To drag this conversation back on the track of Russell's post...
The Speech from the Throne recently confirmed that in the first 100 days of Jacinda Ardern’s government: ”Medicinal cannabis will be made available for people with terminal illnesses or in chronic pain.”
I’ve been able to glean something of what that statement will actually mean in practice, and I can tell you now that many advocates will be disappointed.
And I suspect, as someone who has experienced the beneficence of a donation from a 'green fairy', that that final statement will be correct.
What will happen is that yes, medical cannabis be will 'legalised', but it will be restricted and regulated and forced into complying with standards set by evidenced based science that the product will be out of the financial reach of most.
In the meantime...the evidence of harm caused by prescription painkillers is overwhelming....
I can't disagree with you on any of that, Rosemary, and I've no doubt that Sue Grey is an effective campaigner for medicinal cannabis reform.
There’s growing scientific evidence that cannabinoids do have measurable positive effects. In double-blind trials (the gold standard of clinical trials), cannabis products decreased or prevented chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting in cancer patients.
Cannabis products with a high cannabidiol (CBD) content can be used without the psychoactive effects normally associated with marijuanaCannabis products with a high cannabidiol (CBD) content can be used without the psychoactive effects normally associated with marijuana Photo: RNZ / Kate Newton
There’s good evidence it helps with multiple sclerosis symptoms, its pain relief effects have been backed up by several studies, while other double-blind trials have concluded that childhood epilepsy and seizures also seem to respond to CBD.
Animal trials - which are not necessarily any indication that the results will be repeated for humans - found that some cannabinoids had anti-tumour properties.
The research is helpful, Paul says. It converts sceptical patients and doctors. It makes it more palatable to the public.
But for him, the evidence that matters is what he sees.
“Of course, a lot of nay-sayers will say it’s just anecdotal. I say - f*** you, it’s not. This is proof that it’s working.”
They had hoped for a swift law change from the new government but know now that won’t happen in time for Cowie.
Not that the law matters, Wood says.
“Whether the local stuff becomes legal or not, we’re going to continue to do what we do.”
Yes that's more or less been my impression. I've been following the 1080 stuff for some time now, and while I fully appreciate the right to have concerns and discuss them, it's been depressing watching some of the most conspiracy-driven elements of that movement enter the Brook Valley Community Group. (A brodi drop is not a 1080 drop but the helicopter thing means it activates similar crowds.) With the BVCG Sue Grey hasn't so much just been a lawyer acting for the group as being a lawyer acting like the group, bringing masses of insane and trivial stuff and non-expert witnesses (described as experts) into the court-room. All this time she's in social media implying to everyone that their chances of success are really good despite virtually all court documentation saying the opposite for reasons that must have been clear to any competent lawyer before anything began.
I was going to write a much lengthier comment, but Dave Hansford really summarised this circus between the court rooms and social media quite well: https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/96558044/zealots-ransack-vision-for-the-brook-sanctuary
I hope, at least, that the medicinal cannabis stuff goes well with her involvement, but I also hope the legal work she's been doing for it is more robust and integrous than for the Brook Valley Community Group.
That's a great summary from Dave Hansford. Thank you.
Did you read this more recent piece in the Spinoff? I thought it was quite bleak - he describes the problem very clearly but he seems pretty stumped about solutions.
And Steven - you might be thinking of ionising radiation..
I am assuming that the Government has spoken with medical professionals regarding proposed legislation to give access to cannabis based medicines.
GPs have been surveyed to ascertain the extent of usage of 'unregulated' products, their efficacy and safety?
And I would imagine that many GPs, if they were consulted on the issue, would also tell the government that the proposed legislation will not, in any way, provide greater (legal) access to patients to such products unless they are available at much reduced prices.
You'd hope also, that medical professionals are keeping some sort of (hopefully anonymised) records of use, efficacy and safety of unregulated products that their patients have admitted using.
If I'm reading this right...this may actually be a step in the right direction...
Having said that...there will be bogies...