At last, NORML has come to its senses! The befuddling effects of the synthetic cannabinoids they’ve been smoking must be starting to wear off after last week’s ban. 😀
I’m very pleased to see that NORML is now turning away from the failed experiment that was the Psychoactive Substances Act and is now looking to Colorado’s pioneering cannabis law reform efforts as a model for sensible, workable drug law reform. Homegrown is not necessarily better!
The line-up of speakers for the conference is … interesting, to say the least! 😎
Circle the wagons! Early bird registration fee is $35 if paid by Sunday 8 June. See y’all there, folks!
Colorado calling … must be time for some Denver deathgrind! Here’s Cephalic Carnage with a “crazy concoction of truly experimental grindcore, death metal, and jazz”. 🙂
An Eternal vigilance Salute goes out to Hamilton Activist Gary Chiles for organising the Norml J Day for the Waikato this Year.
It took place in the Hamilton Domain (Lake Stage) despite the fact that Hamilton City Council had tried to stop the event taking place on the basis that it violated their new ‘Smoke Free’ policy for public spaces.
Gary decided that he could not in good conscience allow such a pretext hinder his intention to rally Middle Earth Hobbits, wizards, and Ents for this annual protest against Cannabis prohibition.
It was peaceful Civil disobedience at it’s finest, Everyone was well behaved, and by the time I hopped back on my Triumph… gratefully… no one had seen any sight of the Police.
We were graced with the presence of New Zealand’s Pre-eminent voice for ending the War on Cannabis Dakta Green.
It was great to catch up for a yarn with this Legend.
Dak is never short on interesting Schemes to inspire his Fans… sitting at his feet.
The Bands Played on.
I had already asked Gary for a speaking spot in today’s program, before the Council decided not to grant permission for Norml to use this domain.
This ruling put Gary and people like myself who had already said they would participate in this day of peaceful protest against oppressive prohibition in a very difficult position and we had to make a moral decision to step up for the sake of the cause…. an act of peaceful civil disobedience.
I got up and spoke for 5 minutes.
I Attempted to motivate people into becoming active in the struggle to end Cannabis Prohibition.
As a Libertraian Independent, I asked for Hamilton Westies to give me their Candidate vote this election, and suggested they give their Party vote to ALCP because IMO they have Cannabis users best interests at heart.
The following is the script I had penned as a ruff guide to my speech… which I ended up ‘winging’ to a great extent…
My Jay day speech 2014.
Hi Everyone, my name it Tim Wikiriwhi and I am an Independent Libertarian whom is standing for parliament in the up and coming election, for the seat of Hamilton West.
I have been actively involved in activism for ending the war on drugs for over 15 years.
I used to smoke a lot of Pot in my younger days and was arrested and processed 3 times so I know first hand just how oppressive and unjust prohibition is, and how it generates social alienation.
There have been some amazing progress on this issue in the US and other places.
Recreational use of Cannabis has been legalized in some states , yet here in New Zealand The movement to End prohibition seems to be barely treading water.
Why is this?
Many reasons… the main one being complacency by kiwi smokers themselves.
Another reality that it is certainly much easier to get the Government to ban things than un-ban things.
Just look at how easily the Anti-Legal high prohibitionists were able to get unprecedented media coverage, while the Legalise pot movement gets almost Zero…. In spite of the war on Drugs being such an overwhelming failure and drain on our legal system.
In spite of many Global Big wigs…. Including Helen Clark sitting in High Office in the UN declaring the War On drugs causes much more social evils and injustice than drug use does!
When I look at the Shrill alarmism of all the Moms and grannies who turned up at Ban the Legal High rallies, and then read about the relief and joy they felt at hearing about the election year reversal on the PSA and Banning of all synthetic highs…. I marvell that they are happy that their young ones are again exposed to police brutality, and that Police can now Bust Their young adults for quietly smoking these substances…. They rejoice at the Idea that their young people will get Police records… etc.
Isn’t that Crazy?
To me this demonstrates not only how Bigoted phobias operate, but also a wilful ignorance of just how evil the War is that they are supporting… it’s a war on their own Kids, their friends and neighbors.
We need to challenge that ignorance… we need to expose just how unjust and tyrannical the war on drugs is.
If we can do that…. Then we will have the Moms and the Grannies marching in the streets…. Calling for and end to the war…. And the Media will grab hold of it…. And parliament will fold….
That is how the system works.
We have a lot of work to do changing the perception about just how nasty and wrong the War on drugs really is.
Yet that will only happen if you guys…. Pots smokers and Libertarians stop sulking…. Stop accepting all the slurs that the bigots heap upon you as being Dopey and lazy…. And claim the high moral ground which is rightfully yours!
Get up off your butts and agitate for change!
We need everyone to get serious and demand Liberation.
Let me tell you that Pot smokers and Libertarians by far out number the Vocal bigots who managed to grab the Media attention and sway Parliament to Ban Legal highs.
Way out number them.
Thus it cant be said that we lack numbers.
We only lack the will and the fortitude
How many people turned up today just because they thought this was a great day for smoking Weed?
While I appreciate you showing up, the truth is this day is about rallying support for Legal reforms, and if you do nothing for the cause in between Jay days… you are just a pretender… just a sheep.
Get agitating for change Guys.
This is election year.
I am sorry if I’ve laid a heavy trip on you…. And ruined your Buzz, I cant help that…. If the shoe fits… etc.
If that has been you… the good news is you can change that by getting active.
Be forthright in defense of your inalienable rights to peacefully pursue your own happiness!
condemn the bigotry every time it rears its ugly head in your presence!
Use The Social networks.
Contact Norml and ask what you can do to help.
We must rededicate ourselves to the struggle and regain momentum.
That’s all I’ve got to say.
I am Libertarian Independent Tim Wikiriwhi
I ask Hamilton Westys to give me your Candidate vote this election,n and suggest you use your party vote for the ALCP.
Thank you Gary Chiles for organizing today’s protest, thanks to the bands and every one else who is participating in this even despite Hamilton city Council and thanks everyone for Listening.
Enjoy the rest of your day
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Libertarian Independent.
William Mckee, Gary Chiles, Dakta Green, and Tim Wikiriwhi.
It was a successful days activism.
Great To meet Gary and catch up with Dak.
And to meet new faces.
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.
Rosenthal predicts: “A sizeable number of our young people will not mature as they should. Instead, we can look forward to a growing population of immature, under-qualified adults, many of whom will be unable to live without economic, social or clinical support.”
The inescapable fact is that marijuana will have drastic long-term effects on young users and, with pot-smoking reaching alarming proportions, on the future of society.
“We are sitting on a timebomb with these,” said Leo Schep, of the National Poisons Centre.
“It’s not just the acute effects, it’s the long-term psychological effects.”
Even if the Government banned all legal highs tomorrow, users would have ongoing issues, he said.
“They are going to be a huge burden on the state, possibly for the rest of their lives.”
The first passage is from the January 1982 issue of the NZ Reader’s Digest.
The second passage is from Fairfax NZ News earlier this week.
Nearly a third of a century has elapsed. Yet the rhetoric and dire predictions of societal peril are virtually identical. The only apparent difference is the drug(s) in question. What do these similarities and difference signify?
Note that Rosenthal’s prediction has come to pass!
Today we do, indeed, have “a growing population of immature, under-qualified adults, many of whom [are] unable to live without economic, social or clinical support.” But it is surely wrong to blame the rise of the welfare state on the popularity of marijuana! After all, Stoners Are Well Educated and Make a Lot of Money.
No, marijuana was a scapegoat back in the day. A scapegoat for what? A scapegoat for all of society’s ills but especially for society’s drug problem(s), such as they are.
What’s really responsible for society’s so-called drug problem? The answer is simple. It’s a lack of self-responsibility and a lack of parental responsibility that is mainly responsible. But who’s to blame for that?!
Fast forward to today and we’re scapegoating synthetic cannabis instead.
One good thing about fake cannabis (“legal highs” or “legals”) … is that it’s taken the heat off real cannabis!
But there’s something we need to be clear about. Today’s propaganda campaign against synthetic cannabis is not simply a re-run of yesterday’s propaganda campaign against natural cannabis. The drugs are different in more than just name only.
The recently released Noller report finds that synthetic cannabis is significantly more harmful than natural cannabis. (For example, today’s synthetic stoners are broke and unemployed. They aren’t well educated and don’t make a lot of money like natural stoners do.) This unfortunate fact means that we can’t simply write off the current outcry against synthetic cannabis as simply MSM-driven sensationalism and mass hysteria.
Certainly, most of those who protested nationwide earlier this month, calling for a ban on synthetic cannabis, were ignorant peasants with lynch-mob mentalities. Speakers who addressed the witch burners at the Invercargill and Dunedin rallies and who happened to mention that legalising natural cannabis would help to solve the synthetic cannabis problem were met with boos, derision and pitchforks.
Most, but certainly not all. Many of the protesters are former synthacrack addicts themselves or parents of synthacrack addicts. I know some of these people. They’re well meaning and far from stupid. And they’re probably right that an outright ban on synthetic cannabis will fix our problems, at least in the short-term.
So, is a lack of self-responsibility and/or a lack of parental responsibility mainly responsible for the anti-synthetic brigade’s problems? Yes, I insist that it is. But there’s none so blind as many of my libertarian friends and fellow drug law reformers who will not see that government and opportunistic greed are also very much to blame. Because synthetic cannabis is far more dangerous than we were led to believe. The plain fact of the matter is that New Zealand society is not yet ready to accept untested, dangerous, legally available designer drugs. We need a transitional policy to get from where we are now to a safe society where all recreational drugs are legal and the Psychoactive Substances Act is not it, for a multiplicity of very good reasons.
Comparisons are odious. But the synthetic cannabinoid products now available in New Zealand are seemingly so bad that even former prohibitionists are now seeing sense in legalising the real deal. And that, at least, is a good outcome.
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!
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.
The Libertarianz Party strives for a future New Zealand in which Nanny State no longer coddles and chastises us at every turn. We envision a New Zealand in which parents exercise authority over their children, and adults are free to do as they please, so long as they respect other people’s freedoms and take full responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. In such a libertarian utopia, there will simply be no need for legislation banning things which have a “moderate potential for harm”. Parents will see to it that their children stay out of harm’s way, adults will take responsibility for their own welfare, and the government will not waste your money on futile efforts to stem the tide of human nature. Ultimately, we would repeal the Misuse of Drugs Act. Meanwhile, the Libertarianz Party has a transitional drugs policy: to legalise all drugs safer than alcohol. This policy would result in the legalisation of a surprisingly large number of substances already scheduled in the Misuse of Drugs Act – and all of them safer to take on a night out than a few drinks.
– Dr. Richard Goode, Spokesman on Drugs for the Libertarianz Party, 2007
I’m now with the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, but still a libertarian. It is my personal view that we should legalise all drugs. Starting with cannabis. Let’s see how cannabis legalisation goes, and take it from there.
If it were up to me, I’d rank all drugs in order of safety, and legalise them in that order, over an extended period of time. That’s my policy. Obviously, most of the current crop of legal highs would be some way down the list.
By legalising drugs in order of safety over a period of time, we can monitor the effects of the policy, and call a halt at any time. If it turns out that we’ve take one step too far, we can always quit while we’re only one step behind.
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.
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
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”.)
According to the New Zealand Herald, families demand scrapping of legal-high laws, but Mana Party Leader and Te Tai Tokerau MP Hone Harawira wants to take things a whole lot further.
Mana MP Hone Harawira … said drug retailers should be killed.
“If there is one law I could pass, it would be line up the guys who are making the most money out of this legal drug stuff, put them on TV and then publicly execute them, and then introduce a law to say the next bastard that does it is going to get the same treatment,” he said.
I don’t doubt that Harawira said this.
Let’s be clear. He wants manufacturers and retailers who are going about their legal business to be publicly executed. He would like the State to kill manufacturers and retailers who are licenced to manufacture and retail legal highs under legislation that was passed near unanimously by Parliament in July of last year.
By now, everyone knows that Hone Harawira’s addicted to hate. How should we respond to his latest not-even-barely-concealed homicidal exhortations?
Hey, Hone, here’s an idea. Instead of executing the manufacturers and retailers who are operating within the regulatory boundaries set down by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013, let’s execute the 119 MPs who last year voted for the new law instead. Oh, wait, that includes you, Hone! (Do as I say or I’ll kill you? Do as I say *and* I’ll kill you!)
Bad idea. Repaying hate with hate is what’s made Hone the hateful man he is today. He bears a grudge against the majority of his fellow kiwis and their ancestors who behaved badly. “White motherfuckers have been raping our lands and ripping us off for centuries and all of a sudden you want me to play along with their puritanical bullshit.” (Puritanical bullshit? This from the man who wants to close down legal high shops. Right.)
There’s no mana in calling for the judicial killing of law-abiding citizens. (And none, of course, in calling for a dictatorship under John Banks.)
Here’s a better idea. Let’s treat Hone Harawira with kindness. Let’s listen to his legitimate concerns. Let’s even consider shutting down the legal highs industry, at least until such time as its products have been properly tested and have passed the safety tests that the industry itself is promoting.
In what I just said, I may sound like anything but a libertarian … but I’m still very much a libertarian. (Got that, Tim?!) God knows, I’m all for legal drugs! But I don’t want to see New Zealand’s bold regulatory experiment be judged a failure and I very much fear that I’m witnessing a train wreck in slow motion. It would be a smart move on the part of the legal highs industry to voluntarily remove its products from the shelves. Because, next to the unfortunate few (or not so few) who have suffered physical and psychological harms as a result of consuming the industry’s products, those whom the implementation of the interim period is hurting (or is going to hurt) the most … is the industry itself. IMHO.
In the interim, opposition to the legal highs industry is only going to increase between now and September’s general election. New Zealand’s most influential political blogger is increasingly vocal in his opposition. Things look set to escalate up another notch early next month when the anti-synthetics brigade takes to the streets on Saturday 5 April in a coordinated nationwide protest. How is it all going to end?
All will be well that ends well if we legalise cannabis. And do so as soon as possible, i.e., now. From a public health perspective, it’s literally insane that the safer, natural alternative to the synthetic cannabinoids remains illegal while untested, synthetic substitutes are given the State seal of approval. And if we’d legalised cannabis a decade or so ago or never criminalised it in the first place, we wouldn’t be dealing with the current situation. I told you so … 🙁
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.
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.
