by frog
This is really quite remarkable. Since the Law Commission released its discussion paper on drug law reform yesterday, an extraordinary consensus right across the political blogging spectrum has developed.
On the far right, we have Not PC: “Simon Power. Law student turned politician turned instant medical expert.”
Then there is Eric Crampton who thinks Simon Power’s dismissal of the Law Commission’s report means we need a new Justice Minister.
David Farrar is “disappointed and somewhat surprised” by Power:
Simon Power must have a very sore kneecap after what was an un-necessary kneejerk rejection of pretty much everything in the Law Commission’s review of drug laws.
…I’ll turn to the detail of the options put out by the Law Commission, but note at this point that to categorise them all as “liberalization” is in fact incorrect. The Police Association President Greg O’Connor was quite supportive on radio of many of the ideas, as was the Drug Foundation which aims to minimise harm from drugs.
Personally I’m far from convinced our current laws are working for low level drugs like cannabis.
Russell Brown at Public Address, is just plain angry, saying:
Simon Power’s dismissal out of hand of important proposals in the Law Commission’s Review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 says just one thing: that craven political posturing is more important than preventing harm to New Zealanders.
A comment echoed by Not PC. Now, when has that ever happened before?
Danyl at the Dim Post:
…the drug laws – medicinal heroin but not medicinal cannabis; pot growers get prison, brewery owners get knighthoods – are easily the least logical, most absurd and do the most to undermine the moral authority of the state and the justice system.
Michael Foxglove at The Standard:
I too expected Simon Power to be a bit more open to the clear and evidence-based arguments put forward by the Law Commission. It’s a missed opportunity that does nothing to solve the drug problem in our society.
…With almost half of Kiwis admitting to have used Cannabis, drugs aren’t simply going to go away. It’s about time a government stood up and took a sensible approach to the issue.
And agreeing completely with Farrar. Now when has an author at The Standard agreed completely with Farrar before?
Iain Lees-Galloway at Red Alert (somewhat wimpily, but at least not dismissing it outright):
Worth having a good read of this to take it all in. Lianne Dalziel and I are as keen to hear your thoughts as the Law Commission is.
And, of course my contribution from here at the lilypad:
But Justice Minister Simon Power’s response was to back the hypocrisy and stupidity of the current drug laws … Ross Bell of the Drug Foundation has called on politicians to engage constructively with the Law Commission’s report. It’s disappointing that the Minister of Justice purports to be too busy with other things to give it more than a few seconds’ consideration.
There is such an extraordinary consensus across the political blogroll that Simon Power surely has to listen.
He has nothing to fear, as the staunch prohibitionists are weak politically. New Zealand First is not even in Parliament any more. Peter Dunhill (who has a double-standard as far as tobacco is concerned) has only his own seat for United Future, and could well lose it at the next election. There is strong public support for at least moderate drug law reform, as recommended by the Law Commission.
Wholesale prohibition has proved to be a miserable failure that has strengthened the gangs. The War on Drugs has already been lost. It is time to move on to policies that actually work.
Published in Health & Wellbeing | Justice & Democracy by frog on Fri, February 12th, 2010
Tags: david farrar, drug law reform, drugs, Eric Crampton, kiwiblog, Law Commission, Not PC, red alert, russell brown, Simon Power, The Dim-Post, the standard
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
...
Not everything that NORML could have wished for, but sufficient for there to be at least a couple of celebratory meetings happening this weekend
Good round-up of the traps, frog. Interesting to see how many different ways Power has been castigated by the media-watchers.
I think I agree most with Russ’ analysis at Public Address!
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
And ACT on Campus too:
http://actoncampus.org.nz/blog/ministers-drug-revelation-leads-to-call-for-resignation
Just shows what a good idea it is really…
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
oh..!..still my beating heart..!..frog..!
‘consensus’..?..y’say..?..for ‘sensible’/rational drug laws..?
will power/key ‘listen’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Personally, I prefer the Portugese approach of total decriminalisation of possession of all drugs for personal use.
But, being realistic about what can be achieved politically in New Zealand, I’ll join the consensus in support of the Law Commission’s proposals.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
the (comments) thread at kiwiblog on this subject is also worth a read..
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/02/law_commission_on_drug_laws.html
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
After being tasked with a first principles review of drug policy / legislation, they came up with some tepid reforms that tinker with prohibition, while giving no consideration to the alternatives. They took it as given that commercial supply of drugs like cannabis should be harshly prosecuted. Why?
The evidence suggests that taxation and regulation of the cannabis market is the most effective policy to reduce drug related harm. All in all, a gutless and weak report – not because of the conclusions, but the failure to properly examine the options. Of course the irrational response of the Govt indicates how even more gutless the Nats are when it comes to rational drug policy.
I have made more detailed comment at Dread Times for those interested
[frog: Nandor, I've inserted the link to your Dread Times post into this comment so people can more easily find it. Cheers.]
Like or Dislike:
12 
1 (+11)
Sure, the report itself, is as usual for something from Palmer on such topics, comes from within an inadequate existing political reference framework.
The marijuana policy part of the following was part of a submission to the 1999 Health Select Committee.
If one wanted to reduce actual use of marijuana (especially by those under 21 where the greater evidence of harm is) one would
1. bring in wider drug use controls.
Such as requiring those at “licensed places” (and those buying tobacco) to have passed a drug education course before they received a necessary ID card – these cards being suspended for various things.
2. Allow these ID cards to be used for rationing access to some drugs where posssession is currently illegal – say party pills for those over 18 and marijuana for those over 21. These drugs only being available for supply from licensed outlets (from licensed growers). (This would necessarily limit any other possession to where someone was growing for personal use – and limiting the amount that could be grown in any period).
Such would diminish the market for those supplying the drugs illegally (now and with any law change). Thus make it harder for those under 21 to access supply, and for those over 21 cap use levels (those caught passing marijuana to those under 21 would lose their right to a card).
This method would limit access to marijuana for those under 21 more than current law.
3. As for alcohol, one would require alcohol level checks for entry to licensed premises. And make it an offence to be drunk in a public place –defined by a blood alcohol reading.
(PS I have only once held a marijuana smoke and was passing it to someone else at the time, I may have inhaled while doing so – but then I also made my opinions known on PLR and CU, without having used my natural advantages to be a sex worker or explored the consequences of one of my favourite quotes – I would rather explore any potential for homosexuality than become a Christian).
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
While we’re at at SPC… limit all tobacco sales to pharmacy only. Oh, and absolutely NO ADVERTISING of any sort.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
There are a lot of people who grow tobacco at home.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
samiam, greenfly
Sales limited to a licensed outlet, some growing their own, and no advertising would be equivalence.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
sheesh ..nandor..
if you are going to link-whore…
it helps to provide the link..eh..?
(anyway..how are they hanging..?..)
and..
i totally agree with yr thumbnail assesment of the failures of this report…
and..
..does not this trans-ideological support for (especially) medical marijuana..
..just emphasise the embarrassing way the green party (non)-handled their medical marijuana bill..?
a more benchmark-setting example of political cowardice/neglect and opportunity-wasting..
..would be hard to find..
and to me..that level of support currently being displayed..(esp. for medical marijuana..)
..only confirms my contentions at the time..that had any effort at all been made to ‘sell’ this idea/change to the nz people..
..that public will could be marshalled..to negate/overcome the intransigences of the political elites..
and that success was within grasp..
but..alas..alack..!
(the ‘wisdom’ afforded by hindsight..eh..?..)
oh well..it’s good..i suppose..that they have now woken up/decided to run with the herd/pack..
..and..posts on frogblog about the (dreaded)-subject..(!)
..after this decade of stony-silence..?
(yes..the puns are intentional..)
btw..how is life in the bus..?
..and with a number one..?..
and as a ‘civilian’..?)
phil(whoar.o.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
i am hopeful that lessons in both political courage..
..and the power of the ‘good idea’..
..and a realisation of the media resources to hand for the green party..
will have been learnt..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Nandor, I suspect the Law Commission may have been looking to what they considered politically possible in improving drug laws, rather than what they would ideally support on the basis of the evidence. If they were, they probably should have gone the whole hog anyway, given that Simon Power has in a knee-jerk reaction already stomped on their rather timid recommendations for reform.
But all is not lost. The Law Commission’s document is a discussion document rather than final recommendations to Government so, everyone, please give the Commission your feedback at this email address and encourage them to improve their final recommendations.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
I think Nandor has descibed things incisively. And I agree with Phil’s comments about the Green’s timidness on the cannabis issue – but I hope lessons have been learned. Too be fair, I don’t think many have seen how many obstacles there would be to cannabis law reform.
The cannabis issue seems to be one that really irrates some reactionary trolls on the blogosphere – so happy upsetting, posters!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I just saw The Union: the business behind getting high which comprehensively spells out the arguments for legalisation. Highly recommended
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Just watched the video rimu. What say we ask Tommy Chong to do a speaking tour of New Zealand?
The Government would probably refuse him entry on the basis of his 2003 conviction and imprisonment, which would just add to the case.
And if they do let him in, he would wipe the floor with anyone the prohibitionists put up against him in a debate.
Look like dogshit to you, man?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Looks like time to push to get public support for evidence based drugs policy and take the gains afoot.
Nandor seems to have shifted the goalpost accordingly and the middle ground should be in line with the Law Commissions recommendations.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
McTap, there is no justification for policy that assumes people should be penalised for their cannabis use.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nandor: Selling addictive substances to people is, in almost all cases, exploitative (the only exception being where it is sold to the government for legitimate medical purposes). It is all about unscrupulous people who don’t mind harming others to line their pockets take advantage of the weakness of others.
The problem with drug laws, as they are now, is not that they place criminal penalties on people engaging in such exploitative behaviours; it is that they also punish the victims of such exploitation, which is fundamentally unjust. The criminal justice system is not the appropriate way to deal with drug users – but it is the correct way to deal with suppliers / dealers.
You say “There is plenty of theoretical and practical evidence to suggest that implementing a system of licensing and taxing the producers and sellers of relatively benign recreational drugs such as cannabis, BZP, MDMA and LSD would be the most effective way to reduce drug use (especially hard drug use)”. I would be interested to see your source on this.
Of course, the above analysis applies exclusively to addictive or harmful drugs; substances which are not substantially addictive (which could possibly include some of the above) or acutely or chronically harmful. BZP and LSD might fit into this category. Cannabis is well documented as addictive (e.g. see http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/9/3326), and it has harmful chronic effects on the lung when smoked (http://archinte.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/3/221). While MDMA has never been shown to be addictive, deaths from acute MDMA poisoning get the most press (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1353554). However, chronic effects on regular users are probably more of an issue with MDMA – it is a known neurotoxin (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12119307). I therefore don’t think it would be ethical to sell either cannibis or MDMA except for legitimate medical purposes, and so should remain illegal to sell.
I say we should focus on decriminalising drug use and production for personal use, while keeping up efforts against suppliers.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
How would “decriminalisation of production for personal use” work? Anyone could grow in a greenhouse on their section without any problem?
The many people unable to grow their own would still be dependent on illegal supply – illegal supply by it’s very definition is unrestrained in who it supplies (no age scruples), in what quantities (harmful use levels) and with what other more dangerous to the user drugs.
To use a business metaphor – rental property landlords and farmers want the era of no CGT to continue, similarly many of those who profit from the illegality of drugs favour a continuance of this situation. Another, hawks are good for the military industrial complex and hardliners on drugs are good for profits and the banking system (hear the one about liquidity coming to banks from cash rich business people – no questions asked).
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
A1kmm states that cannabis should be illegal beause it’s addicttive and causes lung damage. He/she gives (much appreciated references
) to illustrate these points.
The link re addiction is to an abstract (I couldn’t veiw article) which spoke of dopamine and the reward pathway. Indeed this appears to be in support of the consensus that cannabis is psychologically addictive. Are you saying that cannabis is more addictive than coffee?
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/28
‘The neurotransmitter dopamine seems to play a major role in rewarding by drugs and physical activities, such as sex and sports.’ http://www.drugscience.org/dl/dl_basic_research.html
So by that definition, sex and sports can be addictive. Combining that with the knowledge of stds and collapsed mauls; should we make sex and rugby illegal?
Your link regarding lung damage did not add much weight to your argument.
It concluded by saying cannabis is a bronchodilator and that “Physiologic data were inconclusive regarding an association between long-term marijuana smoking and airflow obstruction measures”
a further link following from yours states,
“Smoking only marijuana was not associated with an increased risk of respiratory symptoms or COPD.” http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/180/8/814
Wanting to keep cannabis illegal for ethical reasons on the grounds of exploitation seems noble. But looking at the evidence, it appears that too much freedom is lost, and not much if anything is gained
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
fin’s quote from Drugscience (“The neurotransmitter dopamine seems to play a major role in rewarding by drugs by drugs and physical activities, such as sex and sports”) simply echoes what most of us in the human relations field have known for decades – addiction emerges from the human tendency to pursue pleasure and avoid pain. What the addict is after essentially(and probably most of us are!) is the dopamine rush, however it is obtained. The major problem is that it wears off – ‘so ya gotta get another shot!’ Unless we as individuals and as a society deal with that basic issue, then humans, especially in the West, are going to keep coming up with different ways to avoid the uncomfortable fact that life ain’t fun all the time and is ultimately disappointing.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
So odd to hear Marijuana referred to as addictive again. We learned better than that years ago.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
BJ,
Actually, any use of substances that increase dopamine levels will ultimately result in acquired resistance. In this way it is ultimately the same as cocaine except that the dopamine elevation created is far smaller and thus the resistance builds up slower and to a lower level than with the harder drugs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The fact is that once again, this issue is divided on generational and class/socio-demographic lines. One comment on Nandor’s post actually tries to say that ‘most cannabis smokers are lower class’ – a red herring if ever I saw one, and a classic piece of uninformed bigotry from someone who thinks that’s a good argument!
Those who would not quibble at paying over $150 a bottle for a good wine (legal) are trying to define the parameters for the consumers of a $20 tinnie of dak (illegal), as though the inaccessibility of one to a certain class of society makes it a ‘softer’ addiction, and thus it’s continued availability is ‘not problemmatical’.
Tell that to the staff at any A & E department, who have to deal with the carnage created by drunk-drivers, assaulting alcoholics, and the terminally cirrhosed-of-liver descending on their workplace every week.
If anything, this debate should be used as a platform to re-litigate the acceptance of the harm that tobacco and alcohol do to our society; and let the stoners (mostly peaceable, relaxed folk….) get on with having their fun quietly and without harming their nearest and dearest.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
z
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Sapient
I doubt that addiction is entirely mediated through the dopamine channels. I would have to wander back into the psych research papers and I have certainly no time for that, but something as addictive as Crack Cocaine seems to have other methods of grabbing the user by the throat and telling him “you’d better get another hit”… in addition to the dopamine.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As the cops in the States say, they’d rather be handling stoners because they are not prone to violence, throwing up in the back of the patrol car, and they are immensely less likely than drunks to crash into things at high speed. The usual symptom of the pothead behind the wheel is excessive caution. Impaired to be sure, and they should not be driving, but aware of their poorer performance and attempting to compensate… compared with the drunk who is ignorant of his own incompetence.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
BJ,
Yes, addiction works through other mechanisms. The effect on dopamine (and other neurotransmitters) is, however, of fundamental importance.
I would suggest that addiction itself is a psychological phenomenon but that the motivations for such are often biological. Dopamine and Serotonin desensitization will lead to behaviours which result in the seeking of further substances which increase the effect of the dopamine and serotonin such that, at the least, the normal state is reached. People become dependent on the drugs for the same reason, it is just that with weed the dependence is smaller as the extent of the desensitization and the rate at which that happens is so much smaller and thus it is far easier and faster for the body to revert to a normal state (while it can be so hard for a coke addict to revert that it can kill them). In this way that which is sought for psychological relief must latter be sought to avoid the psychological consequences resulting from the biological effect of the substance which induced the psychological relief. Alcohol abusers will be familiar with hang-overs, with addicts this state becomes rather constant and the only immediate (though temporary) escape is more alcohol.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)