Canvassing for Opinion - aka "Blairs Brain on Cannabis"

IMHO prohibition sentiment requires inherent addiction to status quo, an incapacity to visualise beyond the here and now and a desperate desire to know others might feel the same... Reform is not revolutionary, rather it is evolutionary. Having survived banging your head against a brick wall the evolutionist relishes having stopped. / Blair

Sunday, April 08, 2018

Checkpoint 'fishing' nets a small bag of vegetables!

I found this article from nzherald.co.nz that you might be interested in: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503462&objectid=12027757

The MildGreens has a different, and perhaps instructive perpective.

Who exactly was offended?  (there indeed lies the lie!, absent a victim or complainant who would know what the social harm 'loss' was... especially as a Select Committee sits hearing just how damn beneficial cannabis is for countless thousands)  while Police continue the mythology, especially where their continued faith in their infamous BERL report is to be any indication of the claimed but never tested social burden. From that report it can be more fairly estimated the cost of this interdiction by 'fishing' cost about $20,000, what with police prosecutors saying this was at the 'high' end of serious offending and no doubt asking for jail time (x3), that legal aid (x3) was worth it all, oh, and court time, ESR reports, yadda yadda, grift, grift....  ain't it all being so terrible that someone was going to make money illegally on someones misery! 

So, Mr Policeman.... show us the actual photo of what you really found, it certainly wasn't a standing 'plantation' that, for joe cannabis consumer, looks more like highly desirable, greatly appreciated bud porn.

I can but only imagine how many good people this would have modestly recreated, or heaven forbid alleviated some ailment. 

Do these Police (apparently doing their jobs, but then so were the uniforms closing the padlocks on the carriages to Auschwitz) not understand that it just might be the law that is offensive and that it encourages, indeed incentivises entrepreneurial risk taking?  Or now, we have effectively destroyed the lives of three young men labelling them deviant 'forever and a day'. 

Twerps doesn't quite cut it.

Seriously, this Select Committee needs to understand, the right to possess, for whatever reason, cannabis is a barren right without the right to cultivate, process, store, transport, package and merchandise, exactly as prescribed in the law that Labour passed, by Order in Council in 2008

Google ( "Restricted Substances Regulations" 2008 ) - because no bloody journalist will.

View blog reactions

Friday, March 30, 2018

Time to Submit, Mr Key!

UNDP Ms. Helen Clark meeting with New Zealand ...
UNDP Ms. Helen Clark meeting with New Zealand Prime Minister John Key (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Prime Minister, UN Development and Sustainability, and all-around great lass, Rt. Hon Helen Clark on her retirement from the UN promptly joined the Global Drug Commision. Helen Clark served as New Zealand's Prime Minister when Labour's Caucus gazetted the "Restricted Substances Regulations" by Order in Council in 2008 prior to the Nation going to the polls. She lost the election, but the "Class D" crucial legal adjustment received royal assent the day John Key became Right and Honourable. Following the Synthetics Substances Sentencing Bill passing its first reading and going to select committee, 'Aunty Helen' chimed in "And I think all the people who know about drug policy, who know what's happening around the world, need to come to the [select] committee and spell it out how it is." This tells us a great deal about what her thinking was, and how that might have been the ball breaker at the UN for her to take the reigns.

It also informs the debate about prison muster and the Chief Science Advisor's advice that we have our Justice system arse about face. The MildGreens think tank has some insight no one seems to notice or weight. that it is not about how many beds, rather the 'prison churn' and the rate at which we criminalise our population that Gluckman et al have missed.

While it is good to have Helen on the case, it must not be forgotten that Labour spent a lot of time doing nothing before it magically came up with the idea (after hearing it at Select Committee) that we could create a better 'all drug policy' by Order in Council. And that 'we did' create the worlds best drug laws, now countered by NZ1 and National support in the house with its Private Members Bill tripling the sentencing guidelines to the yet to be used Psychoactive Substances Act notably created by those who would see its continuing failure as success.

Blair Anderson http://mildgreens.blogspot.com
View blog reactions

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Labour Party Cannabis Inquiry Call, Twenty Years Old.

From the Floor.....  Twenty Years Ago
Deal with the Fax, Labour

Blair Anderson http://mildgreens.blogspot.com
View blog reactions

Police continue to warn 'emerging drug threats' - so what makes them harm redux experts again?



The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know banning low alcohol beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know banning low alcohol beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.
The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know banning low alcohol beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know banning low alcohol beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.
The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know banning low alcohol beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while pretty much all the people survived our BZP experiment, in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these claims of  'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well.

Ball-and-stick model of the fentanyl molecule ...
Ball-and-stick model of the fentanyl molecule
Journal of Chemical Crystallography : 
We banned BZP despite its high safety profile (millions of doses per year), and got, for our moral wowser'ing a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So too, when they were banned, we get these 'new' threats. The latest is fentanyl, a seriously potent opioid diverted from legal sources.

We know banning low alcohol beer leads to the whisky stills.

The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to the elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand.

On this matter, the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals nor scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been by senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start.

Thankfully former NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference.

There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.

Blair Anderson http://The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know banning low alcohol beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act..blogsThe greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know banning low alcohol beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.pot.com
View blog reactions

Monday, March 26, 2018

Why is thinking Illegal?

English: Dust jacket of the book Mein Kampf, w...
English: Dust jacket of the book Mein Kampf, written by Adolf Hitler. Courtesy of the New York Public Library Digital Collection. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
If, on the premise, the Misuse of Drugs Act posits that USE (of some drugs) leads to Harm then by definition possession is a thought crime.

Certainly, no more than my tattered copy of Mien Kampf makes me anti-semite.

View blog reactions

Friday, March 23, 2018

Helen Clark "Partial Prohibitions" on cannabis

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs requir...
The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs requires governments to regulate cannabis cultivation, but does not ban medical use. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
"Partial Prohibition" is R18...  just as was defined in the last policy implementation her Caucus did gazette into law the "Restricted Substances Regulations 2008", and all we needed to do was make Cannabis Class D!
View blog reactions

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Helen Clark, Drugs and Conversations we are not having.

While I, and others, applaud the logic of an R18 partial prohibition (Helen Clark commenced that conversation over thirty years ago), media and commentators, like Clark, are remiss in pointing out two important things.

1. Cannabis, the widely used drug of choice' despite its illicit status, and its obvious ethical clash surrounding medicinal use, has a safety profile orders of magnitude less than alcohol and tobacco.  Whom so ever may need treatment, from an industry that while it desperately needs some funding it is ever ready to crank up the appearance of a problem so that it seems relevant.... despite little evidence that it delivers much at all.

2. That we are starting a conversation from a base line of zero.  We are not. Indeed it was Helen Clark's Caucus in conjunction with the late Jim Anderton that passed the worlds best drug laws in 2008 that became known as Class D of which visiting Professor of Neurology, David Nutt described as "I wish I had thought of them myself".

Now let the conversation begin....

Blair Anderson http://mildgreens.blogspot.com
View blog reactions

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Time for a real Hui!

Back in 2009, I presented the NZ 'restricted substances regulations' as a case study of what good  drug laws actually look like  'beyond prohibition' to the US based Volunteer Committee of Lawyers (VCL) at the time headed up by the King County Bar Association lead lawyer for their drug policy initiative (and Washington State Democrat Senator)  Roger Goodman. It was through the KCBA and Roger Goodman that Alison Holcomb was able to move the 2009 state decriminalisation initiative. ($100.00 fine for possession).  

I went on to celebrate, with Senator Goodman, along with Mason Tvert of SAFER.ORG, the adoption by the local territorial authority of the former gold mining town and highly popular ski resort, Breckenridge (Co) of their defacto depenalisation.  ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breckenridge,_Colorado )

What struck me about the recent visit to New Zealand of both Canada's Ann McLellan  and Alison Holcomb (ACLU) from the Washington initiative is the highly memorable observation of both the Canadians and Washingtonians how "erudite, concise and workable" these regulations were and how suitable they were for the management of cannabis (Prof David Nutt).

(And yes I submitted the MildGreen Hypothesis to the Canadian Senate Inquiry led by Senator Claude Pierre Nolan and further to Trudeau's more recent cannabis policy committee headed up by McLellan via the writers association as a founding director of Educators for Sensible Drug Policy, EFSDP.ORG )

Note: McLellan, as former deputy PM, was also Justice and Health Minister for the time the medicinal cannabis laws were found to be dysfunctional, obsfucational and unworkable AND found three times by Canadian courts to be contrary to human rights and worse, such the Judge rules the laws were without force and effect.  Good Lord, they even tried growing cannabis down a damn tin mine....  Now, McLellan is a law adviser to a legal practice that serves multiple big medical cannabis companies. That said, it was refreshing to hear her say on RadioNZ that the existing growers, distributors and vendors must be brought in from the cold 'with their expertise'. 

So why was a  symposium held in Wellington at all, when it appears even to the most lay of reformers, the meeting (at participants expense, being $420) it was reduced to a prepared policy announcement by the anointed drug czar of New Zealand that Portugal had the kiwi solution, and the Drug Foundation stepping up and roundly endorsing it as best practice as if magically what Portugal had done (keeping cannabis illegal) was a good idea.

There is a significant number of people who think what happened in Wellington's Legislative Chamber was  outstandingly good. Well I say, bah humbug.... 

It was a contrived attempt to embed systemic failure, and to have a cannabis solution based on 'it still being illegal' so it feeds the treatment industry, fuels endless legal wrangling, impedes health promotion while pretending to do exactly the opposite, and embeds strangulation by over regulation of something so safe that slippers are more dangerous.

For unless Cannabis remains some sort of threat to all and sundry we can keep pretending the Ross Bell's, Peter Dunne's and Bob McCrostie's  of this world are arbiters we can have faith in.

New Zealand must come to its senses and arrive at a model that is ours and ours alone. We are not on the drug spillage routes, nor are we adjacent to a market the size of the EU, North,Central or South America or Asia, nor are we bound by what others are restricted by federal laws or proximity to the anal policies of the DEA.

Our solution must be sovereign and not beholden to covenants and treaty that are past their used by date. 

What we need here are champions of OUR cause, our needs and our culture....

Sadly, they and who they represent are left standing outside the tent.

Time for a real Hui!  

Blair Anderson http://mildgreens.blogspot.com
View blog reactions
 

Another Mild Green Initiative



  (search tips)

Visitor Map
Visitor Map, daily!

Visitor Map, previous 6 months

MildGreen Technorati Search
Web Blog Pinging Service Blog Flux Directory Blogarama - The Blog Directory Find Blogs in the Blog Directory Search For Blogs, Submit Blogs, The Ultimate Blog Directory Health Blog Top Sites Google PageRank Checker Tool Top Blogs Health blogs