Join! it's $20

Legalisation of cannabis

Legalisation of cannabis

Cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and many other drugs, and its users should not be treated like criminals. Police resources are wasted on prohibiting cannabis when it instead can be legalised and taxed for the benefit of society.

Showing 79 reactions

How would you tag this suggestion?

Sign in with

Or sign in with email

    Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
    • Tadhg Stopford
      followed this page 2017-03-20 12:29:53 +1300
    • duncan cairncross
      tagged this with important 2017-03-08 14:34:25 +1300
    • Tadhg Stopford
      commented 2017-03-08 14:20:24 +1300
      Exempt Cannabis from the misuse of drugs act (S.22), as morphine has been exempted. Its an easy fix.
    • Tadhg Stopford
      commented 2017-03-08 14:18:20 +1300
      ‘Recreational’ cannabis is a red herring. Its commercial properties as medicine, bio-science feedstock, textile, paper, and chemical feedstock make it a potentially huge disruptor to incumbent industries. 10,000 acres of hemp = 40,000 acres of pine for paper alone. The bio science possibilities are endless. I wonder why they ever prohibited it? Go figure
    • Tadhg Stopford
      tagged this with essential 2017-03-08 14:18:19 +1300
    • Graeme Kiyoto-Ward
      commented 2016-12-12 07:16:47 +1300
      Robert. That’s a lot of time that could be spent for no result. The policy position of those of us that support decriminalising is to stop the damage to society now. Minimise the harm drugs cause, firstly to society, then to those that choose to take them second. There is no easy answer but the current answer is worse than none at all (i.e. ignoring the problem completely and stopping all enforcement). We should not delay. Lives are being destroyed while we do. The lives of those uninvolved in taking drugs.
    • Robert Murray
      commented 2016-12-11 23:30:47 +1300
      I was including alcohol in my question. I’m suggesting the problem is with our social structure. I don’t know the answer – but perhaps it would give a clearer approach to the question of whether other drugs should be legalized if we knew why people wanted them. Are there any societies or groups that avoid all drugs? What makes them different? Do we ignore religious groups that reject drugs/alcohol? Are there groups that just avoid drugs/alcohol because they don’t want them rather than because they are proscribed?
    • Jay Wu
      commented 2016-12-11 23:07:22 +1300
      @robert Murray
      Well, why do people drink alcohol? Make no mistake there, alcohol is a recreational drug. Do you reckon you are gonna solve that one?
    • Jay Wu
      tagged this with essential 2016-12-11 23:07:22 +1300
    • Robert Murray
      commented 2016-12-11 12:47:48 +1300
      BIG QUESTION: What is wrong with our society that the desire/need to take drugs exists? How do we fix that?
    • Robert Murray
      commented 2016-12-11 12:47:48 +1300
      BIG QUESTION: What is wrong with our society that the desire/need to take drugs exists? How do we fix that?
    • John Gibson
      commented 2016-12-11 11:29:05 +1300
      Treat drug abuse as a public health problem. Tax on legalised cannabis could fund development of enhanced detection systems where drug use is a danger. Such as driving and in workplaces, particularly where food safety is and issue.
    • John Gibson
      tagged this with important 2016-12-11 11:29:04 +1300
    • Graeme Kiyoto-Ward
      commented 2016-12-04 11:08:35 +1300
      De criminalize the use of the lot. Have limitations on suppliers. We need to undermine the profitability of the industry. We need to do it quickly and focus on harm minimization. We can’t have it grow until it’s like smoking, has a self sustaining momentum of its own.
    • Tim O'Donnell
      commented 2016-12-04 09:35:00 +1300
      I don’t want drug companies getting a strangle hold on this industry so even if it’s for medical use open it up to other suppliers. It maybe a good idea to stagger the release as per Dennis’s suggestion but it should be over a short term, say 3 years. Immediate for medical & recreational 2-3years later. There would have to be very good reasons to open other drugs up for medical use. Best not to mention that option until after cannabis has succeeded.
    • Chelsea Finnie
      tagged this with essential 2016-12-03 22:42:00 +1300
    • Dennis Ingram
      commented 2016-12-03 18:48:47 +1300
      There’s a lot of evidence in favour of this, however many people don’t like rapid changes in controversial areas like this. I suggest a staged approach:
      1. Legalise medical cannabis. Withholding a drug that can alleviate acute pain seems inhumane.
      2. Legalise recreational cannabis. Assess the evidence after 5 years and reverse this decision if it did not work well.
      3. If it did work well, consider repeating the approach with other drugs, some of which also have therapeutic value, e.g. LSD for depression, MDMA for PTSD.
    • Dennis Ingram
      tagged this with important 2016-12-03 18:48:47 +1300
    • Robert Murray
      commented 2016-11-30 20:47:35 +1300
      I know looking at the evidence is the sensible logical approach but it seems these days that evidence always comes in pro and con flavours which results in the decision hingeing on the bias of the looker. The other problem is the difficulty in providing evidence for the lack of something. In this case, it is hard to find evidence that dope is safe because there can be no studies of its effects over a broad population base. There can be no evidence that dope will have a catastrophic effect on society because there have been no societies where it has been in widespread use. So the assessor will have to decide which they think is more probable: thus it comes down to personal preference based on the “facts” presented. Haven’t even discussed the evidence which does not get presented or the value of empirical evidence.
    • John Alan Draper
      commented 2016-11-30 10:39:23 +1300
      How about a policy to look at the evidence rather than to either legalise or retain the status quo.

      As I recall, Labour were going to do that with all drugs in 2002. However they had to abandon the policy in return for support from Peter Dunne bugger all.
    • Tim O'Donnell
      commented 2016-11-29 21:36:27 +1300
      This an evidence based policy party. If the research proves positive I think it would be hard for us not to use it. The other policies that we put forward with it should help define the party. Strong regulation needs to go with the policy
    • Richard Beckmannflay
      commented 2016-11-29 16:03:34 +1300
      My only concern is if such a disruptive topic prevents voters taking TOP seriously and start calling it the POT Party in the media, even if there is overwhelming positive research and financial evidence, and makes me sound conservative I know :)
    • David Johnston
      commented 2016-11-29 15:25:12 +1300
      Richard Beckmannflay – I think that kind of attitude is what’s preventing Labour/National from making it a platform policy. The TOP party is intended to be a politically disruptive party – it’s perfect for TOP.
    • Benjamin Johnstone
      commented 2016-11-29 15:10:38 +1300
      Both main parties have shown they are too afraid to take it on, which gives us the opportunity to take a well researched and educated stance on the topic. Cannabis legalisation is the perfect policy to show that we are an evidence based party who are willing to research and take stances on difficult topics. The media attention that would come with such a stance is also the perfect opportunity to drive TOP into the national political scene and give it a platform to bring other policies into national attention.
    • Richard Beckmannflay
      commented 2016-11-29 14:58:07 +1300
      Wow so many reactions on this. While I think Hemp should be a go for industry and I see some tax and job creation benefits for Pot, but I sure Pot as far as a policy goes may bring the wrong media attention to TOP in this early setup phase, maybe something worth leaving for mainstream to fight over a bit longer, unless there is minor mention as part of a Health policy specific to medical purposes.
    • Richard Beckmannflay
      tagged this with interesting 2016-11-29 14:58:07 +1300
    • Paul Eaton
      tagged this with important 2016-11-28 21:53:37 +1300
    • Paul Eaton
      tagged this with essential 2016-11-28 21:53:37 +1300
    • Jerry Cerveny
      commented 2016-11-28 19:09:25 +1300
      Here another reason why Medicinal Cannabis is real https://www.facebook.com/ridewithlarry/videos/1273155682752093/
    • Jerry Cerveny
      tagged this with essential 2016-11-28 19:09:25 +1300