Drug legislation outdated - law commission

The laws need to be changed. BUT National and Labour both don't have what it takes to change it.

Nice, vince, good input.

Actually anthropologists and history suggest that we have always had drugs, indeed science also shows that chimps take drugs. Through the eating of plants mankind started to learn more about its surrondings and developed accordingly. This eventually developed into modern medicine, herbal remedies etc, through the use of these chemicals or drugs in plants humanity has grown. Even today pills are based on chemicals we found in plants, though frequently a synthetic version of said chemical. Me I'd rather just eat some plants. Nevermind the fact that hemp used to be used for many things, rope, clothe, kinds of paper. Infact Hemp grows at a much lighter colour and makes stronger paper that requires less bleaching to white, hempseed oil has also shown its use for making biodegradable plastic. We are a world full of drugs, from your morning coffee, to your wine with dinner, to that pain-killer for your headache, as it is, a drug has to be new to be banned, caffiene is a stimulant with terrible side-effects and a frightening over-dose effects which include buzzing in your ears, inability to focus and basically having a hard time sensing the world around you. Energy drinks now contain addictive chemicals. Oddly synthetic stuff is frequently more legal and worse for you, than that which grows in the ground.

Not many died of drugs accident's but the drunker's kills and caused more accident's..
I think it will be a waste of our tax money as they have tried rehabilitation and education on drugs and alcohol and the drunker still the same no different's once out..
We never used to have drugs and we can do without but million's of dollar's will be wasting on the project which we need our tax money to help our crime force to catch the terrorist..

I support the Law Commission, I wonder though why our government has said, No, we won't listen to experts, we won't listen to the people specifically for fixing problems in our legal system. I wonder, though I'm not surprised, after all we the people have been consulted a few times during this election term, though not once have I seen what majority has wanted go through. Odd that our elected officials don't seem to want to do anything that we want done. But now even worse they refuse to listen to their own legal experts. On the matter of Alcohol, drunk driving, drunks getting in fights, drunks beating up their significant other, drunk bycyclists (it is illegal) causing more car crashes, drunken theft (people cocky from alcohol thinking they could get away without paying for that chocolate bar etc). Alcoholism people addicted to drinking, spending all their money on it, selling things for more booze. Alcohol, its a POISON, call it a drug, call it whatever you like, Alcohol is a lethal substance that kills thousands of people every year. But the government is just fine with that. I can say myself that it was the drinking of alcohol that caused me to commit more crimes in my youth. Oddly enough with marijuana the only crime any of us seemed to commit was possesion itself. Though we would then immediately waste lots of money at the supermarket/ fast food/ cafes that were in the area. Much like Police have said there was a decline in P use, but a rise in cannabis use. Could this possibly be that they failed to locate any of the P houses, so quickly decided that for the drug prohibition to look effective they have to do something, so they turned around the started leaning heavier on marijuana users, so these people who eat lots and are generally a bit slower to react, a danger in a vehicle perhaps, but mostly harmless clog up the courts system while the Police say we fight the good fight against drugs. Its just we're having trouble catching the P dealers, I mean we all know they frequently catch P users, smashing cars/people with a hammer, after someone of P brutally shoves three rolled up pairs of socks down someones throat killing them, but hang on, if they can't catch the dealers, we'll remove cold and flu medicine from over the counter. I'm sure that someone with a P lab could find it somewhere else, or even bribe a doctor, or just lie to them, for perscriptions.

We need some form of functional regulation for the supply of all drugs.
The law commission seem to have given it their best shot and come up with recommendations that had some slim chance of being adopted, rather than an actual practical solution to the problem that would have met with perhaps an even more total and absolute rejection and condemnation from the likes of Mr. Power.
People should be made aware that elsewhere, like Australia, where in some states instant fines for cannabis possession have been tried, the policy actually soaked up just as much if not more court time because many of those who received a drug infringement notice choose not to pay the fine and were prosecuted for that, and they still had all the inherrant problems of a black market.

The only rational place to be with drug policy is towards the middle of the arguement.

Strict prohibition policy inflames the criminal underworld into a fit of drug promotion because the rewards of up to 800-1000 dollars a gram for some substances just cannot be let to pass by. Organised criminal groups are targeting younger and younger people, many perhaps too unwise in the ways of the world to resist drug taking, and this strategy enables drug dealers to grow their market.
This is the wisdom of the National Government's American inspired 100 year old prohibition policy. Prohibition leads to an increased prison population, rises in community drug use, increases in crimes against property and the person...

In the middle of the debate are those who wish to see drugs accessible but regulated, where people are not prevented from acquiring, nor learning how to protect themselves and others during the course of their drug use. Drug sales have an age limit at point of supply where people must first prove they are of age and able to partake of whatever substance. Drug sales have a modest tax applied. Too much tax would stimulate the black market again and fuel some addicts need to commit drug aquisitive crime. So if the object of such a social policy is to promote public health and safety then taxes on drugs in a legal market should not be too high. The revenue gathered could mean that drug users could at least pay for the consequences of drug use in our communities and maybe contribute funds to other important public needs. Drug use rates should stay relatively modest as there would be controls or even prohibitions on advertising, and marketing techniques designed to increase drug sales or consumption would not be permitted either. Prices would be such that someone with a drug problem would not need to break into your house or steal your car to pay for the object of their desire. Treatment services would be voluntary and well funded through substance taxes, and the Government could share the responsiblity for the supply of drugs in partnership with the private sector or other licensed suppliers. Drugs would have to meet certain standards, so as to make the use of them as safe as possible.
At the far end of the spectrum, and perhaps an idea not to be promoted for our society, there are people who would try to increase drug sales if drugs were legal in an environment with little or no regulation, like say if drugs were as available as bananas at the supermarket. So drug use would rise some and we would have to deal with the social consequences of such a policy.
The most sensible policy only has to be functional, not too moralistic and not too pretty, that is to say that people who like drugs that are presently illegal should be able to source their drugs of choice without having to pay too much, and without having recourse to become involved in the practise of crime.
One problem with current drug policy is that changes to illegal drug policies could lower sales of presently legal drugs like alcohol. If one is not allowed to advertise heroin or cocaine in the newspaper under a legal framework, then why would alcohol promotion and advertising be any more acceptable?
With between 80-90% of kiwis drinking at least some alcohol, the liquor lobby is far too powerful for the public good.
We give public honours to beer barons and anti drug campaigners alike.
There is a strange smell about such an arrangement.

I'm a complete alcohol and drug teetotaller and think we need to take a nuanced approach to all this. Certainly, overseas clinical studies and evidence-based medical journal articles conclude that cannabis derivatives assist in supplementing existing forms of palliative care, so should be decriminalised. Added to which, pot is a Class C drug, while P/crystal meth is is Class A Misuse of Drugs Act substance. Let's decriminalise small amounts of pot for private use and use a spot fine system for those over eighteen, while going after the *real* hard stuff...

It is shameful and thoroughly depressing that countries like Portugal (which was still under dictatorship until the mid 70’s) decriminalised personal possession back in 2001. The results and benefits have been a resounding success. Yet in the UK we are still unable to have any form of sensible discussion about our long outdated drug laws.

I hope that anyone that supports legalisation will bear party policies in mind when it comes to the next election!

kia ora whanau, i believe in both decrimilize n legalize of all drugs, its a matter of choice n options, however our drug laws need updating n if the market was flooded with cannabis, it would stop alot of people drinkn alcohol n takn 'p' n heroin, plus the price of all drugs would come down to a reasonable retail price,n if sold thru the warehouse or packnsave,and taxed likewise tobbacco the government n new zealand would do quite well out of it,its time 2 get real, marijuana coffee shops in all regions, go maori party n mr hone harawira

@nigel - ROFL! I concur! @Realistic - well put. @Malcolm - have you given any thought to the thousands of dollars we spend today prosecuting people who were caught carrying a small amount (of say, cannabis) for personal use? Following the Law Commission's proposals could save you, the taxpayer, enormous amounts of money. Hell, if cannabis is ever legalised (not looking especially likely) and taxed, the government will be making money hand over fist... This would be great for the thousands of NZers who are perfectly capable of holding down a good job while occasionally partaking of some cannabis in a sensible fashion for recreational use, or those with medical problems who would like another pain outlet. And you know what, someone who has lost their job because of this recession and has been forced to go on a WINZ benefit, is not automatically and necessarily a loser. Let's see who complains when they have a horrible workplace accident and has to claim ACC. You pay your taxes for social welfare to help you out when something bad happens to you. If you're never in the position where you need social welfare, then thank your lucky stars. And as for CYFS - you actually grudge using taxpayer money to help abused children?! Shame on you.