Canvassing for Opinion - aka "Blairs Brain on Cannabis"

Huge cannabis bust in Hawke's Bay - Latest News - Keep up with Newstalk ZB

2012-05-20T18:45:00.001+12:00

Huge cannabis bust in Hawke's Bay - Latest News - Keep up with Newstalk ZB

1000 plants, gee and this is what happens under prohibition!
Should we be surprised the Police get 'some'.... a pathetic .05% and they call it a success!

Time to regulate, put cannabis into the restricted substances regulations before we create more job opportunities for criminal cannabis 'patches'.

Blair Andersonhttp://mildgreens.blogspot.com

Science and Policy of 'Guilt by Machine"

2012-05-18T20:28:00.001+12:00

The science and policy of 'Guilt by Machine" explored in British Medical Journal blog, particularily cannabis testing described by British top cop Det. Chief Super Eddie Ellison as the logical equivalent of licking someones exhaust pipe ...to see if the driver had been speeding. Eddie had grave concerns that Police would tout individual 'detections' as evidence of policy effectivness while systemically degrading 'consent to police' elevating unintended consequences and entrenching health policy failure.

BMJ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Jeremy Sare: Drug driving in the Queen’s Speech

Blair Anderson http://mildgreens.blogspot.com

End Cannabis Prohibition - NZ online petition

2012-04-29T09:36:00.001+12:00

Prohibition is a failure. Here’s why we need a new approach for all drugs, starting with cannabis!

(sign petition to Prime Minister John Key here)

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama pose for a photo during a reception at the Metropolitan Museum in New York with John Key, and his wife, Mrs. Bronagh Key. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

New Zealand has the world’s highest cannabis arrest rate, yet more people choose to use cannabis now than ever before: NZ Police arrest cannabis users at a rate 50% higher than even the United States. Every year about 15,000 people are arrested on about 25,000 cannabis charges. 85% of these are for small personal offenses. However, in the past decade alone, those who admit tohaving used cannabis rose from 43% to 52% of New Zealand adults – up over 20%. “Current users” also dramatically rose from 13% to 16%. People are also using more, at a younger age, and are reporting an increased availability and dropping prices. (Source: Auckland University Alcohol & Public Health Research Unit 1999)

Prohibition removes control over cannabis and creates a lucrative black market: sales continue, but in an uncontrolled way without age restrictions, marketing or quality controls, or taxation being paid. Regulating cannabis could mean an age limit and other controls similar to that for alcohol.

Prohibition encourages use by glamorising cannabis use and creating a rebellious and daring image. Uncontrolled sales and pyramid selling mean it is even easier for teenagers to buy marijuana than it is to buy alcohol.

Prohibition undermines effective drug education: Open and honest communication is impossible in an environmentof guilt and persecution. We need effective education about drugs so that people can evaluate any risks and make responsible and informed choices.

Prohibition itself sends the wrong message – that society is hypocritical, and is more concerned with moral judgements than evidence and fact. Supporting prohibition shows our society is unable to make rational decisions based on scientific evidence and reasoned analysis.

Prohibition diverts police attention away from real crime: The police claim to be under-resourced but still place a high priority on busting pot smokers. There is a cannabis arrest every 30 minutes on average, while most crimes that have victims remain unsolved.

Prohibition creates crime and violence: While marijuana itself does not cause crime, violence and intimidation regulate the cannabis black market, and are used to enforce ‘contractual obligations’ or scare off competitors. Cannabis is now worth so much money thatpeople get killed over it.

Prohibition leads to hard drugs: cannabis itself does not lead to the use of hard drugs, but having dealers who sell pot and heroin often does. We need to separate the markets for marijuana and for hard drugs, by regulating marijuana sales through coffee-shops. The rate of using heroin in the Netherlands has dropped every year since they legalise cannabis sales, and now only 0.3% have tried heroin, compared to 1.3% of New Zealanders.

Prohibition erodes respect for the police and our entire legal system: Those who do get caught resent a legal system that punishes them for behaviour that does not affect other people, and the police are further alienated for defending an unpopular, unjust and unworkable law.

Prohibition destroys our civil rights and the notion of a free society: Prohibition affects everyone – it violates our freedom to choose, our right to self-determination, and the principles of justice, privacy,property and liberty. Laws should exist to protect these rights, not destroy them.

Prohibition denies seriously-ill patients access to medical marijuana, an effective and safe medicine: Marijuana prohibition applies to everyone, including the sick and dying. Marijuana has been shown to be an effective and safe medicine for many conditions including cancer, AIDS ‘wasting syndrome’, glaucoma, chronic pain, rheumatoid arthritis and a variety of spastic conditions including multiple sclerosis, paraplegia, quadriplegia and epilepsy. Marijuana should be made immediately available for prescription by health professionals.

Prohibition denies New Zealand the economic and ecological benefits of hemp:Hemp is the non-psychoactive strain of the cannabis plant, grown by farmers throughout the world for industrial purposes, but banned in New Zealand under prohibition. Hemp has over 25,000 commercial uses, including textiles, paper, cosmetics, paints, fuel,foodstuffs, insulation, and even biodegradable plastics. It produces a much higher yield than wood or cotton, and requires virtually no pesticides or fertilisers. Hemp has the potential to create thousands of jobs and revitalise our rural sector, but prohibition prevents the cultivation of hemp.

It’s time to stop arresting marijuana users: Hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders use marijuana, and very few abuse it. Arresting these otherwise law-abiding citizens serves no legitimate purpose, extends government into inappropriate areas of our lives, and causes enormous harm to the lives, careers and families of the thousands of marijuana smokers arrested every year. Far more harm is caused by marijuana prohibition than by the use of marijuana itself.

Other policies are more effective: Overseas jurisdictions that have moved away from cannabis prohibition – e.g South Australia, several states in the US, and much of Europe – have not experienced anysignificant rises in cannabis use, and have achieved dramatic savings in law enforcement as well as improving the effectiveness of drug education and treatment services. The Netherlands effectively legalised cannabis in 1976, and use has since dropped relative to other countries. In 1999 only 15% of Dutch adults had tried cannabis (compared to 52% in NZ) and 5% were current users (13% in NZ).
http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/cannabis/?tta

Drug dogs 'a waste of time'

2012-04-12T14:12:00.002+12:00

Police with dogs at Waterloo station (Photo credit: Wikipedia)Dog training specialist Blair Anderson says using sniffer dogs to detect drugs in workplaces and schools is a waste of time. Mr Anderson, who runs a dog training business in Christchurch, believes dogs should not be trusted to carry out checks which could lead to people losing their jobs or even acquiring a criminal record.
He also said he would have no concerns working around machinery with a cannabis user. It was a fact of life.
“Everyone does it. [Look] New Zealanders smoke more cannabis per head of population than even Jamaica,” Mr Anderson said.
If no one in your household smoked cannabis, the chances were the next door neighbour or the people across the street did. According to Mr Anderson one in five households had cannabis users.
Mr Anderson, a former deputy of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party of NZ, claimed there was research showing cannabis actually enhanced performance levels in jobs commonly associated with machinery.
“Is the drug consumption actually impairing the ability to do the job? What about tiredness and boredom and sports injuries surely they can impair someone’s ability on a daily basis.”
More concerning for Mr Anderson was the increasing reliance of sniffer dogs used in public spaces to detect drugs, mainly cannabis.
Cannabis had a distinctive smell. It was essentially an oil. To use dogs to detect it was misleading as results would differ depending on the environment and the dog’s overall health.
Dogs can become reticent if they became unwell or had a bad experience in previous searches.
Workers too were vulnerable when in public places or coming in contact with other people who were cannabis users. It was possible they could fail a sniffer dog test and not be a cannabis user.
“People can distinguish what is tomato soup, but dogs will identify the ingredients,” Mr Anderson said.
Wayne Pitcaithly from NZ Detector Dogs, recently carried out checks on Mid Canterbury workplaces and schools. He said while sniffer dog checks were not “totally infallible” the methods were successfully used worldwide.
“Our dogs are trained to meet international standards. They detect bombs and are used in the cruise ship industry. Using dogs has proved more effective than the latest electronic gadgetry- which does not always pick things up.”
Mr Pitcaithly said his dogs were frequently assessed. This included using the appropriate odour testing methods. Above all, NZ Detector Dogs was only concerned with health and safety in the workplace. Once drugs had been detected it was up to the respective companies to act on it.

see and add to comments at Drug dogs 'a waste of time'

The Fox is in the Hen House.

2012-03-19T02:24:00.000+13:00

Image via WikipediaDemocracy severely tested!

The Fox is in the Henhouse.

God forgive the Alcohol Industry overspend...

Could it be ethicaly questionable to uphold the Police as an independent investigator of political breaches of ethics surrounding drug policy.

Lets see if this doesnt go the way of Winston Peters et al experience.

On 16 March 2012, the Electoral Commission referred Mediaworks and the party secretary of Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party (ALCP) to Police for an overspend of ALCP’s broadcasting allocation for election programmes broadcast at the 2011 General Election. The cost of election programmes broadcast by Mediaworks on behalf of ALCP exceeded the party’s broadcasting allocation by $557.80.
It is an offence under section 80 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 for a person, during the election period, to broadcast an election programme on behalf of a political party, or to arrange for the broadcasting of an election programme on behalf of the political party other than in conformity with the requirements of Part 6 of the Act. The Commission is required to refer such breaches to Police under section 80A of the Act. As this matter is now with the Police, the Electoral Commission will not be commenting further.

Blair Anderson http://mildgreens.blogspot.com

Ethics of Medicinal Cannabis, SATIVEX

2012-03-14T13:41:00.000+13:00

Image via WikipediaThe medicalisation of cannabis via SATIVEX poses a grave ethical issue with compound outcomes.

see BBC taken in by the Sativex Scam

The problem is all about patient informed consent and the expediency of GWPharma telling lies. The ethics of not telling the truth about what's in Sativex and how it works should be seriously questioned as it affects not just the patients in receipt of their scrip, but all those who would 'otherwise' find cannabis efficacious. The BMJ and the medical community should take an objective interest before the lawyers do.

Blair Anderson http://mildgreens.blogspot.com

Drug Convention Analysis Misses Kiwi Solution

2012-03-10T10:40:00.001+13:00

The TI report "The UN drug control conventions, The Limits of Latitude" (By Dave Bewley-Taylor and Martin Jelsma) content, while excellent, stands in marked contrast to the 'art of the politically possible' constrained and shallow analysis of our constitutional, ethical, moral and public health arrangements delivered by the Law Commission inquiry into drug use. The contestability of the Conventions gets little fellowship from the Drug Foundation who cow tow to treatment, drug courts and the a$$oc health minister of the day.

The only thing scarier to officials than talking about drug use, is talking to a drug user.

No decision about us without us.... anything else is unconstitutional. unethical, and immoral and, thus falls way short of the policy analytic standard required to be called 'best practice'..On the steps of the union 2 - Re:Vision Drug Policy Network (Photo credit: Re:Vision Drugs)

The pandering to prohibition 'drug court' seminar held this month by the Auckland Law Society is one such case.

It is a disgrace this passed muster as a contribution to the debate. Beguiling proof the UN Conventions maybe best described as a treaty with the devil.

Blair Anderson

Social Ecologist 'at large'

Drug Policy Idiotology " Child Endangerment By Proxy"

2012-02-27T17:04:00.001+13:00

Open Letter to the Prime Minister, The Leader of the Opposition, The NZ Drug Czar and My Member of Parliament.

Dear Sir's/Madams

A TradeMe Community correspondent wrote:
I haven't done Kronic. Although I had to look after a friend for the night as he lost his vision, ability to walk and communicate.

River Phoenix (Image via RottenTomatoes.com)

I invite the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Associate Minister of Health to consider the above expressed concern in relation to our emerging drug threats' the alcohol (and other drug) law and public health.

Compare kronic, his experience and alcohol.

blind drunk!
drunken stagger!,
drink talking!

Um, drug of choice, scale of the problem..... appropriate intervention!

Let me set the table as it were: It is increasingly clear that no government is serious about fixing alcohol unless it is prepared to fix the neighbouring intoxicants FIRST.

I would commend to the TM Community correspondent (and did so) first of all "Thank you for being there for your friend."

It is the preferred protocol. It saves lives (particularly surrounding alcohol) and was the harm reduction measure promoted by the Ministry of Health and Community Health called "hold on to your Mates!".
However when we make something illegal... the implications for anyone 'associated' with illicit drug use is POLICE INQUIRIES, DRUG TESTING, EXPULSION, DOLE QUEUE...etc... it does exactly the opposite.
Now we have something that is evidentially 'safer' than alcohol, in wide use (500,000 est) about to be treated by the system as as toxic as 'P' (until we know what it is.) no one wants to stand around and get into that mess... and your mate is left to it!
Dangerous context is a factor that has nothing to do with the pharmacology of the drug... in drug parlance we call this the "set and setting" and shortgame kneejerk policy wonks and all those who sidle up to the 'just ban it' idiotology are trading the health and safety of our youths for a few more 'get tough' votes, treatment budgets and more research money.
Wrong Wrong Wrong.....
Cases exactly as I describe occur every day in the USA. People die for no good reason, a large number are young people. A TV special on the death of actor 'River Phoenix' captured this superbly. No one called an ambulance. He died for nothing, well not exactly nothing... worst case scenario in failing to protect and preserve the public health comes to mind.
If it was a road accident, you can be prosecuted for 'failing to render assistance'... when it comes to 'drugs' we sanction worst case public health and call it 'getting tough'. Tell that to the parents of someone who dies for no good reason than "I was afraid to make the call!".
If this makes sense, don't just sit there... have the temerity to reflect on where this is taking us.

We are standing by doing nothing rubber necking a 'slow wreck' and watching parliament put the health and wellbeing of half a million mostly youth at risk!
Expiditious drug policy without oversight/community input sanctioned form the top suggests Dunne/Key/Goff et al" should be charged with child endangerment!
Would liability be proven if due process was shown to be flawed? For example: Where is the required 'Policy Impact Statement' ? Still at BERL?

I repeat: No government is serious about fixing alcohol unless it is prepared to "Regulate AND Control" neighbouring intoxicants FIRST.

Bans are no regulation and no control.
To suggest anything else is dangerous 'spin'.
Dangerous to whom? I argue....

OUR CHILDREN, OUR YOUTH, OUR FUTURE

Blair Anderson http://mildgreens.blogspot.com

South America Turns MildGreen

2012-02-25T14:16:00.002+13:00

Image via Wikipedia

Whenever I read drug policy and there is a discussion of what to do beyond prohibition, the same conclusions seem to be reached; market forces work better and more efficiently than legal/criminal/justice approaches.

Its looking more and more like De-classification into a regulatory 'restricted substances' model like New Zealand's *provisions for the USE of drugs ammendments to the principal act, the UN approved 1975 Misuse of Drugs Act. / Blair

* www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/.../096be8ed802cbf5d.pdf

12 current Latin American leaders call for exploration of legal drug regulation

Transform, February 9 2012

A remarkable and almost unreported event took place at the beginning of December last year at the somewhat obscure, 13th summit of the Tuxtla Mechanism for Dialogue. (See here For more on the Mechanism).

It was reported in El Universal on 6 Dec 'Frenar consumo de droga o regularlo, exigen paises a EU' and in the Washington Post on 19 Dec 'Latin American leaders assail US drug 'market'', but has had no international pick up beyond.

A dozen Latin American countries issued a joint statement on organised crime and drug trafficking (here is the original Spanish text on the Mexican Government website). Point 7 is translated here:

“What would be desirable, would be a significant reduction in the demand for illegal drugs. Nevertheless, if that is not possible, as recent experience demonstrates, the authorities of the consuming countries ought then to explore the possible alternatives to eliminate the exorbitant profits of the criminals, including regulatory or market oriented options to this end. Thus, the transit of substances that continue provoking high levels of crime and violence in Latin American and Caribbean nations will be avoided.”

What is remarkable is that the call to reduce demand (that no one would take issue with in principle) comes with the caveat that there is little evidence that this is possible, thereby leaving the call to explore alternatives - including 'regulatory or market oriented options'. This is in effect, an unambiguous call to legalise and regulate drugs. This is a fairly standard construction of the issue (similar to that adopted by Calderon recently) to avoid using the loaded term of 'legalisation' (something Colombian President Santos has been less hesitant about).

The statement is a clear acknowledgement of the often unspoken understanding that the war on drugs is fuelling much of the violence and chaos in Latin America. This then is a very clear call on consumer countries to take the lead in ending the war and replacing it with a legal system of regulation and control.

The summit was attended by the Presidents of Guatemala, Alvaro Colom; Honduras, Porfirio Lobo; Mexico, Felipe Calderon; Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega; Panama, Ricardo Martinelli; the Dominican Republic, Leonel Fernandez; and the First Vice President of Costa Rica, Alfio Piva Messer. Also present were the Foreign Ministers of Belize, Wilfred Elrington; Colombia, Maria Angela Holguin; and El Salvador, Hugo Martinez. Chilean President Sebastián Piñera was also present as a special guest.

Following President Santos’s lead, twelve countries have now effectively called for an end to the war on drugs. The significance of this is great, but the silence following it has been deafening. Perhaps because there was no pro-active media promotion of the statement, it has not been reported anywhere nearly as widely as last years ground breaking Global Commission report. That report - supported by a global media campaign - was however, made up almost entirely of former presidents. The Tuxtla group are all incumbents.

This is a game changer. It is difficult to see how for example, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs can go through its standard motions with this Declaration on the table - it a direct challenge to the restrictions placed on signatory states experimenting with alternatives to prohibition. The same is likely to be the case for any other transnational events based on entrenched prohibitionist orthodoxy. The issue ought now to be high on the agenda of any and all summits involving Latin American countries – G20, Summit of the Americas and so on.

Whilst this is a step change in the level of challenge to the prohibitionist orthodoxy, there are problems with it too. It is a construction of the issue fully intended to take the heat off producer and transit countries and place the blame for their problems squarely at the door of the US and other major consumer countries. This is entirely understandable given the historical and geopolitical context of contemporary prohibition. However, it raises two important issues:

Firstly, Are the Latin Americans seriously going to wait until the US leads them to a brave new world of peace? And secondly, the fact is that ALL countries (including the Latin Americans) are signatories to the Conventions upon which the drug war is founded. Whilst the geopolitical pressure for non-super powers to sign up and adhere to the Conventions is huge, it is nonetheless a fact that they are complicit in maintaining the legal infrastructure of the war on drugs and pursue the war with a ferocity unseen in other parts of the world. Their position would be more credible if they were to make moves nationally, regionally, and at the UN, to de-securitise drugs and develop and implement policies that adhere to human rights and public health norms.

That said, this is still a watershed moment in calling time on the war on drugs and those countries that are taking the lead deserve great credit for going on the record publicly (albeit quietly). We would encourage readers of this blog to contact their elected representatives to inform them of this development and to take the time to praise those leaders who were there, for making this statement.

Keep up-to-date with drug policy developments by subscribing to the IDPC Monthly Alert.

Added on 13 February 2012

Drugs, Driving and Manufactured Consent?

2012-02-24T13:08:00.000+13:00

Image via WikipediaI watched the DrugFoundation celebrity guest Kennedy Lawford on this mornings TVNZ breakfast show. That Lawford was representing the UN and its mandatory drugs are evil message without question doesnt surprise me. He even went to onto say this wasn't about prohibition when all things considered (including our national drug policy) it is about prohibition.

Some points of note:

!2 steps is not successful, it is amongst the least successful, less so than even self determined harm reduction by abstention and reduction..
(we recently recieved best practice advice that drug treatment in prison should be delivered by health professionals!)

We have state funded Scientology in our NZ schools and it goes unquestioned.
We have Bus stop posters about driving. that are gravely flawed.
Television adds that do not say the driver is an actor and hasn't actually driven these actresses around stoned.
On social media we see grossly conflated data suggesting we should answer a possible problem with a question "What do you think?"

There is no balance questioning this.
The increased enforcement in other jurisdictions has not made any difference to the measured harms.

We are being conditioned into thinking we should comply with an impositional test, the "guilty by machine." that visiting top UK cop Det ChiefSuper Eddie Ellison described as having the same 'proof of impairment' logic as licking someone exhaust pipe to see if they had been speeding yesterday.

I quote an academic source from our own Victoria University.

The Effect of Distressing Imagery on Attention to and Persuasiveness of an Anti-alcohol Message on Drugs, Society and Human Rights. (638 comments)

« While drug driving is a serious and important issue that needs debate - I agree, I think the NZ Drug Driving Awareness Campaign does little to present the 'facts' but instead sadly fuels anti-drug sentiments which will result in more hostility, ignorance and stigma towards illicit drugs and illicit drug users. On twitter they we saying things like over 70% of dead drivers were impaired by drugs (other than alcohol) - disappointing soundbites - issues too complex to deal with that way.

Blair Anderson http://mildgreens.blogspot.com

Cannabis is SAFER. "in Class D" or no Xmas for some!

2011-12-21T12:49:00.000+13:00

Image via CrunchBase

Is this Professor suggesting NZ's R18 Class D 'restricted substances' is 99 times better than splitting the age and driving people to drink!

Drug policy is a zero sum game, everything we do wrong we do against ourselves. We make worse that which we came to fix.

Image via WikipediaOne of the NYT readers comments (of which their are many well reasoned and insightful, and few 'holding theline') was this gem from a AE Doctor,

Rick Abbott / Boulder, CO

No science, just observations as an ER Doctor over 30 years, and addressing only short term effects:

Rare to unheard of for marijuana alone involved in serious auto accident: although we know that THC impairs driving skills, I bet that the relative absence of THC in accidents is related to the differing effects of alcohol vs THC on aggressiveness. Impaired alcohol users sometimes (often?) get aggressive as well as impaired. THC users seem to get passive and impaired - a very different combo.

Collegiate (and other) sexual assault: ER's care for many alcohol related sexual assaults - often the woman involved is comatose, and the guy is aggressive and impaired (see above). I can't recall a woman ever arriving in an ED stating "I smoked too much dope, and I think I might have been raped" - a common statement when you substitute alcohol.

More of the same for assaults, falls, and assaults on EMS and ER staff - these are all a disease of alcohol, not THC.

I fear however, that if a large-scale shift from alcohol usage to marijuana usage were to occur, ER business would suffer a substantial decline - with detrimental effects on employment among ER physicians and nurses, as well as our Emergency Services colleagues. Keep drinking, it's job security for me.

/ Blair

By Robert Gable - OPED NYT

No drug is good for teenagers. But when it comes to the chances of immediate death by chemical toxicity, marijuana is about a hundred times safer than alcohol.

Should Teenagers Get High Instead of Drunk?

--

'tis the season to be silly'.

Merry Xmas

Blair Anderson

Social Ecologist 'at large'

http://mildgreens.blogspot.com
http://blairformayor.blogspot.com
http://efsdp.org

Christchurch, New Zealand
ph nz (643) 389 4065 nz cell 027 265 7219

Who Dat Cwazy Won Pull Maan!

2011-12-21T12:44:00.000+13:00

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Some of the things the next President of the USA [Ron Paul] will do right away:

• End The Drug War
• Legalize Industrial Hemp
• Allow Medical Marijuana Laws
• Pardon All Non-violent Drug Offenders (that includes Marc Emery!)
• Abolish The DEA and Drug Czar Office

Who dat cwazy mann!
--

Blair Anderson

Social Ecologist 'at large'

Cannabis Causes Crime Like Forks Cause Obesity

2011-12-18T23:10:00.000+13:00

An explosion at a Hamilton home allegedly caused by a man preparing a batch of cannabis oil put a young child at risk, police say.

Detective Sergeant Ricky Thompson of the Hamilton CIB said emergency services were called to a Whatawhata Rd house about 1pm yesterday after reports of an explosion.

``We're working to establish what has occurred however initial indications are a man at the address had been preparing a batch of cannabis oil in the shed when the explosion occurred.''

Image via WikipediaCannabis no more caused this blast than forks cause obesity.

Production of hash oil from low grade' cannabis is combination of (a) a harm reduction strategy, (b) prohibition creating unintended consequences (c) risk taking by marginalised subgroups (d) and failure to protect the public health (of anyone exposed to downside risks, such as children, landlords et al)

These outcomes are happening on prohibitions watch just as hooch was poorly made (methanol) that lead to deaths, it was a function of policy... the policy changed and the hooch disappeared. It wasn't an argument for ramping up liquor prohibition.

My guess is there will be plenty of folk who would think the silly bugger should rot in HMS hell, and at all of our expense. They need to come to understand that redoubling our efforts at prohibition, and redoubling them again and again has done nothing to protect the public health. It has endangered innocent people. But don't expect media to notice. see .Public Health Guidelines Proposed To Reduce The Harms From Cannabis Use (medicalnewstoday.com)

Five Murders, Ipswich Defined

2011-12-12T03:21:00.002+13:00

Five Daughters: BBC

Based on the personal testimonies of many of those most closely involved, Five Daughters recounts the final weeks in the lives of the five young women murdered in Ipswich in 2006. Stars:

Adam Kotz, Juliet Aubrey and Natalie Press

Image via WikipediaLegal Regulation of Prostitution was never going to stop prostitution. Just as Legal Regulation of currently illicit drugs (or emerging psychoactive recreational substances, currently unregulated) would not stop all drug problems. But is does allow the unintended consequences of prohibition related problems to be ring fenced. Dont think it possible to legislate? Look at this Royally approved UN compliant ‘Use of Drugs’ model adopted by the New Zealand Parliament in 2008. These are the Ministry of Health administered regulations Professor David Nutt said “he wished he had thought of them himself”. No Police, No Judges, No Corrections, No Politicians, and No Media have found just cause to even critic the crucial and necessary USE adjustments to the MisUse of Drugs Act (1975) in the past three years, yet some say they are the ones who stand to loose the most.

Legal Regulation: the stuff of social capital.
See: http://legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2008/0373/latest/whole.html

Blair Anderson http://mildgreens.blogspot.com

Thirteen Ways Drug Legalization Could Improve Real Estate Values

2011-12-11T00:48:00.001+13:00

Thirteen Ways Drug Legalization Could Improve Real Estate Values

Image via WikipediaAs any read of Catherine Ausren Fitts's "Narcodollars for Dummies" would inform us, prohibition is crap for communities whereas legal regulation is the stuff of social capital.

Blair Andersonhttp://mildgreens.blogspot.com

Let's Talk About Solutions - Editorial

2011-12-07T16:00:00.000+13:00

Image by vikisuzan via Flickr

(MildGreens reply to Editorial Marlborough Express re: Alcohol)

Curiously, and despite it not making any contribution to debate on the hustings, the Law Commission's enquiries on Alcohol and Other Drugs was instructive insofar as during the review process Commission(er) Warren Young said in answer to questions regarding the two most popular recreational substances under enquiry, cannabis and alcohol, "one would inform the other".

If we took as a starting point the National Drug Policy development guidelines (circa 1996) that the illicit or licit status of a drug had no bearing on the pharmacology but greatly affected the pathology one could be forgiven for wondering if the legal status of both should be reversed.

Even if the Law Commission was politically constrained in doing so, it certainly heard good evidence that could have informed the policy base but it cow-towed to international convention without argument when its study should have 'informed' the signatory status. The onus is to protect OUR health and welfare not someone else's, it was OUR inquiry after all.

130 recommendations concerning alcohol did not include one reference to the impediments to health promotion, the perceived double standards that apply to cannabis, ironically identified by the Brian Neeson lead (National Party) Health Select Committee inquiry of 1998.

There is the debate we should be having.

Made all the more important now that we learn from one of the most robust epidemiological studies ever undertaken that shows that 1/3rd of the entire population of the USA is 'protected' from alcohol related harm where ever medicinal cannabis has become du jour. (9% reduction in alcohol related road deaths.)

Good grief, and we had an election that saw Don Brash snubbed for mentioning cannabis!
Image by mangee via Flickr
Blair Anderson http://mildgreens.blogspot.com

123!, What are we waiting for?

2011-12-03T09:24:00.000+13:00

Image by dbking via Flickr1. Expunge all convictions for cannabis, possession and cultivations. and
2. Refund all fines and court costs else wise 'sorry' is just a word. and
3. Place cannabis into the Class D provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act where, quite correctly, it can be managed as a health issue.

1/2 &3 act to coherently address the displacement of revenues from entire communities that presently exist under the aegis of prohibition's grey markets.

It doesn't matter which order 1,2 & 3 are done as they are required to be done simultaneously. Would this pass a referendum, no. Is it the right thing to do, yes. Does it comply with the BoRA, yes. Does doing nothing? NO!.

Its a matter of governance, not popularity.

The cannabis debate is mischaracterised as 'what is politically possible' whereas the Minister of Health under whose warrant ALL drug convictions and investigations and oversight is exacted has a primary responsibility to "First Do No Harm".

The required healing is, 123! What are we waiting for?

Blair Anderson http://mildgreens.blogspot.com

Health,Justice and Law & Order, Anyone? Vote ALCP.

2011-11-24T18:01:00.001+13:00

Image via Wikipedia

Health, Justice and Law & Order, Anyone? Vote ALCP.

Press Release – 24 November 2011 - AOTEAROA LEGALISE CANNABIS PARTY

"Decriminalise the Kiwi whanau and regulate the herb R18 - less police is the sign of a healthy community",say Christchurch ALCP candidates. ALCP has stepped in at the last minute illuminating the 2011 general election's Health, Law & Order debate.

They say there are upwards of 400,000 people consuming cannabis in NZ (some say as many as 730,000), and meanwhile 70% of violent crime in NZ is because of alcohol - and this situation is a travesty for best practice in New Zealand

There is such imbalance in the national alcohol and other drug policy, its not surprising the people of NZ are out of balance too with all their binge drinking and virtually unfettered substance intake.. see ALCP health spokesperson's address to NZ GP's www.nzdoctor.co.nz [ http://youtu.be/M5j7GwWYfos ]

It is time for a proper evidence-based harm minimisation strategy instead of the current glaring 'double standards' failure to protect promote and imporove the public health and wellbeing'. And respect of adults capacity to make informed choice.

The candidates say cannabis should be in existing Restricted Substance Regulations that make sense to young NZers in particular, with strict adults only R18 and no supply to minors."Class D seems to be so good the politicians cant talk about it, they certainly havent faulted it." [http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2008/0373/latest/DLM1628501.html ]

"Where is the licence to continue cannabis prohibition policy if it ain't worth talking about?. Neither major party is serious about alcohol if they're not prepared to also look at the evidence surround the neighbouring intoxicant, cannabis." say the six elections now, experienced list candidates.

"Police numbers? - well for a start we could get them onto ACTUAL crime not MANUFACTURED crime. The Black Market for commonly consumed and ever-popular WEED ought to be fair game in this election. "

With prohibition, as Dr BRASH points out, there are no social, health or economic gains, only liabilities. Lets ditch this insidious Prohibition law.

see [ http://brookingblog.com/category/drug-policy-crime/ ]

Decriminalise the Kiwi whanau and regulate the herb r18 - less police is the sign of a healthy community.

Vote for friendly Police and value for money enforcement, say ALCP candidates - "Police who can be trusted and respected and who are enforcing sensible equitable and cost effective laws"

Image via Wikipedia==== ends =====

Pot, Privacy, Police and Prime Ministers

2011-11-19T10:07:00.001+13:00

Image by Getty Images via @daylifeAssociation of Taxpayers and Consumer's [ACT party] Leader Don Brash's comments on cannabis are simplistic but none the less helpful. But don't expect media to dig deeper. Brash replaced Epsom MP Rodney Hide who would legalise all drugs tomorrow, and PM Key is saying Katherine Issac (nee Judd) should be leader... she is an arch prohibitionist. (CHCH, Russley Hotel)
Image by Getty Images via @daylife
So what was the real agenda behind talking up the support of ACT with former Minister of Police, Mayor of Auckland and ACT candidate for Epsom,John Banks if it wasn't to protect National's "free Trade" pacific agenda.

This at a time the US is taking active military interest in the South Pacific while waging war on long its borders... leading to 40,000 dead people and another 40,000 orphans, largely to keep loco weed on the other side of the fence. And that is only the past six years. Have a look on NZDOCTOR.CO.NZ and see leading proponent of the health argument for drug policy reform say 'health is the argument for legal regulation, and no argument for continued prohibition'. Yet John Key et al want to test beneficiaries for eligibility for support based on what we may or may not put in our heads and he's the only one entitled to privacy and demand Police uphold it.... Makes ya want roll one up, pronto!

Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Brash-invited-to-join-pot-party/tabid/419/articleID/233138/Default.aspx#ixzz1e5n0QpDY
--

Blair Anderson

Social Ecologist 'at large'

http://mildgreens.blogspot.com
http://blairformayor.blogspot.com
http://efsdp.org

Christchurch, New Zealand
ph nz (643) 389 4065 nz cell 027 265 7219

Rehab, Lightbulbs and Stupidity of Criminalisation

2011-11-10T13:56:00.000+13:00

Man jailed after refusing rehab : Taranaki Daily News:

"It's a funny war when the 'enemy' is entitled to due process of law and a fair trial," - William Bennet

And we seriously believe putting this man in jail is going to change anything. The POLICE are lying to the courts about the harms when 160gms of cannabis is estimated to create (by Police's own commissioned report) about 2000 dollars of harm to the community. So we send a man to jail for nine months to fix that problem? Whaaa!

Cannabis is a seasonal plant, it grows about 150-300 grams of usable medicinal plant matter to last a year. It is best consumed in quality rather than quantity and a glass pipe is a harm reduction measure as it can be cleaned to surgical standards. (it is a myth that glass is used for methamphetamine, when it is used for cannabis consumption). Sending this man to jail for displacing his known to be risky pharmaceuticals breaches hte Bill of Rights, breaches "first do no harm' medical ethics and undermines 'informed consent' when the body of science and the professionals within the medical and science fraternity declare that the harms/risks are so low as to be nonsensical compared to harms due to criminalisation. Cannabis is as addictive as coffee. Disrespect for the rule of law can only be a result.

Senior Police Officers agree:

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/11/09/norm-stamper/losing-hearts-and-minds-in-the-drug-war/
--

Blair Anderson

Social Ecologist 'at large'

"psychosis was not associated with cannabis use"

2011-10-10T06:57:00.002+13:00

Despite previous media claims to the contrary, researchers concluded: "psychosis was not associated with cannabis use"

(see http://blog.norml.org/2010/05/26/latest-research-on-pot-and-schizophrenia-runs-contrary-to-mainstream-media-hype/ )

Image via Wikipedia"Although the onset of cannabis use disorder preceded the onset of illness in most patients, our findings suggest that age at onset of psychosis was not associated with cannabis use disorders. Previous studies implicating cannabis use disorders in schizophrenia may need to more comprehensively assess the relationship between cannabis use disorders and schizophrenia, and take into account the additional variables that we found associated with cannabis use disorders."

A separate study slated for publication in the same journal assessed the cognitive skills of schizophrenic patients with a history of cannabis use compared to non-users. Authors reported that patients with a history of marijuana use "demonstrated significantly better performance on measures of processing speed, verbal fluency, and verbal learning and memory" compared to abstainers. Marijuana use was also associated with better overall GAF (Global Assessment of Functioning) scores compared to those of non-users.
Authors concluded: "The results of the present analysis suggest that (cannabis use) in patients with SZ (schizophrenia) is associated with better performance on measures of processing speed and verbal skills. These data are consistent with prior reports indicating that SZ patients with a history of CUD (cannabis use disorders) have less severe cognitive deficits than SZ patients without comorbid CUD. … The present findings also suggest that CUD in patients with SZ may not differentially affect the severity of illness as measured by clinical symptomatology."
Both study's findings are in line with previous (though virtually unreported) research indicating that marijuana is unlikely to instigate incidences of schizophrenia in the general population, that cannabis use among patients with the disease is associated with higher cognitive function, and that at least some schizophrenics find subjective relief from symptoms of the illness by using pot. Nonetheless, odds are the nobody from the mainstream media will be champing at the bit to report on them.
Bottom line: marijuana's complex relationship with schizophrenia is far from understood, and likely won't be for some time. But that doesn't give the MSM a free pass to only promote one side of the story.

--

Blair Anderson

Social Ecologist 'at large'
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com
http://blairformayor.blogspot.com
http://blair4mayor.com
http://efsdp.org

ph nz (643) 389 4065 nz cell 027 265 7219

Political Scandal in New Zealand

2011-10-08T18:38:00.001+13:00

LCI: FREE DAKTA GREEN!!! The Current Political Scandal in New Zealand

Image by NUkiwi via Flickr
Blair Anderson
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com

Ban Idiot Politicians

2011-10-05T12:26:00.003+13:00

It is disingenuous of both media and government officials, especially thse from the Ministry of Health to pretend we do not have in place already an appropriate and fit for purpose legislative response to 'effectively regulate and control' psychoactive recreational soft drugs. Image by Getty Images via @daylife

re: http://www.investinnz.co.nz/news/further-3-synthetic-cannabis-substances-be-banned-46n8

This regime was adopted and implemented (became law) in 2008. It was a response to the marketing and sale of BZP and designed to provide appropriate rules and regulations the recognised the reality that the USE of drugs other than tobacco and alcohol is occurring, and that the rational response was not to ban and thus create contingent downsides worse than the USE of the drugs themselves.
Image via Wikipedia
With an enforceable R18 (consistent with current legislation regarding access to alcohol) the RESTRICTED SUBSTANCES REGULATIONS were heralded as 'innovative' and world class by leading drug policy guru's such as Professor David Nutt. (see http://legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2008/0373/latest/whole.html )

Nutt described these rules as 'absolutely' suitable for managing cannabis, New Zealand's most popular neighbouring intoxicant. In his recent seminal paper summarised on his blog (http://profdavidnutt.wordpress.com/ ) that balances evidentially the arguments surrounding cannabis and alcohol availability - it is clear that ANY government that is serious about fixing the alcohol issue is not serious about doing so unless it addresses and fixes the glaring anomalies surrounding cannabis.

The response by Dunne et al is a nonsense while this remains the elephant in the room.
Image via Wikipedia
Dunne's failure to use the fit for purpose 'regulatory model' OR even talk about it smacks of 'electoral dishonesty' and should not surprise us, given he is so marginalised from an electorate that has resoundingly said (77% variously) decriminalise pot.

It is a case of people being smarter than the purveyors of moral turpitude. There is NOTHING moral about hurting people for no good reason, and nothing correct about pretending your solution is better than something your not prepared to discuss.

Consider this comment by Professor Nutt:
Taken together we estimate that alcohol is at least twice as harmful to users than cannabis and 5 times more harmful to society. The obvious conclusion is that the current legislation criminalising cannabis users is illogical as well as inhumane and may be causing much more harm than it does good. Time for a rational intervention Mr Cameron? (ipsofacto Tony Ryall, John Key etc)
The full paper can be found in the Journal of Psychopharmacology http://jop.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/09/03/0269881111414751
Dunne deserves a good electoral ass kicking, but media are complicit in pandering to fears where there are none and failing in there duty to balanced reporting, elsewise they would have asked him WHY drive people to drink?

Blair Anderson

Social Ecologist 'at large'
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com
http://blairformayor.blogspot.com
http://blair4mayor.com
http://efsdp.org

ph nz (643) 389 4065 nz cell 027 265 7219

Cannabis cases threatened by surveillance law change

2011-09-30T00:45:00.000+13:00

The Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill will potentially apply primarily to cannabis cases as the court already has the ability to use covert video evidence in serious drug cases, Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party leader and Wellington lawyer Michael Appleby says.
Image via Wikipedia
Although the Supreme Court decision prompting the new law was based on the Urewera trial, John Key has said the decision affected "serious crimes" including drug offences.

However many legal experts including the Chief Human Rights Commissioner have testified that "serious criminals" can already be prosecuted using covert surveillance under section 30 of the Evidence Act.

Just as Tame Iti is still being prosecuted as a participant of an organised criminal group, even though the evidence was thrown out by the Supreme Court in most other Urewera cases.

"Therefore this urgent retrospective law change is potentially actually going to affect non-serious cases, including many of the 250 people arrested in Operation Lime," Mr Appleby said.

In May 2010 Police concluded a two year "National Covert Operation" called Operation Lime targeting garden shops including Switched on Gardener, with the aim to 'break the backbone of the cannabis industry'.

"In light of the recent findings of the NZ Law Commission and UN Global Commission on Drugs, cannabis charges could fail to meet the threshold for seriousness under the Evidence Act."

"In addition, the Bill of Rights may have been violated when customers went to these shops for legitimate reasons and were filmed by surveillance cameras."

Image via Wikipedia"Since ACT leader, Dr. Don Brash, is a supporter of cannabis law reform, the Act Party should oppose this bill when voted on under urgency next week," Mr Appleby said.

The ALCP are also supporting United Future candidate Ian Gaskin (Wigram) who in a letter in yesterday's Press has called for a liberal alliance of parties in support of Dr Brash's views on cannabis.

Key's Cannabis Response Reassuring?

2011-09-28T11:33:00.002+13:00

> Keys strong response against cannabis is very reassuring and I applaud him for it.

Based on EVIDENCE Keys response was neither strong nor reassuring, any applause is unearned and misplaced. /Blair Anderson

Do not be too encouraged, you run the risk of being as disillusioned as the experts in health based drug policy, who, based on outcomes declared the current policy (and regime) as "unfit for use".

Key's naivety is exposed by any reading of Ministry of Health 'best practice' National Drug Policy guidelines. For an economist/accountant (whose capacity to understand such subtlety is about as relevant as his housing corp background) he should know that ALL policy should be assessed and accounted to ensure resources are placed to best advantage. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE. It was included in the policy framework, even budgeted for on an annual basis (there would be nearly a million dollars in pool to do it now) but the line item was REMOVED by all accounts, deduction and from speaking with people involved at the time 'due to legislative implications'. That was/is policy fraud...

No other area of public policy, especially one that leads to the unintended consequences such as dead cops and tens of thousands with criminal lifelong 'numbers tattooed' on arbitrarily selected and undoubtedly fueled by racist and otherwise discriminatory sectors of the population.

If a reader cannot stomach that reality, you are part of the problem. Get rid of your white privilege and become a real communitarian.... there is NOTHING family, christian or good in the current regime.

That Key even argues that police are arbiters of who enters the criminal gateway is an anathema to thinking and reasoned people...it serves only to assuage the guilt (realised or not) of those who are brazen bigots and naive fools.
Thankfully, most people can see right through such cheap pandering politics. Even National supporters.

Canvassing for Opinion - aka "Blairs Brain on Cannabis"

Huge cannabis bust in Hawke's Bay - Latest News - Keep up with Newstalk ZB

Science and Policy of 'Guilt by Machine"

Related articles

End Cannabis Prohibition - NZ online petition

Related articles

Drug dogs 'a waste of time'

Related articles

The Fox is in the Hen House.

Related articles

Ethics of Medicinal Cannabis, SATIVEX

Related articles

Drug Convention Analysis Misses Kiwi Solution

Related articles

Drug Policy Idiotology " Child Endangerme​nt By Proxy"

Related articles

South America Turns MildGreen

Whenever I read drug policy and there is a discussion of what to do beyond prohibition, the same conclusions seem to be reached; market forces work better and more efficiently than legal/criminal/justice approaches.

Its looking more and more like De-classification into a regulatory 'restricted substances' model like New Zealand's *provisions for the USE of drugs ammendments to the principal act, the UN approved 1975 Misuse of Drugs Act. / Blair

12 current Latin American leaders call for exploration of legal drug regulation

Related articles

Drugs, Driving and Manufactur​ed Consent?

Related articles

Cannabis is SAFER. "in Class D" or no Xmas for some!

Related articles

Who Dat Cwazy Won Pull Maan!

Some of the things the next President of the USA [Ron Paul] will do right away:

• End The Drug War • Legalize Industrial Hemp • Allow Medical Marijuana Laws • Pardon All Non-violent Drug Offenders (that includes Marc Emery!) • Abolish The DEA and Drug Czar Office

Related articles

Cannabis Causes Crime Like Forks Cause Obesity

Related articles

Five Murders, Ipswich Defined

Related articles

Thirteen Ways Drug Legalization Could Improve Real Estate Values

Let's Talk About Solutions - Editorial

Related articles

123!, What are we waiting for?

Related articles

Health,Justice and Law & Order, Anyone? Vote ALCP.

Related articles

Pot, Privacy, Police and Prime Ministers

Related articles

Rehab, Lightbulbs and Stupidity of Criminalisation

Related articles

"psychosis was not associated with cannabis use"

Related articles

Political Scandal in New Zealand

Related articles

Ban Idiot Politicians

Related articles

Cannabis cases threatened by surveillance law change

Related articles

Key's Cannabis Response Reassuring?

Related articles

Drug Policy Idiotology " Child Endangerment By Proxy"

Drugs, Driving and Manufactured Consent?

• End The Drug War
• Legalize Industrial Hemp
• Allow Medical Marijuana Laws
• Pardon All Non-violent Drug Offenders (that includes Marc Emery!)
• Abolish The DEA and Drug Czar Office