Posts by Russell Brown
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: When drug law gets so…, in reply to Neil,
Acute mental health units did notice more trouble from the legal synthetics (as compared to weed) prior those law changes so the synthetics were causing more harm although not fatalities.
Yes, and I think as a class of drugs they're a poor fit for regulated sale. It's interesting to speculate how the PSA might have gone had synthetic cannabinoids not been its first order of business.
-
Hard News: When drug law gets so…, in reply to WH,
It’s not helpful to blur the distinction between the decriminalisation and legalisation of recreational drugs. Nandor was doing something similar a few weeks ago – it would be disappointing if that was part of a joint media strategy.
Huh? I’m sure Nandor knows the difference very well. It was a matter of the interviewer using the wrong word. There’s no “joint media strategy” to obscure the difference.
If New Zealand relaxes its cannabis laws it will still need criminal sanctions that protect users from adulterated, mis-labelled and inherently dangerous drugs, including harmful analogs.
Where cannabis has been legalised it’s finally been possible to screen for mould and pesticides. I’m not aware of any reports of licensed cannabis vendors selling something that isn’t cannabis, but I firmly agree they should be prosecuted.
It’s not practical to write regulations for the lawful supply of each and every substance some wanker wants to monetise.
The Psychoactive Substances Act was set up to provide a regulatory framework and it may yet be employed at some point. It’s just no help at the moment.
Lastly, this isn’t the first time you’ve downplayed the difference between the possession and supply of substances that can and do change lives. People who supply dangerous and addictive substances to vulnerable people (including young people) do a lot of harm and continue to deserve the stigma of society’s disapproval.
I don’t think you understood what I wrote, or that you understand how things work in the real world, especially with drugs like these. Although I’m pleased that you now seem to understand what decriminalisation means, because that hasn’t always been evident.
-
Access: Jacinda, please can you help…, in reply to Kumara Republic,
And in the new year I’m taking the plunge with Dev Academy – which has finally been NZQA approved and hence eligible for student loans.
Good for you. Best of luck!
-
Hard News: When drug law gets so…, in reply to Sacha,
Given the existence of software models for testing toxicity these days, can you explain how this aspect poses such a problem?
As far as I'm aware, it's still the view of MoH that software models aren't good enough.
-
A new petition from a new group: the Health Not Handcuffs coalition.
-
This answer by Andrew Little to Parliamentary questions from Simeon Brown is interesting: it does suggest they get it.
“They are one and the same: suppliers are sellers and sellers are users.”
I do hope that funding for support services isn’t being held up by a desire to untangle the penalties side at the same time – and hence allow the reclassification – just for the sake of the optics.
-
Hard News: Getting serious about the…, in reply to Nick Russell,
Would that be the same Ministry of Health that will probably end up administering a regulatory regime for cannabis?
And the one taking a long, long time on regulations to accompany the medicinal cannabis bill, yes.
In between the Ministry and the inevitable problems that will arise if local Government is given a role in, for example, licensing retailers like it does for alcohol, you have all the ingredients for a really first class omnishambles. If they are allowed to, Councils will probably try to adopt policies prohibiting retail licences from anywhere within a kilometre or so of a school.
I wouldn't have a problem with such a condition. It would reflect what's happened pretty much everywhere else cannabis has been legalised.
-
Hard News: Getting serious about the…, in reply to Sandra Murray,
Just one thing to correct – the plastic bag campaign was not “my” campaign. That was a networked campaign where many many local passionate people (including me) campaigned to get a ban on plastic bags. We networked together to share information, ideas and support. And each group was autonomous, which is why the corporate lobbyists couldn’t neutralise us.
Thanks Sandra. I did wonder whether I should have phrased that better.
-
Hard News: Getting serious about the…, in reply to Nick Russell,
Assuming the referendum succeeds, I hope we can also learn some lessons from the failed experiment with the Psychoactive Substances Act. The moral panic and consequent scramble by local Government to find ways of prohibiting retailers could easily happen again.
On the other hand, a big part of the problem was the Ministry of Health taking forever to come up with regulations, meaning the interim regulatory period went on longer than anyone expected or intended. And the interim licences went to some shitty hole-in-the-wall businesses, which didn't look good on the news.
There is also no reason to assume that a newly legal cannabis industry will be ethical or well-organised. A lot of people will be less concerned about health and welfare than turning a profit. It could easily be a shambles.
That's what the regulation is for though. And, as above, not for profit retailing or cannabis clubs are one way around it. The Drug Foundation's model law also includes regulations on business size and local ownership. It can be done.
And well-meaning regulation can be counterproductive. The Psychoactive Substances Act required that new products should be proved safe (or safeish) but also made it impossible to use animal testing to prove that without providing any alternative process. The result was that AFAIK nobody ever even applied to register a product. I don’t think anyone even has licences any more. So let’s not do that again.
No, the animal testing ban was added in the same amendment that foreclosed the interim licensing period and shut the whole thing down. Leaving open the possibility that a product could be licensed if it was deemed to pose "a low risk of harm" – which was made impossible by the addition of the animal testing ban.
The Green Party, which supported the animal testing ban, still hasn't really been able to come up with any good argument as to how such a regime could work without animal testing.
-
Hard News: Getting serious about the…, in reply to Eric Crampton,
Thanks Eric, that’s really useful.
None of this is to say that the rules for alcohol are perfect for alcohol, or that they’d need no adjustment in application to cannabis. But it gives us a starting point.
Two things occurred to me. One is that I’d like to see a more explicit duty of care, which doesn’t really happen in liquor retail above the baseline of not serving drink people or kids.
And I also wonder if “regulated like liquor” – which did poll and focus group well in California – would go down in, say, parts of South Auckland where bottle stores are regarded as a community plague. I don't actually want to see a dozen weed stores on K Road the way there are a dozen liquor stores.
On the other hand, Chris Fowlie’s campaign for the Waitakere Liquor Licensing Trust – on the view that the West Auckland trusts would not only be a good model for cannabis retail but could actually do it under existing regulations – foundered in part because a lot of people hate the trusts, with good reason.
I had someone try and persuade me to get in behind a licensing trust for Grey Lynn, after the suburb (where I was living at the time) finally went “wet” in the 90s. There was no way I was going to do that. And we ended up with a couple of bottle stores, wine in the supermarkets and a bunch of nice little cafe-bars, which was all anyone living there really wanted.
It's complicated!