Category Archives: ALCP
Submission to the PSRA
To: psychoactives@moh.govt.nz
Subject: Regulations Consultation
The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party exists to legalise cannabis for recreational, spiritual, medicinal and industrial purposes; to empower people to work together for peace and true justice; and to institute a proper and just balance between the power of the state and the rights and dignity of the individual.
Psychoactive substances regulations exists to give government some measure of control over what substances people use, how they use them, and who uses them.
Cannabis is not regulated. It is prohibited. Paradoxically, in the case of cannabis, prohibition means that cannabis is almost entirely uncontrolled. Nearly everyone who wants to use cannabis does so, including minors. For minors, cannabis is as readily available as alcohol.
Ostensibly, the purpose of cannabis prohibition is harm reduction. The three pillars of harm reduction are supply control, demand reduction and problem limitation. Under prohibition, there is no control of supply of, no reduction in demand for, and no limitation of problems caused by, cannabis.
Government must regulate cannabis if it is to gain any measure of control over who uses cannabis. Regulation is de facto legalisation. For the government and for the cannabis law reform movement, a regulated, taxable market in cannabis is win-win.
Various parties, including the Associate Minister of Health himself, have suggested that substances currently controlled (or not, in the case of cannabis) under the Misuse of Drugs Act might, in future, be controlled under the Psychoactive Substances Act. A simple legislative amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act removing cannabis from its schedules would immediately bring cannabis under the Psychoactive Substances Act, where its risk of harm could then be assessed against the same standards as will apply to any other psychoactive substance.
There is more than one way to skin a dead cat, and this is not the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party’s preferred pathway to cannabis law reform. However, the Party makes the present submission on the assumption that the future pathway to legal cannabis will be as has just been suggested.
Cannabis is not a substance, nor is it a product. It is a plant, a plant that anyone with a green thumb can grow. Therefore, many of the consultation questions in the supplied consultation document are inapplicable to cannabis. Since we do not have to answer all the questions, we answer only those questions we deem to be relevant.
Our main concerns are “truth in labelling” and appropriate measures to minimise access to cannabis by minors. Hence, the questions we answer below are mainly those concerning labelling and packaging (in Chapter 4 of the consultation document), and place of sale and advertising (in Chapter 5).
14. Are the proposed requirements and restrictions on labelling sufficient?
Yes.
15. Are the proposed requirements relating to health warnings sufficient?
Yes.
16. Are the proposed packaging requirements and restrictions sufficient?
Yes.
17. Do you agree with the proposal to restrict a packet to one dose? Please give reasons for your answer.
No. There is no need to restrict the size of a packet of cannabis. Because no one has ever overdosed on cannabis in all of human history. If there must be restriction, the size of a packet of cannabis should be restricted to 1 oz. There is no need for decimalisation.
18. Do you agree with the proposal that a dose, in whatever form the product takes, is split wherever possible?
No. Consumers can do this themselves with scissors or grinders.
19. Do you think there should be restrictions on the form products can take? If so, what forms do you think should and shouldn’t be allowed?
No. Cannabis should be allowed in smokeable, vaporisable, topical and edible forms.
20. Do you think there should be restrictions or requirements on the storage of psychoactive substances? If so, what should the restrictions or requirements be?
See below. (As previously noted, cannabis is neither a substance nor a product. It is a plant, but can be made into a value-added product.
21. Do you think restrictions or requirements should be set for the storage of approved products? If so, what should they be?
Yes. For security purposes, to prevent cannabis from falling into the hands of minors or of thieves who might on-sell to minors, cannabis retailers should store cannabis products under lock and key when not physically present on the retail premises.
22. Do you think restrictions or requirements should be set regarding the display of approved products? If so, what should they be?
Yes. We suggest that such restrictions or set requirements be in line with those applicable to other psychoactive products. Additionally open discussion around public health best practices such as plain packaging must occur, in the context of whatever is publicly acceptable for tobacco and alcohol should also be acceptable for cannabis.
23. Do you think restrictions or requirements should be set regarding the disposal of approved products? If so, what should they be?
Up in smoke. Persons disposing of cannabis must ensure that there are no minors or non-consenting adults downwind of the conflagration.
24. Do you think there should be signage requirements in the regulations? If so, please give specific suggestions.
There should be no signage requirements, but we recommend a stylised cannabis leaf.
25. Do you think the regulations should specify further places where approved products may not be sold? If so, please provide specific suggestions.
We have no special objections to regulations preventing the sale of cannabis near schools or other places where minors might otherwise tend to congregate.
26. Do you think the regulations should prescribe restrictions or requirements for advertisements of approved products? If so, please provide specific suggestions.
We have no special objections to the regulations that currently apply to advertisements for synthetic cannabinoid products also applying to advertisements for cannabis.
27. Do you think the regulations should prescribe restrictions or requirements on internet sales of approved products? If so, please provide specific suggestions.
We have no special objections to the restrictions and requirements that currently apply to Internet sales of synthetic cannabinoid products also applying to Internet sales of cannabis.
28. Do you think the regulations should prescribe restrictions or requirements on the advertising of approved products? If so, please provide specific suggestions.
We have no special objections to the restrictions and requirements that currently apply to the on-site advertising of cannabinoid products also applying to the on-site advertising of cannabis.
In closing, a few words about the fees and levies proposed (in Chapter 6 of the consultation document) and also on determining the risk of harm posed by cannabis.
The ALCP envisages that many commercial suppliers of legal cannabis will be small scale suppliers. The suggested fees and levies in the consultation document would be harshly punitive in the context of “cottage industry” cannabis. They would provide a major disincentive to comply with the regulations, and drive the cultivation and supply of cannabis underground, where it now is, uncontrolled by the government. We suggest that the PSRA sets the fees or levies payable by homegrown commercial cannabis suppliers commensurate with those set by authorities in the State of Colorado.
Cannabis has been tried and tested over several millennia. Risk of harm has already been determined. We know that cannabis poses no more than a very low risk of harm to those who choose to use it.
This submission was completed by Dr. Richard Goode, Vice President of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, on its behalf.
Tick, tick!
What does the Bible say about drug dealing?
There’s nothing wrong with responsible drug dealing. It’s an honest trade.
Some of my best friends are drug dealers. 🙂
But what does the Bible say about drug dealing? I thought I’d briefly research the question … but I quickly realised that briefly researching what the Bible says about drug dealing is not a live option!
There’s a school of thought according to which the sins of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, in penalty for which they and their cities were destroyed, included drug dealing and drug-fuelled debauchery. The same school of thought has it that the so-called sorcery that Paul the Apostle rails against several times in his Epistles is actually drug dealing. Supposedly, ‘sorcery’ is a mistranslation of the Greek word, pharmakeia. That makes sense, because it’s the same Greek word from which we get the English words pharmacy, pharmacist, pharmaceutical, pharmacopeia, etc. And, apparently, the Bible mentions two drug dealers by name. (They’re Simon and Elymas, mentioned in Acts 8 and Acts 13 respectively.)
I’m not going to get into this debate. (I found a lengthy discussion here for those interested.)
Anyway, there’s an alternative to the strictly scholarly approach to studying the Bible on any given issue, and that’s the prayerful approach. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to me about drug dealing!
This leapt off the page at me the first time I read it. (I’m baffled as to why I haven’t seen this particular verse mentioned in any of the discussion forums I briefly perused.)
Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! (NIV)
I think what Jesus is teaching here is actually something akin to our modern-day notion of host responsibility. (Notwithstanding that stunt he pulled at the Wedding at Cana.)
Sometimes drugs do cause people to stumble. (Alcohol, literally so.) They’re notorious for it. The plain fact of the matter is that some people can’t handle drugs, that’s why we have reality. And Jesus is here issuing a warning to drug dealers. Be very careful whom you deal drugs to. Best restrict your customer base to responsible adults, whom you trust not to get themselves—and, thereby, you—into trouble.
Why this post, at this time?
Because I’ve just downloaded a consultation document on the Psychoactive Substances Regulations and am about to fill a submission form (on behalf of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party) as should anyone who wants to have a say on the development of the Psychoactive Substances Regulations as prescribed by the Psychoactive Substances Act.
The Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority is seeking
input from interested parties into the development of regulations to support the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 (the Act) which came into force on 18 July 2013.
The Psychoactive Substances Regulations will provide the operational detail on how the Act will work.
Once in force, regulations will end the interim provisions of the part of the Act to which they apply, bringing the full regime into effect. This paper consults on proposals for regulations relating to licensing, product approval processes, labelling and packaging details, place of sale and advertising, and fees and levies.
It’s an exercise in mitigating evil. Evil because regulations are actually prohibitive—if government defines the one way they will allow something they are really prohibiting all other ways.
The time is now to tell the government what the one way they will allow something should be.
Here are the leading questions to which Peter Dunne, the prohibitionist wolf in sheep’s clothing, is seeking answers.
- Is the list of proposed information requirements for licence applications comprehensive enough? If not, what else should be required, and why?
- Should retail licence applications be accompanied by evidence of compliance with a local approved products policy if one is in effect in the applicant’s area?
- Should retail licence applications be accompanied by evidence of compliance with a generic local approved products policy if no policy is in effect in the applicant’s area?
- Are the factors the Authority should take into account when determining whether a licence applicant is a fit and proper person or whether a body corporate is of good repute in section 16(2) enough? The section 16(2) factors are:
- whether the applicant has been convicted of a relevant offence
- whether there has been a serious or repeated failure by the applicant to comply with any requirement of the Act
- whether there are other grounds for considering that the applicant is likely to fail to comply with any requirement of the Act
- any other matter that the Authority considers relevant.
If you think these factors are not enough, please give examples of additional factors the Authority should consider.
- Should the regulations require applicants to provide details of their involvement in other regulatory regimes, such as alcohol licensing processes?
- What records should the regulations require licence holders to keep?
- How long should licence holders be required to keep records for?
- Do you think there are factors or issues that the Authority should consider when setting discretionary conditions? If so, please provide details.
- Should the regulations prescribe other matters the Authority must take into account when deciding on an application? If yes, what should these matters be?
- Do you agree a product approval application should include information on proposed manufacturing methods and how they will comply with the Psychoactive Substances Code of Manufacturing Practice?
- Do you think any further particulars, information, documents or other material should be prescribed in the regulations? If yes, what should these be?
- Do you agree with the proposal that the regulations require applications to contain information and data on the toxicity, pharmacology and related clinical effects of the psychoactive substance they are seeking approval for?
- Do you agree with the proposal that the regulations require product approval applications to contain information and data on:
- the psychoactive potential and related behavioural effects of the substance
- the addictive potential
- the proposed directions for use
- previous use, including use in clinical trials and in the wider population?
- Are the proposed requirements and restrictions on labelling sufficient? If not, please make specific suggestions for further requirements and restrictions.
- Are the proposed requirements relating to health warnings sufficient? If not, please make specific suggestions for further requirements (for example, advice on what to do in the case of an overdose).
- Are the proposed packaging requirements and restrictions sufficient? If not, please make specific suggestions for further requirements.
- Do you agree with the proposal to restrict a packet to one dose? Please give reasons for your answer.
- Do you agree with the proposal that a dose, in whatever form the product takes, is split wherever possible?
- Do you think there should be restrictions on the form products can take? If so, what forms do you think should and shouldn’t be allowed?
- Do you think there should be restrictions or requirements on the storage of psychoactive substances? If so, what should the restrictions or requirements be?
- Do you think restrictions or requirements should be set for the storage of approved products? If so, what should they be?
- Do you think restrictions or requirements should be set regarding the display of approved products? If so, what should they be?
- Do you think restrictions or requirements should be set regarding the disposal of approved products? If so, what should they be?
- Do you think there should be signage requirements in the regulations? If so, please give specific suggestions.
- Do you think the regulations should specify further places where approved products may not be sold? If so, please provide specific suggestions.
- Do you think the regulations should prescribe restrictions or requirements for advertisements of approved products? If so, please provide specific suggestions.
- Do you think the regulations should prescribe restrictions or requirements on internet sales of approved products? If so, please provide specific suggestions.
- Do you think the regulations should prescribe restrictions or requirements on the advertising of approved products? If so, please provide specific suggestions.
- Do you agree with the proposed fees for the different licences? If not, please provide specific suggestions.
- Do you support a fixed fee or an hourly charge for processing applications for product approvals?
- Should fees be set for other specific functions? If yes, please state what they should be set for.
- Do you agree with the proposed list of items and process for setting levies? If not, please provide specific suggestions.
- What have you been being smoking?
Submitters should be aware that the Psychoactive Substances Regulations adopted under the PSA will apply to cannabis if cannabis is removed from the schedules to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Removing cannabis from the MODA is the most probable path to legalising cannabis at this juncture. (But hell of a messy. The PSA approves products, not substances and certainly not plants. It would have to be rewritten to accommodate cannabis.)
All other drugs not classified as either foods or medicines would also be subject to these regulations if the MODA is simply repealed. (Why the hell not? It’s well past time that the maximum penalty for committing a consenting act between adults—which is what drug dealing is—was downgraded from life imprisonment to something a little less draconian.)
“Cannabis! Cannabis!” says the Blogger. “Utterly cannabis! Everything is cannabis.”
Regular readers may have noticed that my posts these days are, as often as not, about cannabis law reform. I certainly have.
Cannabis is insanely high in the “intoxicating mix of Christianity, libertarianism and death metal” mentioned under “Contributors” in the right-hand sidebar. Seems there’s more tokin’ going on than “slaggin’ socialists and headbangin’!”
But there is a very good reason for this blog contributor’s unbalanced content.
The Parliamentary term in New Zealand is three years and this year we’re due for a general election. Likely, it will be in November. I intend to stand again as a list candidate and as an electorate candidate for the party of which I am currently the Acting President, viz., the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party. Until then, dear reader, there will be no respite from my drug-induced ramblings!
2014 is election year! The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party is aiming high!
Our goal is to crack the 5% theshold and get MPs in Parliament. Failing that, we intend at least to frighten the Labour and Green horses into legalising cannabis in the next Parliamentary term. I hope that there is a Labour-led coalition in government by 2015. (Politicians are like diapers. They need changing often and for the same reason.) And I hope that the next government does our job for us, with or without our Parliamentary help. So that I can get off my hobby horse.
Why am I even in the cannabis law reform movement?
To begin with, I got involved for much the same reasons that most people do and believe most of the things they do and believe—emotional and psychological reasons. I wanted to justify my own behaviour. The process of justifying my own behaviour led me, after a while, to my libertarian political stance. So, all good!
Today I still believe that there is nothing wrong with drug use provided that it does not interfere with what one is supposed to be doing, viz., leading a good Christian life and, in doing so, leading by example. I won’t be the judge of how much room that leaves for tokin’ up. Not as much as I’d like, probably. 🙁
I read recently that we are fast approaching the day when coming out of the closet as a Bible-believing Christian is harder than coming out as a homosexual. Actually, I think we’re pretty much already there. Coming out of the closet as a cannabis user is also hard. But, these days, even my mum knows I smoke marijuana, and I go to church with her on Sundays. Two out of three ain’t bad. 😉
But coming out of the closet as a cannabis user remains difficult for many. Mainly because of its illegality. For obvious reasons, this is a major problem for the cannabis law reform movement. An untold number of respected members of society are regular cannabis users, but they won’t come out as regular cannabis users and voice their support for cannabis law reform, because they want to stay respected members of society—and they want to keep their careers.
Which brings me to why I’m still in the cannabis law reform movement.
I no longer feel any need to justify my own behaviour. I live like it’s legal. Even if I didn’t smoke cannabis, today I can legally get stoned out of my tiny mind on any one of eleven different synthetic cannabinoids contained in over thirty products given interim product approval by the Ministry of Health.
My involvement in the cannabis law reform movement isn’t now, and never was solely, about justifying my own behaviour. My involvement is about stopping the massive injustice of cannabis prohibition. Arresting people for smoking a God-given herb that makes them happy is criminally insane. I have next-to-no words for people who support laws (such as we have now) that prevent medical cannabis patients from getting the medicine they need. They’re evil beyond the pale.
The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party is the only political party in New Zealand with a sunset clause in its very name. Once cannabis is legalised, the party will deregister. And I can have my life back. 🙂
How to legalise cannabis (Colorado)
Cannabis intended for recreational purposes can now be bought and sold legally in Colorado.
This is a very good thing indeed.
Nothing very bad has happened and nothing very bad is going to happen.
We’re going to legalise cannabis here in New Zealand, too. Sooner or later.
In this series of posts (the next two instalments are to feature Washington and Uruguay) I’m going to look at the specific regulatory measures which, of course, vary across each jurisdiction. Having done so, we can then ask, which legalisation model should New Zealand adopt?
The following bullet points are sourced from Wikipedia’s article on the drug policy of Colorado.
Since the enactment of Colorado Amendment 64
- adults aged 21 or older can
- grow up to six cannabis plants (with no more than half being mature flowering plants), privately in a locked space
- legally possess all cannabis from the plants they grow (as long as it stays where it was grown),
- legally possess up to one ounce of cannabis while traveling,
- give as a gift up to one ounce to other citizens 21 years of age or older.
- Consumption is permitted in a manner similar to alcohol, with equivalent offenses proscribed for driving.
- Public consumption remains illegal.
- Amendment 64 also provides for licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores.
Note that Colorado’s is a mixed model. Cannabis cultivation, possession and use is effectively legalised for the individual user. Commercial cultivation and sale are heavily regulated—but hardly more so than anything else in today’s heavily regulated world.
I have no principled objection to the age limit of 21. But I think it’s unrealistically high, also I think the prohibition on public consumption is a bit austere and certainly hard to enforce. Who’s going to stop you getting high when you go hiking in one of Colorado’s beautiful National Parks?
Overall, I think Colorado’s on to a real winner. 🙂
There was plenty of paperwork to keep the bureaucrats happy.
Governor Hickenlooper signed several bills into law on May 28, 2013 implementing the recommendations of the Task Force on the Implementation of Amendment 64. On September 9, 2013, the Colorado Department of Revenue adopted final regulations for recreational marijuana establishments, implementing the Colorado Retail Marijuana Code (HB 13-1317). On September 16, 2013, the Denver City Council adopted an ordinance for retail marijuana establishments.
The first stores officially opened on January 1, 2014. The state prepared for an influx of tourists with extra police officers posted in Denver. Safety fears led to officials seeking to limit use of the drug in popular ski resorts.
Cue an interesting story about the effects of cannabis on skiing from Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico and the Libertarian Party’s candidate in the 2012 presidential elections, in an interview with Playboy Magazine.
PLAYBOY: Was there a specific moment, an epiphany, when you stopped drugs?
JOHNSON: I stopped pot because of a specific experience. I was going to be a professional ski racer and pursued professional racing. I skied a couple 125-day seasons in northern Idaho after college. I was racing gates every day. I never made a nickel at professional ski racing–I was lousy at it but I pursued it. One day, I set up a set of gates and punched my stopwatch and skied down the hill. I did it in 17 seconds. I went up the lift and skied down through the gates again and made 16 seconds. I went through the course again and did it in 15 seconds. The next time I got on the chairlift, a ski patrolman whipped out a joint–that was a common occurrence. We smoked pot up to the top of the lift and I went through the course a fourth time. Oh my God, I had the fastest run? It was smooth, perfect. But then I looked at my watch. I was thinking, 13 seconds! But it was 19 seconds! Whoa! It was a revelation. If I did 19 and thought I was so much faster than I really was, then this is carrying over into other areas, too. I thought, I don’t need this.
PLAYBOY: Was it the last joint?
JOHNSON: Not the last, but it broke the habit. People think they can function just as well, but they can’t. A lot of athletes smoke pot because they can’t drink and perform. Yes, you can smoke pot and perform–you can get away with it unless they are testing for drugs–but it has an impact. It has an impact on everything you do. When the Olympic snowboarder tested positive for marijuana, you have to think what he could have accomplished if he hadn’t been smoking.
PLAYBOY: Maybe the pot relaxed him so he could perform as well as he did.
JOHNSON: I don’t think so. I would argue that he could be that much better if he did no drugs.
Perhaps Johnson’s tale lends some credence to Reed’s claim that people that smoke regularly are stupid and lazy on a full time basis. But who am I to judge? 😎
We’re not Dunne yet!
Prime Minister John Key has confirmed that United Future leader Peter Dunne will be reinstated as a minister.
There’s no doubt that Dunne is a shrewd political operator. When he saw trouble coming, he resigned from his office of his own accord, then patiently waited to be reinstated. (Perhaps that’s exactly what the Vice President of the ALCP is up to, too, only time will tell. 🙂 )
The National government is criminally insane.
Is this the arch-fiend returning to the scene of the crime, to make sure the ongoing chemical warfare on our nation’s most vulnerable is waged with all the conscientiousness of an Adolf Eichmann?
Or is this the author of a well-intentioned, albeit flawed, piece of legislation returning to put things to rights and make sure the continuing story, which has totally lost the plot, at least has a happy ending?
Let’s make sure to keep in mind the following two salient facts.
Firstly, here‘s what Peter Dunne said when the National government Cabinet first agreed upon key details of the Psychoactive Substances Act.
As promised, we are reversing the onus of proof. If they cannot prove that a product is safe, then it is not going anywhere near the marketplace
None of these products will come to market if they have not been proven safe.
Secondly, here‘s what Peter Dunne said on his personal blog not so long ago, after he’d stepped down as Associate Minister of Health.
Just over a couple of months ago, the Psychoactive Substances Act of which I was the principal architect was implemented. It provides for the first time for a regulated market for the sale and supply of psychoactive substances, based on the level of risk they pose to the user. It is attracting interest from around the globe, as an innovative solution to an international problem, and, after a few not unanticipated teething problems, seems to be settling down quite well.
Now, here is where I have been thinking. Although the Psychoactive Substances Act was intended to deal with that issue only, and not to have wider application, it does occur to me that, if after a period of time, it is shown to be working effectively, it could well become the model by which narcotic drugs, currently controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act, are regulated for the future. The yardstick of level of risk – based on sound pharmacological and toxicological evidence – would become the determinant of availability, not public sentiment or prejudice.
I am not suggesting a revolution, but simply observing that the regulatory regime introduced for psychoactive substances could well have wider application and that we should not be averse to that possibility. After all, most experts now concede the so-called “war” on drugs has failed, and new initiatives are required.
NORML likes Peter Dunne’s new thinking and so do I.
I think we should do all we can to encourage Peter Dunne’s new thinking about cannabis (which, surely, is the drug he had in mind) and hold him to his earlier promise that other psychoactive products will not come to market if they have not been proven safe.
I think Peter Dunne should take the following Goode advice (and make good his promise).
Herbal cannabis should be given immediate interim product approval under the Psychoactive Substances Act says Dr. Richard Goode, Vice President of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party.
“Let’s legalise cannabis now, so the Ministry of Health can have all the time it needs to get its act sorted, and cannabinoid connoisseurs can continue to get high on the real deal,” Dr. Goode said.
Some politicians I’ve never much liked. Including Peter Dunne who stalled cannabis law reform for years, and John Banks who knifed his running mate Don Brash in the back over the cannabis law reform issue. But Banksie came good before he took his final bow. Will Peter Dunne yet surprise us all? I sincerely hope so.
The Kim Dotcom Party
The fat German narcissist Kim Dotcom is to launch a new New Zealand political party on Monday.
On Twitter, Dotcom says
My new political party won’t be named Mega Party. We are the Internet Party. Here’s our logo for the first time.
I find it ironic that the initials of the new party are IP, given that Dotcom is fighting extradition to the US on internet piracy charges. (Perhaps that’s why he neglected to register the domain name ip.org.nz. Instead, the party’s soon to be unveiled website is to reside at internetparty.org.nz.)
Like most of Dotcom’s all-too-frequent narcissistic antics (only yesterday, Dotcom gets jail apology was splashed all across the front of the Dominion Post), this latest one annoys me. Sure, he’s been treated very badly by the New Zealand government, and the US government unjustly wants his scalp, but that’s no excuse to lash out and create a new political party.
Without a doubt, Dotcom’s party will leach votes from other smaller parties with legitimate reasons to exist. I’m thinking in particular, of course, of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, but also of the Pirate Party which is already well established and likely has near identical policies to those of the new party. (We don’t know what the new party’s policies actually are yet, of course, but I expect one of them will be not extraditing Dotcom to the US.)
Here are my predictions for the party’s fortunes. They’ll peak about election time, possibly giving the Internet Party seats in Parliament, then plummet soon after Dotcom’s extradition to the US.
See graph below.
R(1)8
This is the video documentary that, in the past 48 hours, has been viewed by 1 in 10 New Zealanders.
Won’t somebody please think of the children? That’s the question I’m asking. Because somebody needs to do something. But that somebody is not the government, and that something is not making legislative provision for tighter regulations, harsher penalties and harder-hitting advertising campaigns. Not at all.
“Only in fucking Fairfield.”
Not only in the suburbs of Hamilton, unfortunately. As the YouTube uploader says, “Time to reveal one of the BIGGEST issues in New Zealand, under-aged drinking.”
“He’s allowed.”
How did we get to this? For the answer to that, I suggest that readers take a while to follow some of the incisive and insightful social commentary at blogs such as Brendan McNeill‘s and Lindsay Mitchell‘s. Do so, and the root causes of New Zealand’s problems with drinking, drug use and delinquency ought quickly to become all too glaringly apparent.
“Bro, yous got a problem, bro? … He’s Maori, bro, he’s different. … Bro, he’s Maori. He’s a Maori, bro. Bro, we drink at any time, bro.” (“It could kill him.”) “It doesn’t matter, bro. … I been drinking since the age of 9.”
As ever: what is to be done?
Somehow, we need to return to Christian family values (commitment and fidelity—the child is from a broken home) and repair to parental responsibility (neither parent knew where he was, and an aunt, allegedly, had provided the alcohol – “He’s allowed”). Long-term, we need to bring about a cultural sea change.
In the short-term, the NZ Police are trying to have the clip removed from the Internet. Good luck with that.
“Fuck drinking, smoke weed.”
It’s good advice, but not to a 9 year old.
“I do smoke weed.”
This is where I say a few words about our drug laws.
A common objection to cannabis legalisation is that society already has enough problems with alcohol. We don’t want to add another mind-altering drug to the mix. We already have 9 year olds turning up drunk to skate parks. We don’t want them turning up drunk and stoned.
Well, guess what? At the bottom end of society, neither regulation nor prohibition can stop New Zealand’s two favourite drugs, alcohol and cannabis, from falling into the hands of minors. Over the rest of us, regulation can provide government with some measure of control. But to regulate is to legalise.
The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party‘s policy is for the sale and use of cannabis to be strictly R18.
There’s one factual error in the documentary.
“You can’t ride a scooter when you’re drunk and 9 years old.”
The video evidence says otherwise.
To conclude, in the words of the YouTube uploader, “You may think this video is funny, but there’s a point where it becomes serious as alcohol intake can cause serious impalement and damaging to the brain.”
Cannabis should be given interim product approval
Cannabis should be given interim product approval
Herbal cannabis should be given immediate interim product approval under the Psychoactive Substances Act says Dr. Richard Goode, Vice President of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party.
His call follows the Ministry of Health’s admission that finalising the safety rules for the legal highs market was “taking longer than expected.”
In 2012 former Associate Minister of Health, Peter Dunne, speaking on behalf of the current National government, promised that “if [manufacturers] cannot prove that a product is safe, then it is not going anywhere near the marketplace. None of these products will come to market if they have not been proven safe.”
“Instead, we are now six months into a an interim period, during which time a dozen or so different synthetic cannabinoids have been approved by the Ministry of Health. And now that interim period looks to stretch to up to a year,” Dr. Goode said.
“The point is that none of these products has yet been properly safety tested. We know nothing of their long-term, chronic health effects. How long do we continue to test these products on consumers before we find out?
“However, we know a great deal about the long-term effects of cannabis, which is the most popular illegal drug in New Zealand. These synthetic highs are specifically designed to emulate natural cannabis, which we know is a benign, low-risk plant substance.”
The ALCP exists to legalise cannabis for recreational, spiritual, medicinal and industrial purposes.
“Let’s legalise cannabis now, so the Ministry of Health can have all the time it needs to get its act sorted, and cannabinoid connoisseurs can continue to get high on the real deal,” Dr. Goode said.
“God made cannabis before man made synthetic cannabinoids. In whom do you trust?”
Dr. Richard Goode
Vice President of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party
Email: vp@alcp.org.nz
Phone: 021 340057
Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party – Truth, Freedom, Justice
www.alcp.org.nz
ENDS