(one was the index, the last was the
should read ‘the last was ; the explanatory note clarifying ’soft drugs’ as anything safer than alcohol and administration/oversight to be under the Ministry of Health – not Police.)
But I am sure you knew that.
Big thanks for your continuing erudite oversight.
Post the circa 1996 "all drug" National Drug Policy Framework process and its subsequent manifestation, the National Drug Policy, we had what could be fairly called Ottawa Charter 'integrated thinking' that looked at ALL drug harms crucially ignoring the legal status. This was innovative (and quite correct) policy thinking. What happened? The Alcohol lobby squealed, 'our drug is legal' and subsequently drove a nail in the integrated thinking... back to 'drug by illicit drug' - and that is where the wheels fell off.
It was the Police who commissioned the first Drug Harm Index. He who pays the piper.....regrettably Anderton went along with it, certainly until he met Jack Cole and Eddie Ellison (LEAP.CC) back in 2005. The day after that somewhat crucial meeting, [organised by and attended by myself and fellow MildGreen, Kevin O'Connell], Anderton released the foundation of "Class D" - notably, albeit on a slow media day on "Good Friday". In a moment of ironic if not historical audacity, Peter Dunne scotched the Labour Caucus's so concise and entirely workable five page (one was the index, the last was the "Restricted Substances Regulations 2008" on April Fools Day. Sometimes we tell better stories too!
. Many of the rest of them will largely have negative associations with it.
Then they better go home and bin their Phillips cassettes, Vinyl, 8-Tracks, CD's and anything to do with Jazz.... oh and ask for some pretty heady knighthoods to be cancelled. Oh, and also anything with a big red VIRGIN written on it.
And if that isn't enough, if you don't use cannabis, statistically, two or more of your neighbours has.
re Duncan Garner/Chloe S'brick 'clash'
Clarity around this issue, while well argued from a political dimension (tx. Chloe) often misses the point when old information (Duncan's research) isnt clearly explained such as that around young people and mental health risks associated with cannabis. The pretence given legs by MSM that pro-reform means 'there are no harms' - needs to be tested too, when clearly no one is advocating youth uptake. So lets put that in a New Zealand context. 80% of the youth (18-25) have tried cannabis more than 5 times. (It couldnt be more popular than if it was made compulsory).... and THAT is under prohibitions watch. But when we examine that data (Joe Boden, CHDS, 2010) and consider youth uptick, there is a lot to be learned from current research from other jurisdictions. This is the latest on that subject and it informs the youth 'usage' debate as it addresses concerns about post illicit status adult access as well as the here and now. We couldn't do worse. We can only do better is the meme. This research is explored well here.
“Countries that have ended criminal sanctions for possession of drugs have shown they have better health, social and economic outcomes, yet the UK government continues to have an evidence-free approach when it comes to the law around drugs.”
Ian Hamilton, a lecturer in mental health and addiction the University of York, said young people were unlikely to be dissuaded from using cannabis whether it was legal or not.
Anyone interested in correcting a wrong, please pass on to Duncan.
Labour made provision for Class D, (Restricted Substances Regulations 2008). National was never going to live with it as it meant cannabis law reform. Dunne compliantly threw it out with the deliberate curve ball, PSA with animal testing!
Class D was never found wanting... indeed David Nutt called them 'the best drug laws in the world' and when pressed as to the suitability for placing cannabis within it...emphatic ' absolutely! '
Cannabis law reform is and remains the core issue for which the failure to resolve the tensions rests on the (respective) Ministers of Health under whose watch and WARRANT all drug policy is exacted. The Expert Advisory Committee (EACD) should have undertaken its responsibility to priotise an evidence based review of NZ’s favorite illicit substance according to the ALL DRUG harm reduction philosophy that underpins our National Drug Policy.
The Law Commission was disabled politically due to the change in the terms of reference (dirty politics). International conventions should be informed by evidence not vice versa.
BZP, Synthetics, Meth and Alcohol related harms would have thus reduced and substantial unwarranted criminalisation would have ceased to exist.
( Google “Pokolo and Ice” Prof..Econ. James Roumasette)
Importantly Len Snee and Gage the dog would still be alive.
The obsfucation surrounding drug policy development has a legacy. It has not been an earnest harm minimization strategy , as would be proscribed under the aegis of the National Drug Policy Statement or its founding principles and formulation advice. What was innovative (the Restricted Substances Regulations 2008) was gutted by Dunne after it passed muster (Order in Council) and became law - but was never again talked about despite no advice on its failure. That is a travesty that should be sheeted home upon Dunne et al. AS WELL AS the Star Trust (who saw it as not protecting its industry exclusivity) and I would argue disappointingly examined by the Drug Foundation.
Jackson in that regard, is on the button. Paucity of reality.....
meth is a drug delivery system, just as crack is to cocaine, smack to heroin and (to a lesser degree) hashish is to cannabis. Meth is metabolised into amphetamine by the host. It is not more dangerous than amphetamine ("speed" was class B, BTW) it is more illegal because it is more concealable and 'worth more per gram' both features independent of the pharmacology suggesting it is prohibition that makes the meth more criminal and in being criminal it is then associated with other criminal things, like acquisitive crime, dispute resolution by violence and threat/duress, and other crimes of dishonesty, theft shoplifting fraud etc.
(I could reasonably argue that whisky is also a drug delivery system but for different logical reasons, but I hope my point is made)
The salient point to make here is where in other jurisdictions that mimic much of what makes NZ Police lie about methamphetamine harms, its prevalence and its social dangers, we see that the* tougher Police come down on cannabis, the greater the harms created by the meth markets.
It is not like this is not known about, NZ National Drug Policy formulation documents circa 1990's highly indicated and 'all drug' policy that recognised HIOLISTICALY the interconnections and harm reduction opportunities. That meth has become so prevalent is no accident, nor merit in meth itself. We manufactured this problem by allowing Police to make up health policy on the fly, and politicians who having sold you the problem, offered the 'vote for me' solution.
(*Prof James Roumasett, Economics, Hawaii State University - google "Pokalo and Ice")
Legally regulated cannabis markets have greatly reduced the net harm from other drugs (including alcohol) such that it should be a given harm reduction that will achieve more in a matter of one growth cycle than can/could be achieved in one parliamentary session. From all accounts this would save a country more than Kiwisaver/Working for Families budget forecasts that attracts the journalists and commentators from far and wide. Yet pro-legal regulators like myself are branded loony-tunes. Look who benefits from such labels? The Police. The Pollies. The Gangs. The Lion Foundation.
We are just not serious enough about what is broken because we we have been brainwashed it cannot be fixed.
If excise tax works to reduce harms of tobacco and alcohol, what reasoning can be used to defend the case that it would not work for cannabis, bzp or jwh18, all identified as having lower harms than either licit drug used in isolation or together?
If it wasn't for cannabis (100% clearance rate) the Police wouldn't look good.
We successfully (um, where's the victim, stoopid!) created an additional 3500 criminals over last year (20.9% increase in cannabis offences) and yet NOWHERE has this policy ever been tested for its efficacy....
IF ALL 400,000 regular users (note, 99% are not abusers or misuser's) were somehow 'detected' for the millions of crimes they commit every year... would that be heralded as a success? So why are the Police applauded for fudging their 'overall' success when it is utterly contrived by INCREASED surveillance, advanced detection methods and increased 'street' policing. The increase in cannabis convictions is proof of failure and no testimony to police's notion they are stopping crime.
The URBAN HEALTH RESEARCH INITIATIVE report release two weeks ago is incontrovertible (read:scientific) proof the New Zealand Police are fools. (National Drug Intelligence in particular)
A comprehensive study of the worlds best science that shows that it is increased drug policy enforcement CREATES the very crime they set out to solve should not surprise most thinking folk. It is by the very attribute (signatory status to the Single Conventions on Narcotics) that the Police are compelled to LIE to the public about the harms of cannabis.
And that by doing so we as a nation are endorsing the punitive approach taken globally to the corruption, mayhem and dysfunction associated with the policy. Nearly two thirds of the 2000 deaths along the Mexico border this year alone (its only April!) are attributed to 'cannabis policy' and by dint of OUR signatory status, we endorse this stupidity and gross Human Rights anomaly. To uphold this stupidity, we make criminals out of ourselves. It is the logical equivalent of declaring war and bombing our own cities.
The Urban Health Research Initiative report can be found at http://uhri.cfenet.ubc.ca/content/view/83
There is the real crime story flying under the radar of political pundits, reports and commentators. (and yes, I did an all points release - it even made it too SCOOP)
I have spoken personally to editors and news rooms up and down this land and NOT ONE OF THEM HAS INCLUDED IT IN THE CRIME DEBATE.
The worlds best HEALTH science to inform the Law Commission Review on Drugs and....... silence!
Yet, such insite would even make McVicar choke....
I repeat... if it wasnt for Cannabis the Police would look terrible.... the 'linking' to methamphetamine doesnt fool anyone but the feeble minded (who it is targeted at) as the best science there tells us, the more you come down on cannabis the more you generate a methamphetamine problem.
[see Professor James Roumasett, Hawaii University (Economics) "Black Hole Politics".]
I have seen the enemy, they are patched and like blue, fast cars and have more weapons than Jan Mollenar. They are easily identified; they tell better stories.