Subscribe to our mailing list
Get
Amongst It
Legalise Cannabis Again | Re-Legalise It
Promoting decriminalisation or re-legalisation of pot
Browsing the Police category...
Complaint to the Serious Fraud Office
May 13
2016
I may have stirred a hornets nest… but I just made a complaint to the serious fraud office about discrepancies in the reporting of proceeds of crime forfeitures. Namely that how come over a ten year period they take $3.8M out of Whangarei, but $0 out of Napier, New Plymouth, Invercargill, and Hamilton? Either the cops are stealing all the cash from drug dealers…. or….. there is no illegal cash in those cities? This line of rationale goes that for a prohibition to work, they need to lock up every one of the 400,000 regular pot smokers and jail or execute them (recidivists need to be kept away from society). Hardened lifetime criminals are not people to be considerate to and rehabilitate – this is what preventative detention is about. Permanent removal from society. Richard Nixon is who we were trying to please when we passed that terrible law in 1975. Richard Nixon was anti-Jew and wanted them all locked up.
If you are curious about the 10 year log of all proceeds complaint see: https://www.legalise.org.nz/log-proceeds-crime-criminal-pr…/
Strapped for time? Didn’t get into Photoshop in time? Try this poster idea out:
Fuck-the-TPPA-V2Â (PDF)
I’m sure one day we’ll love TPPA, but until that day, we have this poster! Exacto.
Torture in NZ Jails
Sep 23
2013
Police should focus on real crime
Jul 24
2012
New Zealand has the highest arrest and incarceration rate of cannabis users in the world. Yet many of those arrested are young people possessing small amounts for personal use. Is personal use of cannabis really a ‘crime’? And wouldn’t Police time be better spent focusing on more serious matters?
Today, Stephen McIntyre hung himself with a rope, because the Police raided The Auckland Greencross, and then had him up in the courts for opening NZ’s  first non-profit charitable trust authorized by the NZ government to help patients to obtain cannabis for medicine. Cannabis a natural plant, used as medicine in Israel for 19 years, U.S.A for 16 years and mentioned in every pharmacological text produced in the past 2,000 years and scientifically proven for many treatments.
Perhaps New Zealand would have a lower suicide rate if cannabis was legalised / de-criminalised? I think so.
“New Zealand has lost a peaceful and gentle man who advocated quietly for the sort of reforms that have halved the number of drug users in Portugal over the last decade,†said Dr McGrath, who works at two alcohol and drug clinics in the lower North Island.
 More info about Stephen McIntyre:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1005/S00243.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1011/S00291/new-leadership-for-cannabis-law-reform-campaign.htm
Stephen Lindsay McINTYRE Obituary Guest Book Currently, the Guest Book for Stephen Lindsay McINTYRE is available for viewing, but not accepting entries until Wednesday, 25 July 2012. View McINTYRE, Stephen Lindsay. On 22 July, 2012 suddenly at home; in his 48th year. Dearly loved husband of Reiko, loved father of Terumi and Takumi, loved son of Lillias and William McIntyre, brother of Ken, Stuart, Bruce, and Lorraine, uncle to his many nieces and nephews. A Service will be held at 85 Grafton Road, Grafton, Auckland on Friday 27 July at 1.30pm. Battersby Funeral Services Ltd Ph 09-828-5113 Published in The New Zealand Herald on July 24, 2012
Miscellaneous:
Shame on you Peter Dunne, you are creating more pain in the world:Â http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/libz-appalled-by-death-of-stephen-mcintyre/
Overcrowded prisons and high suicide rate:Â http://tumeke.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/beasts-from-blenheim-and-creatures-from.html
Going Green – Legalizing Marijuana Is The Best Thing For USA
Backup mirror of this image is at:Â http://images.onlineparalegalprograms.com.s3.amazonaws.com/going-green.jpg
Tags: USA
This is a really good video.
Operation Lime
Jun 4
2010
So the NZ Police are “testing the courts” by doing some pretty random and wasteful use of our countries resources in this horrible Operation Lime business… 9 district court judges have already refused to impose the bail conditions in this article, Â and where we here about the way the cops are freezing some assets unfairly. This is such a waste of time and many of the charges won’t be able to proceed. It reminds me of the so called terror raids on political activists a few years back, many of which didn’t get convicted.
Who starts these investigations?
We need to bring these people to justice – the crazy prosecutors, inspectors and detectives who feel its a good idea to investigate start ludicrous actions on innocent people, who often go free. That is the harshest abuse that I know of, maybe we pot smokers should start a class action lawsuit against ’em!
Compulsory impairment test
Dec 5
2009
Some notes about the test and some strategies for dealing with it. Pesky Cops.
Eye assessment
-
(1) Step 1: Preliminary action
- (a) If the person being tested is wearing any form of eyeglasses,—
- (i) the testing officer must direct the person to remove his or her eyeglasses; and
- (ii) the person must then immediately remove his or her eyeglasses.
- (b) The testing officer must ask the person being tested whether the person is wearing contact lenses and the person being tested must reply to that question.
(2) Step 2: Eye assessment
- (a) The testing officer must—
- (i) direct the person being tested to keep his or her head still; and
- (ii) when the person being tested has his or her head still,—
- (A) measure the person’s pupils by comparing them with a gauge held beside the person’s eyes; and
- (B) investigate the reaction of the person’s eyes to light using torchlight.
- (b) The testing officer must direct the person being tested to—
- (i) keep his or her head still; and
- (ii) track the movement of an object with his or her eyes until directed to stop.
- (c) The testing officer must ask the person being tested whether he or she has understood the directions given in paragraphs (a) and (b), and if necessary repeat any direction.
- (d) The testing officer must observe the person’s eyes to determine whether any of the following conditions are present:
- (i) horizontal gaze nystagmus:
- (ii) vertical gaze nystagmus:
- (iii) lack of convergence.
(3) Step 3: Matters to be recorded
- (a) The testing officer must record whether the person being tested—
- (i) is wearing contact lenses:
- (ii) is able to track a moving object with his or her eyes as directed in subclause (2)(b):
- (iii) is observed to have any of the conditions referred to in subclause (2)(d):
- (iv) is able to follow directions.
- (b) The testing officer must also record—
- (i) the measurement referred to in subclause (2)(a)(ii)(A); and
- (ii) the result of the investigation referred to in subclause (2)(a)(ii)(B).
- (c) If the eye assessment is not completed, or not completed satisfactorily, the testing officer must record that fact.
- (a) If the person being tested is wearing any form of eyeglasses,—
Walk and turn assessment
-
(1) Step 1: Preliminary action
- (a) The testing officer must direct the person being tested—
- (i) to stand and place his or her left foot on the ground, and place the right foot in front of the left foot, with the heel of the right foot against the toe of the left foot; and
- (ii) to place his or her arms by his or her sides and to stay in that position until further directed.
- (b) The testing officer must then—
- (i) explain and demonstrate to the person being tested the requirements of the walk and turn assessment in Step 2; and
- (ii) ask the person being tested whether he or she has understood the explanation and demonstration and, if necessary, repeat either the explanation or the demonstration, or both; and
- (iii) explain that once the assessment has commenced it must be continued until the completion of Step 2.
(2) Step 2: Walk and turn assessment
- (a) The person must, when directed by the testing officer, take 9 heel to toe steps along the line.
- (b) When those steps are completed, and at the direction of the testing officer, the person must turn by keeping the toes of his or her front foot on the line and taking a series of small steps with the other foot.
- (c) When the person has turned 180 degrees, he or she must take 9 steps back along the line.
- (d) The person must, at the direction of the testing officer, count aloud each heel to toe step with the first step starting at 1 and the return heel to toe steps starting at 1.
- (e) The person must, throughout the assessment,—
- (i) keep his or her arms by his or her sides; and
- (ii) watch his or her feet at all times.
(3) Step 3: Matters to be recorded
- (a) The testing officer must record whether the person being tested—
- (i) maintains balance:
- (ii) starts to walk before being directed to do so:
- (iii) stops while walking:
- (iv) steps off the line:
- (v) does not walk heel to toe:
- (vi) takes an incorrect number of steps:
- (vii) does not turn as directed:
- (viii) uses 1 or both of his or her arms to maintain balance:
- (ix) is able to follow directions.
- (b) If the walk and turn assessment is not completed, or not completed satisfactorily, the testing officer must record that fact.
- (a) The testing officer must direct the person being tested—
One leg stand assessment
-
(1) Step 1: Preliminary action
- (a) The testing officer must direct the person being tested to—
- (i) stand with his or her feet together with arms by his or her sides; and
- (ii) remain in that position until further directed.
- (b) The testing officer must then—
- (i) explain and demonstrate to the person being tested the requirements of the one leg stand assessment in Step 2 and, if necessary, repeat either the explanation or the demonstration, or both; and
- (ii) ask the person being tested whether he or she has understood the explanation and demonstration and, if necessary, repeat either the explanation or the demonstration, or both; and
- (iii) explain that once the assessment has commenced it must be continued until the completion of Step 2.
(2) Step 2: The one leg stand assessment
- (a) The person must, when directed by the testing officer, stand on his or her left leg and raise his or her right leg approximately 15 to 20 centimetres off the ground with the raised toes extended.
- (b) The person must then count aloud while watching his or her raised foot for 30 seconds, or until the testing officer directs him or her to stop.
- (c) The person must then repeat the assessment while standing on the right leg.
(3) Step 3: Matters to be recorded
- (a) The testing officer must record for each assessment undertaken at Step 2 whether the person being tested—
- (i) sways while balancing:
- (ii) puts his or her raised foot on the ground during the 30-second assessment period:
- (iii) uses 1 or both of his or her arms to maintain balance:
- (iv) hops:
- (v) is able to follow directions.
- (b) If the one leg stand assessment is not completed, or not completed satisfactorily, the testing officer must record that fact.
- (a) The testing officer must direct the person being tested to—
Excerpt from: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2009/0335/latest/DLM2494019.html
Excerpt from: http://www.transport.govt.nz/legislation/acts/Pages/LandTransportAmendmentAct2009.aspx
Land Transport Amendment Act 2009
Last updated on 2/11/2009 8:43 a.m.
A new law to combat drug impaired driving
The Land Transport Amendment Act 2009 (the Act) gives Police greater powers to deal with the problem of people driving under the influence of drugs. Provisions for combating drugged driving came into force on 1 November 2009.
People who drive when their judgement and reactions are impaired by drugs are a danger to themselves and other road users. The Act aims to reduce this hazard by:
- creating a new offence of driving while impaired with evidence in the bloodstream of a qualifying drug (ie a controlled drug that is classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 or driving while impaired, and with evidence in the bloodstream of a prescription medicine)
- empowering Police to determine whether or not a driver is impaired by means of a ‘compulsory impairment test‘ which tests co-ordination, physiological reactions and markers for drug impairment such as pupil dilation
- empowering Police, if the test shows that the driver is impaired, to forbid the person to drive (generally for 12 hours) and require the driver to provide a blood sample to determine whether qualifying drugs are present
- imposing penalties for the impaired-driving offence which are aligned to the penalties for drink driving
- providing defences for persons who have consumed qualifying drugs in accordance with a current prescription and instructions from the manufacturer or a health practitioner
- creating a further new offence of driving with Class A controlled drugs in the bloodstream in cases where a driver is injured, is in hospital or a doctor’s surgery, and is unable to undertake the impairment test.
Read the questions and answers on the new law to combat drug impaired driving.
The Act also reforms the law regulating the registration and licensing of motor vehicles. These changes are planned to come into force mid to late 2010. Further information on this will be available on this website closer to that time.