Category Archives: Peter Dunne

ALCP, Labour Party, Peter Dunne, Psychoactive Substances Act

“Legal highs” ban a government 360°

Thursday 1 May 2014 Richard 5 Comments

and

Legal high u-turn: better late than never

read the headlines.

But there is no U-turn. It’s a full 360°. Here‘s what Peter Dunne’s now saying.

Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne has announced today that when parliament resumes the government will introduce and pass under urgency legislation removing from sale all remaining so called ‘legal highs’.

But here‘s what the Associate Minister of Health, Peter Dunne, said in March last year.

Last month, the New Zealand Government introduced new legislation into our Parliament …

We are going to reverse the onus of proof so the manufacturers of these products have to prove they are safe before they can bring them on to the market.

Currently, the onus is on the Government to identify the substances that are being sold, test them and prove that they warrant sufficient harm to be prohibited.

That approach has undermined our best efforts to keep our young people safe, and left the rather tawdry legal highs industry constantly one step ahead, despite our best efforts.

Instead of reversing the onus of proof like Peter Dunne said the government would, Peter Dunne allowed the sale of 15 novel, untested research chemicals to the general public. The safety profiles of these 15 chemicals was, and still is, unknown.

This approach, asking the industry to identify the substances that are being sold, but then not testing them and not proving that they warrant sufficient harm to be prohibited, for the entirety of a nine month “interim” period, undermined the government’s best efforts to keep our young people safe, and left the rather tawdry legal highs industry constantly one step ahead, despite their best efforts.

But now Peter Dunne’s reversed his U-turn and followed through on his original promise.

So, why are my fellow drug law reformers now complaining?

This Government is trying to hold back the rising tide of global drug law reform by any means necessary.
Once this massive wave of change has crashed down on their heads, they’ll all emerge from the backwash claiming that ending drug prohibition was their plan all along.

Holding back the rising tide of global drug law reform? I thought the Pychoactive Substances Act, now to be implemented as originally intended, was supposed to be world leading legislation? The government has made good on its promise, albeit nine months late, and is now making its best efforts to keep our young people safe. Isn’t reversing the onus of proof so the manufacturers of designer drugs have to prove they are safe before they can bring them on to the market exactly what you wanted? If not, why on earth are you supporting the Psychoactive Substances Act?

This subject is a political Hot potato at the moment because of the absolute spineless flip flop of the National party and Peter Dunne in regards to Legal Highs, and the Psychoactive Substances Act in the wake of Labour David Cunliffes desperate and dirty Election year tactics to ride the wave of mindless phobia, media sensationalism, and non-scientific condemnation of synthetic cannabis use.
We have witnessed a full revival of the Witch Craze… “Synthetic Reefer Madness” .

No. What we’re witnessing is the National government deciding not to be criminally insane and instead making good on Peter Dunne’s original prohibitionist promise. Again, I ask, why on earth are you supporting the Psychoactive Substances Act? In a couple of weeks, once the blanket ban on soon-to-be-not “legal highs” comes into force, we’ll back to peak prohibition. Peak prohibition was always the intent of the Psychoactive Substances Act. For heaven’s sake, it was masterminded by Peter Dunne! What else did you expect?! The testing regime, whereby only psychoactive substances proven to be “low-risk” (at the sole expense of the would-be distributor) are allowed to be sold, isn’t even in sight. That light you think you see at the end of the tunnel? It’s a train wreck in slow motion coming for you!

As I’ve always maintained, the Psychoactive Substances Act is pure evil.

What can drug law reformers do now? Two things.

First, join the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party. This September 20, tick the leaf. Vote for sensible cannabis law reform! 🙂

Second, give credit where credit’s due. Right now credit’s due to the Labour Party and, in particular, to Hutt South MP Trevor Mallard. Sign the petition now!

Are you against animal testing for synthetic drugs? We are.

The government hasn’t ruled out animal testing in the changes to the legal high laws yet. Labour’s suggested a change that’ll protect animals – but it’ll only be successful if enough of us put pressure on the government to do the right thing. So we’ve started a petition to put the pressure on.

Sign the petition now! www.labour.org.nz/AnimalTesting

Crack, Peter Dunne, Prohibition, Psychoactive Substances Act, Vote 2014, What Have You Been Smoking?

Last call for synthacrack!

Saturday 12 April 2014 Richard 7 Comments

I sense an impending ban on the so-called “legal highs”. Get stockpiling, synthapeeps!
‘Cuz if you don’t stock up now, you’ll be kicking your wicked habits sooner rather than later!

The witch burning anti-synthetics brigade has gone into overdrive!
Someone pressed the moral panic button!

Seventeen-year-old Jesse Murray is the face of synthetic high addiction!
He’s an engaging, bright, polite young man, who is horribly addicted to synthetic cannabis!

Legal high habit takes teen to rock bottom

Each morning, 17-year-old Jesse Murray wakes on his cardboard mattress in Christchurch’s hidden haunts and walks the streets, spitting into a white, bloodstained tissue before arriving at his destination.

His days are dictated by the opening and closing hours of the nearest legal high shop.

If he has the money, he will hand over anything between $25 and $80 a day – money he has begged for.

Despite it being illegal for him to purchase the drug because of his age, sometimes, out of sympathy, the storekeepers give it to him for free.

Watch this interview by Campbell Live reporter Jendy Harper and tell me that young Jesse Murray doesn’t have a great acting career ahead of him … if he can stay off the synthacrack!

But srsly. The unfortunate fact is that Jesse’s experience isn’t uncommon. (“Each time he tried to quit he began to vomit blood and convulse.”) Here’s a story left in the comments section on the 3 News website. It’s typical of many that I’ve read or heard.

Coming off synthetic cannabis is by far harder than coming off others drugs such as weed or P. Well in my experience any way. I had smoked weed for years. Done P too ! Quite often all together. Then once all that got to hard to find I started smoking synthetic. Worst mistake I every made. I got hooked fast. I was rolling joints to smoke at work. Walking down to Cosmic corner in my lunch break. I couldn’t stop. If I did I would get hot flushes, rage would fill me and I’d explode. One day I realised I couldn’t continue and locked myself in my bathroom for a week while coming off the stuff. It was literally the worst week of my life. I’ve never suffered such horrible symptoms before. I fear for those who still smoke the stuff.

This is a PR disaster for both the legal highs industry and those promoting the Psychoactive Substances Act as the pathway to sensible drug law reform. It was an error of judgement on the part of us drug law reformers not to speak out against the legal highs industry taking up the government’s offer to allow the ongoing sale of existing products for the duration of an extended interim period. We should have recognised that leaving 15 novel, untested synthetic cannabinoids on the market was an unacceptable risk.

The industry now looks to be shut down, if not by this government before the election, then by the next coalition government after the election. Winston Peters looks set to be “kingmaker” once again, and his NZ First Party has already jumped on the banwagon.

There is one remaining opportunity for the legal highs industry to reclaim the moral high ground and that opportunity is now. Voluntarily recall all your products! Before Peter Dunne cracks under the cognitive dissonance and bans all the substances.

Cannabis, Ecclesiastes, NZ First, Peter Dunne, Prohibition, Psychoactive Substances Act

‘Tis an ill wind that blows no minds

Saturday 5 April 2014 Richard 1 Comment

As you do not know the path of the wind,
or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb,
so you cannot understand the work of God,
the Maker of all things.

The Maker of all things? What about Winston Peters, the Kingmaker of the next New Zealand government, according to the latest One News-Colmar Brunton poll?!

And do we not know the path of the wind? Winston Peters knows the path of the political wind. He’s the ultimate weathervane politician! Where are the votes? Just look to see what the Winston First Party’s latest populist policy is!

So, what’s the mood of the public on the Psychoactive Substances Act? What’s the feeling out there in the heartland about “legal highs”? It’s very far from positive.

“We will ban Legal Highs,” NZ First

Legal highs are out of control and set to kill more New Zealanders unless stronger measures are taken say New Zealand First.

“New Zealanders are among the world’s biggest users of legal highs. This problem is really getting out of hand so we will certainly take action to fix it by banning the whole lot,” Le’aufaamulia Asenati Lole-Taylor, welfare and social policy spokesperson tells Pacific Guardians.

“Our caucus has decided that if New Zealanders vote us back to parliament, we will fight to have the bill repealed and ban all legal highs. And boost resources for the Police to carry out enforcements.”

She says the current law is not “working” and the situation made worse “because the Police minister keeps taking resources out of the Police so there is not enough funds or manpower to effectively respond to the epidemic of cases around the country.”

Is there really an epidemic of cases around the country, or is this just prohibitionist hype? I’d like to believe it’s the latter but, actually, there is an epidemic of serious adverse reactions to legal synthetic cannabinoids around the country. I recently Facebook friended an old acquaintance from Dunedin whom I hadn’t spoken to in 20 years. Here’s what he told me.

The legal highs are destroying so many people down here, I think it’s the best chance for [the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party].

The legal high people I know are too incapacitated to commit crime. Dunedin now has many beggars on the main street for the first time in my experience. They beg until they get their $20 & rush to the shop then home to slip into their comas/seizures.

Legal highs industry shills, a large sector of the drug law reform movement in this country, and even my own co-blogger (God bless him) are in serious denial about the extent of the problem caused by legalising these particular substances.

The situation we now face was, sadly, entirely predictable. Some more from NZ First’s indicates why …

But the government says banning the drugs is not as effective as its new approach which has led to fewer drugs, fewer retailers, and less harm to health.

In July last year New Zealand became the first country in the world to establish a regulated licensed market for new psychoactive drugs also known as legal highs. The government concluded that the “banning of all psychoactive products” model favoured by Australian governments, such as New South Wales, was not keeping pace with the emergence of new drugs.

Associate Minister of Health, Peter Dunne told ABC radio earlier this week “about 95 per cent of the products that were on the shelves prior to the legislation have been removed. We’ve gone from having over 4,000 unregulated retail outlets to now 156 retail outlets, and anecdotally, we’re getting reports from hospital emergency rooms and others about a decrease in the number of people presenting with significant issues.”

Consider this. Products which were allowed to stay on the shelves after the enactment of the Psychoactive Substances Act were restricted to products which had been on sale for three or more months prior to its enactment about which there had been no serious complaints. Only 5% of them (1 in 20) stayed. Well and good. But if the size of the consumer market for synthetic cannabinoid products remained roughly the same size after the passing of the PSA as it was before the passing of the PSA … then the number of people consuming those products allowed to stay on the shelves has increased by a factor of 20.

Please don’t get me wrong. Although I remain a die-hard libertarian, I’m actually in favour of the so-called regulatory model. That is, the regulatory model as applied to specific drugs, e.g., tobacco, alcohol and cannabis. I’m in favour of the regulatory model because, realistically, it’s the most libertarian legislative framework possible. Right now, the sale of alcohol in New Zealand is heavily regulated. But I can pop across the road to my local supermarket any time during regular shop hours and pick up a reasonably priced six-pack of beer or bottle of wine. I’m not hugely inconvenienced. I can live with advertising restrictions and point of sale limitations. (I haven’t even been asked for ID since I turned 40!)

What if I wanted the regulatory model to succeed? How would I implement the regulatory model if it were left up to me? What if I wanted to see a smooth transition from the prohibition model to the regulatory model, with a minimum of bleating from the sheeple? I would transition slowly, cautiously, one drug at a time. To begin with, I would regulate a single drug. A drug that has been the subject of thousands of scientific stuides and which we well know is very low-risk. And, moreover, is a drug that people actually want! Cannabis!

What I wouldn’t do is simultaneously approve fifteen different novel, untested synthetic cannabinoids, about which we know nothing, and which the vast majority of seasoned drug users rate as inferior to natural cannabis. What I wouldn’t do is rig the legislation’s interim implementation in such a way that use of these unknown research chemicals increases by a factor of 20 immediately after the legislation is passed. Unfortunately for the cause of drug law reform, this is what actually happened in New Zealand in July 2013.

The adverse reactions continue to be reported (and massively under-reported) to the National Poisons Centre. The government and the Ministry of Health don’t know what’s happening and they sure as fuck don’t know what they’re doing. The sad truth is that the propaganda being put out at an ever increasing rate by the hysterical prohibitionist mob is based on hard fact. It’s no wonder that there’s an ever-increasing flood of the proverbial in the MSM. To the industry shills and my misguided friends in the drug law reform movement who are trying to counter the ban brigade’s propaganda by shovelling it uphill, I say: good luck with that.

It’s getting worse, and it gets worse. There is real anger out there among the “lynch mob” recovering addicts and their “witch burning” mothers. Sadly, that anger is justified. Even more sadly, some of their understandable actions are not. A week ago, someone posted the following message on the page of a Facebook group dedicated to banning the synthetics, K2 and Other “LEGAL HIGHS” in New Zealand we all need to know the dangers.

i will burn down every sythetic legal high shop in invercargill for 2grand. message me if you are willing to hire me for this job . churr

Nek minnit, Molotov cocktail hits shop.

What if I wanted the regulatory model to fail? I’d enact the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 and put the Ministry of Health in charge of its implementation. And, if I were the legal highs industry, I’d meekly follow Dunne’s advice, like a lamb to the slaughter, and reiterate it to the hapless end users: “If you must use drugs, use these ones.”

(Also, I’d probably stage a counter-protest at today’s nationwide protests, carrying a banner that treats the protesters as fools, or worse, and tells them what they already know: “Prohibition still doesn’t work”. The protesters are well aware, by now, that the problem with synthetic cannabis in this country is a direct result of cannabis prohibition. I’m heading off shortly to stage a co-protest at my local protest. My placard reads, simply: “Legalise Cannabis”.)

Organiser of today’s protest in Tokoroa, Julie King, says

Other countries are watching us. They’re seeing how it’s working in New Zealand. It’s not working.

I think Julie’s right. We’re not watching New Zealand lead the way to saner drug policy. We’re watching a train wreck in slow motion.

Post by Richard Goode.

Acts, ALCP, Genesis, Jihad on Drugs™, John, Matthew, Peter Dunne, Psychoactive Substances Act

What does the Bible say about drug dealing?

Wednesday 12 March 2014 Richard 1 Comment

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.)

National Party, Peter Dunne, Psychoactive Substances Act, Revocation

Dunce to Dunne

Tuesday 28 January 2014 Richard Leave a comment

Today was Peter Dunne’s first day back as Associate Minister of Health. I never thought I’d say it, but welcome back, Peter!

Yesterday was Todd McClay’s last day as interim Associate Minister of Health. Yesterday McClay went full retard.

In his swansong announcement, McClay welcomed the decision by the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority to withdraw five psychoactive products from the market.

The five products were: Anarchy, Voodoo, Karma, AK47, and Northern Lights Primo. Their interim product approval numbers were (respectively): P0002, P0003, P0004, P0008, and P0038. Their licences have now been revoked.

Let’s take a closer look at two of these products, AK47 and Northern Lights Primo. Here are screenshots from the Ministry of Health’s interim product approvals page prior to their revocation. (Google’s latest cached copy of the page is here.)

I included two additional products which have interim product approval, Amsterdam Long Island Tea and Tai High Purple Passion. Note the following facts.

The product Northern Lights Primo, which contains CL-2201 at 50 mg per gram, has been taken off the shelves. Meanwhile, the product Amsterdam Long Island Tea, which contains CL-2201 at 50 mg per gram, stays on the shelves. The active ingredient in both products is exactly the same. The amount of the active ingredient in milligrams per gram is exactly the same. The only difference between the two products is different packaging. One gets to go, the other gets to stay. Wat.

The product AK-47, which contains 5F-PB-22 at 60 mg per gram, has been taken off the shelves. Meanwhile, the product Tai High Purple Passion, which contains 5F-PB-22 at 60 mg per gram, stays on the shelves. (PB-22-F and 5F-PB-22 are the same chemical.) The active ingredient in both products is exactly the same. The amount of the active ingredient in milligrams per gram is exactly the same. The only difference between the two products is different packaging. One gets to go, the other gets to stay. Wut.

Unless people smoke the packaging (I think not) we have two pairs of identical products. Todd McClay says

These withdrawals underscore the effectiveness of the Psychoactive Substances Act in getting harmful products off the shelves

I am satisfied that one of my last acts as Associate Health Minister is to see the removal of yet another suite of products that would have risked the health of young New Zealanders.

He might as well have said

These withdrawals underscore the ineffectiveness of the Psychoactive Substances Act in getting harmful products off the shelves.

I am satisfied that one of my last acts as Associate Health Minister is to see the non-removal of yet another suite of products that risk the health of young New Zealanders.

Is Todd McClay a complete idiot? I think so. (He’s just been made the Associate Minister of Tourism. I think the tourism industry should be very worried.)

But there’s quite possibly something more sinister going on. Industrial sabotage. Apparently

The five brands were previously assessed by the Ministry of Health and in August were judged low risk enough to be sold to the public.

But a spike of calls to the National Poisons Centre will lead to a recall today of the AK47, Anarchy, Karma, Northern Lights Primo and Voodoo brands.

A “spike” of calls. Does this indicate the depths to which some operators in the legal highs industry will stoop? Hoax calls to the National Poisons Centre, advising of “adverse reactions” to competitors’ products? I don’t know. But something doesn’t seem at all right to me.

What I do know is that the Ministry of Health is a serious health risk. The morons who comprise the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority are supposed to assess the scientific evidence of potential harms of these products. Sorry, guys, but self-selected self-reports phoned in to the National Poisons Centre hardly count as science. You might as well consult the Amsterdam Long Island Tea leaves you’ve been smoking!

ALCP, Peter Dunne, Psychoactive Substances Act, Slayer

We’re not Dunne yet!

Tuesday 21 January 2014 Richard 3 Comments

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.

Jihad on Drugs™, National Party, Peter Dunne, Psychoactive Substances Act, Slayer

The National government is criminally insane

Monday 2 December 2013 Richard 15 Comments

Yesterday’s post was about a Cosmic Corner brand of fake cannabis. Back in July 2011, Juicy Puff was suddenly ordered off the shelves by the government and temporarily removed from sale after it was found to be contaminated with phenazepam.

Here’s what Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne had to say at the time. (Emphasis mine.)

DRUG REFORM ON THE WAY

Associate Minister Peter Dunne today said finding phenazepam in a second product within a week reinforced the problem of suppliers being able to put unregulated drugs on the market.

“The people in this industry are generally not trustworthy or reliable,” he said.

“They are fast-buck merchants who, on the one hand claim to be offering a legal and safe alternative to illicit drugs, then throw their hands in the air and say they do not know what is in their products when our testing catches them out.

“They cannot have it both ways.”

Dunne said restrictions that would curb the marketing and advertising of synthetic cannabis products were just weeks away, and would be made through amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act.

“In the longer term the solution we are looking at is reversing the onus of proof and making the manufacturers and suppliers prove their products are safe before they get anywhere near the market.

Currently, authorities have to prove such products were unsafe before they could be taken off the market. “We are doing that successfully, but it is not an ideal process. It is cart before horse and the restrictions that will come in the next few weeks are an important step in addressing these issues.”

The following month, in August 2011, Parliament voted to pass the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act (No 2) 2011. This amendment enabled Peter Dunne to start issuing temporary drug bans called Temporary Class Drug Notices.

Remember how Peter Dunne sold us the follow-up Psychoactive Substances Act?

Here‘s what he told the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs when he took the world stage in Vienna, Austria earlier in 2013. (Emphasis mine.)

While we have placed more than 30 synthetic cannabis-like substances under temporary bans, but we are aware that there are potentially hundreds more that could replace them.

Last month, the New Zealand Government introduced new legislation into our Parliament that will end the game of catch-up once and for all.

We are going to reverse the onus of proof so the manufacturers of these products have to prove they are safe before they can bring them on to the market.

He said the same thing in 2012. It’s what he’s said all along, time and again. In his capacity as a Cabinet minister. On behalf of the New Zealand government. (Emphasis mine. Click the banner below for the official statement from the Beehive.)

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.

I think I’ve said enough to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Peter Dunne, the National government’s Associate Minister of Health, promised us this on behalf of the current National government.

Would you feel happy purchasing and consuming a product that had been proven safe? Many of you will answer, yes. What reason do you have to think the products now on the market are safe? Well, none of the products now on the market would be on the market if they hadn’t been proven safe, right? The National government promised us that that simply wouldn’t happen.

But the government has broken its promise. None of the products now on the market have been proven safe. None of the products now on the market has been tested. They are only now being tested. On you, the consumer. And some of the products the government approved for sale have since been proven unsafe.

Is it morally right to test untested drugs on people after promising them that they’ve already been tested and proven safe? Is it morally right to test untested drugs on people after first having obtained their misinformed consent? It’s certainly not legal.

Here’s Section 10 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation
Every person has the right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without that person’s consent.

The National government is in breach of the Act. Someone should take these conscienceless psychopaths to court. They’re criminally insane.

What’s the damage? Kidney failure is the damage. A government approved product called Kryptonite has caused some test subjects to experience

Kryptonite: Kidney failure, hallucinations, vomiting, chest pains.

This according to the Dominion Post.

Back when it was still on the official records, and approved for sale from approved outlets, this is what the MoH told us about Kryptonite.

Product name Psychoactive substance(s) Quantity Company name Physical address Status Interim product approval number

Kryptonite Red SGT-7 25mg per gram Lightyears Ahead Limited Unit 4/24, Airborne Road, Albany, Auckland Under consideration P0058

Kryptonite Green SGT-19 40mg per gram Lightyears Ahead Limited Unit 4/24, Airborne Road, Albany, Auckland Under consideration P0059

Product name	Psychoactive substance(s)	Quantity	Company name	Physical address	Status	Interim product approval number
Kryptonite Red	SGT-7	25mg per gram	Lightyears Ahead Limited	Unit 4/24, Airborne Road, Albany, Auckland	Under consideration	P0058
Kryptonite Green	SGT-19	40mg per gram	Lightyears Ahead Limited	Unit 4/24, Airborne Road, Albany, Auckland	Under consideration	P0059

What are SGT-7 and SGT-19? The Ministry of Health has never told us, and neither have the manufacturers or suppliers, even though Section 58 the Psychoactive Substances Act says

Restrictions and requirements relating to labelling of approved products
…
(2) A label for an approved product must include the following information in a prominent position on the label:
(a) a list of the active ingredients of the product and the appropriate quantity of each active ingredient;

But the Ministry of Health has let slip (here) that SGT-7 is

ADB-CHICA

and SGT-19 is

4-fluoro-AM2201

So now you know. No, wait …

You’ve never previously heard of ADB-CHICA or 4-fluoro-AM2201, right? Well, neither have I, and neither has Google. We still don’t know WTF-7 and WTF-19 they are.

Suppose that someone other than the manufacturers and the Ministry of Obfuscation knew the chemical identities (structures) of these substances? Could they have reasonably guessed that they would cause serious adverse effects such as kidney failure? Well, it’s reasonable to think so. Indeed, I sounded the alarm here a few months ago.

The compound on the left is AB-005 which has interim approval. The compound on the right is XLR-11 which was banned as from 13 July 2012 by Peter Dunne. They are structurally similar. They are analogues.

The problem here is that XLR-11 has been linked to acute kidney injury in some users. Now the Ministry of “Health” has seen fit to approve an analogue of a suspected kidney toxin for human use. But it’s legal so it must be safe, right? Yeah right.

But it turns out there’s a problem in my reasoning. You see, we can take an educated guess that analogues of known nephrotoxins are quite likely unsafe. But we don’t know which structural similarities count. Some wise heads in the online drug-using community have suggested that the culprit is not the backbone of the XLR-11 molecule (i.e., the ring structures) but the fluoropentyl side-chain. And there’s at least three products with interim approval that contain a fluoropentyl side-chain, viz., 5F-PB-22, (S)-N-(1-amino-3, 3dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(5-fluoropentyl-1H-indole-3-carboxamide and 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(4-fluoro-1-naphthoyl)indole.

However, in the event it’s none of the suspects above that have so far caused kidney failure in some users. It’s one or both of ADB-CHICA or 4-fluoro-AM2201. And what this means is that we cannot make a reasonable educated guess as to which synthetic cannabinoids are possible nephrotoxins. They’re all suspect.

The National government is conducting medical experiments on New Zealand citizens without their informed consent. Really, they’re only one step away from the Tuskagee syphilis experiment and two steps away from the Nazi human experimentation of Josef Mengele.

Never again!

The National government is criminally insane. And must be stopped.

Jihad on Drugs™, Peter Dunne, Pink Floyd, Prohibition, Propaganda, Psychoactive Substances Act, Regulation, What Have You Been Smoking?

Ministry of Dissimulation

Sunday 1 December 2013 Richard 2 Comments

Dissimulation is the truth and nothing but the truth. But it’s not the whole truth.

Dissimulation is a form of deception in which one conceals the truth. It consists of concealing the truth, or in the case of half-truths, concealing parts of the truth, like inconvenient or secret information. Dissimulation differs from simulation, in which one exhibits false information.

Now there’s nothing wrong with forgetting to mention key facts. But there’s something very wrong with intentionally omitting to mention them for one’s own nefarious purposes. That’s dishonesty.

Remember Juicy Puff?

It is, or was, a Cosmic Corner brand of fake cannabis. It has an interesting history. Back in July 2011 it was suddenly ordered off the shelves by the government and removed from sale .

A company ordered by the Ministry of health today to remove a legal alternative to cannabis says it had no idea it contained a prescription drug.

Director-general of health Kevin Woods ordered Cosmic Corner Limited today not to sell Juicy Puff Super Strength because it contained a benzodiazepine called phenazepam.

The same medicine was found in Kronic Pineapple Express ordered off the shelves by the government on Thursday.

Dr Woods said phenazepam could only be legally supplied when prescribed by a doctor or other prescriber.

It was not available in New Zealand and used only in one country for the short-term treatment of anxiety and as an anticonvulsant.

Phenazepam is an obscure benzodiazapine. So obscure, in fact, that many countries have not gotten around to making it illegal. So it is readily available online from legal high suppliers. The same suppliers who supply the synthetic cannabinoid(s) that are the active ingredients in fake cannabis products such as Juicy Puff!

However, the company said it was only a retailer of the product and did not manufacture or import the product.

Company spokesman, Mark Carswell said Juicy Puff Super Strength was one synthetic cannabinoid blend out of the fifteen sold by Cosmic to have been contaminated by a small amount, 240 parts per million, of the prescription medicine phenazepam.

The product had been purchased in good faith from an Auckland firm, London Underground, he said.

“Juicy Puff Super Strength is not intended to contain phenazepam, and Cosmic was not aware that it contained phenazepam.”

Cosmic would cooperate with the Ministry of Health to ensure a safe and efficient recall, Mr Carswell said.

People should return all unused Juicy Puff Super Strength product to any Cosmic store and they would be given a store credit.

Industry leaders would meet on Monday to consider a code of practice incorporating a testing standards to ensure materials were screened for contaminants.

It was a clear case of contamination. (Warning: May contain traces of nuts phenazepam.)

Of course, Juicy Puff was soon back on the shelves. Minus the phenazepam. Also, I expect its active ingredient(s) changed from time to time over the next couple of years, each time Peter Dunne banned its active ingredient(s) at the time with a Temporary Class Drug Notice.

Does Duncan Garner remember Juicy Puff?!

If the existence of idiots who ignore simple instructions, well-intentioned advice and plain old common sense is a sufficient reason to ban a psychoactive product, then Garner made a convincing case! Perhaps that was his intent. Duncan Garner is a prohibitionist. Whereas spokesman for the legal highs industry, Grant Hall, also smoked the product on camera at Radio Live. Recreationally. No worries.

That was back in May this year. By that time, and since, the active ingredient in Juicy Puff was, and has been, AB-FUBINACA.

Do I remember Juicy Puff?

I certainly do. It was one of my favourite fake cannabis brands. AB-FUBINACA is one of the best synthetic cannabinoids out there. It’s very trippy. You only need ONE toke of the stuff and you’re stoned as! (Someone should have told Duncan Garner.) In my experience, another couple of tokes will get you a bit more stoned, but after that don’t bother. The effects of the drug seem to have a ceiling. Also, tolerance builds very rapidly. And it leaves a truly disgusting chemical taste in your mouth. For flavour, the naturally occurring terpenes in cannabis can’t be beat. In fact, smoking herbal cannabis is a better, safer experience in all respects.

Cannabis can get you through times of no money better than money can get you through times of no cannabis. But in times of no cannabis, I’ve sometimes gone into Cosmic Corner and scored myself some Juicy Puff. But last time I went to buy some Juicy Puff at Cosmic Corner it wasn’t there. I asked Cosmic Corner where it had gone, but they were unforthcoming with any information other than confirming that it had gone.

Does the Ministry of Health remember Juicy Puff?

I figured that if it had been banned, the Ministry of Health would have notified us of the fact on their Interim product approvals web page.

In the past, when products given interim approval have subsequently had their interim approvals revoked, they’ve been *cut* from the page section headed Interim product approvals and *pasted* into the page section below headed Interim product approvals refused and revoked. Minus the information about the identity of the now banned active ingredient and its quantity. Why would the MoH delete that information?

But this time, it’s worse. Juicy Puff has altogether *disappeared* from the MoH web page. It’s not just that the Ministry has acted to conceal the identity of the active ingredient in Juicy Puff and its quantity. They’ve acted to conceal the fact that Juicy Puff ever existed!

Do you think I’m being paranoid? Well, recently I’ve been worrying a lot that I’m being paranoid. I figure that means that either I’m paranoid or I have an anxiety disorder. Either way, I’m not a well man. But I digress.

It came to my attention recently that Juicy Puff has, in fact, been banned or discontinued. Well, it has according to the Dominion Post, and here’s why.

Juicy Puff: Unconsciousness, seizures.

I think I know why Juicy Puff is gone from the official records. Back when it was still on the official records, and available to buy from Cosmic Corner, this is what the MoH told us about Juicy Puff.

Product name Psychoactive substance(s) Quantity Company name Physical address Status Interim product approval number

Juicy Puff AB-FUBINACA 30mg per gm Cosmic Corner Limited 26-28 Essex Street, Christchurch 8006 Under consideration P0035

Product name	Psychoactive substance(s)	Quantity	Company name	Physical address	Status	Interim product approval number
Juicy Puff	AB-FUBINACA	30mg per gm	Cosmic Corner Limited	26-28 Essex Street, Christchurch 8006	Under consideration	P0035

This is what the MoH tells us now about nine other products still on the market.

Product name Psychoactive substance(s) Quantity Company name Physical address Status Interim product approval number

Apocalypse AB-Fubinaca 100mg/g Eversons International Ltd 5 Fitzroy Place, Christchurch Licence issued P0005

Outbreak AB-Fubinaca 100mg/g Eversons International Ltd 5 Fitzroy Place, Christchurch Licence issued P0006

illusion Peak AB-FUBINACA 40mg per gm Platinum Marketing Limited c/o Shieff Angland, P O Box 2180, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140 Licence issued P0026

Amsterdam Havana Special AB-FUBINACA 35mg per gm Platinum Marketing Limited c/o Shieff Angland, P O Box 2180, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140 Licence issued P0028

Blueberry Crush AB-FUBINACA 35mg per gm Platinum Marketing Limited c/o Shieff Angland, P O Box 2180, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140 Licence issued P0031

Tai High Bubble Berry AB-FUBINACA 45mg per gm Herbal Exports Limited P O Box 305062, Triton Plaza, Auckland 0757 Licence issued P0044

Master Kush AB-FUBINACA 45mg per gm Herbal Exports Limited P O Box 305062, Triton Plaza, Auckland 0757 Licence issued P0046

Lemon Grass AB-FUBINACA 40mg per gm Orbital Distribution Ltd 8 Cranwell St, Henderson, Auckland Licence issued P0051

Choco Haze AB-FUBINACA 40mg per gm Orbital Distribution Ltd 8 Cranwell St, Henderson, Auckland Licence issued P0052

Product name	Psychoactive substance(s)	Quantity	Company name	Physical address	Status	Interim product approval number
Apocalypse	AB-Fubinaca	100mg/g	Eversons International Ltd	5 Fitzroy Place, Christchurch	Licence issued	P0005
Outbreak	AB-Fubinaca	100mg/g	Eversons International Ltd	5 Fitzroy Place, Christchurch	Licence issued	P0006
illusion Peak	AB-FUBINACA	40mg per gm	Platinum Marketing Limited	c/o Shieff Angland, P O Box 2180, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140	Licence issued	P0026
Amsterdam Havana Special	AB-FUBINACA	35mg per gm	Platinum Marketing Limited	c/o Shieff Angland, P O Box 2180, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140	Licence issued	P0028
Blueberry Crush	AB-FUBINACA	35mg per gm	Platinum Marketing Limited	c/o Shieff Angland, P O Box 2180, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140	Licence issued	P0031
Tai High Bubble Berry	AB-FUBINACA	45mg per gm	Herbal Exports Limited	P O Box 305062, Triton Plaza, Auckland 0757	Licence issued	P0044
Master Kush	AB-FUBINACA	45mg per gm	Herbal Exports Limited	P O Box 305062, Triton Plaza, Auckland 0757	Licence issued	P0046
Lemon Grass	AB-FUBINACA	40mg per gm	Orbital Distribution Ltd	8 Cranwell St, Henderson, Auckland	Licence issued	P0051
Choco Haze	AB-FUBINACA	40mg per gm	Orbital Distribution Ltd	8 Cranwell St, Henderson, Auckland	Licence issued	P0052

Yes, that’s right. ALL contain the active ingredient AB-FUBINACA. All contain the active ingredient in amounts per gram GREATER than the amount per gram contained in Juicy Puff.

I put it to you that the Ministry of Dissimulation doesn’t want us to know that NINE products whose approval they haven’t revoked contain the very same ingredient—that purportedly causes UNCONSCIOUSNESS and SEIZURES—in amounts per gram greater than the one product whose approval has gone.

“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.” (NIV)

Banning legal highs ‘not core council business’

Thursday 31 October 2013 Richard 3 Comments

This is a recent press release from New Zealand’s #1 libertarian.

Banning legal highs ‘not core council business’

“There have been intermittent calls for further government crackdowns on the legal high industry by those involved in local body politics, most recently from the Team Manurewa organisation, who believe New Zealand should emulate steps taken in New South Wales to ban all psychoactive substances. In the interests of harm minimisation, individual freedom and small local government, these calls should be ignored by Auckland Council,” says Stephen Berry.

Berry is right. Crackdowns on the legal high industry are outside the mandate of local government. They’re outside the mandate of national government, too.

“This year the National Government passed pragmatic legislation aimed at maintaining some standards of safety in psychoactive substances. While I have long been on public record as opposing the unrealistic and hypocritical threshold involved in proving a substance to be safe, and continue to maintain that position, I concede that the law did at least set up a framework for these substances to continue to be sold without resorting to the ineffective club of total prohibition.”

It’s a bold concession. This is the same law I have elsewhere described as pure evil. But Berry is right, again. One good thing the Psychoactive Substances Act has done is set up a regulatory framework for the sale and purchase of psychoactive substances.

Actually, it hasn’t. The Act delegates the task of setting up a regulatory framework for the sale and purchase of psychoactive substances to the Ministry of Health, a task that has yet to see completion. While we wait, we have interim product approvals of untested research chemicals. Hopefully, this situation doesn’t contribute to the larger “die while you wait” public health system. (In the event of sudden death, call the National Poisons Centre.)

Actually, it’s not a good thing, either. It’s the lesser evil. A regulatory framework is the best we libertarians can expect. But does it have to be this one, implemented by the Ministry of Stupid? (I’d sooner have one from Colorado, Washington, or even Uruguay. $1 per gram!)

Stephen Berry recognises that some nasty substances have resulted from the legal high industry but claims this is the result of prohibition rather than the legal high industry itself. “New Zealand previously had some relatively safe recreational legal substances in the form of benzyl piperazine and the ingredients in the very earliest forms of cannabis substitutes. Unfortunately a combination of a small number of cases of irresponsible use, coupled with nosey neighbourhood crusaders and a scandal driven media eventually resulted in their ban. As time has gone on, activist pressure has resulted in more products being banned and what has replaced them has often been filthier, nastier and more harmful. Many of the synthetic cannabis products on the market prior to the new laws were harmful because of prohibition rather than because of a lack of it. Indeed there is a strong case for the claim that if relatively benign genuine cannabis were legal, the market for synthetic alternatives would disappear.”

Berry is right that some nasty substances (causing all of the harms listed on the protest placard pictured above) have resulted from the legal high industry and right, again, that this is the result of prohibition rather than the legal high industry itself. As he goes on to illustrate.

I’ve said before that the legal highs industry is caught between a rock and a hard place. Indeed, it is. Thanks to the past prohibitionist policies of the New Zealand government, the only substances the legal highs industry can offer consumers are novel, untested research chemicals about which we as yet know next to nothing. Bring back BZP! And legalise cannabis.

Should the legal highs industry offer consumers novel, untested research chemicals about which we as yet know next to nothing? Because, legally, now they can. ‘Because it was there’ was the reason George Mallory gave for climbing Mount Everest. He disappeared in 1924 attempting to reach the summit. Is ‘because we can’ a good enough reason for the legal highs industry to peddle potentially dangerous drugs? K2 takes you higher.

“The crusaders for bans on new liquor stores, gambling venues and legal high retailers are usually driven by a wowserish desire to ensure the lives of everyone else are as miserable as their own. They’re convinced that their idea of how one should live their day to day life is so superior that everyone else should be forced to adopt it.” Manurewa Action Local Board member Simeon Brown is a prime example of moral crusaders who value personal prejudice over logic. “Mr. Brown advocates the Manurewa Local Board ban sales of legal highs in their board area even if they are proven completely safe. That position is ridiculously totalitarian.”

It’s not pleasant accepting the fact that there are shades of totalitarianism. Nonetheless, evidence-based policy premised on harm minimisation is a much lesser evil than the ridiculously totalitarian position of the likes of killjoy Brown. We’ve had more than enough of the latter and not nearly enough of the former. In fact, none. We’ve yet to see the implementation of any significant evidence-based policy premised on harm minimisation in New Zealand.

Mr. Berry believes the concepts of individual choice and personal responsibility are far better than any prohibitionist approach to the various vices hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders choose to enjoy. “Our country does not have issues with alcohol because of its availability. Issues with alcohol are the result of a culture that promotes excess and individuals that do not take responsibility for their own behaviour. No amount of new laws and regulations will make a dent in this. It is for individuals to willingly change their own behaviour, not politicians to implement more and more bans. One only needs look at the result of US alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and the result of widespread drug prohibition today to see that more laws will not only be ineffective but actually exacerbate the problems associated with enjoying vice.”

Change comes from within.

“Preventing new liquor stores does not prevent the supply of alcohol, nor dent the profitability of its sale. What it does do is entrench the existing operators and maintain their profits. Were the market allowed to decide how many alcohol retailers are appropriate, the sales of the product would be spread amongst a greater number of players in a more crowded market resulting in liquor retailing actually being less profitable than it is under the current regime.”

Berry identifies some of the less immediate outcomes observable by viewing council crackdowns on the liquor industry through the lens of the Law of Unintended Consequences. These less immediate outcomes—crony capitalism and a lucrative liquor industry—are among the costs overlooked by the authors of overzealous drug policy

“The Government has put in place regulations to deal with alcohol and legal highs at a national level and those regulations are more than enough. Local government should not be getting more involved. Councils and local bodies already tax, spend and borrow far too much. The last thing they should be doing is getting involved in the personal lives of individuals as well.”

More than enough is too much.

Stephen Berry was the Affordable Auckland candidate for Auckland Mayor in the 2013 local body elections. He finished in third place receiving 13,560 votes. Affordable Auckland’s five core policies did not include how legal high regulation should be approached and the party membership includes a range of views.

Jihad on Drugs™, Peter Dunne, Psychoactive Substances Act, What Have You Been Smoking?

Government to fund construction of large wooden badger

Thursday 26 September 2013 Richard 8 Comments

Remember how Peter Dunne sold us the Psychoactive Substances Act?

Here‘s what he told the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs when he took the world stage in Vienna, Austria six months ago.

While we have placed more than 30 synthetic cannabis-like substances under temporary bans, but we are aware that there are potentially hundreds more that could replace them.

Last month, the New Zealand Government introduced new legislation into our Parliament that will end the game of catch-up once and for all.

We are going to reverse the onus of proof so the manufacturers of these products have to prove they are safe before they can bring them on to the market.

He said the same thing last year. It’s what he’s said all along, time and again. In his capacity as a Cabinet minister. On behalf of the New Zealand government.

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

Like some codswallop with your porkies? Lies. That’s how we got sold the PSA. But what we got was not as advertised. Quite the reverse.

1. Pass safety tests.
2. Approve for sale.

That was Plan A.

This is Plan B.

1. Approve for sale.
2. Build a large wooden badger.

Here‘s what Dunne said back in May, in his final bout of banning.

This is another blow to the industry and one of many we have delivered – but I fully acknowledge it is more of the cat-and-mouse game until we can deliver the killer punch in August when the Psychoactive Substances Bill will become law.

Deliver the killer punch?! He makes the Psychoactive Substances Act sound like the Jonestown Massacre! Could be something in the analogy.

Eternal Vigilance