Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Drug Intelligence

30 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

  • Ian Dalziel,

    Getting bud-wiser...

    It must have been something in the air. During a short time window at the end of the last ice age, Stone Age humans in Europe and Asia independently began using a new plant: cannabis.
    That’s the conclusion of a review of cannabis archaeology, which also links an intensification of cannabis use in East Asia with the rise of transcontinental trade at the dawn of the Bronze Age, some 5000 years ago.
    Central Eurasian’s Yamnaya people – thought to be one of the three key tribes that founded European civilisation ­– dispersed eastwards at this time and are thought to have spread cannabis, and possibly its psychoactive use, throughout Eurasia.The pollen, fruit and fibres of cannabis have been turning up in Eurasian archaeological digs for decades.
    Tengwen Long and Pavel Tarasov at the Free University of Berlin, Germany, and their colleagues have now compiled a database of this archaeological literature to identify trends and patterns in prehistoric cannabis use.
    It is often assumed that cannabis was first used, and possibly domesticated, somewhere in China or Central Asia, the researchers say – but their database points to an alternative.
    Some of the most recent studies included in the database suggest that the herb entered the archaeological record of Japan and Eastern Europe at almost exactly the same time, between about 11,500 and 10,200 years ago.

    source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2096440-founders-of-western-civilisation-were-prehistoric-dope-dealers/

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7944 posts Report Reply

  • Shulgin,

    ....i was trying....waiting for bugs to fly spray....cause paint attracts meth...

    i was gunna like demo the whole plan and start with new gib board...forensic science...minute shit...on walls and soft furnishings....

    what do i lick again?

    NZ • Since May 2011 • 125 posts Report Reply

  • Shulgin,

    I was in two minds

    so to speak about making another post

    seeing as the painting myself and standing next to a state house failed to attract viable amounts of meth...
    should I..

    why not


    Just a follow up to some matters in the ---------- Letter.

    In regards to so called synthetic cannabis, the coding. I asked the Data Section at the MOH what the ICD 10 code is for synthetic cannabis. This is now recorded by coders as T43.8 "other psychotropic drugs". I asked them when this was recognized by the ICD 10 database, they tell me the changed happened in July 2011. Cannabis poisoning, whatever that is, is code 407. That code is understandable, in that for example - a person could be poisoned by the Police spraying herbicide over outdoor cannabis crops! So before July 2011 any poisoning due to cannabinoids was coded as T407, therefore the data does not differentiate between the plant and synthetic substances. The data used by the harm index was for 2010, extracted in 2013 by Health. So we have quite a confused situation and this is even before people infer medical relationships from codes. But also the point is that we are focused on very small numbers that are actually statistically unimportant compared to other licit substances that cause much more harm to society.

    Look at this little trick. If you go to the ICD 10 Guidelines for the F Section the code for Tobacco issues is F17. (Cannabis F12, Alcohol F10) the instruction to coders is "Mental and behavioral disorders due to the use of tobacco not to be used if the resultant physical condition is known." (see screenshot)So how is that possible, how come tobacco does not show in the statistics, yet we drill down into 10 classifications of problems due to cannabis use? I have asked the WHO for an explanation, but no one ever replies. It is my argument that the Tobacco industry must have made some sort of threat to the WHO about this matter. We can code for lung cancer, but not mention the tobacco use! See things become very dangerous when people don't keep to evidence.

    I went thru the emails I have from my OIA on the index, I have asked numerous more questions to Health, I accuse them of withholding documents from me and that the OIA is an incomplete record of what I asked for. But the point is this - the Index is just another example of the politicization of the public service. The money for the Index came from a special fund Dunne tells us Audience at the release; "I would like to begin by acknowledging that funding for this project to reproduce a Drug Harm Index for New Zealand was approved by the Prime Minister from the proceeds of crime." Well that is quite funny! and then Dunne said this;

    "Nearly all public sector agencies have struggled with measuring the social impact of their programmes.

    This is hardly surprising given that those programmes operate in complex environments.

    However, by better understanding the social impact of our policies, we can better inform social investment.

    Social investment is one of the key tools the Government has to drive changes in the community.

    As the Minister of Finance Bill English has said, at its heart, social investment is about understanding what makes the most difference to people’s lives, and using evidence to do more of what works.

    The social investment approach fits squarely with the evidence based approach which lies at the heart of the National Drug Policy."

    So in that backdrop, the Index was released on 7 April 2016, just in time for Dunne to take the Index to UNGASS in New York. Dunne had previously given the UN his CIP speach, Compassion Innovation and Proportion. So the Index was an example of Innovation and Dunne took copies to give to his UN mates.

    The whole process undertaken to develop the index was driven by that clownish sideshow undertaken by Dunne. The MOH just went along for the goal driven target of getting an Index to Dunne to take to New York. No one bid for the Index under GETS, so Health had to find someone who could do the work to the project timetable. Along came McFadden to collect the $193,000 with his innovative index.

    In the emails I have from Health some of the reviewers start raising concerns about the Index. Those concerns are dismissed by the Project manager from Health and in addition Mc Fadden gets quite cross when he gets a review document, he tells the Project a manger it would be easier if he didn't hear from Mr X again on the Index! Anyway health didn't care to attend to details, as it was driven by delivering a document Dunne could take to UNGASS.

    So the public service Health did not deliver free and frank advice, they delivered propaganda to suit a politically driven agenda via funding, thru Social Investment, all the way to UNGASS the world stage for an innovative harm index. So this is very much Tory politics, new right, neo con, and it has very little to do with any concern about HARM.

    Got any questions do drop me a line!

    Take care.

    I know it was risky posting without moderation...

    NZ • Since May 2011 • 125 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19719 posts Report Reply

  • Shulgin,


    how do you get an image into hard news....

    yeah.... so when the index was nearly cooked, the MOH project manager asks...well how we publish this shit?

    ------I will ask the NDIB.....if we should publish Michael....what is that......

    NDIB...said you take the glory health

    NZ • Since May 2011 • 125 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…


You may also create an account or retrieve your password.