ALCP, Black Sabbath, Christian Libertarianism, Ecclesiastes, Gay, Jihad on Drugs™, Live Like It's Legal, Prohibition, Psychoactive Substances Act, Psychology

“Cannabis! Cannabis!” says the Blogger. “Utterly cannabis! Everything is cannabis.”

5 Comments

538332_129133810589880_776604917_n

Regular readers may have noticed that my posts these days are, as often as not, about cannabis law reform. I certainly have.

Cannabis is insanely high in the “intoxicating mix of Christianity, libertarianism and death metal” mentioned under “Contributors” in the right-hand sidebar. Seems there’s more tokin’ going on than “slaggin’ socialists and headbangin’!”

But there is a very good reason for this blog contributor’s unbalanced content.

The Parliamentary term in New Zealand is three years and this year we’re due for a general election. Likely, it will be in November. I intend to stand again as a list candidate and as an electorate candidate for the party of which I am currently the Acting President, viz., the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party. Until then, dear reader, there will be no respite from my drug-induced ramblings!

2014 is election year! The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party is aiming high!

Our goal is to crack the 5% theshold and get MPs in Parliament. Failing that, we intend at least to frighten the Labour and Green horses into legalising cannabis in the next Parliamentary term. I hope that there is a Labour-led coalition in government by 2015. (Politicians are like diapers. They need changing often and for the same reason.) And I hope that the next government does our job for us, with or without our Parliamentary help. So that I can get off my hobby horse.

coming-out

Why am I even in the cannabis law reform movement?

To begin with, I got involved for much the same reasons that most people do and believe most of the things they do and believe—emotional and psychological reasons. I wanted to justify my own behaviour. The process of justifying my own behaviour led me, after a while, to my libertarian political stance. So, all good!

Today I still believe that there is nothing wrong with drug use provided that it does not interfere with what one is supposed to be doing, viz., leading a good Christian life and, in doing so, leading by example. I won’t be the judge of how much room that leaves for tokin’ up. Not as much as I’d like, probably. 🙁

I read recently that we are fast approaching the day when coming out of the closet as a Bible-believing Christian is harder than coming out as a homosexual. Actually, I think we’re pretty much already there. Coming out of the closet as a cannabis user is also hard. But, these days, even my mum knows I smoke marijuana, and I go to church with her on Sundays. Two out of three ain’t bad. 😉

But coming out of the closet as a cannabis user remains difficult for many. Mainly because of its illegality. For obvious reasons, this is a major problem for the cannabis law reform movement. An untold number of respected members of society are regular cannabis users, but they won’t come out as regular cannabis users and voice their support for cannabis law reform, because they want to stay respected members of society—and they want to keep their careers.

Which brings me to why I’m still in the cannabis law reform movement.

I no longer feel any need to justify my own behaviour. I live like it’s legal. Even if I didn’t smoke cannabis, today I can legally get stoned out of my tiny mind on any one of eleven different synthetic cannabinoids contained in over thirty products given interim product approval by the Ministry of Health.

My involvement in the cannabis law reform movement isn’t now, and never was solely, about justifying my own behaviour. My involvement is about stopping the massive injustice of cannabis prohibition. Arresting people for smoking a God-given herb that makes them happy is criminally insane. I have next-to-no words for people who support laws (such as we have now) that prevent medical cannabis patients from getting the medicine they need. They’re evil beyond the pale.

The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party is the only political party in New Zealand with a sunset clause in its very name. Once cannabis is legalised, the party will deregister. And I can have my life back. 🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3YtvuZ2-I0

Beer, Matthew, Polar Bears

Cold beer anyone?

1 Comment

Remember when the Roman Catholic church split in half in the 15th century AD. It was over the sale of indulgences, which were bought to minimise the extent of purgatory one would have to suffer. Interesting how history repeats itself. If you own machinery or livestock you could be imposed with a carbon tax. How does Carbon tax work? much like indulgences. If you don’t pay your carbon tax, you will anger the weather Gods and as a consequence you will be inflicted with typhoons, droughts, tsunamis and God knows what else.

Are you afraid global warming will destroy the earth?

“No one knows the day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, not the Son, but only the Father” Matt 24:36

Those on the left who think CO2 emissions are to blame for disasters, are much like those on the right who blame homosexuals and fornicators. Truth is Jesus return will cause the world to end, so be watchful!

At the end of the week, sit back, chill, and grab a cold one.

1062639_10152174113814640_858048888_n

ALCP, Live Like It's Legal, Vote 2012, Vote 2014

How to legalise cannabis (Colorado)

Leave a comment

Cannabis intended for recreational purposes can now be bought and sold legally in Colorado.

This is a very good thing indeed.

Nothing very bad has happened and nothing very bad is going to happen.

We’re going to legalise cannabis here in New Zealand, too. Sooner or later.

In this series of posts (the next two instalments are to feature Washington and Uruguay) I’m going to look at the specific regulatory measures which, of course, vary across each jurisdiction. Having done so, we can then ask, which legalisation model should New Zealand adopt?

The following bullet points are sourced from Wikipedia’s article on the drug policy of Colorado.

Since the enactment of Colorado Amendment 64

  • adults aged 21 or older can
    • grow up to six cannabis plants (with no more than half being mature flowering plants), privately in a locked space
    • legally possess all cannabis from the plants they grow (as long as it stays where it was grown),
    • legally possess up to one ounce of cannabis while traveling,
    • give as a gift up to one ounce to other citizens 21 years of age or older.
  • Consumption is permitted in a manner similar to alcohol, with equivalent offenses proscribed for driving.
  • Public consumption remains illegal.
  • Amendment 64 also provides for licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores.

Note that Colorado’s is a mixed model. Cannabis cultivation, possession and use is effectively legalised for the individual user. Commercial cultivation and sale are heavily regulated—but hardly more so than anything else in today’s heavily regulated world.

I have no principled objection to the age limit of 21. But I think it’s unrealistically high, also I think the prohibition on public consumption is a bit austere and certainly hard to enforce. Who’s going to stop you getting high when you go hiking in one of Colorado’s beautiful National Parks?

dr-evil-hiking-colorado-meme

Overall, I think Colorado’s on to a real winner. 🙂

There was plenty of paperwork to keep the bureaucrats happy.

Governor Hickenlooper signed several bills into law on May 28, 2013 implementing the recommendations of the Task Force on the Implementation of Amendment 64. On September 9, 2013, the Colorado Department of Revenue adopted final regulations for recreational marijuana establishments, implementing the Colorado Retail Marijuana Code (HB 13-1317). On September 16, 2013, the Denver City Council adopted an ordinance for retail marijuana establishments.
The first stores officially opened on January 1, 2014. The state prepared for an influx of tourists with extra police officers posted in Denver. Safety fears led to officials seeking to limit use of the drug in popular ski resorts.

Cue an interesting story about the effects of cannabis on skiing from Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico and the Libertarian Party’s candidate in the 2012 presidential elections, in an interview with Playboy Magazine.

PLAYBOY: Was there a specific moment, an epiphany, when you stopped drugs?

JOHNSON: I stopped pot because of a specific experience. I was going to be a professional ski racer and pursued professional racing. I skied a couple 125-day seasons in northern Idaho after college. I was racing gates every day. I never made a nickel at professional ski racing–I was lousy at it but I pursued it. One day, I set up a set of gates and punched my stopwatch and skied down the hill. I did it in 17 seconds. I went up the lift and skied down through the gates again and made 16 seconds. I went through the course again and did it in 15 seconds. The next time I got on the chairlift, a ski patrolman whipped out a joint–that was a common occurrence. We smoked pot up to the top of the lift and I went through the course a fourth time. Oh my God, I had the fastest run? It was smooth, perfect. But then I looked at my watch. I was thinking, 13 seconds! But it was 19 seconds! Whoa! It was a revelation. If I did 19 and thought I was so much faster than I really was, then this is carrying over into other areas, too. I thought, I don’t need this.

PLAYBOY: Was it the last joint?

JOHNSON: Not the last, but it broke the habit. People think they can function just as well, but they can’t. A lot of athletes smoke pot because they can’t drink and perform. Yes, you can smoke pot and perform–you can get away with it unless they are testing for drugs–but it has an impact. It has an impact on everything you do. When the Olympic snowboarder tested positive for marijuana, you have to think what he could have accomplished if he hadn’t been smoking.

PLAYBOY: Maybe the pot relaxed him so he could perform as well as he did.

JOHNSON: I don’t think so. I would argue that he could be that much better if he did no drugs.

Perhaps Johnson’s tale lends some credence to Reed’s claim that people that smoke regularly are stupid and lazy on a full time basis. But who am I to judge? 😎

Genesis, John, Matthew, Psalms

Let there be light

Leave a comment

Notice how God said “let there be light”, he didn’t say “let there be electromagnetic radiation.”

In science light is electromagnetic radiation, but what does the bible say about light?

Perhaps light(s) represents daytime, brightness, illumination, and exposure to truth.

And God said “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw the light was good and separated the light from darkness. Gen 1:3-4

You, O LORD, keep my lamp burning, my God turns my darkness into light. Psalm 18:28

“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” Matt 5:14-16

In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. John 1:4-5

John

Have you found Jesus?

1 Comment

Once more Jesus said to them, “I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come.”

This made the Jews ask, “Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, ‘Where I go, you cannot come’?”

But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”

“Who are you?” they asked.

“Just what I have been telling you from the beginning,” Jesus replied. “I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is trustworthy, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.”

They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.” Even as he spoke, many believed in him. (NIV)

have_you_found_jesus

The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”

“I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”

At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”

Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

“You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. (NIV)

ALCP, Peter Dunne, Psychoactive Substances Act, Slayer

We’re not Dunne yet!

3 Comments

Peter-Dunne20

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™, Nanny State, Prohibition, Regulation

Comparisons are odious

3 Comments

20101106_WOC504_0

We shouldn’t diss other people’s drugs. 🙁

But we should compare other people’s drugs with our own. 🙂

The bar chart above is from the paper Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis which was first published in The Lancet in 2010. The paper’s lead author, Professor David Nutt was formerly the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), which is the British government’s equivalent of New Zealand’s Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs (EACD).

As ACMD chairman Nutt repeatedly clashed with government ministers over issues of drug harm and classification. In January 2009 he published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology an editorial (‘Equasy – An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms‘) in which the risks associated with horse riding (1 serious adverse event every ~350 exposures) were compared to those of taking ecstasy (1 serious adverse event every ~10,000 exposures). In February 2009 he was criticised by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith for stating in the paper that the drug ecstasy was statistically no more dangerous than an addiction to horse-riding. Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, Nutt said that the point was “to get people to understand that drug harm can be equal to harms in other parts of life”. Jacqui Smith claimed to be “surprised and profoundly disappointed” by the remarks, and added: “I’m sure most people would simply not accept the link that he makes up in his article between horse riding and illegal drug taking”. She also insisted that he apologise for his comments, and asked him to apologise also to ‘the families of the victims of ecstasy’.

Nutt’s persistence in his heretical view that illicit drugs should be classified according to the actual evidence of the harm they cause eventually lead to his dismissal from his post by the Home Secretary Alan Johnson. Nutt’s dismissal became a political scandal. There was a slew of resignations of high profile government scientists in its wake. The government’s Science Minister Lord Drayson was quoted as being “pretty appalled” by Johnson’s “big mistake” in dismissing Nutt without consultation.

Nutt went on to fame and fortune.

Fortune enough to start his own independent drug research body called the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs (ISCD) which was launched in January 2010. In November 2010, the ISCD published the aforementioned paper Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis. (Read a summary of the paper here or read the full paper here.)

Fame enough for Nutt to be invited by the New Zealand Drug Foundation to give a talk in Wellington late last year. I was lucky enough to get to go along and hear what he had to say. (I’d mostly heard it before, of course. Nutt rates a mention in the Libertarianz Party’s Transitional Drug Policy, which is to legalise all drugs safer than alcohol. 🙂 )

Here’s a challenge to my readers. (Especially those with a conservative perspective.)

Listen to Nutt’s talk and then tell me that the War on Drugs™ is not evil and stupid.

No takers? Didn’t think so.

ALCP, Intellectual Property, Kim Dotcom, Pirate Party, Vote 2014

The Kim Dotcom Party

Leave a comment

Kim-Dotcom--supplied

The fat German narcissist Kim Dotcom is to launch a new New Zealand political party on Monday.

Bd96K8mCYAA9XKN

 
On Twitter, Dotcom says

My new political party won’t be named Mega Party. We are the Internet Party. Here’s our logo for the first time.

 

I find it ironic that the initials of the new party are IP, given that Dotcom is fighting extradition to the US on internet piracy charges. (Perhaps that’s why he neglected to register the domain name ip.org.nz. Instead, the party’s soon to be unveiled website is to reside at internetparty.org.nz.)

Like most of Dotcom’s all-too-frequent narcissistic antics (only yesterday, Dotcom gets jail apology was splashed all across the front of the Dominion Post), this latest one annoys me. Sure, he’s been treated very badly by the New Zealand government, and the US government unjustly wants his scalp, but that’s no excuse to lash out and create a new political party.

Without a doubt, Dotcom’s party will leach votes from other smaller parties with legitimate reasons to exist. I’m thinking in particular, of course, of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, but also of the Pirate Party which is already well established and likely has near identical policies to those of the new party. (We don’t know what the new party’s policies actually are yet, of course, but I expect one of them will be not extraditing Dotcom to the US.)

Here are my predictions for the party’s fortunes. They’ll peak about election time, possibly giving the Internet Party seats in Parliament, then plummet soon after Dotcom’s extradition to the US.

See graph below.

Kim-Dotcom--support

Give me Liberty, or give me Death!