Speaker: Towards a realistic drug policy
385 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
Well said Stephen and thanks Russell for posting this up. I'm utterly unsurprised that the NZ Herald refused publication even during the silly season when they'll print almost anything else. Cannabis is a substitute good for many of their advertisers.
Many of the sources can be found in NORML's Medicinal Cannabis written submission in support of the recent petition. I posted many research links in a Public Address column a couple of years back, so I can vouch for their authenticity.
Off the top of my head, here's a blast at crowdsourcing one of the references:
it has been described by a US Drug Enforcement Administration Judge as "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man".
That was Judge Francis Young, as mentioned in NORML's select committee hearing.
The Dunedin and Christchurch longitudinal studies have shown reasonably convincingly that the long-term risks of cannabis are much higher in users under 18, and the earlier the first use the greater the risk.
Cannabis should be R18. We used to have places where adults could congregate away from the kids. We called them pubs. Nowadays, even the NYE parties must be G rated (Deaf Lemon reference ;-)
That said, there are cases where cannabis might be prescribed for children in specific cases. I think people who accept a society which prescribes SSRIs to kids, with all their wonderful side effects, can't really go on about the evils of marijuana.
One of the more striking conclusions from the Auckland Uni School of Medicine survey on drug us is the major reason people give for stopping using cannabis: they didn't like it any more .
Yep. For the overwhelming majority, cannabis is just a phase they go though, a bit like Lesbians Until Graduation (LUGs). I heard 66 percent or more who try it, move on.
-
I also believe that legalising pot will reduce tobacco consumption.
I have no idea how that works. Can you elaborate a bit?
Purely my own opinion: as an former-cigarette smoker I believe that legal cannabis would be be used as a substitute for tobacco my many habitual smokers who like the sensation of inhaling smoke but don't actually enjoy the taste, the smell or effects of nicotine.
And again, given the fact that cannabis is statistically safer than tobacco, any swap from cigarette smoking to cannabis is going to mean a positive result in overall public health outcomes.
-
Its my body. Not yours.
Noone should be able to dictate what I can or cannot consume, regardless of the harm to myself if I so choose - unless I harm others.
I can't buy this argument.
As a society we have responsibilities to each other, both to the community, and individuals in it. That includes concern about what people do to themselves that can cause them harm.
To me it's not a question of whether we should allow you to put whatever the hell you want into your body, because if I see someone down a whole bottle of sleeping pills I'm hopefully going to do something. It's about what we do about people's actions. Currently we put them before the court and then in jail. In some instances we should probably just make it legal, possibly in a limited way. In others we should transfer our concern from crime to health, particularly dangerous addictice substances. Some we might just wish continue to keep illegal.
-
Stephen, I don't mean to sound like some sort of anti-drug moraliser - I'm not, I actually agree with decriminalisation with some reservations. I just don't buy the supposed social benefits you seem to envision.
As for the "just look at the Netherlands" argument, this is New Zealand, not the Netherlands. Replicating their policies will not have the same results for a multitude of attitudinal, social, historical, geographic and cultural reasons.
-
just a phase they go though, a bit like Lesbians Until Graduation (LUGs)
I don't want to derail this excellent thread, so I shall just put my hands over my face and groan quietly.
-
And their coalition partners Act and the Maori Party are lots more inclined to support legalisation than NZ First or the Progressives ever were.
I can only hope you are right and I am wrong.
But legalising pot to raise a possible new tax revenue stream is a dumb primary argument, and I cant see anyone buying it. -
I just don't buy the supposed social benefits you seem to envision.
Why? What makes you so sure things won't happen this way? Why the deep level of mistrust and fear around cannabis? What do you think is the worst thing that would happen if cannabis - rather than mostly being grown and sold by criminal organisations that also run the 'P' market - were regulated in much the same way that alcohol is (age restrictions, trading restrictions, some - hopefully more - advertising restrictions, etc)?
-
Sorry. I was trying to find the right metaphor and that one kept waving its hands.
-
The argument is a lot simpler.
Its my body. Not yours.
Noone should be able to dictate what I can or cannot consume, regardless of the harm to myself if I so choose
And we should privatise the health system, so that you don't get care if you don't have insurance and can't meet the cost of treatment yourself...
...right?
-
Cannabis may be legal in California this year. If so, it will provide a model for NZ to consider when we change the law here. Go to:
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/Planting-the-Seed-for-Legal-Pot-81222877.html
-
And their coalition partners Act and the Maori Party are lots more inclined to support legalisation than NZ First or the Progressives ever were.
Really? I disagree on that matter. I think that New Zealand is still at least a decade a way from any significant change towards evidence based drug laws.
-
The argument is a lot simpler. Its my body. Not yours.
OMG I agree with Mikee.
Must do something about that, lets see:
I don't believe the hippy argument that cannabis is a wonderful and beneficial 'erb, and that if we were allowed it then everyone would stop drinking the Evil Booze and all would be good.
For one thing, they don't substitute. A spliff doesn't replace a cold beer on a hot day, or a glass of wine with a meal. But mainly, all substances have effects that can be problematic for some people in some circumstances.
I don't see substance abuse as a problem with substances, but a problem with people. If you have a population with serious issues around self-respect and social exclusion, those will manifest themselves in substance abuse, as well as many other ways. We have that population at the moment - it's a consequence of our socio-economic system delivering bad outcomes for a sizeable minority. Countries with less untrammelled capitalism, like several in northern Europe, have less of these problems. Nor, on the whole, do educated middle class drug users, of whom there are many.
So fixing drug abuse isn't about controlling access to drugs, it's about social change so people can cope with life (including the existence of psychoactive substances). It's not about making it worse through propertarianism, incidentally.
Having said that, prohibition (of *any* substance) is one thing that makes matters worse, and we should end it. We need to have some kind of regulation, based on harm reduction, but criminal sanctions against the end user shouldn't be in the mix.
-
Yeah, I trust our health professionals, working in our environment & here's the latest.
8% increase in lung cancer risk.
http://erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/content/short/31/2/280
One for Gum Disease and the increased toxicity of pot.
http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/Publications%20and%20Documents/Summary%20and%20Media%20Sheets/Cannabis%20and%20gum%20disease%20fact%20sheet%20UPDATED.pdfLike opium & uranium, it might have positive medical uses too, but with major dangers, primarily mental health.
-
The same debate, but on YouTube!
-
Why? What makes you so sure things won't happen this way? Why the deep level of mistrust and fear around cannabis?
Hang on a minute, how did we get there?!? Your straw man looks like it's coming together nicely, but it's got nothing to do with my dislike for your arguments.
As I've said, at least twice in this thread, I support decriminalisation. From a harm minimisation view point, it has merit - in drugs education, for example - and it would free up the courts and the police to catch bad arses which would be a good thing.
What do you think is the worst thing that would happen
More people will smoke more dope.
Given I've already addressed why I don't think legalisation will lead to a reduction in alcohol consumption, perhaps you could explain to me what the social benefits of that would be (and "I like getting stoned" isn't a social benefit).
-
And we should privatise the health system, so that you don't get care if you don't have insurance and can't meet the cost of treatment yourself...
...right?
Actually, Mike's a libertarian Act member, so he is actually going to say yes to that.
But, yep, that's a key principle. In return for for a public health umbrella, the state has some rights to curb certain destructive activities.
As regards drugs, there's certainly an argument to prohibit -- or restrict -- drugs that pose an extremely high risk: drugs with strong addictive potential, potential for overdose and a high rate of fatality. Even then, sensible policy seeks to minimise risk -- there's no sense in adding HIV and Hep C to all the other risks of heroin use, so you operate a needle exchange programme.
But as Dr David Nutt is fond of pointing out, Ecstasy is, on the numbers, less dangerous than horse-riding. I'll take a guess and say that more people die as a consequence of going fishing every year than die as a result of using marijuana.
Governments cannot and should not outlaw every risky activity.
-
Geoff, how do you know which of your students smoke?
Through completely unscientific methods, based on dealing with 300-400 students a year. You get essays submitted ripe with the smell of smoke, students construct arguments for decriminalisation (usually around not-well-constructed analyses of media coverage), and general demanour. This is not to say that drink culture (and P) can be just as much a problem.
As for 'it is my body and I can do what I want with it', that is the usual odious libertarian argument. Such folk can do what they want--ingest cyanide for all I care (indeed, I wish some libertarians would)--but I don't want such values (a moral vacuum?)) imposed on my world.
-
As for all Mass Murderers being pot smokers.
It was an anecdote from a senior mental health proffessional looking at associated harm of drugs.
This is when Norml blames the victim.
-
As for the "just look at the Netherlands" argument, this is New Zealand, not the Netherlands. Replicating their policies will not have the same results for a multitude of attitudinal, social, historical, geographic and cultural reasons.
It doesn't meant it's irrelevant, though. It might also be useful to look at Portugal, the Czech Republic, Spain, Belgium and the various other states where cannabis has been legalised for personal use, decriminalised or tacitly permitted.
We're not short of case studies to look at, and none of them appear to show the sky falling. I'm not starry-eyed about it, but given New Zealand's very high rates of use under current policy, it's hard to see that use would increase very greatly under a different policy.
-
As for all Mass Murderers being pot smokers.
It was an anecdote from a senior mental health proffessional looking at associated harm of drugs.
This is when Norml blames the victim.
You made a bold claim you couldn't sustain. I really don't think it's fair for you to declare that it's Stephen's fault.
-
The general consensus on legal status of drugs and use (see my earlier reference of the Cannabis Commission) is that there appears to be no apparent link between cannabis policy - whether liberal or draconian - and prevalence of use. But that, by contrast, policy actions can certainly affect the adverse social consequences arising from the law and its enforcement.
-
a senior mental health proffessional (sic)
It's a bit worrying that they should be making an unprovable and easily refuted claim. Not to mention the cause/effect disconnection - I imagine that most mass murderers have eaten cheese, but did cheese cause them to murder.
-
All mass murderers in NZ were mentally ill, and all smoked pot. I can't locate a link to it, but it stands to reason with the extreme risk to mental health. This is where Norml blames the victim.
Care to address the more recent cancer study which has numerous citings in other medical publications, or does the Washington Post stand above those?
Edit: I'll just point out again that I'm not infavour of cannabis continued criminal status, only that some truth regarding the risk be acknowledged.
-
Apologies - I'm posting below a summary of research on cannabis and health (Adverse health eff ects of non-medical cannabis use. Wayne Hall, Louisa Degenhardt. The Lancet 2009 - not available online - but I can send interested folks the full PDF - email me ross.bell@drugfoundation.org.nz)
Regular cannabis smokers report more symptoms of chronic bronchitis (wheeze, sputum production, and chronic coughs) than do non-smokers.
The immunological competence of the respiratory system in cannabis-only smokers is also impaired, increasing their health service use for respiratory infections.
A longitudinal study of 1037 young people in New Zealand followed until the age of 26 years found impaired respiratory function in cannabis-dependent users, but this finding was not replicated in longer-term follow-up of US users.
Chronic cannabis smoking did not increase the risk of emphysema in follow-up studies over 8 years in cannabis-only smokers in the USA and New Zealand.
Cannabis smoke contains many of the same carcinogens as does tobacco smoke, with some in higher concentrations. It is also mutagenic and carcinogenic in the mouse skin test, and chronic cannabis smokers show pathological changes in lung cells that precede the development of lung cancer in tobacco smokers.
Epidemiological studies have not consistently reported increased risks of upper respiratory tract cancers. Sidney and colleagues studied cancer incidence in an 8•6-year follow-up of 855 members of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program. They showed no increased risk of respiratory cancer in current or former cannabis users.
Zhang and colleagues reported an increased risk (OR 2) of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in cannabis users in 173 cases and 176 controls that persisted after adjusting for cigarette smoking, alcohol use, and other risk factors. Three other case–control studies of these cancers, however, have failed to find any such association.
Case–control studies of lung cancer have produced more consistent associations with cannabis use but their interpretation is uncertain because of confounding by cigarette smoking.
A Tunisian case–control study of 110 cases of hospital-diagnosed lung cancer and 110 community controls indicated an association of lung cancer with cannabis use (OR 8•2) that persisted after adjustment for cigarette smoking. A pooled analysis of three Moroccan case–control studies also showed an increased risk of lung cancer in cannabis smokers, all of whom also smoked tobacco.
A New Zealand case–control study of lung cancer in 79 adults under the age of 55 years and 324 community controls found a dose–response relation between frequency of cannabis use and lung cancer risk. A US case–control study showed a simple association between cannabis smoking and head and neck and lung cancers, but these associations were not significant after controlling for tobacco use.
Larger cohort and better designed case–control studies are needed to clarify whether any such risks from chronic cannabis smoking exist.
Evidence exists to support the adverse cardiovascular effects of cannabis use. Cannabis and THC increase heart rate in a dose-dependent way. These drugs marginally affect healthy young adults who quickly develop tolerance, but concern exists about adults with cardiovascular disease.
A case-crossover study by Mittleman and colleagues of 3882 patients who had had a myocardial infarction showed that cannabis use can increase the risk of myocardial infarction 4•8 times in the hour after use. A prospective study of 1913 of these individuals reported a dose–response relation between cannabis use and mortality over 3•8 years. Risk increased 2•5 times for those who used cannabis less than once a week to 4•2 times in those who used cannabis more than once a week. These findings are supported by laboratory studies that indicate that smoking cannabis provokes angina in patients with heart disease.
-
We need to have some kind of regulation, based on harm reduction, but criminal sanctions against the end user shouldn't be in the mix.
Like he said.
I smoked cannabis as a teenager and it didn't do me any lasting harm - but looking back I can now recognise it did have a more negative than positive effect on my life at the time (as did alcohol). And dope caused or contributed to serious problems for other people I have known.
Cannabis isn't a benign drug and that's what irritates me about the pro-legalisation lobby - all the talk is of how it's not as harmful as alcohol. They are both harmful and we should be trying to get people to use less of both. Putting it any other way is just splitting hairs.
I'm not letting the alcohol industry off the hook either. I like a drink and like the convenience of being able to pick up a bottle of wine with my shopping, but even I can see that allowing supermarket sales has been a disaster from a social harm point of view.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.