoon session, for those interested.
