by frog
Last month I blogged on Justice Minister Simon Power’s kneejerk dismissal of the Law Commission’s report proposing our drug laws be reformed to reflect the principle of harm minimisation.
Now we see a similar head-in-the-sand approach being taken by Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne in response to the Ministry of Health’s Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs’ recommendation on the classification of the drug LSD. The EACD found:
Members also noted that LSD’s potential to cause death is very low and that the few reported international cases were generally from accidents or possibly related to over-activity of the adrenal gland. Members were advised that there is no evidence that LSD can create dependence.
There was discussion around the appropriateness of New Zealand’s classification of LSD as a Class A controlled drug and whether this is proportionate to the risk of harm or danger associated with the substance. The Committee agreed that with regard to the risk of harm, a Class B or even a Class C classification may be more appropriate. The Committee discussed the fact that a Class B classification would provide Police and Customs with sufficient enforcement powers for surveillance and monitoring any involvement of organised crime in supplying LSD. Changing LSD’s classification could mean that a stronger focus can be placed on more problematic drugs. Members agreed that the current classification of LSD in New Zealand could have been influenced by historical and international classifications and the Committee was advised that LSD was included in the 1960s drug conventions and classified under psychotropic substances in 1971.
Based on the evidence of the risk of harm associated with LSD in New Zealand, the EACD agreed that LSD is inappropriately classified.
Peter Dunne’s reaction:
…Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne says he has met with the committee and made it clear the government has absolutely no interest in pursuing the matter. He says the arguments for change were theoretical and were not agreed on by the full committee.
Not good enough!
The only bit of Dunne’s statement that is confirmed by the minutes of the EACD meeting (MSWord, 76kB – extract quoted above) that discussed reclassification of LSD is that he met with them – he is recorded as a “guest present” at the meeting. The minutes confirm the EACD took an evidence-based, rather than theoretical, approach to its work. They also make no mention of any EACD member dissenting to or abstaining from the recommendations. I can only assume what Dunne means by “not agreed on by the full committee” is that two committee members gave their apologies for the meeting, so their opinions on the issue are unknown.
It all makes me wonder why the Government bothers to have expert advisors at all if it is just going to dismiss the evidence-based advice they provide.
Published in Health & Wellbeing | Justice & Democracy by frog on Tue, March 16th, 2010
Tags: drug law reform, drugs, Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, LSD, Ministry of Health, peter dunne, Simon Power
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
If it isn’t addictive, and users only use it very occasionally, then there is presumably only a limited market for it, and no room for both a legitimate market and a black market – so the benefit of eliminating the black market could outweigh the costs of slightly increased use. This is especially true if it is taxed to prices only slightly below the current black-market price.
Like or Dislike:
13 
0 (+13)
But it seems that becasue it makes sense, it won’t happen so people seeking these low-harm drugs get offered highly addictive and dangerous P instead because there is more money in it for the dealers if they get users hooked on something.
Like or Dislike:
12 
1 (+11)
The great irony is that our present society – including such marvels as the Internet – wouldn’t exist in their current form if it wasn’t for certain key people who’ve had a fondness for these recreational substances.
And those that continue to innovate, those that push technology and art to new precipices of wonder, they are criminals. Not for any well reasoned law, but due to moralistic judgement by straight-laced society and a demonisation of recreational substances by the media.
Sometimes it’s so frustrating because politicians refuse to have a reasoned or honest discussion about drugs. “Drugs are bad” is the mantra, while they sip their caffeine saturated beverages before heading down for a after-work drink.
(NB: I am not advocating that drugs are necessary to contribute and achieve greatness, just that many drug users do not fit the media’s stereotypes)
Like or Dislike:
15 
0 (+15)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
4 
24 (-20)
ie; Alcohol and Tobbacco.
Our Hospitals and Courts can’t keep up with the casualty lists (alcohol in both and tobacco in the former) and ANY further Legalisation issues look downright foolish on paper.
However – many places have decriminalised with success. This is an approach I would prefer to see, as the anecdotal evidence shows an actual decrease in Crime Rates.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0 (+9)
Like or Dislike:
16 
0 (+16)
It depends on which drugs someone is using. You are correct that drugs like alcohol (legal, of course) and methamphetamine – two addictive drugs in widespread use – increase propensity to violent behaviour.
But have you ever heard of anyone on MDMA or LSD belting their kids or partner? I haven’t.
Evidence please – not broad generalisations.
Like or Dislike:
13 
1 (+12)
Equating drugs and sexual abuse is as silly as equating sexual abuse with religion, (because of all the paedophile priests !)
Because of all the hysterical propaganda that they have promoted over the years Governments haven’t got the courage to stop and say “how about a rational debate on the merits/costs/dangers of each of these substances ” and I suspect it’s driven largely by the Tobacco and Alcohol industries
How come sports people are tested for Cannabis but not Alcohol, neither are performance enhancing
Front page of the Press today – Was all about sports people and their culture of excessive alcohol consumption and the damage it’s doing
Who are the real drug pushers in our society ?
Like or Dislike:
13 
0 (+13)
Some of them, we address as, “Sir”.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1 (+10)
What would you like to see done, photonz1 and what are your thoughts about the political parties that enjoy the support of and in turn support, the alcohol brewing industry?
Like or Dislike:
10 
1 (+9)
What Dunne needs is a firehouse, nozzle vaselined with comfort in mind.
(Calling the station now).
Like or Dislike:
6 
2 (+4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
15 (-14)
greenfly..!..give dunne ‘a break’..!
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Like to Phil, but I’m loathe to add GBH to my list of ‘awards I don’t like to talk about’.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Compare the issue of harm caused by alcohol to the Repeal of Section 59 if you dare. I know which one is causing the harm. Do you?
Like or Dislike:
11 
2 (+9)
So you don’t like the Greens, that’s fine – but please stop correlating drug use* with child abuse.
Why are those people dead in Mexico and South America? The majority of it is a direct result of the USA’s “War on drugs” – the illegality of substances is what puts finances and violence-based incentives into criminal hands.
* a generalisation which doesn’t differentiate between the huge differences between drugs – in the same way that not all “food” is good for you, not all drugs are as bad as the media and law makers would have you believe.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
11 (-10)
I presume you’re referring to all the Mexicans who have been murdered by drug cartels? This is of course a consequence of prohibition, which puts the cocaine industry in the hands of criminal gangs that are adapted to working outside the law, that have every incentive to deal with their competitors through violence and no opportunity to seek help from the authorities to enforce contracts, and every incentive to kill police officers who are on their tail. The same thing happened in the US as a result of alcohol prohibition, and largely went away when alcohol was legalised. It is treating drug use as a form of criminality that leads to this.
Like or Dislike:
12 
1 (+11)
The Greens haven’t ignored it. Just that no other party will buy into it. Blame Labour, National, Act, NZFirst, Peter Dunhill, and Jim Banderton. Don’t blame the Greens:
From 2004, and the other parties still don’t get it.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2 (+4)
toad..you found some/one(?) drug-law-reform advocacy from frogblog..!
well done..!
oh..!..hang on..!..that is just an old press release..
eh..?
(no..i couldn’t find any on frogblog..either..
what’s with that..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Like or Dislike:
7 
1 (+6)
(I’ve politely asked thrice).
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
Like or Dislike:
6 
1 (+5)
As I blogged back in January: A lag for a stoner, a gong for an über-dealer!
phil u: Sorry if you think I have been remiss in not raising these issues more frequently in past years. That was a consequence of a perception by the Green Party caucus that legislation was unlikely to succeed as long as Labour had New Zealand First and United Future as their partners in Government, and that the political environment may be better disposed to drug law reform after the 2008 election.
As it turned out, it became a worse political environment for drug law reform after 2008, and I am happy to admit in retrospect it may have been not the best strategy by the Greens.
The Greens are going much harder on this issue since the last election. Lots of blog posts on it here this year Phil! We all can learn from experience, or at least should. Unfortunately, the knee-jerk evidence-denying reactions from Simon Power and Peter Dunne are probably indicative of their inability to do so.
Like or Dislike:
9 
2 (+7)
“..and I am happy to admit in retrospect it may have been not the best strategy by the Greens..”
fair do’s on the apology/recognition..frog..
i’ll leave the history buried..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
if you want to actually do something to effect a change (y’know, get active…) try here for a submission form to the Law Commission:
http://talklaw.co.nz/talkdrugs
submission deadline is April 30th, 2010.
There’s also space on the site for discussion on the various topics, if you don’t feel up to a full submission worth of opinion-sharing.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0 (+6)
katie..
i publicise this issue all the time on whoar..
http://whoar.co.nz/?s=cannabis
that is how i ‘get active’..
yourself..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It was a semi-respectable term for ‘just another Drug Addict’ and its clinical use has quite rightly been abandoned.
It exists in the vernacular only.
Incidentally, some of the sickest people I’ve dealt with (or not) have been addicted to both alcohol and methamphetamine.
This mix can easily produce a psychosis that makes Pot Smokers look positively angelic.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
My partner’s best friend had the shit beaten out of her (literally) by her alcohol and meth fueled boyfriend. The guy responsible will have done his stretch by now, but I would lay money on him not having been provided adequate rehabilitation, and as a consequence ending up bashing someone else in the near future – if he hasn’t already.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
What would be useful would be some graphs that show the medical and legal costs related to the harmful effects of each recreational drug, legal and otherwise and another to show the income to government coffers derived from each. They would make interesting and telling reading. I can guess what it would reveal as regards alcohol.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Yes Toad; Scary stuff alright. Funnily enough, in pure Medical terms – these are some of the easier conditions to treat (compared to heart disease, cancer etc) though they are every bit as Fatal, and create sufferer’s (16.5) per addict, that other diseases don’t.
My Proff in Melbourne was able to train me to handle such Cases in a matter of several hours Tutoring.
It is the Lack of Proper Care, and the Who-Gives-a-Damn attitude that prevails here, that convinces those Capable of helping that they are on a Losing ticket.
That is something that the right sort of Government could fix.
Identifying the problem is more than half the work!
I think you can guess where my Vote goes in that quest!
Keep On
Regards
Mark
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Trevor, I do have a concern that legalising a drug may result in an increase in use, so decriminalising is the safest way to go initially. When commercial interests get a hold of anything that has the potential to make money then the control of promotion and advertising becomes as difficult as maintaining the quality of a black market product. We just have to look at the beer and tobacco industries to see where legalised LSD may go. Do we really want to add LSD to the current mix of tobacco and alcohol?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
joel Pitt says “So you don’t like the Greens, that’s fine – but please stop correlating drug use* with child abuse.”
It’s not me who makes the correlation – its our own CYPS, and those who reasearch tha factors that cause child abuse.
Look at the reasearh into EVERY county who has info on child abuse, and you’ll see drug abuse is one of the major factors (substance abuse said to be involved in 70% of child abuse in the US)
Like or Dislike:
0 
5 (-5)
greenfly – I don’t think legalising drugs will curtail use (which would have benefits in many areas – i.e. health, child abuse, worker efficiency, accidents, domestic violence, etc).
Alcohol has similar problems. I don’t think if would be acceptable to the public to ban it, however doubling alcohol taxes would have dramatic effect on limiting use and of course it would mean additional revenue for the government.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
greenfly – you completely ignore the harm drugs do. No even a single word about the problems caused. Only an defense based on the problems that alcohol causes.
Apart from being not much more than a non-arguement – there’s nothing new to what I’ve heard from a number of my aquantances and friends who are into regular drugs use.
Some are now dead, and over half of the others have had mental breakdowns. The one that has led closest to what could be called a normal life has lost his job in the past, and his and family.
Most of the poeple I know also drink quite a bit, although none I know of have let it get to a point where it has cost their job, family or sanity (though obviously this does happen).
The point is I know people who use alcohol on a regular basis without any real issues to their job, children or spouse.
Every person I know who uses drugs regularly has a serious problem because of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5 (-5)
Commercial interests can be avoided also if necessary – supply it via an SOE, so there is only one “brand”.
I am just wondering whether it should be available at pharmacies or liquor outlets – either business model could work. I’d guess that the liquor outlets would be more interested.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
You need to distinguish between drugs. Saying drugs are the cause of your friend’s demise is like saying food caused a grandparent’s heart attack when what they actually had was an unhealthy diet.
Unless people specify what drugs are being talked about, you can’t have a meaningful conversation about them.
There is also the problem with correlation not equally causation. People with mental difficulties, or that are prone to acting in ways that cause family breakdown might have a propensity for drug use, but that doesn’t mean the drug caused it.
On the contrary, LSD and MDMA in clinical psychiatry have proven to be extremely successful for treating addictions and PTSD.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Joel – the vast majority of people I’m talking about pretty much all taking drugs at the bottom end of the scale – mainly dope.
Actually there is a lot of scientfic evidence of marajuana bringing on psychotic epsodes.
The people I know (and knew) were all ok UNTIL they started regularly using drugs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
joel – I’m sure you can argue some minor benefit for every drug.
But while LSD may have some small positive effect, it doesn’t help someone who is convinced they are a fish and who is not coming up out of the water to breathe. While we saved our friend in this particular case, it was really only a matter of time before he killed himself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
you and yr anecdotals..eh..?
an anecdote ..or two..for every argument..eh..?
and .. hey..!..if you do quote..’scientific evidence’..
it does do yr/any credibility no end of good..
..to actually post a link to yr ‘scientific evidence’..eh..?
‘cos..y’see..if you don’t..
people will just think you just plucked it from the nearest available open orifice..
..eh..?
(i await yr links..that support yr ‘psychotic epsodes’(sic). claims.
eh..?
and if you want acres of scientific evidence proving the opposite of the case you are trying to (anecdotally) construct..
can i suggest..?
http://whoar.co.nz/?s=marijuana
(all the ‘claims’there..are linked/footnoted..eh..?..
you could also search there under ‘cannabis’..eh..?
for even more ‘evidence’..
..that proves yr prohibitionist scaremongering..
..to be just that..
..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
If so, you must declare your conflict of interest.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1 (+5)
“The people I know (and knew) were all ok UNTIL they started regularly using drugs.”
Were they? Then why the need to ‘regularly use drugs’?
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Where we seem to differ is that I consider that not all drug use is abusive or problematic, and the State should be involved only to the extent of addressing drug use that is abusive or problematic, and with the objective of minimising the harm that results.
In that context, surely you have to admit that the “War on Drugs” approach of blanket prohibition involving severe criminal sanctions for mere personal use of recreational drugs has been a miserable failure in meeting that objective.
Do you really think methamphetamine would be such a problem if less addictive and less harmful recreational drugs were more readily available. But prohibition results in them being available only through the black market, and dealers maximise their profits by getting people hooked on the most addictive drug they can find.
Hence you can buy meth almost anywhere, but non-addictive drugs such as MDMA and LSD are not supplied by most dealers – there is not enough profit in it.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
If some of these drugs were legalised, then the government could take some of the profits, and the supply would be of better, more consistent quality, and more information would be available. Seeking help would be easier as the consequences would be more limited (less threat of criminal prosecution, etc).
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Business Brokers Raleigh says “As long as no one is hurting each other, drugs should simply be decriminalized”
But that’s where you are wrong. Drug use is a major factor in child abuse, accidents, birth defects, work performance, health costs etc.
trevor29 – you are making a lot of assumptions about situations of which you have zero knowledge, which is why most of them are wrong.
phil u – ypu post is simply offensive and not worth replying to.
toad says “Where we seem to differ is that I consider that not all drug use is abusive or problematic,…..”
I agree that not all drug use is abusive.
“….. and the State should be involved only to the extent of addressing drug use that is abusive or problematic, and with the objective of minimising the harm that results.”
I disagree with the second part. As I think decriminilsation would lead to more overall drug use including abusive drug use.
Like or Dislike:
0 
7 (-7)
“Drug use is a major factor in child abuse, accidents, birth defects, work performance, health costs etc.”
Yes. Alcohol being the major player in each of the examples you cite.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
greenfly – yes alcohol abuse is also a problem. Stats from the US show costs of alcohol and drug abuse are very similar (about $180 billion / year) and the number of abusers was similar for each.
Trevor makes assumptions about people in situations he knows nothing about, and gets then wrong. You also know nothing about these situations, and deem Trevors description to be “accurate”.
If you know so much, can you please give me some basic facts about my friends – i.e. what happened to them, what drugs they took, how regularly, what problems they caused, how they affected their lives, their ages, sex, and what countries they live in, and whether they are alive or dead or in a mental ward?
I’ll expect your descriptions to be, just like you said trevors were – his “….description of the situation is accurate and well described”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
Do you have any evidence to support that belief, photonz1?
That certainly was not the experience in Portugal, which decriminalised all drugs, including cocaine and heroin, in July 2001:
The full paper is available here (PDF, 4MB).
Like or Dislike:
7 
1 (+6)
toad ” Do you have any evidence to support that belief, photonz1?”
I’ve been to a number of places where drugs are legal or effectively legal (authorities do nothing to stop open use) and it was obvious there were major problems with drug abuse. Perhaps it’s just more open, but in Amsterdam there’s people sitting on steps shooting up and used needles lying around the place, in Morocco there were small children of five and younger openly trying to sell hash; in other parts of Africa where drug use were cheap and openly sold, often the police or soldiers were stonned, as was half the population.
And there’s also evidence like Amsterdam has 700% higher incidence of schizophrenia than other comparible places.
Like or Dislike:
0 
6 (-6)
Equally, you can’t know the experiences of our own associates regarding drug use, so I (we) won’t use them to argue the issue.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
And I’ve a question for you, Photonz1.
Do you regard alcohol and/or tobacco to be gateway drugs?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
How about some stats that compare the costs of P and cannabis, or cannabis and alcohol, or alcohol and LSD…? How about actually providing a link or reference for your assertions?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
gee..!..photonz..!
more of yr (anecdotal-based(?)) ‘evidence’..
eh..?
i mean..such verifiable facts as the netherlands having one of the lowest rates of cannabis users..
..sorta flies in the face of yr thesis..eh..?
and the old ‘schitzophrenia-bogey..eh..?
here are some facts:..
http://whoar.co.nz/2007/the-new-batch-of-lies-that-are-told-about-cannabisthe-current-big-one-being-trotted-outis-how-cannabis-is-now-20-25-times-stronger-than-it-used-to-be/
“..On the question of psychosis, the advisory council was clear.
Cannabis use may worsen the symptoms of schizophrenia..and lead to a relapse in some patients.
But on causation, it said: “The evidence suggests, at worst, that using cannabis increases the lifetime risk of developing schizophrenia by 1 per cent.”
It added that more than three million people were estimated to have used cannabis in the previous year..
..but “very few will ever develop this distressing and disabling condition..”.
another fact that flies in the face of yr ‘evidence’..
is that schitzophrenia rates in the general population have not increased since the decades when cannabis was not widely used..
(i will find the link for you for that one..if you insist..
but really..don’t you owe me/us..a link or two..?
even maybe..one..?
would that be too much to ask..?
that you back up in some way..
the hysterical/propaganda-fueled (anecdotal) evidence you have provided to date..?
mm..??
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
toad – from the report you link to, it says in some categories drug use has decreased from 2001 – 2006 – the period of decriminilisation.
However if you compare the period BEFORE decriminilisation, you get a completely different result for some areas;
Quote from your link “prevalence
rates for the period from 1999 to 2005, for the
16–18 age group, increased somewhat for
cannabis (9.4 to 15.1 percent) and for drugs
generally (12.3 to 17.7 percent)”
That’s a 50% increase in school kids which is one of the biggest problem areas as the brain is developing.
Australian researchers are now saying that cannabis has far more damaging results than heroin.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5 (-5)
“..Australian researchers are now saying that cannabis has far more damaging results than heroin..”
where is yr bloody link..!
you just sit there slinging utter bullshit..!
f*cken enough..!
..eh..?
where is the link/evidence for yr ‘worse than heroin’ horsesh*t..?
you are just a feckin’ troll..aren’t you..
doing yr troll-thing..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
@photonz So you want to keep drugs criminalised so that usage will continue it’s previous increase?
You’ll get no argument from me about preventing school kids from taking drugs, legal or otherwise.
There are an equal number of researchers that don’t say cannabis is more damaging than heroin or alcohol. On the other hand LSD and MDMA remain the (relatively) safer choices which are unavailable to law-abiding citizens.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
There is a problem with the ‘as long as it does no harm’ approach.
Harm happens both Overtly and Covertly.
It is the Covert Harm (abuse, emotional blackmail,standover tactics etc) that usually send the Victim (ie associate of the User) spinning backward out of their own lives.
It is hard to pick up until the situation breaks the surface, and then, most often, the Victim and not the abuser is identified as the Problem.
This just compounds the Problem for said person, whilst the User just moves on to their next quango.
We need more expert psychological intervention/help to improve the situation.
Every case is different to some extent, and taking a blanket approach never works, never helps.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
@photonz1 10:32 AM:
The Portugese decriminalised drug possession, they didn’t legalise it or just turn a blind eye. They established “Commissions for Dissuasions of Drug Addiction”, an administrative body that has the power to issue warnings, direct people to treatment, and impose fines if their drug use is problematic.
Personally, I would go somewhat further and legalise (under strict regulation) some of the less harmful drugs, but I certainly don’t support drugs like meth, cocaine and heroin being legalised.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
Can we set up a meeting between photonz1 and Dakta Green to discuss this issue?
The good Dakta would clear up photonziz misunderstandings very quickly.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
cannabis more dangerous than heroin
http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/archives/002684.html
“..four out of five with schizophrenia were regular cannabis smokers when they were teenagers. Between 75 and 80 per cent of patients involved were found to have used the drug habitually between the ages of 12 and 21.
Andrew Campbell, of the NSW Mental Health Review Tribunal, warned that a hidden epidemic of cannabis-induced psychosis could make the so-called soft drug more dangerous than heroin.
“It’s much safer to take heroin — you can live to be 90 with heroin,” Dr Campbell said.
A five-year review of the histories of mentally ill patients in NSW who had been committed to an institution or needed compulsory treatment found four out of five had smoked marijuana regularly in adolescence.
“That’s 75 to 80 per cent of the people who are getting long-term psychotic disorders who are not getting better,” Dr Campbell said. “That’s four out of five who were healthy, they could smoke, they were not sensitive to the stuff, then they hit the wall.
“It can take up to five or six years. It’s an epidemic, and in some ways we’re blind to it.”
“In some unfortunate people who are heavy users, they would have gone through life with the vulnerability but it would never have been exposed.”
Dr Campbell said his work showed that many people using cannabis experienced years of normality before succumbing to the psychosis associated with schizophrenia. In men, it mostly happened in their late 20s, while in women it could be as late as their 40s.
“The psych wards are full of these people,” he said.
“There’s a very clear division — there’s the cannabis group and the non-cannabis group.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Propaganda more dangerous than truth.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
phil says there is only a 1% increase in getting schizophrenia from smoking.
Here’s THIRTY (PUBLISHED)SCIENTIC studies that ALL say you are HUNDREDS of percent out
http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html#can
Including a Swedish study of 50,000 people (97% of the total male population between 18 and 20) that shows a 600% increase.
And a study that shows a 1000% increase for cannabis smokers already genetically predisposed (from a 6% chance to a 60% chance).
And an Otago study which discounted those predisposed genetically still found a 300% increase (increased to 450% if they started cannabis use at 15 yrs rather than 18) .
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Ignoring the evidence again on drug law reform
In which
Associate Health Minister Peter Dunnephotonz1 takes a head-in-the-sand approach to recommendations by the Ministry of Health’s Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs.Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
greenfly – the mental wards are full of propaganda
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
mental wards?
photonz1 – what do you think of the recommendations of the Ministry of Health’s Expert Advisory Committe on Drugs? (the subject of the post).
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
greenfly – considering the committee have not said that LSD should be decriminilised – only that it “may be” appropriate to reclassify it, then they should look into it further, as they intend to do.
They have not even yet done work on what the onflowing effects would be of a lowering of it’s classification, so it’s right NOT to change the classification at least until this work is done.
To change it before this information is available would be negligent.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
To dismiss their findings out of hand, as Dopey Dunne has done, would be negligent.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Where did he dismiss their findings out of hand?
The committee didn’t even go so far to make a recommendation – only that it “may be” appropriate to reconsider classification, and they needed to do more work on it.
The whole reporting of it here is a beat up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
“Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne says he has met with the committee and made it clear the government has absolutely no interest in pursuing the matter .”
Or is that ‘Dunne-speak” for, “I respect your work here and will ensure that the fair and equitable decision is arrived at”.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
so..photonz..you are dunne..eh..?
that fits/figures..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
hey photonz/dunne..!
you had better get onto the case of those cats..eh..?
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/cats-can-give-children-schitzophrenia/
“..Recent surveys point to a connection between a microbial cat disease and human schizophrenia.
The microbe is called toxoplasma or “toxo” for short.
Most cats carry the bug but it is a silent infection with them, causing them no harm.
Cats spread the microbe when they deposit their urine or droppings in their litter box, in your garden or in the children’s sandpit, though you can pick it up by merely handling the cat.
Farm animals and birds also carry toxo.
Half the deer in New Zealand carry the infection and you can catch it by eating undercooked meat.
Most of us become infected with toxo at some stage in our lives with little or no effect but it’s a different matter for foetuses.
If a pregnant woman becomes infected, the microbe sometimes makes its way into the brain of the early growing foetus.
A recent survey showed that about 2 per cent of pregnant Auckland women had been infected with toxo.
The bug wreaks havoc with brain development but the results don’t show up in babies.
Not till kids reach teenage years do problems develop – behavioural problems, learning disabilities, mood swings, mental impairment or schizophrenia.
The connection between toxo and schizophrenia has long been suspected because so many schizophrenics recall their family having a cat when they were babies.
Several recent surveys have revealed stronger connections.
A study of 1.2 million Swedes showed that early foetal infections increased psychoses and schizophrenia in teenagers by 50 per cent..”
whoar..!..eh..?
get those cats..!
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – you may question your own “need” to be pro-drugs.
So strong is you need, that you are prepared to take 30 scientific studies done over many years, some with tens of thousands of participants, done by leading experts in their fields, peer reviewed, and published – not even read them – then write all of them off as nothing more than propaganda.
That’s a really strong sign of someone with their head in the sand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5 (-5)
Making criminals of those who abuse drugs just does further damage to those individuals and legalising more recreational drugs will only throw such drugs into the commercial world, which will do anything to make a dollar. A broad package of education, support and bringing a rational approach to the issue rather than the emotional, biased and sensationalist approach of the current government is needed. Current Green policy is quite robust but we need to push the big picture and not to be trapped into promoting the merits of one drug compared to another.
Thank you, Greenfly, for returning us to the subject of the post.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
phil – your posts, quote
“where is yr bloody link..!
you just sit there slinging utter bullshit..!
f*cken enough..!
..eh..?
where is the link/evidence for yr ‘worse than heroin’ horsesh*t..?
you are just a feckin’ troll..aren’t you..
doing yr troll-thing..
eh..?
phil(whoar”
…..are a great arguement why drugs are not good for the brain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
phil – over 50% of poeple who die of heart attacks also had cats as children – those dam cats must be repsonsible for heart attacks as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
photonz1 – your insistence that I am ‘pro-drugs’ is nonsense.
I’m pro-harm minimization.
Whatever the best, most rational, most just actions are needed to be taken to achieve that, I’m pro.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
interesting how you sneer at a scientific reference/link..
one that references the threads of the case presented..eh..?
and no..idiots..and their blatherings..’are not good for the brain’..
and dare i say it..most of those (you cite..)who developed schitzophrenia..
would have also ‘abused’alcohol..in their teenage years..eh..?
(and..eaten peanut butter..had cats..eh..?..)
beware the cat wielding peanut butter..eh..?
(that can be read two ways..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
“..phil – your posts, quote
…..are a great arguement why drugs are not good for the brain..”
that’s a very dunne-ish thing to say there..eh photonz..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Reducing or removing benefits from people addicted to alcohol and other drugs won’t result in a costly increase in violent offending, robberies, burglaries and other illegal activity in the south, do you think, Ms Bennett?
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
photonz1 Annecdotes eh?
How about my anecdotes.
Among my oldest circle of friends we almost all use drugs. A few of us smoke tobacco, though most have given that up. (I never smoked tobacco)
The most popular drugs are the powerful psychedelic drugs. Mesciline, psilocybin and LSD. The drug most frequently used is alcohol. Next would be cannabis. (Excluding coffee and tea)
We must have had, collectively, hundreds of trips. Tripping is what we really like to do together, but as we get older with more responsibilities it is harder to find time. (I am nearly 50, we all met in our 20s)
At various times we have known people with stupid attitudes to drugs that get addicted, (some to gambling) but mostly we have not had problems with addiction. One of our number has serious addiction problems. He is some times difficult to deal with, but has some how survived. (he is addicted to opiates) It makes me very sad what he has put himself through. But he remains our friend still. Because we love him!
As a group we are all professionals. I am the exception as I am in the middle of switching career and am a graduate student (hence browsing the web at lunch time).
Never, in all the hundreds of trips, has anybody tried to hurt themselves. The worst that has happened is being busted and ripped off. Ie., the most dangerous aspects of the drugs we use are the legal aspects!
Personally I do not accept that a drug free life style is the healthiest. I do feel that due to a lack of role models we did abuse drugs and did not get the best from them, but handled carefully and with respect tripping is a *lot* of fun and does wonderful things to group dynamics bringing people together to have good times. Good Clean Fun!
The state of the law means that we must remain quiet – and anonymous. Whilst photonz1 and Dunne are free to spout any nonsense they feel like!
Annon
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
greenfly says “your insistence that I am ‘pro-drugs’ is nonsense.
I’m pro-harm minimization.”
You can’t minimise harm simply by rubbishing every scientific studiy that links drugs and harm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
* psst..Phil..tease him about his hair!
If he is Dunne-under-a-pseudonym, he’ll throw his toys in the blink of an eye, the swish of a comb, the crimp of a lock.
It’ll be fun!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
phil says “interesting how you sneer at a scientific reference/link..
That’s your scientific link?
That’s pathetic.
It links to an OPINION piece only, with NO LINKS TO ANY SCIENTIFIC PAPER.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Photonz1 said:
“You can’t minimise harm simply by rubbishing every scientific studiy that links drugs and harm”.
Though I don’t know why, as it makes no sense.
There are sound actions that can be taken here in New Zealand, by a government that thinks soundly (there have been no such governments in recent times)to minimize the harm to New Zealanders from drugs-other-than-alcohol-and-tobacco. The recent wooden-headed responses from peter Dunne and Simon Power to recommendations made by expert advisors on drug law reform a perfect examples of politicians and parties that cause harm to the people they are supposed to represent, because of their personal ideologies and those of their authoritarian parties.
Pity the little children.
Dunne is a monster.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Of course scientific studies link drugs and harm. The extent to which they link them with harm varies from drug to drug.
What this is about is minimising the harm – prohibition has not worked in that regard. Nor has stupid ad hoc classifications of drugs that rank methampetamine and LSD as if they were equally harmful when all the evidence indicates that LSD is non-addictive and causes little harm while meth is highly addictive and extremely harmful.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Anonymous Please – is your story is supposed to convince us that drugs are ok? (I would have thought having a freind with a serious addiction and knowing other who were addicted is more a cautionary tale not to take drugs)
The worrying aspect about the likes of cannabis is that they are only now finding out vastly increased levels of schizophrenia later in life – 40s and 50s – from smoking in the teens and 20s.
Most people will be ok, but for every 8 or 9 that are ok, there’s one or two who get really screwed up.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
toad – we often hear decriminilisation is a good way forward, but your own links, supposedly on how great it worked in Portugal show a FIFTY PERCENT INCREASE in drug taking by children – at the very age where the most damage is caused to the brain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
greenfly – you keep wanting Dunne to make a decision BEFORE the research is done and the recommendations are made by the Ministry of Health’s Expert Advisory Committee.
They haven’t yet researched the probably outcome of a reclassification, and may yet recommend against it.
You seem to think you know what they want to do, before they know themselves, and even before they have finished their research.
Another case of not letting the facts get in the way of an imovable opinion?
The biggest, quickest single difference the government could make right now is ramping up the tax on alcohol and cigarettes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Rubbish! I’m not sure what report you are reading, but the one I linked to says this (pages 13-14 of the PDF):
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Greenfly, I do find your demonising of Dunne and Power is counter productive. They are simply politicians who lack backbones and will always take the path of least resistance to ensure their continued place in the cloistered environment they inhabit.
We will never win this battle by down playing the effects of recreational drugs, or comparing legal with non legal, but could by focusing on harm minimalisation. It will have to be a combination of strategies and approaches becuase it is a complex issue.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Ramping up tax on alcohol and cigarettes?
Bit of a ‘taxman’ are you?
Heard the same call from Peter Dunhill just recently.
Phil may well be correct.
Nevertheless, the issue of the post is the status of LSD and the call to look at that sensibly.
Both you and Dunne lack the sense needed.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Harm minimization is the bedrock for drug management and the bases for any challenges to the status quo.
I haven’t played down the effects of recreational drugs, so far as I know and agree that is a poor road to take.
As to demonizing Power, I’ve not done that.
Dunne is another matter.
Why on earth not, on a blog like this?
Nothing that I have seen over the years, has altered his anti-drug, anti-Green stance and I doubt my jibes would have any effect at all on his fortess-like pov.
If you find my lampooning of him annoying, I apologise.
I don’t think I could stop though.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
toad – I quoted from THE SAME report -”prevalence
rates for the period from 1999 to 2005, for the
16–18 age group, increased somewhat for
cannabis (9.4 to 15.1 percent) and for drugs
generally (12.3 to 17.7 percent)”
Your quote is totally misleading at you take the rate AT decriminalisation, and compare that with a few years later.
The quote above, also from YOUR link, takes the rates BEFORE decriminalisation and compared them to after
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Meh, maybe I could. It’s not that funny (rhymes with Dunny).
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
photonz/dunne..have you heard of the ‘hippie-syndrome’..?
..cited by researchers into the causes of alzheimers disease..
namely..they are finding that those who consumed lots of cannabis during the 60′s/70′s..are not coming down with the disease..
they don’t know why..but are keen to find out..eh..?
and then a few weeks ago..new research .. from the london school of medicine..(from memory..link on whoar..)..
saying that those who were/are ‘heavy consumers’..(their words)of cannabis..for at least ten years..
had a ‘marked drop’..(once again ..their words..link on whoar) in the chances of getting head and throat cancers..
go figure..!..eh..?
add those to all the other curative properties of cannabis..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
What part of that do you not understand, photonz1. It increased between 1995 and 2001. Decriminalisation occurred in 2001. It then decreased, although not back to 1995 levels.
By cherrypicking the 1999-2005 period you are including part of the period that drug possession was criminalised, and excluding the 2005-2006 year when it decriminalised. Using that period makes no statistical sense at all, other than to obfuscate on what is a clear trend of increase in usage pre-decriminalisation and decrease in usage post-decriminalisation.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
sprout – I’m going to adopt your view regarding Peter.
He and I are (now) like this.
* holds up two crossed fingers
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
* did I say, ‘crossed’?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
photonz1, have you read the law commission’s report?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I think photonz1 should just read the summary rimu.
Too much information and photonz1 cherry-picks, as in the “argument” above that attempts to deny reduced drug use among 16 and 17 year olds following decriminalisation in Portugal.
That approach is the same as that of the climate change deniers junk science – decide what conclusion you want to make, and then hunt around to find a period from which the data supports that conclusion. Hence “no global warming since 1998″.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
phil says “add those to all the other curative properties of cannabis..”
Like lung cancer?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Toad says “By cherrypicking the 1999-2005 period you are including part of the period that drug possession was criminalised, and excluding the 2005-2006 year when it decriminalised”
But toad – the sentence before you said “Decriminalisation occurred in 2001″.
Then when that doesn’t suit your arguement you change it (wrongly) to 2005-2006.
Toad cherry picks then acuses others of the same when he’s caught out.
And as for picking your conclusion and denying the facts – what about thirty scientific studies labeled propaganda.
Toad – your own link caught you out.
There was a 50% increase in drug use in children from two years before decriminilisation to 4 yoears after it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
yr ‘lung cancer’ claim is yet another load of utter tosh.. eh..?
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/5-things-the-corporate-media-dont-want-you-to-know-about-cannabis/
“..Here are five recent stories the mainstream media doesn’t want you to know about pot:
1. Marijuana Use Is Not Associated With a Rise in Incidences of Schizophrenia
Over the past few years, the worldwide media, as well as federal officials in the United Kingdom, Canada and the U.S. have earnestly promoted the notion that smoking pot induces mental illness.
Perhaps most notably, in 2007 the MSM reported that cannabis “could boost the risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life by about 40 percent” — a talking point that was also actively promoted by U.S. anti-drug officials.
So, is there any truth to the claim that pot smoking is sparking a dramatic rise in mental illness? Not at all, according to the findings of a study published in July in the journal Schizophrenia Research.
Investigators at the Keele University Medical School in Britain compared trends in marijuana use and incidences of schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005. Researchers reported that the “incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining” during this period, even the use of cannabis among the general population was rising.
“[T]he expected rise in diagnoses of schizophrenia and psychoses did not occur over a 10-year period,” the authors concluded. “This study does not therefore support the specific causal link between cannabis use and incidence of psychotic disorders. … This concurs with other reports indicating that increases in population cannabis use have not been followed by increases in psychotic incidence.”
As of this writing, a handful of news wire reports in Australia, Canada, and the U.K. have reported on the Keele University study. Notably, no American media outlets covered the story.
2. Marijuana Smoke Doesn’t Damage the Lungs Like Tobacco
Everyone knows that smoking pot is as damaging, if not more damaging, to the lungs than puffing cigarettes, right?
Wrong, according to a team of New Zealand investigators writing in the European Respiratory Journal in August.
Researchers at the University of Otago in New Zealand compared the effects of cannabis and tobacco smoke on lung function in over 1,000 adults.
They reported: “Cumulative cannabis use was associated with higher forced vital capacity [the volume of air that can forcibly be blown out after full inspiration], total lung capacity, functional residual capacity [the volume of air present in the lungs at the end of passive expiration] and residual volume.
“Cannabis was also associated with higher airways resistance but not with forced expiratory volume in one second [the maximum volume of air that can be forcibly blown out in the first second during the FVC test], forced expiratory ratio, or transfer factor. These findings were similar amongst those who did not smoke tobacco. … By contrast, tobacco use was associated with lower forced expiratory volume in one second, lower forced expiratory ratio, lower transfer factor and higher static lung volumes, but not with airways resistance.”
They concluded, “Cannabis appears to have different effects on lung function to those of tobacco.”
Predictably, the scientists’ “inconvenient truth” was not reported in a single media outlet..”
mm’kay..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
photonz1 says: “Like lung cancer?” ..and confirms Phil’s claim that he is a troll.
Stupid comment photonz1.
I suppose it’s funny to frustrate reasonable comment here, though it’s probably only you laughing.
You railed against the repeal of Section 59, you are interfering with sensible discussion here about one aspect of the Ministry of Health’s Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs report (the status of LSD for those who have been distracted by photonz pointless arguments).
My conclusion is that you are a member of some fundamentalist organisation, probably a fundi church or some wacky off-shoot, and you hold views that are beyond the reach of ordinary discussion.
Despite responding to your shallow provocations, I suspect that other commenters here are bored with your games.
I am.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
ditto..
he has slipped over that line dividing (useful) foil..from mindless troll..
..meh..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
@photonz1 5:45 PM
Guess you can never win against a troll! I think your “argument” is complete bullshit obfuscation photonz1.
No point in pursuing this aspect of the discussion any further – it’s getting like a hypothetical Michael Mann v Viscount Monckton debate.
I spelled it out as clearly as possible at 2:55 PM. Over to the readers to decide who has the math right and who doesn’t.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
hmm…and when we grow tired of this debate – we shall wake to a world in which alcohol is still far and away (!) the no 1 Drug Problem. Truly.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Mark his words!
(It’s not the first time that’s been said and for good reason).
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
photonz1, i’m getting rather bored with it all too. Decriminalisation occurred in 2001 after which usage declined. Might be a good time to take a rest.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
phil – what you claim about cancer is one thing, but the passage you quote toi back it up doesn’t even mentiopn the word.
And wow – you’ve found one iunattributed, unlinked quote to grasp at, but ignore thirty scientific peer reviewed published studies saying the opposite.
It really is a matter of cherry picking the rare study to match your opinion. It probably doen’t matter what factual evidence you were shown – you’ll never ever change your mind regardless of facts.
You are addicted to your opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
toad and greenfly – I presume the reason you have turned to personal abuse is that you have run out of inttelligent arguement (or have been caught out contradicting you own message in toads case)
Heres a link to a NZ study that showed am 8% increase in cancer for every year of marijuana use, and a 7% increase in cancer for cigarette use.
No doubt you’ll be able to show a study from a village in the Amazon where one person was tested and showed no increase in cancer in a 30 minuite period.
http://erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/content/full/31/2/280?%3C/p%3E%3C/td%3E%3C/tr%3E%3C/table%3E%3Cbr%3E%3Ctable%20%20border=
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No, photonz1, it is because I am tired of debating with a troll who fallaciously and deliberately cherry-picks time periods to collect data from to attempt to substantiate a predetermined conclusion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“..And wow – you’ve found one iunattributed, unlinked quote to grasp at..”
i gave you links to click thru to..
that u choose not to…
only confirms you are a troll..or really thick..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad – even your own quote contradicts your arguement. You quote –
“For those in the 10th–12th grades (16–18 years old), the lifetime prevalence rate, which increased from 14.1 percent in 1995 to 27.6 percent in 2001, the year of decriminalization, has decreased subsequent to decriminalization to 21.6 percent in 2006.
So the number are
Before decriminalisation – 14%
The year of decriminalisation – 27%
After decriminilisation – 21%
So there was a spike at decriminalsation (understandably), and it settled back down to a level FIFTY PERCENT HIGHER than prior to decriminalisation.
Your OWN quote CONTRADICTS your arguement. Is your mind clear?
Marijuana More Toxic that Cigarettes –
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7150274.stm
Marijuana Smokers get lung disease twenty years earlier than cigarette smokers –
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123104017.htm
“As public attitudes toward marijuana change and legal restrictions ease in some countries, use of marijuana is increasing.”
Which debunks the idea of decriminalisation reducing use –
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090805110741.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
No, no photonz1.
We have tired of your greasy polystyrene trolling and need something substantial to discuss.
If you are unsure yourself whether the charge of constantly diverting discussion to suit your own ends (trolling) is true, try making your next post about the topic (it’s written by Frog and titled, “Ignoring the evidence again on drug law reform” and see if it matches your other posts in any way.
While you are pondering that, see if you can detect anything ironic in that title.
Good luck photo!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
@photonz1 7:56:
Perfectly. Yours appears to have been hijacked by
Joseph GoebbelsViscount MoncktonPeter Dunne, photonz1.Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz is dunne..
so..from now on..i will call him ‘dunne’
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil – you links are laughable – they are a pro marijuana article.
They say that because lung volumes are better in marijuana smokers than cigarette smokers, that is proof that marajuana is not harmful to health – clearly they are off their heads.
They say that because levels of psychosis didn’t increase for ten years, and marijuana use probably did – that is proof that cannabis doesn’t cause schizophrenia.
They didn’t actually test anybody though, or find out if they smoked or not.
Your so called “studies” are so rediculous they completely undermine your own arguement.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
This is like arguing with people who are off their faces.
toad cant even get basic facts right, and give quotes that contradict his opinion.
phil gives links to studies, that aren’t scientific studies at all but are opinion pieces on pro marijuna sites.
and greenfly offers nothing – just jibes, abuse. Not a single solitary fact offered by greenfly.
Your combined posts make a great arguement to cut back on drug use.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
Peter Dunne had to confess to the House that he had once been a cannabis smoker.
That humiliation set him on this path of truculent opposition to rational drug management in New Zealand.
Another sad page from Dunne’s ‘Book of Self Service’.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
high on list of people not to get stoned with..
..photonz/dunne..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So the number are
Before decriminalisation – 14%
The year of decriminalisation – 27%
After decriminilisation – 21%
So there was a spike at decriminalsation (understandably), and it settled back down to a level FIFTY PERCENT HIGHER than prior to decriminalisation.
Tha author clearly implies the upward trend was pre decrim, only after which it started dropping. If you want to claim he’s wrong, explain why. Simply slagging toad for repeating his conclusions is definitely troll behaviour.
Your OWN quote CONTRADICTS your arguement. Is your mind clear?
His obviously is, yours is suspect. I suggest you actually read what the report says, rather than search for ways of twisting it to back up you views.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
photonz1 – you said:
“trevor29 – you are making a lot of assumptions about situations of which you have zero knowledge, which is why most of them are wrong.”
After I said “Your friends are successfully obtaining the various illegal drugs from criminals.”
So if I have zero knowledge about this, please explain how your friends were able to obtain these illegal drugs without getting them from criminals. Was I wrong about the criminals making a profit too? Where else did I get it wrong? If you couldn’t help your friend, was there a reason you didn’t seek help other than the legal consequences? Were you and your friend fully informed? And how do you know that the drugs that your friends obtained were what they thought they were and weren’t contaminated or overstrength?
If I have zero knowledge about this, it should be easy to increase my knowledge.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In other words, the jury is still out on whether cannabis causes schizophrenia. I believe more recent research is trending towards other factors being more relevant, particularly those psychological ones which might lead a young person to become a heavy drug user.
So much for cannabis, I think we all agree that children shouldn’t be using marijuana, right?
This post was about LSD wasn’t it? My understanding of the classification system is that Class A is supposed to include substances that have no (medical) benefits, and have been shown to cause significant harm/danger to users.
There have been NO deaths attributed to LSD in NZ in the time that it has been classified. It does not even register in the harm tables in the SHORE studies. It is not addictive and the LD50 is so high that overdose is virtually impossible. I am failing to see the significant harm or danger to users here.
In terms of benefits, I agree with anonymous as to the benefits to communication, trust levels and general wellbeing that a well-managed trip can provide to a group of people. I acknowledge the risk of a non-well-managed trip becoming unpleasant (but not deadly), and stress that this is a very good reason for education on the realities of LSD to be made more freely availabe. I would add that (anecdotally) people who have been fed scare stories and propaganda about LSD are more likely to have a bad time with it due to their fear. We want to talk harm minimisation? Stop telling lies about this substance.
As for medical benefits, I believe that research is currently underway into use of LSD for treatment of anxiety in sufferers of terminal illness and also treatment of cluster headaches. In the early days of LSD research, it was found to have some benefit in treatment of addiction, including alcohol addiction. However, research was severely curtailed by the UN Convention classifying it as Schedule 1 (blanket ban internationally), and trials on humans have only recently been resumed. It will be a while before LSD’s medical value is established either way.
Meanwhile, research being done on the potential effects of a reclassification of LSD could be retrospective. LSD is used by sufficient numbers of New Zealanders (possibly up to 2%) to indicate a likely result of any increase in access to it. Cross-reference this with information relating to harm from LSD in an environment where information and guidance is not freely available, and I feel it shows that even in the worst possible circumstances, people who use this drug are capable of doing it without coming to harm. I don’t believe numbers using would increase dramatically – LSD is not for everyone.
I do not understand what the politicians are afraid of. The suggestion is not to legalise it, sell it in dairies and throw it around like confetti. The suggestion is to reclassify it more realistically according to evidence of its relative harms and benefits, and the only thing this affects is the punishments around prosecution for its possession and supply.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
photonz – you claim there is a link between drug use and child abuse, so do you support the government adopting a consistent approach to regulating alcohol, tobacco (nicotine), cannabis and other drugs to reduce risk to children?
You also cite the law and order/public safety threat occuring in Mexico, given this is a result of prohibition of drugs in Mexico and criminalisation of usage in the USA (which has been ineffective in reducing demand for drug supply), do you have any alternative to offer to the current failed course?
Your attempt to conflate the issue has not improved the prospect for developing a better government policy.
If the objective is to minimise access to drugs by minors, then legalisation (controlled supply and controlled distribution) is the most effective policy – decrimininalisation won’t do that as illegal supply continues.
If the objective is to reduce problematic usage then investment in drug rehabilitation is the option to take (which can be funded by controlling and taxing supply) – this action reduces child abuse and crime/re-offending.
As to the issue of drug use being unsafe – legal use can include compulsory drug education courses before any right to purchase (a ration card controls usage levels) is allowed.
Modern DNA science will soon (already?) indicate, those pre-disposed to schizophrenia risk – a small percentage of the population (is it 1%?), DNA tests can be made compulsory before ration cards for marijuana are issued.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Another sad chapter in the Dunne saga is this recent blog of his:
http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/default,1305,a_couple_of_unpleasant_political_facts_to_ponder.sm;jsessionid=2F1E5C9C5A26AD25C4DD4C37B6380132
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
I’m too frightened to read a blog titled, “Peter’s Position”, sprout.
(My mind’s eye! My mind’s eye!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Be brave, Greenfly, it it really exposes the essence of the man and why he has a greenish tinge to his skin…
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
The man has an essence ?
He’s a man ?
The greenish tinge … mould?
I
just
can’t
do
it
sprout!
(I’ve been hurt before).
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
It’s that demon thing again isn’t it, Greenfly? We’ll just have to check under your bed again, to reassure you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
spc – yes I support the govt taking further measures to reduce child abuse by reducing use of alcohol, nicotine and drugs.
Mexico HAS ALREADY decriminalized use of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine and heroin.
Legalisation of alcohol hasn’t stopped or regulated supply to minors – so it is unlikely that a home grown product would be any more regulated – more likley less so.
I agree about more drug rehabilitation.
But I can’t imagine compulsory drug education courses before purchase ever working, any more that it would for similar couses for alcohol.
You say “Modern DNA science will soon (already?) indicate, those pre-disposed to schizophrenia risk – a small percentage of the population (is it 1%?),”
No – more like 25% of us. “The increased risk applies to people who inherit variants of a gene named COMT and who smoked cannabis as teenagers. About a quarter of the population have this genetic make-up..”
From
http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/cannabis.marijuana.schizophrenia.html
And if you have two bad COMT genes you risk of getting schizophrenia increases 1000% if you smoke dope. Other research has shown increases of 300. 450, 500, 600 and 700%.
And whether you argue that psychological problems cause drug use, or drug use causes psychological problems makes little difference. It’s clear that the two factors combined massively increase the chances of schizophrenia – and until we can modify genes in teenagers, the drug use is the only factor that can be changed to improve the situation.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
photonz
The relevant issue is supply of drugs into the US market – and as I pointed out decriminalisation (in Mexico or anywhere) does not impact on the level of criminal activity in supply of the drug.
You don’t think education about drugs before people use them works? Let’s guess you think the only valid education about sex is chastity?
“Legalisation of alcohol hasn’t stopped or regulated supply to minors – so it is unlikely that a home grown product would be any more regulated –more likley less so.”
If the legalisation was via ration card access, there would not be amounts to pass onto minors. As to the drugs produced on site – very few marijuana uers grow their own, if that were not the case there would not be the criminal supply industry there is now. And legalisation does not need to include people growing their own and avoidng tax liability.
As to the DNA issue – it might be a higher rate of risk for teenagers and a lower rate for those older.
As to this issue – while marijuana is illegal, there is no regulation as to whom is supplied. And there has been no effective cut of supply to teenagers (the best defence at present is drug education – which you wrongly would rule out and prefer an ambulance treating those with drug problems) under this policy.
The most effective way to reduce access of teens to marijuana is to legalise supply, take control of supply and regulate access via ration cards – and of course exclude teens from ration cards access on health risk grounds. The same policy allows tax on supply to finance drug treatment programmes.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
SPC says “You don’t think education about drugs before people use them works? Let’s guess you think the only valid education about sex is chastity? ”
That’s not what I said – I said I couldn’t imagine anybody taking a course and using a ration card to buy drugs – it would just be sidestepped.
And you don’t need to make up false opinions and attribute them as my position.
A ration card would not stop minors getting drugs, just like a age ID card does not stop minors getting alcohol.
As for the DNA – I would think DNA stays the same through life. However you are right – there is a differnece and researchers think it’s ll about brain development. Once you’re 21 or 22 the risk drops significantly.
“If you can just keep the kids off cannabis until they’re 21 and they’ve got the keys to the door,” he said.
“There seems to be a vulnerable period at critical adolescence. Give it to an adult — people still get stoned, but you get over it.”
from
http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/archives/002684.html
I doubt legalising supply would cut use, as nothing would stop the pople who supply it not from still supplying it, except without paying taxes and running a legitimate business they could probably undecut the legal market.
In Portugal cannabis use in young people doubled with decriminalisation, then dropped, but still runs at 50% higher than pre-decriminalisation.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Photonz
You wrote
“But I can’t imagine compulsory drug education courses before purchase ever working, …”
I wrote and you quote this right
SPC says “You don’t think education about drugs before people use them works? … ”
Then you write “That’s not what I said – I said I couldn’t imagine anybody taking a course and using a ration card to buy drugs – it would just be sidestepped.”
Na I had it right and your denial is now inconsistent with what you wrote. If you want to change, or clarify, your position do so, but don’t deny what is right there in front of us – it makes it pointless to debate with you.
Now why would people not do drug education courses if they were compulsory before buying drugs from legal suppliers by ration cards?
Please explain, why you think that.
You only offer “A ration card would not stop minors getting drugs, just like a age ID card does not stop minors getting alcohol.”
I did point out that legal supply would be rationed, thus there would not be surplus available for those not eligible (such as minors).
That would restrict supply to minors to illegal sources and the market for the illegal suppliers may have fallen (with those on the ration card no longer customers) so far they left the industry.
You say you “doubt legalising supply would cut use, as nothing would stop the pople who supply it not from still supplying it, except without paying taxes and running a legitimate business they could probably undecut the legal market.”
Wrong – they would not be able to, criminalising their supply means losing they lose much of it in drug busts and also confiscation of assets and imprisonment – but for inflated cartel level prices there is nothing in it for them.
“In Portugal cannabis use in young people doubled with decriminalisation, then dropped, but still runs at 50% higher than pre-decriminalisation.”
Fallacious argument – decriminalisation is not legalisation and regulation of supply, decriminalisatuion allows continued control over supply and huge profits to the criminals involved.
We agree the important thing is to prevent the young from getting access. But that is only possible by getting control of supply – and that requires legalisation.
As for DNA – you claimed that there was a 25% group at risk from using marijuana as teens – I simply pointed out that the risk was while they were teens. Thus it is all the more important to remove the supply which they can access and that is illegal supply. Legalisation and regulation of access is the way to go, if the health problem is one to be managed effectively.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
photonz1
There is no direct causal link between psychological problems and drug use in either direction. Correlation does not equal causation.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
“it makes it pointless to debate with you.”
SPC gets Tuesday’s ‘quote of the day’ award.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
spc – I must say you have an amazing confidence in the government to be able to totally control drugs if they are legalised.
To clarify the education issue, I think there should be more education, particularly in schools. What I said was I don’t think an education course before purchase would be widely adhered to, any more than it would be if you tried to enforce a system where beer and wine drinkers do a course before they could get a wine a restaurant, or a beer at a pub.
I’m not saying there’s no merit in it. I’m saying I think most people would think it’s unneccessary.
I think it would be impractical because it would be 1/ massively expensive to set up courses all around the country, 2/ impossible to police on such a wide scale, 3/ many poeple would avoid it 4/ it would encourage the illegal trade as that would be a source with far less hassle, 5/ someone with a “drug education certificate” could buy for others without one, encouraging a new middlemen in the drugs trade, 6/ it wouldn’t stop kids getting drugs, any more than the drinking age stops kids from drinking, 7/ courses would have to be set up for tourists
Like EVERY system (including decriminalisation) there would be some benefits and some new problems with full legalisation.
The Portugal experiment has been interesting and had some good results and some bad. Unfortunately a lot of the info on it is from the Cato institute – a pro-legalisation libertarian organisation who hired a pro-legalisation person to write a pro-legalisation report.
Independent reports don’t paint the same rosy picture. They have a much more mixed result.
Like the overall death rate coming down dramatically from heroine deaths (down to a quarter) and halving overall. But the worrying upward trend from deaths from non heorin drugs (tripling) as people move off heroin onto other drugs (heroin use in Portugal had been very high).
And nobody really knows what future effect there will be in Portugal with the very large increase in drug taking among children. Or the increased amounts of drugs being trafficed.
It may be decades before we really know the full impact of Portugals experiment.
Do you know of anywhere that has fully legalised drugs?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
photonz1 – every claim you make is corrected by commenters here, every falsity you present, shown to be wrong and every red herring you drag across the argument identified as such and dismissed and yet you persist.
You display the classic behaviour of a person with addiction problems.
No wonder you fear choice in the field of mind-altering substances.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Tenchinage says “There is no direct causal link between psychological problems and drug use in either direction. Correlation does not equal causation.”
Cigarette companies used to say they same thing about cigarettes and lung cancer. Because people who don’t smoke still get lung cancer, you can’t prove it’s the cigarettes that caused it in any individual case.
But a smoker will increase chances by hundreds of percent, just like dope smoking increases the chances of schizophrenia by hundreds of percent – even 1000% if you are one of those people predisposed to it (which is a significant portion of the population)
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
photonz1′s anti ‘dope smoking’ rant results from his suffering from “REEFER MADNESS”!
Lock up your children!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
photonz1
Actually, the studies you linked do not demonstrate that ‘dope smoking increases the chances of schizophrenia by hundreds of percent – even 1000%’ – what the abstracts indicate is that there is a correlation between heavy use of cannabis in young people, and an earlier onset (up to 6 years) of psychosis in those genetically predisposed to schizophrenia – who may very well have displayed symptoms in later life even if they hadn’t used cannabis.
To extrapolate from that that cannabis causes schizophrenia, or even that cannabis increases your chances of ‘getting’ schizophrenia, demonstrates a lack of academic integrity and also goes against the statements in the studies you are so fond of touting that the field needs further research.
It’s entirely possible that such research will discover that a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia combined with external circumstances of an individual may both be factors in the early uptake of heavy cannabis use. Just a thought.
The difference with your smoking analogy is that the research has been done, the links are established and the scientific and academic community accepts the evidence almost unilaterally. This is clearly not the case with the link between cannabis and schizophrenia.
Anyway, this debate has been done to death on here – wasn’t the post about LSD? I am interested to see what you have to say about the actual topic, about the evidence around LSD and about the ‘other side’ of the suggested reclassification debate. So far there’s only been the stonewalling from politicians, without any argument to back up their intentions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – you haven’t made an intelligent contribution to the whole arguement All you do is make childish sniping comments.
You wipe out dozens of scientific papers done by the world’s leading reasearchers as wrong, even if you haven’t looked at them – all because they disagree with your unqualified, unresearched, pro-drugs opinion.
Then you make bizarre claims and accusations about people you know nothing about.
Judging by the number of constructive intelligent comments you’ve made (none), your posts are yet another good case against drug use.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
photonz1 – you are full of shite.
The debate is about LSD and questions over its status.
You are hijacking the thread to rant about one of your pet hates, dope smoking.
I’m not taken in by your ‘questions’ and misleading claims.
Others maybe willing to pander to your wants, but I’m not so easily fooled.
You are trolling Frogblog to push your ‘reefer madness’ beliefs.
I laugh at your pointless attempts.
Ha ha ha ho ho ho he he he!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
“Reefer Madness”: the trailer…
And the full movie in 8 parts:
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLLLTntnqjk&feature=related
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7HT7kmfMFs&feature=related
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XplOY-DJZhU&feature=related
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuMG0eZ28S0&feature=related
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITYCb08olzg&feature=related
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQCR_aqEEaU&feature=related
7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSc6551N3-Q&feature=related
8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seMsZoIPl3U&feature=related
Happy viewing!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
greenfly – your posts are pathetic, childish, and NEVER offer anything intelligent.
You haven’t even got it right that I when you say my pet hate is dope smoking.
My pet hate is people screwing their lives up, particularly children and teenagers, some of whom I know.
I’m interested in finding practical ways that will cut down on destroyed lives, which you haven’t showed the slightest concern about.
How about some more childish abuse – if you keep pratising you might get better at it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In Portugal cannabis use in young people doubled with decriminalisation, then dropped, but still runs at 50% higher than pre-decriminalisation.
As an example, it’s been pointed out to you that the report says the opposite is true, yet you persist in claiming it true with no explanation. That’s why people are finding it difficult to take anything you’re saying seriously and are getting pissy to boot.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
After reading your comments photonz1, I’m left with the impression you are are middleaged woman who has possibly been a nurse. I don’t think you are capable of looking at cannabis/drug issues sensibly.
Peter Dunne – he doesn’t hold the balance of power now – so there must be ambitious National mps lusting after his cabinet positions who want him to be given the push. Does he have a protective “little black book”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz1 – I’ve dug deep and come up with what I think is an intelligent question for you.
Do you think that the Government should consider looking at the validity of the classification of LSD, based on what the expert group has already indicated and pending their final report, or do you think they are right, through Peter Dunne, to say that they are not interested and will not be considering the issue?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
photonz
1. the expense of drug education courses (and drug rehabilitation) is not an issue with the money from tax on the drug available to fund it.
2. no it would not be – you apply for a ration card and register for a course and receive the card when the course was completed.
3. no one would avoid it if they wanted to buy cheaper dope legally – have you been to a sale?
4. how would having a drug education course before accessing cheaper legal source “encourage the illegal trade” (which already exists encouraged by the profits to be made during prohibition) , – are you suggesting people would rather pay a higher price and get their supply from gangs than do a drug education course to access a legal supply at a cheaper price?
I suspect you are inferring that dope users are lazy and prefer to be in bed with gangs. That’s not an argument, thats prejudice.
However if you have convinced yourself that legalisation would be better without compulsory drug education for those wanting to access supply via a ration card first, so be it.
5. “someone with a drug education certificate” could buy for others without one, encouraging a new middlemen in the drugs trade”
It could be a condition of supply on a ration card that none was shared with others – cost of breach loss of ration card. If supply was to a minor prohibited from having a card – a criminal offence then existing. If all minors could avoid a possession charge if they named their supplier – do the maths.
6. “it wouldn’t stop kids getting drugs, any more than the drinking age stops kids from drinking”,
Really, once supply was limited to ration card there is no spare supply available for sale to people to pass on to others – the supply scenario is totally unlike that which exists for alcohol (it is not even illegal to supply alcohol to those under 18, or to be in possession of it).
7. “courses would have to be set up for tourists” – they would be able to join existing courses for the public – but it would depend on the time it took for them to apply, be scheduled for a course and get a card before they left the country (of course they could book before they arrived and plan for their visit if they wanted).
Roadblocks can be taken down and a withdrawal from prohibitioon made, all it takes is the will to make peace with those on drug using side of the fence. End the crime business of gangs, you know this is the future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis – can you not read basic figures? In 2001 drugs were drcriminalised. The figures for 2001 showed drug use in teenagers DOUBLED compared to what they had been just before, then dropped to a level that was still 50% above the pre-decriminalsation level.
Just because one persons can’t read figures and says they are not true, doesn’t change the actual facts and figures. These figures are backed up by studies two years before and after decriminalisation, and also stats over a ten year period show the same result.
Paul – why do so many people on this site make assumptions they no nothing about, and surprise,surprise – are totally wrong.
greenfly – the govt should probably look at the classification of LSD depending on what info the committee come back with – their current research is probably far more important thant their earlier research.
However it’s unlikely Dunne will look at it. From a political point of view, considering what he stands for and who supports him, it would be political insanity to make any downgrade. Also comparitively it’s a very minor issue.
spc – many of your points are based on a major assumption that illegal drugs will be more expensive than legal drugs. If producers of ANYTHING did not have to pay tax, did not have to go through massive compliance costs and regulations, pay acc, pay holiday and sick pay, stats, kiwisaver, sick days, warehousing, insurance, distribution, middle men, and retail staff and retail premises, and/or retail mark-up, rates, gst etc – their production costs would be vastly cheaper. These things often add up to over half of all costs.
4/ compulsory education couses would encourage illegal drugs if you could get cheaper drugs without having the hassle of having to do a course.
5/ The conditions on ration cards are good ideas, but I don’t think they wopuld work in practice. Exactly the same situation happens now with alcohol and tobacco thousands of times every day.
When was the last time you saw a private citizen prosecuted for supplying cigarettes or alcohol to a minor – a do remember a case but it was about five years ago. It’s good idea, but it just won’t happen.
Spc – you’ve got some good ideas, but I think the practicalities would end up in an administrative and policing nightmare that just wouldn’t work.
However, here’s an idea to throw into the ring. What about selecting one drug based on very low harm rates, and trialing the legalising of just a single low harm drug. Do you think that would change usage habits away from more harmful drugs? What would the pros and cons of that be?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Let’s see what is actually said. From pages 11-12 of the report:
Like it or not, he is clearly saying all the increase was before decrim with the decreases after. Put another way, the decrim policy is what reversed an increasing trend.
And really the most important points to consider from the conclusion on page 28:
In the end, what you are arguing against is an approach that has been shown to achieve the reductions in use that you and we want.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
photonz
Of course legal supply would be cheaper than illegal drugs – the mark-up required by “criminals” to sell “illegal” drugs is the highest mark-up for any product in the world.
There is the prospect of investment in supply and losing it all to police confiscation (there is no insurance). So there needs to be large amounts of cash reserves. Then there is the risk of imprisonment and with this could come confiscation of assets acquired with drug trade profits – so the risk is only worth it if there are large profits above and beyond normal business practice (and that bsuiness has the highest loss of supply cost risk of any in the world in the first place).
If there was legal supply and even if the tax was 100% and the regulatory costs the highest for any business in the wrold, the legal supply would easily undercut the crims on price.
As for the legal supply to minors thing – is it illegal to supply tobacco or alcohol to minors. It is illegal for licensed outlets to do so, but that is not the same thing as a law prohibiting the general public from doing so (as would occur if legal supply of marijuana was allowed).
As for trials of legal supply of drugs – we could look at the case of party pills – whenever existing ones are made illegal, new ones not yet illegal take their place.
A trial in an area of New Zealand of legal supply of marijuana by ration card would be a worthwhile idea. If the trial showed access to the drug by teenagers reduced and rates of usage dropped to the ration card amount (and the crims gave up supply locally) would you favour a nationwide policy?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“photonz1
Posted March 18, 2010 at 1:11 PM
…
Paul – why do so many people on this site make assumptions they no nothing about, and surprise,surprise – are totally wrong.”
Sorry, it was a cheap shot – I guess I need more expensive ammunition to hit the mark!
“photonz1
Posted March 18, 2010 at 1:11 PM
…
However, here’s an idea to throw into the ring. What about selecting one drug based on very low harm rates, and trialing the legalising of just a single low harm drug. …”
Cannabis is a good candidate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz1 – I’m just coming down from a 9 day bender, fed by every drug you’ve ever heard of and so am able at last to make sensible comment about your statements on this thread.
They’re crap.
Those who have politely dealt to your witterings all exhibit a clarity of thought that eludes you completely.
It’s hard to believe that you aren’t aware of the hammering you are taking.
Are you on a bender too?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Valis – note the figures they use to show dropping use start AT decriminalisation, so they can show the drop.
You say the firgures were riseing towards decriminalisation, i.e
For those in the 10th–12th grades (16–18 years old), the lifetime prevalence rate, which increased from 14.1 percent in 1995 to 27.6 percent in 2001, the year of decriminalization has decreased subsequent to decriminalization, to 21.6 percent in 2006
But if you add in the missing 1999 figure (12.3%) it shows that uses was DROPPING before decriminalisation, SPIKED when they decriminalised, then slowly dprroed, but still 50% higher than previous.
And also remember, you are reading a report by a group that wants decriminalisation, paying a person who wants decriminalisation to do a report showing how well it worked.
A good example is how the report says that drug trafficing was reduced with proof of less arrests.
However the facts are that low level trafficing was largely ignored (many less arrests), but despite that the AMOUNT of drugs being trafficed went up.
More drugs trafficed – CATO misleadingly says there was less.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC – I don’t know if you’ve ever run a business – I suspect not.
Illegal pharmaceutical drugs massively undercut legal ones, for all the reasons I gave before.
It it likely the cost will come down, but with the massive margins you mention, there is plenty of room for illegal drug prices to also come down, and still make a lot of money.
At point of sale, the cost to a legitimate seller will likely be at least double that of illegal traders. That’s why if you buy black market fish, meat, timber, trade services, alcohol etc – it’s always much cheaper.
If a legalisation trial had the hoped results as you suggested, yes I would be in favour of it. Though because there are very serious consequences for some people (from a drug wrongly thought of as relatively harmless), are there any safer candidates?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – you confrim my post of 10.21 (again)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz1 – its my pilocy to neithor confrim nor diny anythong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“If a legalisation trial had the hoped results as you suggested, yes I would be in favour of it. Though because there are very serious consequences for some people (from a drug wrongly thought of as relatively harmless), are there any safer candidates?”
That’s a “NO” to cannabis then, photonz1?
Made up your mind already?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Decriminalisation is a red herring, as decriminalisation is not about reducing rates of use – but to better enable rehabilitation if usage is problematic and diversion from the justice system of possession for use. It supposedly allows better focus on illegal supply.
The problem is if there is continuing supply to minors harmed by drug use – and only controlling supply can deal with this.
The only part of decriminalisation that I would adopt with a legalisation of marijuana (through ration card supply outlets), is decriminalisation of growing for personal use. While this supply would remain illegal (and there would be confiscation and fines) it would not be criminal.
Both LSD and party pills could be considered for this system (trials first) – drug education and then access to ration card levels only. There are minor risks but less than people drinking excessively – we need a law making it an offence to be drunk (and declaring a level of alcohol content as defining that drunk status) – and allowing licensed premises to ban entry based on test results and police to arrest and charge people drunk in public places.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz there are no development costs for growing weed. You plant, you transport to outlets, you sell. It’s not a high cost business. You want to believe that illegal suppliers could survive legal supply – why? You want to justify the status quo and the supply to minors that involves – why?
Is it because you want to think a tough prohibitionist line would be more effective than some liberal idea like legalisation – you put petty ideology before reducing harm to minirs from drug use? Don’t you care?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The CATO report on Portugal shows a strong bias to the point of having errors.
Here is a link to the Berkley Report, which is much closer to being independent. The Berkley Foundation aims to give independent analysis on drug policy with the aim of managing drug policy to the best benefit on individuals and society
(and they are funding resaearch into the possibility of using LSD medicinally – so they are certainly not anti drugs)
it’s a long link so you may need to cut and paste if it breaks –
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:D3oUjpSpVm4J:www.idpc.info/php-bin/documents/BFDPP_BP_14_EffectsOfDecriminalisation_EN.pdf.pdf+portugal+decriminalization+of+drugs&hl=en&gl=nz&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg1dvJpqaXAE62HVVnWrqy79wEN34F6v0FR3hbAbHLTqr79Li1Plx72sxSnvwqlg2ViMkB4xrOyNK1Vs3KeIrWsrSV9XxtlTtEhB1oVJvZSpEvgfcDZCdK3Qx7KpBCGYyYeRmuB&sig=AHIEtbRFV1mnLpvhPXNJAk-FZEcGAB4BfA
It gives a much more realistic view of the Portugal experiment, and lists the good and bad, unlike the cato report in which everything was so rosy that the they said success could not be questioned.
In conclusion,
Cannabis use rose
Heroin use declined
Treatment uptake increased
Deaths decreased
What’s less are the reasons for the above. What part did decriminalisation have, and what part did additional education and treatment services have?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Illegal pharmaceutical drugs massively undercut legal ones, and people who buy them know they are getting a product that is of lower quality and potentially less efficacy. There is a reason the majority of people ignore the Viagra spam.
The question around pharmaceuticals I would like an answer to is why there is such a price difference between Name Brand and Generic Brand.
In this country it’s possible to buy many things both legally and illegally. Cars, DVDs, computer gear, meat – to name a few. The illegal products are generally cheaper than the legal ones, and yet the majority of people in the market for these products choose to buy legitimately anyway. I cannot speak for others, but I choose legitimate products because the quality is consistent and under our law I have recourse if it turns out not to be ‘as advertised’.
I do not see why people’s choices around the purchase of recreational substances would be any different if a consistent, legal and quality option were available.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz the point of decriminalisation is to support a policy of rehabilitation and minimise harmful use. Increased treatment and reduced deaths is of the policy design. It is difficult to focus on treatment while criminalising users.
Treatment can end heroin addiction.
Marijuana supply enables use. Profits from supply may grow if users (more) have less legal problems. The health problems from increased marijuana use by the young will flow through in the following decade/decades.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC – I totally agree.
That’s probably what no one knows about Portugal. They had heroin problems much worse than most places, and decriminalisation has been very sucessful at addressing that problem – deaths have dropped to quarter.
Deaths from other drugs going up by 300% is very worrying, perhaps signifying a shift from heroin to other drugs.
However the drop in heroin deaths is still far greater than the increase in other deaths, giving an positive result overall.
The big increase in cannabis and other drugs in young teenagers is also very worrying. Firstly, because as you say, this will manifest as mental health problems in the future.
And secondly, will a fifty percent increase in drug use in teenagers result in in a 50% increase in ongoing drug use (and all the associated problems) as they get older?
Personally (perhaps because my kids will be teenagers in a few years) my main concern is giving kids the best chance in life. I’ve seen friends kids with really bright futures stuff it all up with relatively minor dope use.
So getting kids past the really dangerous time until their brain is developed takes priority for me over concern for older users.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC – photonz1 is not here to adopt a new position on cannabis. His view is set. He’s angling to disrupt, in the hope that someone will think, ‘You know, that photo bloke’s got a point”
Fat chance.
Still a thread on the status of LSD, but you’d never guess it.
I reckon photonz is reading from Tom Scott’s “Deadly Dope”
Slavishly
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks for that greenfly – but I am trying to explain to photonz that one can limit decriminalisation in the case of marijuana to growing for personal use and otherwise restrict access to marijuana to (age constrint) ration card outlets. Which will make access to marijuana harder for teenagers than at present and would reduce use rates at that age. If that is possible and a trial shows that as being the result, then all those concerned for the health of teenagers would have to accept what actually works. And so would the cyclone of marijuana paranoia Tomas Scott.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good luck SPC. I admire your work.
Failing to move the entrenched photonz1 will in no way reflect badly upon your efforts.
Set in stone, that one!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – you shouldn’t try amateur psycho analysis – you’re no good at it.
You could always lose the angry intollerant attitude and instead of boring tirades of personal abuse, post after post after post, actually try talking intelligently about the issues (or perhaps you can’t?)
SPC -I just came across something really interesting from the Berkley Foundation – possible screening for genetic disposition to psychosis problems with cannibis use.
I’ve gotta go. I’ll try to find out more for later.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
I guess we have to give photonz1 credit for persistence in the face of adversity.
But it is getting really desperate to narrow the sampling period down to one year, 1999, as he has done in his 3:45 PM post.
Even the worst of the charlatan deniers on climate change, like Monckton, don’t pervert sampling to that extent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
He’s okay, but his fat fingers give me the creeps !
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
i don’t like the way he has no kneck..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
SPC a very enligtened point of view. Good on yer!
NZ has an aversion to using even Legal efficacious Medicines because they (what Medico’s we have) immediately think ‘Abuse’.
I’ve seen Doctors here let people die rather than treat them,’in case they become addicted’ – such a backward, futile and criminal attitude.
My Psyche Teacher in Melbourne would have Loved the Chance to use LSD in treatment – I agreed with him too – in capable hands, the right Meds can be made to work miracles.
In many cases science doesn’t even know why they work – we just know they do.
I was warned not to move back here because of the Med Care situation (I have a serious physical injury).
I now know that advice was most unfortunately, Right On The Money!
Watched Doctors here turn apopleptic when I tell them what is considered Pro Forma care in Australia.
THC Pills are funded by the National Health in Great Britain and used as a treatment for Athritis.
Is the hole in the ozone layer baking brains? Causing Learning difficulties?
I used to think Tom Scott was such a bright guy too.
Couldn’t believe that book – couldn’t even continue reading it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Photonz1 is a typical war on drugs muppet.
A simple look at statistics will show that the cannabis schizophrenia claim is a load of fearmongering tripe.
Statistics also show that the drug alcohol is far more likely to induce a psychotic episode in a person than cannabis.
That would be because the drug alcohol is ‘aggressnogenic’, its involved in about 20,000 assults per YEAR in NZ.
The drug alcohol also kills about 1000 New Zealanders per year, about half through illness that the drug causes, the other half through accidents,car crashes et. Disturbingly the accidentall deaths caused by the drug alcohol are concentrated amongst young people.
There is a drug in New Zealand which causes a crime wave every thursday, friday and saturday.
There is a drug which causes illness, disease and accidenets.
There is a drug which features in domestic violence, assults and child abuse.
There is a drug which is “pushed” at us with $200,000 PER DAY in advertising and marketing.
Our Governments and Peter Dunne in particular are PRO the drug alcohol.
….. Its as clear as the booze in our supermarkets and the “sir” before Doug Myers name.
They are pro drugs …… as long as the drug is piss
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
toad says (falsely)”But it is getting really desperate to narrow the sampling period down to one year, 1999, as he has done in his 3:45 PM post.”
Can you not count? Adding the missing 1999 figures to the figures from 1995, 2001 and 2006 – makes four – 1,2,3,4.
toad – I’ll put it really, really, simply so you might understand
For those in the 10th–12th grades (16–18 years old), the lifetime prevalence rate, was
14.1 % in 1995
12.3 % in 1999
27.6 % in 2001 (the year they decriminalised)
21.6% in 2006
It was going DOWN pre decriminalisation, went up massively (more than doubled) when decriminalisation came in, and has dropped to a level still half higher (50% more people in this group) than it was before decriminalisation.
Do some of you have fried brains or something – this is basic primary school maths that some of you seem unable to comprehend
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“War on drugs muppet”
Ah! That’s a bull’s-eye!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
The fundamental point of disagreement about these figures seems to be how to interpret the 2001 figure. Can anyone tell me whether the 2001 figure refers to the state before decriminalisation, shortly after decriminalisation or 6-12 months after decriminalisation? Are there any figures for 2000?
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A page number for the figures above, please, photonz1. I can find 12.6 in neither of the two main documents sighted.
Trevor29, I was thinking the same thing. I’ve learned from my googling (but deleted the page, so note sure where I read it) that the law change occurred in July 2001. So if your numbers are true, photonz1, between 1999 and 2001 when the increase occurred, at most 6 mos of it were post decrim, while more like 18 mos were pre decrim. So it matters when the sample was taken with it more likely to be pre. On what basis do you claim all the growth is post? Again, if you quote a figure, give the page.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
daddyO says ” simple look at statistics will show that the cannabis schizophrenia claim is a load of fearmongering tripe.”
Perhaps you’d better tell all the world experts on schiozophrenia that their lifes work has all been a total waste of time, and that daddyO from NZ knows better than all of them.
Perhaps you’d better tell the early psychosis team in Melbourne – one of the world leading centres – who see 2000 teenage patients a year, that despite over 70% of their patients being cannibis users, there’s no real link – it’s just a massive coincidence.
(of the 2000, 1000 of these will never again lead a meaningful life, and 300 will be dead within the next few years)
perhaps DaddyO knows better than the world experts – there’s no link, and there’s no link between smoking and lung cancer, or alcohlism and liver damage. yeah right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1889021,00.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme (BFDPP, http://www.internationaldrugpolicy.net) is a non-governmental initiative dedicated to providing a rigorous independent review of the effectiveness of national and international drug policies. The aim of this programme of research and analysis is to assemble and disseminate material that supports the rational consideration of complex drug policy issues, and leads to more effective management of the widespread use of psychoactive substances in the future. The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme is a member of the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC, http://www.idpc.info), which is a global network of NGOs specialising in issues related to illegal drug use and government responses to the related problems. The Consortium aims to promote objective debate on the effectiveness, direction and content of drug policies at national and international level.
The following is there assessment of the Portugal decriminalisation.
===========================================================
Drug use
The primary indicators on drug use available in Portugal concern lifetime prevalence amongst school students. General population surveys did not commence until 2001 (the year decriminalization was introduced) and there are no regular surveys of recent use. This reduces the capacity to measure one of the major aims of decriminalization: reducing problematic use.
Nevertheless, indicators on lifetime prevalence amongst youth are collected as part of the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD)4. These indicators rely on school pupils accurately reporting their own drug use. They are therefore highly vulnerable to changes that arise from the willingness to report drug use, and not just changes in actual drug use. For example, if decriminalization signals to young people that cannabis use is more socially acceptable, they may become more willing to report using it when surveyed. So the figures in the table below should be used with caution.
Table 1: Changes in lifetime prevalence of drug use among students aged 16-18 (Tavares et al. 2005)
DRUG 1999 2003
Any drug 12.3% 17.7%
Cannabis 9.4% 15.1%
Heroin 2.5% 1.8%
These figures suggest that, while cannabis use among young people may have increased, heroin use has decreased. The Portuguese authorities have recorded a reduction in the numbers of heroin users who are entering treatment for the first time. It seems that initiation into heroin use is falling, while cannabis use may be rising towards the levels experienced in some other European countries. This indication is supported by the pattern of referrals to the CDT (IDT 2007), which is shown in table 2 below. There has been an increase in people appearing before CDTs for cannabis, and a decrease in those appearing for heroin.
Table 2: Pattern of drugs for which people were referred to CDTs, 2001-2005 (IDT, 2006)
DRUG 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Cannabis 47% 57% 67% 66% 65%
Heroin 33% 24% 17% 17% 15%
Cocaine 5% 6% 4% 6% 6%
Drug Supply Reduction
Portugal is the closest nation in Europe to the World’s primary producer and exporter of cocaine (Columbia). In addition, there are historical links between Portugal and other Latin American countries that facilitate the development of drug trafficking networks. Trafficking in and through Portugal is therefore significant, not only for the Portuguese, but also for the European drug problem. Since the introduction of the new strategy, there have been considerable increases in the amount of drugs seized. There were increases of more than 100% in the amount of heroin, cocaine, cannabis and ecstasy seized between the four years 1995-1999 and the 2000-2004 period, even though the number of seizures decreased (Tavares et al. 2005). This could indicate that the Portuguese authorities have successfully refocused their supply reduction efforts on large-scale operations, rather than street level deals involving small amounts of drugs. Portugal has increasingly used widespread network investigation processes, involving key informants in strategic source countries including Brazil and Cabo Verde (IDT 2007). These processes are used to anticipate routes, seize assets and reduce the profits from drug trafficking.
http://www.idpc.net/php-bin/documents/BFDPP_BP_14_EffectsOfDecriminalisation_EN.pdf.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis – the figure for of 12.3% for 1999 is acvtually in both the cato and Berkely reports. It’s very late so I don’t have time to go through dozens of pages for you, but it is in both.
The cato report on a number of occasions uses 1999 figures to give their predecriminalisation stats (when it suits them).
When pre-decriminalisation rates make post decriminalisation rates look really bad, they change their terminology and compare rates “since decriminalisation ” rather than to “before decriminalisation”(that way they can use the spiked statistics from decriminalisation as tehir starting point, so they can say that rates have gone down (not mentioning that there was a big spike AT decriminalisation, nor mentioning that rates are still much higher than in 1999).
Here is a completely different survey from the European Monitorisg Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction
Their figures for percentage using cannabis for 15 and 16 year old children in Portugal are –
1995 – 7%
1999 – 8%
2003 – 15%
2007 – 13%
It shows pretty much the same pattern – a doubling of use from just before decriminalisation to just after, with a slight drop off since then, but still about half higher than the level before.
Among this age group of children, there was a similar doubling bewtween 1999 and 2003 of categories of substances including inhalants, ecstacy, LSD and Cocaine but not for heroin or amphetimine use (which stayed in the 2-3% use range for these children)
– see
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/stats09/eyetab22a
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC -interesting to compare the last paragraph of your Berkley quote about a large increase in trafficked drugs that were seized, with the cato report which concluded that drug trafficing had gone down, based solely because there were less prosecutions (despite Portugal stopping prosecuting lots of small time deals, and seizing twice as many drugs from traffickers).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Beckley Foundation report finds that Portugal has focused successful effort on identifying large scale supply lines into Portugal and onto the rest of Europe – which is one reason why other EU nations are tolerating their decriminalisation, if it works to restrict drug supply through Portugal into their countries, they will have few complaints.
As one would expect there is some increased marijuana use resulting from decriminalisation – but there is also success in directing users to treatment when they are found in possession (whether via authorities or rellies etc). Which is where nations which criminalise use fail.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
All this hair splitting over whether increased cannabis uptake in Portugal happened in January or July of 2001!
Even if cannabis use did increase because of decriminalisation (and that is by no means a given), it could just as easily be said that heroin use decreased for the same reason.
On rational scales of harm, heroin trumps cannabis every single time. And cannabis trumps a bunch of other currently illegal drugs that aren’t really even getting a mention here (including LSD).
Which would most people prefer to have their friends using? Which is addictive? Which is associated with spread of contagious diseases? Which, when decriminalisation across the board happened, reduced in use? I could continue, but I get the feeling some people in here are actually getting off on poring over statistics and basing their argument on the numbers and dates they pick out.
I suggest to you all that this issue is bigger than just cannabis, just heroin, and just what happened in Portugal and whether it happened on 3rd Februaty or 10 August 2001.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
No Tenchinage! Photonz1 demands that we talk about cannabis only and he will not be denied! Don’t talk about the subject of the thread – photonz1 will berate you until you are back on his topic. Don’t question his motivation and obsession with cannabis, photonz1 will claim you are ‘crazy-high on drugs’. This is photonz1′s ‘cannabis patch’.
Smokin!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Techinage, it may have escaped your notice but photonz has admitted that decriminalisation does work to reduce heroin use – because treatment, which is then more likely, can end the addiction of users.
People are free to then move on to discuss the impact on rates of use of of LSD and the consequences if any. I have simply advocated that for some drugs, such as marijuana the better policy is legalisation and restricted access to the young by controlling supply by ration card.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC – It hadn’t escaped my notice, however I have watched this thread be derailed over and over again by one person. It’s been pretty firmly established that the decriminalisation of drugs in Portugal has led to changes in use. Those changes mean nothing unless they are compared to the wider context of other countries in which prohibition is still heavily policed – and I believe the figures from Portugal are favourable by comparison.
Prohibition has failed to reduce drug use in any country. Decriminalisation in some countries seems to be changing patterns of drug use and many if not all of those patterns are favourable. The harm minimisation measures in particular seem to look favourable compared with other countries. Our policy pays lip service to harm minimisation.
Therefore, perhaps it would be more useful, if one must choose a study and deconstruct it to death, to look at measurable levels of harm related to substance use rather than numbers of users. Overall, is Portugal better or worse off after having decriminalised all drugs?
New Zealand may not legalise any controlled substance while we are part of the various UN conventions. In order to legalise, either the conventions must change or we must withdraw. The former is more likely than the latter, and those lobbying for legalisation and regulation would do well to lobby at that level.
Meanwhile, decriminalisation is a possibility under the current law (according to the Law Commission report) – and while I understand that a lot more New Zealanders use cannabis as a drug of choice than other substances, it is frustrating to me that discussions around decriminalisation seem to always centre on cannabis while ignoring other drugs. I do not advocate for relaxing of laws on one substance while maintaining prohibition of the rest, as I believe that is unlikely to serve harm minimisation as a tenet of our policy.
I like your ideas around potential administration of regulation, SPC. I wish we were at a point where these ideas were part of a discussion of policy.
The reality is that first we have to convince the likes of Dunne and Power that reclassifying LSD from Class A prohibited substance to Class B prohibited substance won’t automatically cause the collapse of our society, that slapping folks on the wrist for having E isn’t that different from slapping them on the wrist for having pot (which is more or less what’s happening now), and that diversion into assessment with a view to treatment of those identified as suffering harm from drugs or having a drug problem will serve our ‘harm minimisation’ policy better than criminal sanctions.
What do you all think of this?:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3474183/Caregiver-blames-attack-on-bad-trip
Convenient this article turned up just as cannabis and LSD are the drugs on the lips of our politicians, no?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Techinage, I am not sure that legalising supply of marijuana would be a breach of our international convention committments. After all, if the state was controlling the only legal supply (domestic production and banning export) and banning all other supply, we might well be in accord and so could other nations doing the same thing.
Other states allow lawful use of marijuana for medical purposes, we might do so by ration card supply only. Other source possession being decriminalised (and for other drugs).
There is rational cause for this policy approach as it serves harm minimisation.
Advocacy of it, should assist this government in moving to a more moderate course (as they tend to reject whatever seems the more radical option to be seen taking a more moderate course).
That might be focus on diversion to treatment for harm minimisation and downgrading LSD to class B and E to the lowest level (preferably there is a successful case for having a clearly established and quality controlled party pill to keep other stuff off the market – it would be safer than them using unregulated products and alcohol).
Would the New Plymouth case have been published, if the Law Commission report was not before the public? Probably, because it’s the attack on the police officer which makes this a current news story (recent debate about how to make police officers safer). Obviously this is a case for drug use impact assessment and possible diversion for treatment.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
The conventions and treaties list substances which must be prohibited, and cannabis is included. On face value, to legalise would be a breach of our commitments.
However, you’re right in that other states have done so – albeit self-governing states (the US springs to mind) within a country which is still party to the convention and which still holds cannabis to be prohibited. Witness federal raids on medical marijuana oulets.
I know there are allowances within our drugs policy for exemptions to the sanctions for possession, cultivation, and supply (for medical and research purposes) – so I would be interested in finding out more about how other states have got around these.
To allow for supply by government within a framework of prohibition is not the same as legalisation, even though it would then become technically ‘legal’ to purchase your substance. It’s an interesting question as to where that would sit within the UN stuff, and this review of the MoDA is supposed to be working on clarifying the Act within the context of all the other Acts governing substances with psychoactive properties. I’m just ploughing my way through that bit now in the report. It’s slow going.
In terms of the moderate course, I’m looking for a focus on actual harm minimisation instead of the lip service we currently pay – this means more funding directed to harm minimisation and education programmes, treatment for those identified with problems instead of jail time, and a diversion of money from criminal justice to harm minimisation initiatives in the area of drugs. The other thing I’m looking for is an evidence-based classification system rather than the muddled and morally-based beast we currently have.
I believe these two things are a moderate path that could be palatable to a government, and that it’s part of a groundswell worldwide that will eventually lead to full legalisation when the value of such measures has been proven.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Tenchinage – sa I’ve said before, I think there’s no doubt that decriminalisation has led to a drop in heoin use and a large drop in death rates (though there was a very big 46% increase 06 to 07).
But I think you could safely say it helped Portugals serious heroin problem.
You say “I do not advocate for relaxing of laws on one substance while maintaining prohibition of the rest.”
I actually think this might work – a partial decriminalisation aimed at lower harm drugs. That would shift user habits towards less dangerous drugs, and might do so at a much higher rate than decriminalising everything.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
greenfly – do you realise you’ve become a cyber-stalker?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Photonz1 – which substance(s) would you recommend to decriminalise for such a situation, and how would you go about assessing rates of harm?
I find it interesting that the Portugal figures from across-the-board decriminalisation show a reduction in harm from one of the most harmful substances. Whether this is because people are switching to less harmful ones, or because of the ability to address heroin as a health issue and therefore tackle it productively while reducing the barriers to a ‘straight’ lifestyle (no longer having to steal or prostitute oneself to pay for one’s habit, for example), is a question I think is worth researching, given that one of the fears raised around decriminalisation is that of vastly increased use and therefore vastly increased harm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tenchinage – I would have suggested cannabis as a low harm drug until a few years ago. It’s pretty harmless to most people, but unfortunately it’s doing a lot of permanent damage to a minority.
I’ve seen some people I know really stuffed up by it, which is what led me to look into it a bit more, so my opinion has changed on how harmless it is.
Although I think the Berkley Foundation is looking into the possibility of screening for those with a high chance of psychological problems with cannabis use. That would leave it as a good option for everyone else, although how you would get everyone screened (if and when that became available) and how you would stop the wrong people using it may be a problem that is hard to solve in the real world.
So I’m not really sure what other drugs would be good candidates for “lowest harm”.
I think the reasons you give above for lower problems from heroin are all probably correct to some extent. That’s the thing with the Portugal results – they’re not black and white.
The tripling of deaths from other drugs suggests some transfer, there’s more help for addicts, and the help is more open.
I think the Portugal experiment has worked for heroin, and had the opposite effect for other drugs. And nobody yet knows the long term effect in the years ahead of greater drug use among the young.
It’s interesting that Portugal seems to be the country everyone looks at, even though other countries – Spain, UK, Italy, Mexico – have also decriminalised small amounts of some drugs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I believe Mexico was only a recent decision, the UK can’t seem to make up its mind what it wants to do, and I hadn’t heard of Spain and Italy’s decriminalisation although I’m interested to find out more. It doesn’t surprise me that Portugal gets focused on – research is starting to emerge now which might help other countries assess their own levels of risk.
Have you seen this?
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41949000/gif/_41949092_drugs_graph_416.gif
The classifications are UK ones. It’s from an article published in The Lancet in 2007 in which the researchers attempted to assess relative levels of harm from a variety of drugs using a rational scale. Text here:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n366/a01.html
It’s only one graph from one study, but from my own research and observation of harms associated with various substances I think it’s pretty sound. It might be a good place to start considering levels of harm if one were looking at decriminalisation of some less harmful substances, or reclassification to allow regulation of them as SPC suggests.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Techinage asks:
“Photonz1 – which substance(s) would you recommend to decriminalise for such a situation, and how would you go about assessing rates of harm?”
Photonz1 answers:
“I would have suggested cannabis…
“YAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNN!
YAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNN!
YAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNN!
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
Tenchinage – those are really interesting links. I suppose one of the problems in assessing harm using a mean figure, is that things like cannabis and alcohol cause little harm to the “mean” user, but a lot of harm to a minority.
Where as heroin at one end of the scale and cigarettes at the other end probably cause harm to most of their users – albeit over a long time period for tobacco.
Another thing that needs to be added to the equation (which I don’t think they allowed for) is the number of people on each drug. For example heroin use is far more dangerous than tobacco and alcohol, but kills far less people.
However I think your links have really good info of the type that needs to be part of the basis of any future decisions.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
greenfly – when I make a message about cannabis, I’m abused for being off topic and hijacking this thread. But it’s ok for you.
You slam Peter Dunne for ignoring scientific advice, but it’s ok for you to do exactly the same with 30 world leading peer reviewed, published scientific reports, even without reading them.
Unless Frog has secretly renamed this thread “Repetitive Petty Childish Insults” – I think you’ll find that you are the one who has made dozens of off topic posts.
Maybe you should start with getting out your atlas if you have one and try to find out where Portugal is (hint – it’s in Europe).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz1 said,
“when I make a message about cannabis, I’m abused for being off topic and hijacking this thread”
The thread is about LSD and a possible (or impossible) review of its status, so…. off topic is on the button (button, button, who’s got the button? Bet you know that quote off by heart, photonz!).
Secondly, I no longer slam Peter Dunne (thanks sprout) as he needs no slamming from me as it’s well known he’s a self-slammer.
Thirdly, this thread is titled,
“Ignoring the evidence again on drug law reform”,
and I don’t think there could be a better way of summing up your position than that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey, it is really great that so many people are engaging on this topic! It is a topic I am passionate about.
But please don’t get into “yes it is; no it isn’t” mode, which is where it seems to have been recently.
Photonz1; I think you have been doing that, and greenfly to some extent in response.
Talk to each other, not around each other. Put up new arguments, or concede if you realise the evidence doesn’t support your argument. And acknowledge all the evidence, rather than select that which supports your preconceived position.
And refrain from personal abuse.
Come on, that’s not too much to ask, is it? All of you!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
“..But please don’t get into “yes it is; no it isn’t” mode, which is where it seems to have been recently…”
i though that was pretty much how it has always been..
the two camps sit glowering at each other..over a crevasse..
the prohibitionists just trot out the same lies that are th propaganda made up by the hysterics who made ‘reefer madness’..and their ilk..
and ..here especially..that is where it has sat..frozen..for seemingly forever..
so..it does get ya somewhat grumpy..
to have the likes of photonz..
just ..once again/still..trotting out those prohibitionist lies..
..created in that black propaganda campaign..
(that’s why i said i didn’t like his lack of kneck..
i was just lashing out..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I withdraw and sulk.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
a buzz fades into the distance..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
a frog just ate a fly..
as a vegan..i am offended..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey, I think frog was just trying to tell us all to move on to new arguments, rather than repeat refutations of fallacious ones (like those of photonz1) ad infinitum.
I think that’s a good idea. When someone has through their own comments identified themselves as an ideologically constrained dork who won’t accept the weight of evidence it is time to move on.
Everyone reading the thread, apart from those who prefer ideology to evidence, will have realised that by now.
[frog: Then frigging move on, toad!]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog says “Talk to each other, not around each other. Put up new arguments,”
That’s what I’ve been doing, quotes, links, websites, ideas, only to be met with a repetitive tirade of abuse. Can you find a single post from greenfly that didn’t have abuse as it’s main aim?
Are there any?
SPC – here is a conclusion to a report into cannabis which has some comments on how legalization has worked – from Beckley Foundation
“15. The record is mixed concerning whether making cannabis use and sale legal
in a highly regulated market would lead to increased harm from cannabis use
in the long run. Experience with control regimes for other psychoactive
substances teaches that lax regimes and allowing extensive commercial
promotion can result in high levels of use and of harm, while stringent
control regimes can hold down levels of use and of harm.”
see page 182 at the following link
http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/pdf/BF_Cannabis_Commission_Report.pdf
It suggests if there is legalisation that it can be controlled by the likes of pharmacy prescription sales only, monopoly selling, and strict control of marketing and advertising.
Other interesting information from the report is worldwide cannabis use is 4% (compared to 42% lifetime use in NZ, 10x higher than average world use), a 10% addiction rate, and an 85% failure rate in addicts trying to give up.
It suggests that the best areas to concentrate on to avoid harm are to avoid early use before adulthood, avoid regular use, and obvious things like avoid driving after use, and avoid mixing with tobacco.
They suggest if there is legalization, then sale should be fully state run and controlled.
Though that begs the question, if tobacco companies should hold some responsibility for selling an addictive drug that turns customers into addicts then kills them, what responsibility falls on the governmennt if they sell a product which turns 10% of users into addicts and a significant minority into psychiatric patients?
Is it acceptable for the government to become a drug dealler?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Photonz1 –
As I recall, the researchers for that study did take into account numbers of people using each substance – there’s a BBC Horizons documentary that was aired in 2008 that discusses how the study was done. It’s accessible here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/drugs/
or here if you’re into YouTube:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6108672696241807159#
Unfortunately, the British government behaved in a similar way to ours in response to this research, by sticking its fingers in its ears and going “Lalalala”. This led to a response by one of the researchers, who was also the chair of the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which can be read here:
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/estimatingdrugharms.html
in which he discusses some of the issues around creating policy and is quite critical of the government’s stance with regard to acceptance of independent evidence.
This ultimately led to him being sacked from the ACMD by the Home Secretary, which raised quite a lot of eyebrows, led to several other members of the council resigning in support, and brought about the formation of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs (ISCD).
I agree that this kind of information needs to be part of future decisions. Unfortunately it seems our government representatives don’t. And that bothers me a lot, not just as an advocate of responsible drug use and evidence-based policy, but as a citizen who would like to think our politicians actually listen to the people paid to advise them on things they do not have time to research themselves, instead of blindly ignoring them with statements such as those made by Power and Dunne.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
“Other interesting information from the report is worldwide cannabis use is 4% (compared to 42% lifetime use in NZ, 10x higher than average world use),…”
Lifetime use can’t be compared to current use. There are plenty of people who have tried it and given up. I’m not saying that New Zealand’s use isn’t higher than the world average, just not that much higher. (Probably due to easier availability.)
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
* distantly, as if through a glass darkly,
I’ll be baaaaaaack!
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
did anyone else hear something..?
was it the last buzz of the fly..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The resurrection is in progress Phil. The ‘fly cannot be repressed.
No stake, no mallet, no Holy Water required.
Because none are effective against the ‘fly that will not die. His Green presence will be with us forever!
I’m rather happy about that. Pity David Farrar isn’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
did anyone else see that frog slap that toad..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Photonz1 you can spin on and on with your cherry picked experts and their quotes.
I look at the simple maths and stats. Pre 1965 less than 1% of New Zealanders would have used cannabis and the schizophrenia rate was less than 1% in society . If we then go forward 20 years to 1985 and we find that almost half the population has tried cannabis and the rate is even higher amongst certain demographics ……………… and the schizophrenia rate in society is less than 1%. Spin that one you swirler.
As for that disgraceful mp Peter Dunne, he has consistently been very pro the drug alcohol despite it being behind a large amount of violence in his electorate and a couple of murders.
One of the questions I’d like to know about our parliament is how much dunny with his Radovan Karadzic haircut has milked from the booze company’s in return for always voting in their interests.
The fact that dunny acts like a paid lobbyist for the booze and fag industries whilst also wearing an “anti-drugs” hat is an affront to intelligence.
He’s a social climbing creep, puffed up and full of nonsense.
That he should ignore evidence and play politics is just business as normal for the man.
He got a bit of a fright at the last election with voters in his electorate finally starting to see him in his true colors.
Parliament and New Zealand will be better off when he’s gone.
Not that it matters to much at the moment with national and their boot camp way of doing things ………….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and speaking of farrar..
he did one of his anti-sole-parent snarls at me earlier on..
..i have not been holding back..since then..
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/03/minimum_wage_for_youth.html#comment-673383
(you might enjoy this one .. fly..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
“..If we then go forward 20 years to 1985 and we find that almost half the population has tried cannabis and the rate is even higher amongst certain demographics ……………… and the schizophrenia rate in society is less than 1%. Spin that one you swirler…”
i told him that early on in the thread..
he is a troll..and as such just ignores any facts that contradict his ‘story’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Just a reminder of what drug peter dunne supports
A national alcohol crisis is under-recognised because we have become numbed by the unrelenting presence of alcohol-related problems. This crisis has become our way of life:
25% of New Zealand drinkers are heavy drinkers [1]•
A third of all police apprehensions involve alcohol [2]•
Half of serious violent crimes relate to alcohol [2]•
60 different medical conditions caused by heavy drinking [3] •
Up to 75% of adult presentations at Emergency Departments on • Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights are alcohol-related [4]
Over 300 alcohol-related offences every day [2] •
Over 500 serious and fatal injury traffic crashes every year [5] •
At least 600 children born each year with FASD [6]•
Over 1000 alcohol deaths every year [7]•
More than 17,000 years of life per year lost through alcohol [
Alcohol ….. Nz’s number 1 drug
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil – Gareth Hughes has started another thread here on the minimum wage issue, including Gareth promoting a Bill that would end all age-based wage discrimination.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Phil – y’ can’t beat the Engorged One for humour, eh!
“I’m not here to defend National”.
Help me Jesus!
(Tidy little slipping-in of the dirk btw)
As to the toad-slappin’ … some sort of intra-amphibian spat, but it’ll pass …
http://www2.scholastic.com/content/media/products/84/0590061984_xlg.jpg
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
daddyO – schizophrenia rates have dropped dramatically around the world, but not in NZ and Australia.
Doctors in Australia say schizophrenia rates for NON-cannabis users have dropped dramatically – from two thirds of patients in the 80s to just one third today.
And cannabis users have DOUBLED from one third of patients in the 80s to two thirds today. See chapter four –
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20050321/default_3.htm
In addition there is a strong arguement that a lot of other disorders used to be misdiagnosed as schizophrenia (i.e. bipolar)
Otago Uni researchers looked at a large number of studies from around the world, and found “ALL studies found that the use of cannabis
is associated with increased risks of psychosis or
psychotic symptoms. The table shows the associations
between use of cannabis and psychosis across existing
longitudinal studies; odds ratios range from 1.77 to
10.9, with a median of 2.23-2.3.”
Anyway, what do you think can be done about the alcohol problem?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
photonz1- So even in country’s like the usa who use a lot of cannabis ( from the late 1960′s onwards ) have experienced a drop in schizophrenia, you just scuttled your own argument.
Otherwise the question seems to be what attracts mentally unwell people to cannabis and other drugs?.
As for alcohol the number 1 drug problem in this country and what to do about it.
How about a rational logical debate where creeps like Peter Dunne keep their Radovan Karadzic morals and hairstyles out of it.
Politicians with their fear mongering anti-drug spiels while being pro the aggressnogenic drug booze ARE the problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz What they have concluded about how to legalise marijuana is no surprise, it could have been predicted.
no advertising of the product and “stringent control regimes can hold down levels of use and of harm.”
The ration card option – I note they suggest pharmacy prescription sales and monopoly selling. I would have one organisation running supply (growing possibly by licence), distribution and retail.
The “10% addiction rate” – suggests behavioural dependence rather than a drug chemical dependence addiction (unless there is a link between higher levels of use and this “addiction”).
“It suggests that the best areas to concentrate on to avoid harm are to avoid early use before adulthood, avoid regular use, and obvious things like avoid driving after use, and avoid mixing with tobacco.”
A ration card not available to teens and in limited supply amounts deals with that. The rest is part of existing public policy regulating driving and ending tobacco use.
“They suggest if there is legalization, then sale should be fully state run and controlled.”
That’s part of having a ration card sytem – regulated by government.
“Though that begs the question, if tobacco companies should hold some responsibility for selling an addictive drug that turns customers into addicts then kills them, what responsibility falls on the governmennt if they sell a product which turns 10% of users into addicts and a significant minority into psychiatric patients?”
There would be less harm than has occured from the sale of tobacco and alcohol – and neither industry has been liable for any consequence in New Zealand.
There could/should be drug education before access to a ration card. The issue is whether there should be DNA screening for susceptability for adverse mental harm impact from use. The problem is of course that the connection to risk is higher at the younger age than later. So does a DNA profile signal a continuing risk by the late 20′s/30″?
“Is it acceptable for the government to become a drug dealler?”
When a government wants to regulate and control, but not be accountable for what is going on – they let an independent management group cut costs and services. Here some organisation can be set up to run the industry and of course pay dividends and taxes on profits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
daddyO says “How about a rational logical debate…….”
Sounds good so far
“…..where creeps like Peter Dunne keep their Radovan Karadzic morals and hairstyles out of it.”
Whoops – started well, but by the end of your sentence, I think your call for “rational logiocal debate” went out the window.
daddyO says “Politicians with their fear mongering anti-drug spiels while being pro the aggressnogenic drug booze ARE the problem.”
So alcohol isn’t a problem? It’s the polititians?
Again, what measures would you take to help with the alcohol problem?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How on earth it happened, I don’t know, but photonz1 has reversed his position and now favours the decriminalization of cannabis in New Zealand, with a view to eventual legalization of the drug.
My faith in humanity is restored and all credit to him, I say!
Now, if we could engineer a similar flip-flop from some of the other dogmatic posters here .. perhaps jh will renounce his dislike for MPs with a social conscience!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly – I’d noticed that too, and have been restraining myself from asking people to lay off photonz1 – the very first comment from this poster – “Drugs cause child abuse” – has now been replaced with discussion of which drugs could be decriminalised and how this could happen.
I take my hat off to anyone who can change their opinion even a little bit from such a stance with the addition of new information, even if I don’t agree with them.
Meanwhile, I wonder about alcohol. I am for the decriminalisation of all recreational substances, I’ve made that clear. But by spelling out the harms and high costs of alcohol abuse in this society, I think people are expressing one of the fears that makes our government so resistant to the idea of regulated substance use.
Here we have a substance that is legal but heavily regulated. Granted it’s one of the worst in terms of its ability to affect judgement and its addictive qualities – but from the perspective of an anti-drug stance, it’s a prime example of ‘what could happen.’
Those of us who make a point of studying drugs know that many other substances don’t have the qualities that make alcohol so dangerous, however from an uneducated viewpoint, the big question would be “If alcohol is this bad, what would it be like if 90% of the population smoked pot/took LSD/E/P then?”
I don’t have the answer to that question, and I believe that rather than pointing out how bad alcohol is, a better approach to changing people’s perspective about other drugs would be to discuss the comparative harms with other drugs, perhaps the possibility of people moving from alcohol to less societally dangerous substances as their social tonic of choice, and to research situations where other drugs are more available in terms of overall social problems with the inclusion of alcohol as just another recreational drug.
How does it look when other drugs are available as well as alcohol? Are there more drug-related social problems or less? Are there more alcohol-related problems or less? Is the decriminalisation of other drugs actually a potential way of reducing the alcohol issues in our society? How can we reassure politicians that decriminalising other drugs will not lead to the collapse of society through some drug-crazed orgy of substance abuse?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC – all good points. You might be right about the addiction / dependency arguement – that’s still not resolved I think.
One thing I read that an early start with cannabis greatly increases the chances of dependency, which is another arguement for keeping it out of the hands of teenagers.
As for the COMT gene – I think those with it are still more succeptable to psychosis problems than those without it, even when they are older, but the risk is drastically lower than the high risk at ages 21 and younger when the brain is still developing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – my position is to reduce the harm from cannabis, particualrly psychosis problems among young people.
If decriminilisation would greatly improve the problem, I’d seriously look at that.
SPC puts forward some good arguemnts to go much further than decriminalisation to full legalisation. If that sounded like it would work in the real world, I’d seriously look at that.
At this stage, decriminalisation in Portugal has had a substantial lift in cannabis use among young people – so it hasn’t worked for that. And death rates for some drugs have tripled.
However it has been very successful against the heroin problem, and reduced death rates substantially.
We are yet to see if much higher drug use overall in children will lead to more use of heavy drugs as they get older.
However the legal aspect is only one of a number of measures that make a difference to usage rates – education, drug supply, clinics, etc can have an even greater part to play in reducing drug harm.
So here’s a question.
Do you want to decriminalise so it benefits yourself, or is your prime concern because you think it will reduce harm for others?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tenchinage says “the very first comment from this poster – “Drugs cause child abuse”
You falsely put quote marks around a comment that I never made.
I said drug use is a top factor associated with child abuse, which is a fact.
So I’m interested in decreasing abusive drug use that causes harm.
The problem is there’s so many people on this blog who completley refuse to beleive any evidence of teh ahrm of some drugs. Their mind is made up and no fact will change it.
You have a lot of other good questions, but gotta go for now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tenchinage, one thing that should be considered is identifying a popular but comparitavely safe party pill and making it available legally. A regulated supply guaranteeing safe product – eliminates the other party pills from the scene with the safer one used. While we ban them all, new ones yet to be declared illegal take their place – and they may be more dangerous. On alcohol I simply favour designating a level of blood alcohol as defining drunkenness (higher than for driving a car obviously) – and bringing in a law declaring an offence of public drunkenness. The law allowing licensed premises from barring these “drunk” customers from entry, from service at the bar and from the premises. As the level was defined, the patron has to accept it. It would stop some teens from binge drinking at parties before going into town – to bars and clubs – and of course maintain restraint throughout the evening. Those leaving drunk could be arrested and fined by police.
That should change behaviour.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You’re right, I misquoted you.
However I would argue that drug use is a not a top factor associated with child abuse. Drug abuse might be, but still only if we include the legal drug alcohol within the category ‘drugs’ – and even then it would be abuse of alcohol that is correlated rather than use.
The distinction between use and abuse is an important one in this debate. I believe harm minimisation should be focused towards identifying and treating problematic drug use, and that the current method of doing this through the criminal justice system is exacerbating problems rather than fixing them by marginalising people identified as having problems in such a way as to create barriers to healthy lifestyle.
Child abuse, drug problems and poverty seem to be strongly linked. Criminalising all drug users does not help to address the problems of those with abuse issues, if anything it makes them worse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, well done photonz1 – it’s not everybody that can go from anti to pro in such a short time. Your new position of supporting the harm reduction model for cannabis use, is the correct one and the one held by the Green Party for such a long time.
You ask:
” Do you want to decriminalise so it benefits yourself, or is your prime concern because you think it will reduce harm for others? ”
Naturally, the latter (reduction in harm to others) is my aim. I am not a cannabis smoker/user. You?
You have made a great deal over the ‘psychosis’ aspect of drug (including and perhaps especially alcohol) use, but have not mentioned the imprisonment of New Zealanders for cannabis-use as a concern that you hold. Are you not concerned? Nor have you covered the detrimental aspects of purchasing any drug, be it cigarettes, alcohol, cannabis etc. through the criminal market. In other words, your argument has been narrow (far too narrow) in my opinion.
Lots there for you to digest when you get back, photonz1. Keep up the good work to free New Zealanders from the tyranny of an unjust law.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
SPC – two very good ideas.
I like the idea of leglising some drugs but not others to push people towards ther safer ones. Whether that would actually work in practise, we probably wouldn’t know until it was tried.
The idea of an enforced official public drunkenness level is a very good one. Do you know if any other countries have this? (and if so, how well it works?)
Tenchinage – you’re right – drug and alcohol abuse, rather than just use, are two of the main factors associated with child abuse, as listed by CYPS.
I think the best way to make inroads into lowering child abuse is help for parents, and education, including better understanding on risk factors – drugs, alcohol, single parent families, poverty, young parents, etc
greenfly – the reason I’m big on the psychosis side of cannabis use is I personally know a number of people where this has had severe negative effects, including loss of family, jobs, time in mental wards, and death in one case.
The imprisonment side of it doesn’t worry me as much because the only person I know of who has been jailed for it was dealing large amounts and caught up in a number of criminal activities.
I wasn’t aware that there was a high improsonment level in NZ just for use of cannabis – in fact i’m not aware of anyone who has been imrpisoned just for possesion of small personal amounts.
Do you have evidence that this is a large problem (or even happening at all?)
Contrary to what you say, I’ve actually mentioned alcohol and tobacco a number of times, previously suggested a quick fix for alcohol (up the tax significantly), and asked for others ideas – with SPC coming up with a really good one.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Tenchinage – your post of 12.39 brings up some really good questions.
The whole issue is not black and white. Decriminalisation would have some benefits, but it also can lead to greater use and abuse in some areas.
Similarly it may take some of the problems away from alcohol, but it’s may be that there was a lot more mixing of alcohol and drugs – often a problem mix.
Another issue that we haven’t talked about much is how much the government can actually do while withing UN treaties and conventions that we’ve signed up to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
According to the Law Commission’s report (anyone remember that?) we can decriminalise but not legalise within our obligations to the UN. There are provisions for exemptions to prohibition within our law for medicinal use or research.
What this means for us is that decriminalisation is the best we can hope for while the UN is still prohibitionist. This means that possessing restricted substances would still be prohibited, but it’s up to us whether it should be a criminal offence or a civil one (or whatever the Kiwi equivalent of a misdemeanour is), and how we go about addressing breaches to prohibition. Hence the Law Commission’s suggestions here:
http://talklaw.co.nz/topic/should-there-be-alternatives-to-prosecution-where-possession-of-drugs-is-for-personal-use
as alternatives to prosecution. It would take a more creative mind than mine to come up with ways to get around prohibition by the UN. Any takers?
A thing I think we must keep in mind when talking about ‘what could happen’ is that a lot of the things that ‘could happen’ are already happening. Prohibition has been pretty ineffective at actually stopping people from using drugs.
At the moment, people are using them in the worst possible circumstances – associating with criminals to get them, struggling to get accurate information about them, not being sure what they are actually getting, and if they have problems, being afraid to admit it for fear of criminal sanctions. And yet, depending on what research you read and whether you include alcohol or not, only between 3 and 15% of drug users have any problems.
I wonder what a society would look like in which people took drugs in the best possible circumstances?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tenchinage says “I wonder what a society would look like in which people took drugs in the best possible circumstances? ”
One of the problems with decriminalisation, and I think the Beckley Report alluded to this, is that when drugs are no longer illegal there will be an additional part of the population start to use them who wouldn’t have otherwise.
So while you have safer drug environment, you may also have a larger drug environment, with the associated additional levels of abuse in some areas – less in others.
Hence Portugals experience of heroin deaths dropping by 3/4 at least initially and other drug deaths tripling. Use of cannabis in children going up, other problems going down.
It’s a really mixed bag of results.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Oh for goodness sake photonz1!
You are so transparent.
I despair and retire, bored.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
greenfly – you may save yourself from despair if you didn’t continually jump to huge (and often wrong) conclusions all the time.
I question if decriminialisation worked, and you give me a staunchly anti-drugs stance.
I talk about some of the positive points, and all of a sudden you say I’ve completely changed my mind and (wrongly) say I’m pro-decriminalisation.
Your antagonistic stance means you continually make wrong conclusions, instead of discussing the issues with scientific evidence, quotes, and links to reports (none of which you’ve done).
The fact is that from what I can see decriminalisation has mixed results – not good enough to support it, and not bad enough to rule it out.
Part of the problem on this blog is there’s so many people who have rose-tinted ideas about drugs, to the point where any claim of harm from drugs is met with a deluge of abuse and not a lot else.
That makes it hard to have an intelligent conversation and bring out really good ideas and great information like that from SPC and Tenchinage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I finally got a chance to look at this report everyone’s been arguing over. The first thing that leaped out at me is that it states very clearly that the figures on reporting of use must be taken with a grain of salt because it was impossible to tell whether the environment of decriminalisation made people more comfortable with admitting their drug use. In addition they point out that patterns of use change and that none of the changes should be directly attributed to decriminalisation alone.
Another is that they are short on general population surveys and that the figures focus on youth because that’s the information they have.
The third is that the tripling of deaths due to ‘other drugs’ adds up to 35 people in a country with a population of 10, 624,688 (more or less). Just as a comparison, 98 people drowned in New Zealand last year. Food for thought. Anyway, it also points out the difficulty of establishing a particular drug as directly responsible for a death (as an example, those 2 boys who apparently ‘died from mephedrone’, according to one report had also consumed alcohol and streed methadone – which one/ones killed them?). A question for policy makers contemplating this figure is, how would that equate in New Zealand? We have nowhere near the heroin problem here so the reduction in heroin-related harm would not be so dramatic. I would love to see a breakdown of the ‘other drug’ deaths, to see how they relate to pattern of use in New Zealand.
The discussion part of the report points out that an increase in cannabis use is probably less dangerous to public health than the previous heroin problem was, and that overall drug-related public health has improved. It points out that the increase in cannabis use indicated in the report is in line with increases in use in other European countries still under prohibition and that decriminalisation may not be ‘to blame’ for the increase.
It seems that the Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction – those who work on the coalface, so to speak – are praising the results of decriminalisation in their ability to identify and help problematic drug users. It’s not often you hear positive things from those that work with addicts so I find that interesting. It does caution that decriminalisation puts pressure on the state to provide access to good quality prevention and treatment programmes. They also appear to be concerned about the message decriminalisation is sending to new users.
Overall, whether you take the Beckley report as positive or negative would depend a lot on whether you have concerns about a particular substance, or whether you are interested in overall results in terms of public health. For me, it looks like things in Portugal have for the most part improved, and as ‘directions for further research’ I’d be wanting to look into the ‘other substances’ that contributed to the extra 35 deaths to identify the patterns of use around those and how to implement programmes around reduction of harm related to those substances specifically.
I wouldn’t be scrapping it though, hell no. Too many positives vs the trends of increased use, increased harm and increased death in other countries.
A mixed bag of results, yes. They need to sort out the kinks of the supporting health system and get more detail in what’s happening with ‘other drugs’, but it seems to me they are on the right track.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Social sciences studies are mostly using correlations to make an argument, and personally: I can find a correlation for every argument I like to make, if someone gives me some thousand dollars for the research. So: these studies tend to have the ordered results. And even though it is of course more likely that people with an interest in demonising drugs are willing to fork out for relevant results than people who think drugs are not that bad after all (usually, they are not getting large sums of money handed over to make that point), personally, I would just disregard social sciences studies that work with correlations as good evidence. In its stead – how about simple logic: people have always used recreational drugs. There is no stopping them – unless, perhaps once we’ve created the perfect world
, but I doubt even then people will want their kicks. Just what is regarded as harmful and harmless changes. Opium was seen as good, clean fun for the longest time; tomorrow, chocolate might be the number one killer of school children, or breastfeeding mothers. There is ample evidence that coffee is really bad for your health, as is sugar. And we all know a sugar high, don’t we? Now, we can try and stop people from using all potentially harmful substances for recreational purposes or plain mind games, or we can start educating them about the responsible use. We cannot educate someone about the responsible use of a criminalised substance, as this would of course support a criminal activity.
Every single substance can be harmful if taken irresponsibly. I was once ill for days after eating too many chick peas, and I am pretty sure that someone could make a statistical correlation between chick pea consumption and the propensity to develop corns. So lets prohibit chick peas by all means, and while we are ad it: sugar, coffee, black tea, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, pizza, hamburger, fries, gluten, peanuts – there must be more!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
er…ah..Troll Patrol reporting…any news?….gad we’ve been busy hosing down some cross cross dressers – didn’t work – the latex kept them cozy all afternoon.
Don’t you just hate it when non-Green voting people turn up here trying to disguise their fickle conservatism as liberalism?
Get a life I say – no, stick to your true colours – no – just go away, back, back into your shelters I say!
We’ve seen off worse hey?
Whats One more?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
He’s a stickler, this one Mark and duplicitous.
Boring us into submission.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Submission is a surrender of the spirit Fly – don’t think you are able to do that….playing politics is the World’s second oldest game – is it really the Dun One? And what do you suppose his photo is?
Time I came down for a visit I reckon…
Duplicity is an end game where the initiator finds a broken mirror and seven years bad luck.
Some say what goes around….but you get the idea, I’m sure.
Sly…Frank Zappa said that no one ever changes their mind through Debate.
I think he meant that it just hardens up your own stance – perhaps not a bad thing.
So the man/woman gets his THerapy here?
Should have the Integrity to Vote Green then.
His/Her own Party Website is obviously a poor second.
If they don’t Vote Green, they don’t count my friend.
Where is that Sapient anyway? – I’d sic ‘im on to that piccy one – he’d hound him right orf ‘is nonsense, toot suit…
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Mark – come on down – we’ll thicken the plot.
(Bring some Mothers)
I too was wondering at Sapient’s whereabouts (and that of bj chip).
Restin’ up, I guess, for the next round.
Radio Live – Every Saturday, 7:00 – 7:30
(Guess you had to be there).
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Techinage – the death rate isn’t quite so simple. From around 150 in 2003, (a massive improvement on just a few years earlier) it went back up to 300 in 2007 (a 47% increase on 2006)
But it think you’re right in that there was a decrease in the most dangerous drugs, but an increase in other drugs. I think if it was implemented in a better way, there’s scope for a substantuial improvement on the current system – insstead of a mixed bag.
kara – I think disregarding neutral scientific studies is naive. You compare a sugar high, which causes hyper-activity in children for 1/2 and hour, which is a bit different to a lifetime of psychosis (which happened to someone I know from a very small amount of cannnabis use – in fact less use that most people I know).
Similarly, I’m sure your chick pea overdose you talk about did not cause any PERMANENNT damage to you or your brain.
Tell me if I’m wrong, but you seem to equate sugar and chick peas with drugs that can permanently damage someone brain, destroy their education and career, and mean they’ll be in and out of psyche wards for their life and never ever come close to forfulling their real potential.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah – they’ll be hangin with integrity somewheres.
Missed the Radio show – but you can give me a Precis anytime
Some foreign folk think Green Policy is decided right here
Whereas it lives in our rooms and hallways
All that posturing smells funny – like Wellywood
Like bullshit…if my computer isn’t fun – I switch it off
Go make a difference in the Real World
Know you are gifted thus.
A Picture is worth a thousand words they say
How does one use a thousand words
To say nothing?
The Rain is Piss-ist-ant
Bit pathetic – hey?
No friend or Lover
Just a Photo, that fades helpless
Confusion and Depression must be endemic
To a Party of One.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
I’m looking at the comments for this post on drug law reform, I think over 250. I see other posts on the issues of clean water, the privatisation of education and the loss of democracy in local government getting limited attention. Drug reform is an issue, but to put this much energy into it says what about our party? I wonder if it has been set up to prove a rightwing point….?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
PS; I was just wondering if all this verbal fornication is coming out of the Public Purse. Whether I should buff up as a down-trodden taxpayer.
Funding one more lazy loon lost in loquation.
Have no Mothers left – but seem to have the knack of bumping into them.
Gives the lie though hey? – some pictures
Are only worth two words.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
awww sprout-what is a count and what does it mean?
JED used a phrase – Zero Sum Total
In my experience, Humans don’t get that lucky.
Not every post is about drugs
Would you like to impose restrictions on free speech?
If other things are more important – then please hold forth….
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
photonz1 – just when I thought you were making some sense, you did it again.
“..drugs that can permanently damage someone brain, destroy their education and career, and mean they’ll be in and out of psyche wards for their life and never ever come close to forfulling their real potential.”
The drugs aren’t what make sure people will be in and out of psych wards, it’s the schizophrenia. And in your studies, they only look at people who’ve already developed schizophrenia – yet in other studies, increase in cannabis use doesn’t parallel with increased schizophrenia. This implies that the folks in your studies would have developed psychosis anyway, and that cannabis MIGHT have contributed to it coming on sooner. Your statement is false and you know it.
The last part of that statement is pure conjecture as well. There are very few drugs that have actually been proven to do actual brain damage (meth is the only one I can think of and even then the damage has been proven to be reversible) – every other one is still in the ‘more research needed’ stage and (take ecstasy for example) in many cases, more research has demonstrated negligible or no damage, not more.
Meanwhile, out of all drug users, a small percentage have any problems at all. You speak in emotive language about the destruction of education and careers, yet 85-97% of drug users don’t ever get identified because they never have any problems.
I wonder how much selection bias influences people’s perceptions of drug users. If we only ever read about or hear about those who get in trouble, we will never notice those who don’t – particularly in an illegal market where someone who uses drugs has a chance of having their career destroyed not because the drugs harm them but because the criminal sanctions around drugs harm them.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
sprout
The same “length to debate” occurs whenever someone is prepared to contest opinion. On the positive side, on the lack of debate on some issues, no one is offering up any challenge.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mark-I don’t think you understood my point and I don’t understand yours, I’m sorry.
SPC-There are challanges on other issues and the lack of interest in debating them says something about what activates some of the people who contribute comments to this blog. Q&A is prompting lots of other interesting possibilities at this very time! Protecting whales, free trade, pacific relations….
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
photonz1 is pretending to be thoughtful and accommodating of opposing ideas, but is in reality, set in his way. Anti.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Photonz1 shot down hisown argument of cannabis causing schizophrenia when he said its rate has gone down in the developed world. So in country’s like britian and the usa which should have seen rises in schizophrenia because of cannabis there has actually been a decrease.
photonz1 ………. why has prohibition given you a psychosis against cannabis users? . What kind of nasty person supports the kicking in of door and arrests of cannabis users ?.
I’ve always had a belief that if you scratch a prohibitionist you find an arsehole, its the modern day prejudice and bigotry which the govt itself supports.
And actually prohibition itself is a cult based on several wrong beliefs.
All the anti-drug crap we have from politicians like Dunne and the Nats could not be further from the truth. And remember they are pro-drugs ………… as long as the drug is booze.
As for what to do about NZ’s real number 1 drug problem, the piss,
Start listening to these people and not the politicians http://www.alcoholaction.co.nz/FivePlusSolution.aspx
They actually have a action plan to minimize the HUGE amount of REAL drug damage that the drug ethanol causes us.
P.s I stopped using ethanol and replaced it Lsd decades ago. I estimate I’ve had at least 500 trips and I believe I’m in much better shape than if I’d been a drinker.
If Lsd is a class A drug then so should alcohol
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
daddy0 –
I think you hit the nail on the head for why people are so passionate about this issue compared with others. It touches on a few fundamental triggers – freedom of thought, moral judgement, individual responsibility vs group safety – and pretty much everyone has an opinion on it one way or another.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Whoops I left out the word With ……
P.s I stopped using ethanol and replaced it WITH Lsd decades ago. I estimate I’ve had at least 500 trips and I believe I’m in much better shape than if I’d been a drinker.
If Lsd is a class A drug then so should alcohol/ethanol.
Actually alcohol/ethanol is a much more destructive drug than Lsd.
Its because booze is ‘aggressnogenic’, its consumption is directly related to rates of violence and disorder.
I wonder if the aggressnogenic effect of the alcohol actually raises levels of violence and intolerance in a person EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE STOPPED DRINKING.
We know alcohol/ethanol is a toxic brain wasting drug, I’d like to know does its consumption and the brain damage it causes cause people to change and become ………… less human????????
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Don’t forget that most of the politicians are merely saying what they believe the public want to hear them say. People want to drink, so they are pro-alcohol. People believe that drugs are harmful so they are anti-drug. The politicians won’t change their stances until the public change their opinions.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Sprout – my apologies for not being clearer.
From memory your point seemed to be about an overlong debate, when there were perhaps more important issues to address.
Fly and I had actually departed from the thread title – and were discussing the fractious nature of trolls in general and one or two in particular, who were not here to achieve anything but division.
I worded it badly – that was a late night for me, and I had early committments this morning.
I agree with your point as I understand it.
Yet I am constantly fascinated by the input of non-Green supporters and their motivations.
I actually tried looking at the Websites of other Party’s to see if I had any arguement or contribution, but found I’d rather be constructive.
Therefore I have found the whole process of fractiousness here a deliberate attempt to be divisive, and tend to respond on those grounds alone.
I felt the duty of pointing this out worth a comment – one that was oblique so as not to encourage what is after all, mischief.
It is I believe, the original intention behind having a “General Debate” and my comments perhaps more properly belong there.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
photonz1: What I was saying is: it’s the doses that makes the difference between use and abuse. Had I continued to overdose on chick peas, I might have gone mental (actually, there is a 19th century play http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woyzeck, where a soldier is forced to eat a lot of peas and subsequently goes bananas) or even died. For almost all substances there is a safe doses, and beyond that you’re playing with your health or even life. Now, some people like to bungee jump from the Sky Tower, so playing with your life obviously appeals to some, but that aside: wouldn’t it be better we relaxed a bit, stoped demonising some randomly selected substances, and started talking about how to get desired and how to avoid undesired effects? I’m always wondering why there is almost no binge drinking problem in countries like France, Italy or Spain, whilst alcohol is so omnipresent there. My explanation: people simply learned dealing with alcohol. A precondition for this to happen is unrestricted availability. And just to make this crystal clear: this isn’t evidence, this is based on subjective observation. I might be wrong here, but I maintain the same applies to most social sciences studies.
About being naive: well – I would call taking correlations as causalities naive. Men in black trackies appearing on the telly while chasing a pill shaped object causing an increase in beer consumption – yeah right!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Thanks for the clarification, Mark. I also wonder at how effective it is to continue an argument against such intransigency (from both sides, too) as occurred in this debate. The issue of dairying I am pleased to see is now getting some useful attention.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Milk drinking linked to psychosis in adolescents!
Photonz1 calls for prohibition of all dairy products.
The debate rages into the several hundreds of comments.
Sprout calls for calm.
Police bust illegal milk production ring in the Hokonui Hills.
Peter Dunne admits to having drunk a glass or two when at University,
but swears, “I didn’t swallow!”
Milk.
It’ll kill ya!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
kara – love your work!
a soldier is forced to eat a lot of peas and subsequently goes bananas
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
“..Milk.
It’ll kill ya!..”
many a true word spoken in jest..eh..?
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/milk-is-a-bad-news-substance/
the a-z of everything that is wrong/unhealthy about milk..
(make sure you read..’the letter about milk’..in the link..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Main thing is Green supporters stick together I guess Sprout.
And re-reading my post I realize I still have that rather brash Australian way of expressing myself that can scan as being boorish and offensive.
I said all I had to say on this topic a week ago – but I don’t like to see people wasting the earnest and valuable efforts of my Fellow Green supporters with the express intention of doing harm.
Visiting the other Parties Sites I reckon they’ve all got good reason to be jealous of the quality and standard of debate here.
Not least of all your own contribution.
with thanks
regards
Mark
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Greenfly: see – and you thought eating your Greens is good for you, when actually it can make you all too fruity …
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Hah!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
greenfly – again you jump to conclusions. Again you get it wrong.
Tenchinage – you need to re-read the studies. The vast majority of schizophrenia, even in those genetically disposed to it, will never ever show. That’s what the studies show. Cannabis triggers it, particularly if taken when young.
And yes, there are a few studies which haven’t found any link, and a lot of studies that have.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4425730.stm
http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/archives/002684.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/jan/07/drugsandalcohol.politics
It’s just like because a smoker gets lung cancer, you can’t prove it was because of cigarettes, because many non-smokers also get lung cancers.
Tests have shown that cannabis use slows brain function, reations, memory etc, but brain function will generally return after a period of time if the use has not been very regular over a long period.
In regular long term users memory and reaction is not up to average ability, and never quite returns (although using your same arguement for cannibis not causing schizophrenia – you could argue that it wasn’t the cannabis that caused memory loss and slower brain function – that long term regular users have always had slower brain functions).
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
If cannabis caused, or produced, or made latent schizophrenia happen where it would not otherwise have shown up, increasing cannabis use in society would increase rates of schizophrenia. It doesn’t. End of story. The link is not as you say.
Everyone’s tired of that argument and I will not have it with you any more. This review is not just about cannabis.
Please tell my why LSD should not be reclassified from Class A to Class B, and what you think of our politicians refusing to even entertain the idea of non-punitive responses to possession of drugs.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
* the sound of distant cheering and pulling up of stakes.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Tenchinage – there is a very good reason why LSD should NOT have its classification downgraded at this time.
That’s because the committee whose job it is to advise the government, has not even yet researched (let alone come up with recommendations) on what’s likely to happen if it is downgraded.
Many here have clearly made up their minds BEFORE the research is done, and probably won’t change their minds no matter what the committee come up with.
As the committee have said previously, it MAY BE appropriate to downgrade the classification based on health risk – but that’s not the only aspect they need to look at. They’ll have a better idea when they finish the rest of their research.
Whether I say there is a link with cannabis and schizophrenia is not relevant – it’s what the scientists actually doing the research say that’s important.
Perhaps you should email or write to the world leading scientists who do these studies and tell them that their findings are totally rubbish – that they have no idea of what they are talking about and you do.
In Australia they have said serious schizophrenia patients have halved in the non-smoking cannabis group, and doubled in the cannibis smoking group, in the last twenty years or so. Some of these people are developing problems in their 40s and 50s after smoking as a teenager.
They also beleive the substantial increase in strength of THC in canabis in recent years will show up as problematic in future years.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dull.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/smoking-marijuana-does-not-cause-lung-cancer/
“..New research shows here seems to be something in pot that actually undermines cancer .. instead of causing it. —
– and the media are doing their best to ignore it.
There is a groundswell of attention in the news to marijuana’s role in causing and preventing various types of cancers.
Last week, AlterNet published an article from the Marijuana Policy Project about a new study finding that pot smokers have a lower risk of head and neck cancers than people who don’t smoke pot.
Earlier this year, the corporate media pounced on a study suggesting that men who had been using marijuana at least once per week ..
.. and who had started smoking pot prior to age 18 had an elevated risk of testicular cancer known as nonseminoma, .
.. which makes up fewer than half of one percent of all cancer cases among men.
Head, neck and testicular cancers are of course quite serious ailments to deal with..
..but what about cancer of the most obvious organ at risk with pot smoking, the lungs?
Where’s the science on that?
The article below by Fred Gardner, editor of the medical marijuana research quarterly journal O’Shaughnessy’s..
.. shares the results of a major medical study the media completely ignored..
.. and his conclusions are quite blunt on the matter: ..
..Smoking pot doesn’t cause lung cancer.
In fact, the study found that cigarette smokers who also smoked marijuana were at a lower risk of contracting lung cancer ..
.. than tobacco-only smokers..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t think people are arguing against the prudence of researching potential effects of reclassification – the objection is to the categorical rejection of the suggestion by our Minister of Justice and Associate Health Minister, which implies that it doesn’t matter what the EACD recommends, nothing will change.
Given that our policy and classification system is supposed to be evidence based, this kind of dismissal is not just a slap in the face for proponents of drug reform, but an indication of an attitude amongst our politicians that they somehow know better than those paid to advise them. Are they really acting on behalf of the people when they do this? Or are they acting on behalf of an agenda that values something else above evidence? If they are, I’d like to know what that something is, and get me a slice of it because it must be pretty good.
Meanwhile, have a link:
http://www.maps.org/research/abrahart.html
This is a literature review of LSD research. You might be particularly interested in the section relating to schizophrenia – it has some relevance to what you’re saying about cannabis.
Don’t know what you’ll make of this, but it’s interesting to compare pre-prohibition with post-prohibition:
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/nsduh/new-users/new-lsd.htm
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
phil – A recent NZ case-controlled study found the opposite –
– an 8% increase in cancer for every year smoking joints and a 7% increase in cancer for every year smoking tobacco –
see
http://www.erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/content/full/31/2/280
“Cannabis smoking may have a greater potential than tobacco smoking to cause lung cancer 1–4. Cannabis smoke is qualitatively similar to tobacco smoke, although it contains up to twice the concentration of the carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons 1. Cannabis cigarettes are less densely packed than tobacco cigarettes, and tend to be smoked without filters 2 to a smaller butt size 3, leading to higher concentrations of smoke inhaled. Furthermore, smokers of cannabis inhale more deeply and hold their breath for longer 4, facilitating the deposition of the carcinogenic products in the lower respiratory tract. These factors are likely to be responsible for the five-fold greater absorption of carbon monoxide from a cannabis joint, compared with a tobacco cigarette of similar size despite similar carbon monoxide concentrations in the smoke inhaled 4. Several studies have demonstrated pre-cancerous histological 5, 6 and molecular 7 abnormalities in the respiratory tracts of cannabis smokers, and the carcinogenic effects of cannabis smoke have been demonstrated in vitro 8 and in different in vivo animal models 1, 9, 10. Conversely, there is also evidence that delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol may have anti-carcinogenic effects ”
Again – it’s not some simplistic black and white situation. There are studies showing strong evidence of a link to some types of cancers, and other studies that find no link.
If it makes you feel better, you can cherry pick any research that backs up your opinion and ignore the rest, or you can take a balanced view of the whole picture.
It seems a pretty reasonable assumption that if it contains most of the same and many much more harmful carciniogens than tobacco, then there’s a pretty good chance it will increase the risk of cancer.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
and a definition of schizophrenia might belong to one Political party, yet hopelessly combating with another. (a Party of One)
Sprout – look ye thus – this person wants to rate the Greens conversation on drugs to be above all others (If you throw lots of mud, enough will stick).
Photo -imo, you should stay well away fromm all mind altering substances – indefinitely.
remember, awareness is a vehichle of the future.
So much Gas going nowhere – you are lucky to have anyone’s patience.
Dont have mine – your road has an Exit sign above it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>It seems a pretty reasonable assumption that if it contains most of the same and >many much more harmful carciniogens than tobacco, then there’s a pretty good chance >it will increase the risk of cancer.
IF it contains most of the same and IF it contains much more?? harmful carcerinogenies than tobacco and IF no other substances are contained in it that counter or balance these effects, and IF people smoke cannabis in the same frequency as they smoke tobacco your assumption of A PRETTY GOOD CHANCE is pretty reasonable.
Do we really want to talk about all these IFs, or about why tobacco, with a pretty much undisputed track record of harm, is perfectly legal in this country, while other substances that may be harmful when abused come with a go straight to jail sentence?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)