Canvassing for Opinion - aka "Blairs Brain on Cannabis"

On Drugs, Medicine and Some Harms

Part of the problem with Met's Bill (and Nandor's earlier) is that it occurred at all.
(comment as posted to the Daktory Forum)

While med pot is an important issue, the diamonds in the sky is D'classification of cannabis. It would matter diddly what med pot provisions were made (as per Sativex) there would still be injustice. The argument for med pot (even as a wedge issue towards full Class D implementation, the rules are all ready there ) fails to do justice to the issue. AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE TO RAISE THE ROOF before the Law Commission (LC).

The LC is doing some very creative stuff around 'privacy' and the internet... using the internet to both air the issue contructively and gain insight into public concerns, suggestions and fulfill the responsibility of 'consultation being seen to be done'.

This is the stuff of social capital. The 'drug debate' will be the better for it. One can (will be able to) even send a comment in via ones cellphone. Suddenly the debate (has the POTential to) become relevant to young people.

So donut worry to much about the vote in Parl. There was NO drug debate in the run up to the election, but the day after John Key was elected PrimeMonster we legally regulated psychoactive recreational drugs (it got Royal assent two days before the election, became law on the Sunday). Much more has been accomplished than either media or MP's are prepared to

Image via Wikipedia

concede. We are the first country in the world to take a ground up approach to analyzing drug policy - including adherence to and relevance of the International Covenants and Conventions.

It really doesn't get better than this. Although the anticipated in april/may 'issues paper' is yet to be released (so that the framework for the debate is clear - and thats a head start) it has been delayed somewhat due to [political] prioritisation of the Alcohol issue. The drug we drink, Alcohol (legal) and Drugs (illegal) will according to the Law Commission(er) 'inform each other'. Again, no country has (IMHO) realy taken this holistic evaluation of 'all drug policy'.

Consider fmr PrimeMunster Palmer on Drugs we Drink, "The exclusion of these substances from the terms of reference does not preclude the Commission from taking into account the relative harms of these and other substances." and "Lessons learnt from the regulation of alcohol and tobacco will be taken on board in the course of this review." (media release 2008[url]

We are turning full circle back to where our National Drug Policy (framework) pre 1996 HIGHLY reco

Image via Wikipedia

mmended an 'all drugs' framework rather than a drug by drug approach.
This serves reform VERY WELL.

Like Alcohol and the recent academically critiqued BERL report on Alcohol harms - the area of cost/benefit need to be explored thoroughly. Daktavists MUST ask for this, 'where's the the baseline?' - and the more we do this, the greater weighting will be given to getting the likes of Prof Jeffery Miron (or the like) out here from Harvard to give this international credibility.

Be Empowered, Submit Unconditionaly.

/Blair Anderson,
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com

Labels: Addictions, cannabis, Drug War, drugs, Health, John Key, law, Narcotic, Recreational drug use, Sativex, social capital

View blog reactions

How Swift Is Too Swift For Justice?.

Image via Wikipedia

"How swift is too swift for justice?":

The easiest and most expedient way to deal with court workload (and attendent injustice) is to resolve the tensions underpining 'drug law' and the plethora of unintended consequences. In answer to the naysayers to this suggestion, either drugs are a problem or they are not. One cannot back both horses and win.

Posted by Blair Anderson to TUMEKE! at 2/7/09 9:58 AM

note:

COHA Responds to the UN World Drug Report

As pointed out in the report, the right answer is not to regulate and heavily tax drug sales; government profiteering from citizen addiction would be neither ethical nor helpful for eliminating black markets. Allowing marginalized addicts back into society and providing medical treatment to them are large benefits of decriminalization, in addition to reducing unnecessarily costly and high incarceration rates.

Yet, despite unflagging optimism, any strategy short of legalization has proven statistically impotent and historically futile in promoting peace, democratic institutions, freedom from oppression, and strengthening the rule of law. By providing billions of dollars for the purchase of weapons and the corruption of civil institutions, prohibition has infected and destroyed not only whole families and communities but entire countries, including the lives of those who made no conscious decision to participate in drug related activities.

Labels: Courts, drugs, law, Unintended consequence, war on drugs

View blog reactions

Medicinal Cannabis Bill

Medicinal Cannabis Bill

The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party are calling on all MPs to support an extremely important piece of legislation that will be before the house on Wednesday 1st of July. Metiria Turei's Medicinal Cannabis Bill will make it legal for patients with severe or life threatening illnesses and injuries to access the medicine they need. For many patients, the only medicine that works to relieve their suffering is Cannabis.

Image via Wikipedia

Cannabis is already legally available in New Zealand on prescription from a doctor. The pharmaceutical cannabis preparation Sativex has been approved for a number of patients. However many people in need cannot afford Sativex or they prefer to source there essential medicine elsewhere. Metia Turei's Bill will increase access to this important medicine by allowing patients or their caregivers to grow their own cannabis. By allowing those patients most in need to grow their own medicine, they will no longer have to risk buying from the black market and will no longer have to fear arrest and imprisonment.

Image via Wikipedia

Emeritus Professor Lester Grinspoon from Harvard Medical School, believes that Cannabis will be the world's most important medical drug in the 21st century.

The reason cannabis is such an effective medicine, with thousands of years of use, is because it contains over 60 active therapeutic compounds. The cannabis plant can be breed for different levels of these cannabinoids, and specific strains have been developed to treat specific ailments, such as ADHD. Scientists can also isolate specific compounds in cannabis to create unique new medicines.

At present Sativex is the sole cannabis product on the market. While it is effective for many conditions including MS, others conditions such as chronic pain require an Indica rather than Sativa based preparation.

Metiria's Bill will allow for a more diverse range of cannabis products to be made available, to better suit the needs of patients. Concerns about the smoking of cannabis medicine, can be addressed by the use of a number of alternative delivery methods, including vaporisation, oral ingestion, ointment or spray. While cannabis has a bad reputation due to its illegal status, all of the uses of this medicine can be referenced to scientific studies. Cannabis has been scientifically shown to be 100% non toxic, non addictive and has never caused a single death from overdose.

The scientific and lay literature of the medical effectiveness of cannabis is extensive. There are

Image via Wikipedia

numerous conclusive studies which show that cannabis reduces the growth of cancer tumors, including studies conducted at the University of Otago. Some conditions like Glaucoma, can only be effectively treated with cannabis. When made into a skin balm, cannabis is an effective remedy for both Arthritis and Melanoma.

Hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders are in desperate need of this medicine. Only the most heartless and uncaring members of parliament could vote against the compassionate use of cannabis. Already the hard-line USA has approved medical marijuana in many states. Not to follow suit here would cause outrage throughout the New Zealand medical marijuana community, not to mention years of needless suffering for thousands of people.

Below are some of that conditions that cannabis is effective treatment for:

Appetite Loss Arthritis Asthma Addiction Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Anxiety Disorders AIDS Wasting Syndrome Attention Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Autism Aversive Memories Bipolar Affective Disorder Brain Injury/Stroke Cancer (including Breast cancer, Cervical cancer, Lung cancer, Skin cancer) Depression Dystonia Epilepsy Fibromyalgia Glaucoma Migraine Nausea Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) Chemo Related Nausea Chronic Pain Diabetes Hepatitis C High Blood Pressure/Hypertension Lymphoma Migraine Mental Illness Multiple Sclerosis Movement Disorders Musculoskeletal Disorders Neuroprotection Nail Patella Syndrome Parkinson's disease Pancreatitis Rheumatoid Arthritis Sickle Cell Disease Schizophrenia Skin allergies Sleep Apnea Tourette-Syndrome Ulcerative Depression, Violent, uncontrollable outbursts in children

ENDS

Labels: cannabis, Drug, Health, Lester Grinspoon, Medical cannabis, Metiria Turei, Pharmaceutical drug, Sativex

View blog reactions

Support Global Drug Policy Reform: World Drug Day, 26 June

Image via Wikipedia

Call to Action: Support Global Drug Policy Reform
World Drug Day, 26 June 2009

I. The War on Drugs has become a War on People.

As the United Nations brings worldwide attention to problems related to illicit drugs, we call for a new approach. In too many countries, the “war on drugs” has become a war on people. Millions of non-violent drug users face abuse and imprisonment, while they have no access to proper healthcare or effective treatment. Lowlevel traders and producers receive sentences disproportionate to their crimes and languish in prisons around the globe. Millions more face crop destruction and police harassment as they struggle to make ends meet, with few alternatives as the global economy falters. Meanwhile, the HIV epidemic gains pace.

II. Five Actions Today

After decades of policies that have failed to make our societies safer or healthier, and given overwhelming evidence which shows that criminalizing drugs is both counterproductive and highly destructive, we call on governments to:

Focus on reducing the harms related to drug trade and use, such as making needle and syringe exchange programs widely available (NZ as worldwide AIDS/HEPC initiative).
Decriminalize the possession of drugs for personal use. (NZ as worldwide "D" Classification)
Ensure that evidence-based treatments for pain and addiction are widely available, including methadone and buprenorphine. (& Cannabis)
Treat supporting farmers in moving away from coca or poppy cultivation as a development issue. (remove the subsidy of prohibition!)
Comply fully with human rights obligations in any drug control measure, ensuring proportionality of penalties, abolishing the death penalty, and avoiding non-evidence-based forms of treatment.

III. Driving Away Drug Users Creates Public Health Disasters

Image by John Gevers via Flickr

Nearly three decades into the global HIV epidemic, we reiterate that driving people who use drugs underground only makes the transmission of HIV and hepatitis more likely. The number of HIV infections due to injecting drug use is rising steadily. In parts of Eastern Europe and South-East Asia, this figure reaches 80%. As the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies has said, “Forcing drug users to hide and denying them access to life-saving treatment and prevention services is creating a public health disaster. This happens even though the evidence from scientific and medical research on best practices and cost benefit analyses is overwhelmingly in favour of harm reduction programming....

The message is clear. It is time to be guided by light of science, not by the darkness of ignorance and fear.” Indeed, rather than a security-focused approach that costs roughly $100 billion per year worldwide, we need to look at this first and foremost through the lens of public health. In the blind effort to rid the world of drugs, 80% of cancer patients worldwide are denied access to opiate-based pain relief.

IV. Adopt a Humane Approach

A humane, compassionate approach to drug use based on harm reduction principles and respect for human rights is the most effective way to limit the negative impact of drug use, trade, and production. Scientific and medical research on best practices and cost benefit analyses overwhelmingly favors harm reduction programs, including needle exchange, drug substitution therapy, and condom distribution. We applaud countries who have already taken steps in this direction. Recently, both Germany and Switzerland have voted to make medical heroin available for chronically dependent opiate users and the new U.S. administration has come out in support of needle exchange. Ecuador pardoned thousands of drug ‘mules’

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

imprisoned with disproportionate sentences and 80 Argentinean judges made a public call to reform their country’s drug laws. In order to stop the spiral of drug-related violence and disease intensifying across the globe, more countries must follow suit.

[See comments for the list of signatories)

Blair Anderson
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com

Labels: Drug War, drugs, Harm reduction, Health, Human Rights, Needle-exchange programme

View blog reactions

Froggie Lie, caused by Drug We Drink.

Image by Frederic Humbert (www.rugby-pioneers.com) via Flickr

Outrage as French rugby player admits assault lie

WELLINGTON (AFP) — New Zealand officials reacted with outrage and called for an inquiry after French rugby player Mathieu Bastareaud admitted his claim of being attacked by thugs in Wellington was a lie.
The 20-year-old said Thursday in a statement on the website of his French club Stade Francais that a cut and bruising on his face was caused by a fall in his room after drinking with team-mates early on Sunday.

Image via Wikipedia

This is drug policy, and the duress of shaming. Why is it that after I heard the story the first time round, it smacked of exactly the outcome absent 'all the facts'. What is there to figure?

--
Blair Anderson ‹(•¿•)›
Social Ecologist 'at large'
ph (643) 389 4065 cell 027 265 7219

Labels: Mathieu Bastareaud, Rugby Union, Rugby union in France, Stade Francais

View blog reactions

Some Drugs Driving

It doesnt mean it makes a difference to fatalities or accidents however.
Image via Wikipedia

One of the problems with current drug policy (and is clearly evident in the drugged driving debate) is that drug substitution occurs. This is a two way street. (ask an economist!) Just as one can drive people to more harmful options, so too can we promote less harmful options by simply removing the impediments.

Cannabis is a least harmful option. As much as some folk will gnash their teeth and say, no drugs are good... (and they may even be right) from a social policy perspective, enforcement is a least efficient way to manage the problem and may, as in the case with cannabis, be an impediment to 'credible education messages'.

This is highly evident when one 'models' what would happen if we could eliminate alcohol on the road by substituting with cannabis. Road deaths (and other harms) would plummet. This is not to argue that cannabis should be compulsory, rather it helps us understand that, if a less harmful option is better than a more harmful option, and that leads to less deaths/accidents IT MAY WELL BE that the death that it saved was the very death that some individuals for whom the harm has been acute (and I share their heartache) would not have experienced that grief.

We have an obligation to solve problems with the least amount of invasive procedures as we can. It doesnt stack up, that just because we can (use Police) we must.

Look at how much we have changed societal response to drink driving through social mores around Sober Drivers etc.

Policing/Enforcement doesn't deserve all the credit (as much as they may wish to take that credit to justify continuation of policy enforcement).

Accidents occur without cannabis, there mere presence (in a zero tolerance model) does not make it 'responsible'.

Cannabis consumers (who drive, but not necessarily are stoned) do not make the unwise choices to drive that alcohol drivers make at relative degrees of intoxication. And that is a massive head start in harm limitation.

But that requires a society that has moved beyond intolerance. Regretably our drug laws are structured to enable the very worst in people. Even the ones who make moral (or otherwise) choice not to use cannabis... tiredness, distraction, stress and use of 'legal drugs, prescribed or otherwise' are NO LESS RESPONSIBLE for the outcomes of their behaviors.

It is wrong that we should hide behind our foibles and responsibilities while casting dispersions upon that of which they know little.

A more informed debate, founded in good social science should have been held. It is regrettable that our Expert Advisory Committee (on Drugs) has been expediently weighted by 'enforcement' over health.

No good will come of this.

Blair Anderson ‹(•¿•)›

Social Ecologist 'at large'
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com
http://blairformayor.blogspot.com
http://blair4mayor.com
http://efsdp.org

ph (643) 389 4065 cell 027 265 7219

Labels: cannabis, Driving under the influence, drug policy, Health, Social policy

View blog reactions

The Unknowns of Napier Hill

I agree with Adam that there are ‘factors’ that are unaccounted for in the current societal response to drug(s) that are evident in the Napier incident – if one wants to examine it.

The problem with ‘drug related’ incidences is that Police and Media have no truck with

Alcohol via Wikipedia

‘discovery’ and there are lot of people for whom ‘drugs are evil and a scourge’ that keep them, and us, boxed into the paradigm.

What Adam has described is a function of the ‘deviancy amplification’ that creates a matrix of dysfunctional ’set’ and ’setting’. Prohibition of alcohol trade, [possession and consumption was never illegal] created the dangerous ’set’ of violence, protection and corruption, none of which could be attributable to the pharmacology of ethyl alcohol.
(see Science of Intoxication: "pharmacological hand grenade" )

Napier is an example of such a set.

combusting alcohol ~ Wikipedia

Politicians see no votes in such ‘understandings’ thus rendering us all stupid!

No drug is as dangerous as its ’set’ created by bad policy, bigotry and double standards.

Show me a drug that can kill a Policeman at 100yds!

37. adam June 21, 2009 at 8:24 pm

hey there. i agree that jan was most certainly another victim,but for somewhat different reasons. napier is a prodomonantly mongrel mob town, so likewise with all the local jails. as the newspapers said, jan was a vocal anti P crusader, and shared no love with the local mob. we must ask: was the reason that this man was so heavily armed -for an expected search warrant, or just maybe it was to protect himself and loved ones from the mob??? this theory carries on to his reaction to the search warrant. if he was in fact a mongrel mob target, then the only thing keeping him safe on the outside are his collegues and his awesome arsenal. he must have been somewhat of a stalemate for a target..until the day he goes to jail. where there are no guns, and the odds arent great to say the least. this fear/reaction may have been what it took to send him over the edge. thinking that if he goes inside for the dope stuff he was a dead man. not an excuse, rather a feasable insight into the mind of a ??????? RIP Jan Molenaar

/Blair

Labels: Double standard, drugs, Health, media

View blog reactions

Handle on Non-Lethal Force For Change

Following the recent Queensland multi-tased death arrest I have noticed a consistent representation of views on blogs and media comment pages that validates my concerns that the general populace would go along with this fear of crime thing. (manufactured consent?)

Image via Wikipedia

Much of it is predicated on drug myths. (much the same as crack, crank and meth led to up scaling from .38's to .45 and to automatics).

1:1 meetings this week with local [National] MP's only trot out more tough on behaviour, crime, tough on alcohol.... and meth. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

The BERL report(s) on drug harms released prior to the Law Commission discussion documents is a failure in due process as well as 'failure in reason' misstating the problem by orders of magnitude.

When can we expect someone factor in the benefits of 'common civility'.

No Media in New Zealand has written critically of the implication of applied, and now law, Class D drug policy. No Member of the House has regaled.

Yet, like BERL's reports, it's a MoH issue. Drugs=Minister's Warrant, Alcohol=Ministry's Brief.

Public perception... Taser'd means drugged.
Where is the 'legal' sector on this.?
http://www.wkrg.com/crime/article/lawsuit-filed-by-mother-of-man-who-died-after-being-tasered/113391/http://www.wkrg.com/crime/article/children_zapped_by_stun_gun/25801/

Today's Police arbitrary 'handle on gun' ownership issue even cites Napier's 'Molenaar' incident while pot smoking was likely the very effective, safe and economic anti-anxiolotic scientific research shows it to be and, was by the perpetrators community actions, 'mediating meth in the community' no good story can be told.

More guns will be found to be 'semi-automatic' and the cycle begins again. Any gun elevates drug [prohibition] harm. Feeds fear. Allocates more Money for Failure.

Professor of Law, Jock Young had it right back in the seventies. "deviancy amplifying" all right! BERL's economists wouldn't know a benefit or a behavior if they fell over them and RH. John Key wouldn't know a science adviser if one fell over him.

I recall a certain Minister of Health back in 1975 who, on enactment of the Misuse of Drugs Act, said that it 'would give the Police powers to which they were not entitled', how prophetic.

-- Blair Anderson ‹(•¿•)›