Phil Rudd fined

What if a young drummer sees his idol booked for travelling at 65 in a 60 zone? Speeding is illegal too.

If this scenario promted a young drummer to "give up" or to think "hey speeding (pot, whatever you choose) is cool, I think I'll do it too", then I'd argue that the young drummer has a lot more to worry about than paying a fine.

These guys play music mate, that doesn't automatically make them a role model.

My musical "idols" died of drug and alcohol overdoses, blew up hotel rooms, smashed tv's, drove Rolls Royces into swimming pools, slept with underage women 6 at a time.....the list goes on and on. I've never been prompted to follow their lead nor have I wanted to give up disheartened because of it.

Obvioulsy the fine is not the worry, the worry is a teen doing drugs.

And most teens will probably blow this one off too. Unfortunately there are millions of teens who aren't quite as stable as you or me, and those are the one that this impacts.
Besides, I was merely giving a scenario of what could happen. I've got no proof that it did. That's beside the point though. There's laws for a reason, and they should be followed. Sure we all speed now and then, but think of all the accidents caused by speeding. Think of all the deaths caused by drugs. They don't just make up these laws to piss people off.
 
"It's only Rock 'N' Roll......but I like it!!!!"

So he got busted with some pot......must be a REAL criminal then.

Haven't you seen the film "Reefer Madness" - that's what'll happen to you if you touch that stuff sonny!! You'll become a hop-head and it will lead to being a crack addict and then you'll become a prostitute!!! That seriously addictive and...... ahhh what a bunch of wallies!!!!!
 
Obvioulsy the fine is not the worry, the worry is a teen doing drugs.

And most teens will probably blow this one off too. Unfortunately there are millions of teens who aren't quite as stable as you or me, and those are the one that this impacts.
Besides, I was merely giving a scenario of what could happen. I've got no proof that it did. That's beside the point though. There's laws for a reason, and they should be followed. Sure we all speed now and then, but think of all the accidents caused by speeding. Think of all the deaths caused by drugs. They don't just make up these laws to piss people off.

No, they make laws for a variety of reasons, one of which is to enforce morality. I, for one, would prefer to decide for myself. If a kid is properly parented, Phil Rudd's behavior isn't likely to have much impact on him. If a kid isn't properly parented, Phil Rudd's behavior isn't likely to have much impact on him.

I would just as soon people leave their laws off of my life, and I will take care of my own.
 
Obvioulsy the fine is not the worry, the worry is a teen doing drugs.

I'd be more worried about teens overdoing alcohol than pot. It's a much harder drug. Every now and then you get some study linking abuse of pot to mental illness. Hello? If you abuse ANYTHING it wrecks you - including food and water. For some reason society has difficulty parsing use and abuse. It's a pretty simple concept - be moderate in whatever you do.

I see no good reason for prohibition. It lines the pockets of organised crime, keeps the gaols full, pushes people seeking to enjoy the perfectly natural act of changing their mental state towards the underworld, unnecessarily ruins reputations and inhibits employment and travel opportunities, all while utterly failing in its objective. How long has the war on drugs been going? Decades. How much effect has it had? Nil - things are worse. How much does it cost us? Billions. How many young people die through unregulated supply (dirty or overly pure drugs)? Many.

Mind you, regulation instead of prohibition would probably cause economic hardship in Mexico and Colombia, although at least police and politicians might have a little more freedom to do their jobs without being killed.

Phil's conviction is a hideous waste of taxpayer's money for no good reason.
 
Last edited:
No, they make laws for a variety of reasons, one of which is to enforce morality.

Morality is the cloak that this law is hidden behind. The real reason for that particular law boils down to what else...money.

If that plant were legalized, all the pharmaceutical, tobacco, alcohol, chemical, and wood and cotton fiber producing companies would be QUAKING IN THEIR BOOTS at the prospect of lost profits. We think the government is there for us, when they are all secretly laughing because we are actually supporting them, but have no control over them. Democracy is an illusion in many important ways. We allow our governments to operate like this because most people still trust that their governments have the masses best interest at heart. The sooner the masses of the world realize that the governments of the world are milking us like cash cows, the sooner we can throw off the old guard and attempt to forge better leadership.
 
I understand your point there Larry, and in some cases I agree. A current example here in Idaho - there is a push to make tobacco leaf wrappers (like cigars are wrapped with) illegal because kids are using them to roll joints, and nobody actually uses them to make cigars. (Official spin, not my idea) So, who brought this new, horrible menace to the attention of the legislature? Representatives of the CIGAR industry. OF COURSE they don't want people to make their own cigars! I think this is a good example of what you are talking about.

But I'm not sure I agree when it comes to the initial criminalization of pot. Seems to me they would have just taxed the crap out of it for the maximum cash cow effect. But I wasn't there, and it's hard to say what lobbies held sway back then, and who was busy protecting their own interests..
 
Polly, it amazes me as well.

This some sort of blow out scandal on a old lowly drummer who wants to get relaxed on his personal boat. Phil has contributed so much in investing money in NZ, a helicopter company in place, employees working for him and so on.

It's always the working class being hurted day by day, by any means. While the white collar delinquents are living in luxury, debauchery, drug dealing and running wild. Where is the law or that law?

Ian, it's weird. The Kiwis are normally the most relaxed, informal people you'll ever meet. This incident is sooo at odds with the impression I had when I holidayed there.

The stupidity of this bust amazes me. Think of the money spent in prosecuting this case ... police wages, clerical staff, the magistrate, court admin, records, IT ... thousands. All to bust a harmless old rock star who likes to chill with a bit of herb. The losers - Phil and the NZ taxpayer. The winners - the cop, the lawyers, the court staff (who get easy money for a low pressure non-issue), journalists and proselytising politicians. Funny thing, whenever you do these sums, lawyers, journalists and politicians always seem to be in the winners column.

I don't really favour official legalisation for the same reason as Jim mentioned - better to be a laissez faire "prohibition".

Vince, I'd better stop now or people won't be able to tell us apart :)

INOG, not sure how old you are but I can vouch for the fact that people over 50 like to enjoy themselves too.
 
Last edited:
While it may seem minor Pol, things like this can go a lot father than you think.

Say there's a 15 year old drummer who's idol was Phil. He found out Phil had been caught for possession of drugs, and he loses faith in his idol. Could even cause him to stop drumming.

Or it could have a even worse effect. Maybe the 15 year old kid thinks, "Hey Phil Rudd is an awesome drummer, and he smokes pot, so why shouldn't I?"

Fact is it's illegal, and it's illegal for a reason. It creates bad health, promotes a bad influence, and can harm other people physically as well. Now I realize 25 grams isn't a lot, so the third statement is probably irrelevant, but it doesn't matter if it's 1 gram or 1000, it's against the law and he was rightly punished.

"Like"
202020202020202020
 
Police searched is private property and found less than an ounce of weed. While I don't think weed should be legal, this sounds like a fair penalty. He wasn't selling it, providing it to minors, using it around minors or operating a car under the influence.

Yeah, missed the 25 grams there, so fair penalty, but there still needed to be one.

Pol, I'm sorry, I totally fail to see your point on no prohibition on pot (or other drugs). In an ideal world, there would be no drugs (other than use for medical purposes) would there not? There are plenty of other things for people to enjoy themselves with, that aren't a risk to there selves and the rest of society. One might say a positive aspect of drugs is releases stress, passes the time, enjoyable. While this may be true, there are hundreds of other things you can do to satisfy these needs.
Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. Drug abuse exists all over the world and it kills millions of people. As stated above, drugs are not needed to live your life. The law prevents drug abuse the best they can. Sure it costs money. But think about if there was no law against drugs. Drug abuse and deaths would rise. There's no denying that.
As for the drug war, I agree, it's a lost cause. But the law is still needed.

We could go on weeks arguing, but we'd get nowhere. I'll leave it at this.
 
While it may seem minor Pol, things like this can go a lot father than you think.

Say there's a 15 year old drummer who's idol was Phil. He found out Phil had been caught for possession of drugs, and he loses faith in his idol. Could even cause him to stop drumming.

Or it could have a even worse effect. Maybe the 15 year old kid thinks, "Hey Phil Rudd is an awesome drummer, and he smokes pot, so why shouldn't I?"

Fact is it's illegal, and it's illegal for a reason. It creates bad health, promotes a bad influence, and can harm other people physically as well. Now I realize 25 grams isn't a lot, so the third statement is probably irrelevant, but it doesn't matter if it's 1 gram or 1000, it's against the law and he was rightly punished.
--> Two thumbs down icon <--

I remember when I was an impressionable youngster and Paul McCartney got busted for smuggling weed into Japan with Wings. 30 some years later, I'm still playing music and The Beatles are still one of my uber all-time favorite bands. Of course, indulgence avoidance isn't one of my strong suits, but I've got a spotless driving, employment, and police record, so it's as Polly pointed out; moderation in all things.
 
Yeah, missed the 25 grams there, so fair penalty, but there still needed to be one.

Pol, I'm sorry, I totally fail to see your point on no prohibition on pot (or other drugs). In an ideal world, there would be no drugs (other than use for medical purposes) would there not? There are plenty of other things for people to enjoy themselves with, that aren't a risk to there selves and the rest of society. One might say a positive aspect of drugs is releases stress, passes the time, enjoyable. While this may be true, there are hundreds of other things you can do to satisfy these needs.
Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. Drug abuse exists all over the world and it kills millions of people. As stated above, drugs are not needed to live your life. The law prevents drug abuse the best they can. Sure it costs money. But think about if there was no law against drugs. Drug abuse and deaths would rise. There's no denying that.
As for the drug war, I agree, it's a lost cause. But the law is still needed.

We could go on weeks arguing, but we'd get nowhere. I'll leave it at this.

There is a hierarchy of illegal drugs and weed is near the bottom. As long as an adult is doing it in private and not putting anyone else at risk, I'm willing to look the other way. I'm surprised the government there would spend this much time and money to bust someone for such a minor offense. I'd assume they have more pressing crimes.

Be that as it may, the law is the law and I think the penalty in this case is about right.
 
Sorry my friend, I can't leave it at that.......

"Drug abuse exists all over the world and it kills millions of people."
- yes indeed - and it is the legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) that account for the vast majority of these.

"The law prevents drug abuse the best they can."
- no - the law simply put money in the pockets of the "legal drug" pushers and the ambulance chasers (read lawyers, cops and judges)

"As for the drug war, I agree, it's a lost cause. But the law is still needed."
- never - laws are just evil misnomers created by lawyers

"But think about if there was no law against drugs. Drug abuse and deaths would rise. There's no denying that."
- assumption and fear mongering - don't believe it
 
Last edited:
Whatever, it's all theoretical. I'm pretty sure that organised crime bosses have nothing to fear - I can't see anyone interfering with their prohibition cash cow for many years to come.

It would be interesting to know the extent to which their agents have manipulated public opinion to maintain the status quo. The logic behind prohibition - as opposed to a public health approach - is so spurious that you'd think it indefensible, but the massively flawed arguments remain entenched.
 
By the way hope I didn't offend anybody or anything, not my intention. Just voicing my opinion.
 
Back
Top