Re: ct H.B. 6715

Dear Charles.

Although this email has arrived here in New Zealand (also with med pot under consideration by the house of Representatives, debate due, May sometime) it is received with appreciation as the content of the CT bill is useful, if only to indicate how mediated the bill is by prejudicial prohibitionary influence. I am not for legislative models that contain such clauses no matter how ‘moral or middle ground’ they may look.

What is required is simply the removal of the alienating double standards that are in themselves the *identified impediments to credible drug education thus enabling ‘social norms’ as protection against systemic deviancy. Many of the clauses in the bill (draft, i hope) below are about as problematic as the law against cannabis itself and, in time will only serve to give scope to those who consider this herb and any use thereof an abomination.
Reality based medicinal use of cannabis will not be found in this over legislated, over governed unenforceable ‘treatment option’.

For example. There is no foundation for a maximum legal threshold of four plants – all could be male and thus tantamount to useless. Four small, by definition, plants would not yield an annual medicinal requirement for smoking or tincture. As any competent Gardener will elucidate to this debate… one cannot raise a family on four vegetable seeds of unknown utility, pest and disease resistance or for that matter… risk from the elements. To expect the medically challenged to be competent and proficient gardeners, or have to wait until plants reach some modicum of maturity reflects the absurdity.

Which suggests that this bill, if enacted is designed with inherent flaws that fail the sick, ignores completely the efficacy of prevention (vs: cure/amelioration) The constraint on public utility of this herb and its variety of ‘modes of use’ ignores ‘best practice’ medical principles and will reveal little value in ‘research’ other than demonstrate that otherwise law abiding sick people will continue to be forced to supplement from the ‘black market’ and subject to criminal sanction.

Access to medicinal use of this exceptional herbs qualities should be, indeed must be, unfettered.

Disability law in New Zealand contains excellent guidelines to implementing successful model albeit one that NZ could well apply to its drug laws as well, but you allude to the many medpot users who lobby based around “we need it”, may I suggest this is out of pure desperation.

A considered public health approach would embrace these folk (as consumers of a service) and move towards an optimal legislative model founded on ‘no decision about us, without us’ as the expeditious [and Just] route to best practice. (its Ottawa Charter principles – the stuff of social capital)

The focus of the legislature should be to uphold the medical premise.. first do no harm.
Of course, the option of status quo is even worse.

* NZ Health Select Cmte report 1998 http://mildgreens.com/inq1.htm

You may know of others who may benefit from these expressed concerns. Feel free to pass on freely.

On 2/25/07, Charles Jackson <cwindsorj@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Mr Thorton,

My name is Charles Jackson. I had the pleasure to meet you at your nomination as the Green Party canidate for Governor last summer. I was representing CT-N as a member of the press corp.

I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of a proposed bill for the legalization of medical marijuana. H.B. 6715. It will be called for a public hearing on Monday 2pm-6pm in room 2C at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford.

I’m a firm believer that if you have something to say. Say it often and say it again and eventually someone will listen and maybe say it themselves. In any case I just thought you should testify. I would like to hear you speak on this issue and maybe someone will hear you. Besides not enough people show up for or against it and when they do they don’t have much to say other than they want it.

I’ve copied and pasted the proposed bill H.B. 6715 to this email.

General Assembly		Raised Bill No. 6715
January Session, 2007		LCO No. 3384
		*03384_______JUD*
Referred to Committee on Judiciary
Introduced by:
(JUD)

AN ACT CONCERNING THE PALLIATIVE USE OF MARIJUANA.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) As used in sections 1 to 9, inclusive, of this act, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) “Debilitating medical condition” means cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, damage to the nervous tissue of the spinal cord with objective neurological indication of intractable spasticity, epilepsy, cachexia or wasting syndrome;

(2) “Marijuana” has the same meaning as provided in section 21a-240 of the general statutes;

(3) “Palliative use” means the acquisition and distribution, possession, cultivation, use or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia relating to marijuana to alleviate a qualifying patient’s symptoms or the effects of such symptoms, but does not include any such use of marijuana by any person other than the qualifying patient. For the purposes of this subdivision, “acquisition and distribution” means the transfer of marijuana and paraphernalia relating to marijuana from the primary caregiver to the qualifying patient;

(4) “Physician” means a person who is licensed under the provisions of chapter 370 of the general statutes, but does not include a physician assistant, as defined in section 20-12a of the general statutes;

(5) “Primary caregiver” means a person, other than the qualifying patient and the qualifying patient’s physician, who is eighteen years of age or older and has agreed to undertake responsibility for managing the well-being of the qualifying patient with respect to the palliative use of marijuana, provided (A) in the case of a qualifying patient lacking legal capacity, such person shall be a parent, guardian or person having legal custody of such qualifying patient, and (B) the need for such person shall be evaluated by the qualifying patient’s physician and such need shall be documented in the written certification;

(6) “Qualifying patient” means a person who is eighteen years of age or older and has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition;

(7) “Usable marijuana” means the dried leaves and flowers of the marijuana plant, and any mixtures or preparations thereof, that are appropriate for the palliative use of marijuana, but does not include the seeds, stalks and roots of the plant; and

(8) “Written certification” means a statement signed by the qualifying patient’s physician stating that, in such physician’s professional opinion, the qualifying patient has a debilitating medical condition and the potential benefits of the palliative use of marijuana would likely outweigh the health risks of such use to the qualifying patient.

Sec. 2. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) A qualifying patient shall not be subject to arrest or prosecution, penalized in any manner, including, but not limited to, being subject to any civil penalty, or denied any right or privilege, including, but not limited to, being subject to any disciplinary action by a professional licensing board, for the palliative use of marijuana if:

(1) The qualifying patient has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition;

(2) The qualifying patient’s physician has issued a written certification to the qualifying patient for the palliative use of marijuana after the physician has prescribed, or determined it is not in the best interest of the patient to prescribe, prescription drugs to address the symptoms or effects for which the certification is being issued;

(3) The combined amount of marijuana possessed by the qualifying patient and the primary caregiver for palliative use does not exceed four marijuana plants, each having a maximum height of four feet, and one ounce of usable marijuana; and

(4) The cultivation of such marijuana occurs in a secure indoor facility.

(b) Subsection (a) of this section does not apply to:

(1) Any palliative use of marijuana that endangers the health or well-being of another person; and

(2) The palliative use of marijuana (A) in a motor bus or a school bus, as defined respectively in section 14-1 of the general statutes, or in any moving vehicle, (B) in the workplace, (C) on any school grounds or any public or private school, dormitory, college or university property, (D) at any public beach, park, recreation center or youth center or any other place open to the public, or (E) in the presence of a person under the age of eighteen. For the purposes of this subdivision, “presence” means within the direct line of sight of the palliative use of marijuana or exposure to second-hand marijuana smoke, or both.

(c) A qualifying patient shall have not more than one primary caregiver at any time. A primary caregiver may not be responsible for the care of more than one qualifying patient at any time. A primary caregiver who is registered in accordance with subsection (a) of section 3 of this act shall not be subject to arrest or prosecution, penalized in any manner, including, but not limited to, being subject to any civil penalty, or denied any right or privilege, including, but not limited to, being subject to any disciplinary action by a professional licensing board, for the acquisition, distribution, possession, cultivation or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia related to marijuana on behalf of a qualifying patient, provided the amount of any marijuana so acquired, distributed, possessed, cultivated or transported, together with the combined amount of marijuana possessed by the qualifying patient and the primary caregiver, shall not exceed four marijuana plants, each having a maximum height of four feet, and one ounce of usable marijuana. For the purposes of this subsection, “distribution” or “distributed” means the transfer of marijuana and paraphernalia related to marijuana from the primary caregiver to the qualifying patient.

(d) Any written certification for the palliative use of marijuana issued by a physician under subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of this section shall be valid for a period not to exceed one year from the date such written certification is signed by the physician. Not later than ten days after the expiration of such period, or at any time before the expiration of such period should the qualifying patient no longer wish to possess marijuana for palliative use, the qualifying patient or the primary caregiver shall destroy all marijuana plants and usable marijuana possessed by the qualifying patient and the primary caregiver for palliative use.

Sec. 3. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) Each qualifying patient who is issued a written certification for the palliative use of marijuana under subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of section 2 of this act, and the primary caregiver of such qualifying patient, shall register with the Department of Public Health not later than five business days after the issuance of such written certification. Such registration shall be effective until the expiration of the written certification issued by the physician. The qualifying patient and the primary caregiver shall provide sufficient identifying information, as determined by the department, to establish the personal identity of the qualifying patient and the primary caregiver. The qualifying patient or the primary caregiver shall report any change in such information to the department not later than five business days after such change. The department shall issue a registration certificate to the qualifying patient and to the primary caregiver and may charge a reasonable fee, not to exceed twenty-five dollars, for a registration under this subsection.

(b) Upon the request of a law enforcement agency, the Department of Public Health shall verify whether a qualifying patient or a primary caregiver has registered with the department in accordance with subsection (a) of this section and may provide reasonable access to registry information obtained under this section for law enforcement purposes. Except as provided in this subsection, information obtained under this section shall be confidential and shall not be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, as defined in section 1-200 of the general statutes.

Sec. 4. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) The Commissioner of Public Health may adopt regulations, in accordance with chapter 54 of the general statutes, to establish (1) a standard form for written certifications for the palliative use of marijuana issued by physicians under subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of section 2 of this act, and (2) procedures for registrations under section 3 of this act.

(b) The Commissioner of Public Health shall adopt regulations, in accordance with chapter 54 of the general statutes, to establish a reasonable fee to be collected from each qualifying patient to whom a written certification for the palliative use of marijuana is issued under subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of section 2 of this act, for the purpose of offsetting the direct and indirect costs of administering the provisions of sections 1 to 9, inclusive, of this act. The commissioner shall collect such fee at the time the qualifying patient registers with the Department of Public Health under subsection (a) of section 3 of this act. Such fee shall be in addition to any registration fee that may be charged under said subsection. The fees required to be collected by the commissioner from qualifying patients under this subsection shall be paid to the State Treasurer and credited to the account established pursuant to section 10 of this act.

Sec. 5. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) Nothing in sections 1 to 9, inclusive, of this act shall be construed to require health insurance coverage for the palliative use of marijuana.

Sec. 6. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) A qualifying patient or a primary caregiver may assert the palliative use of marijuana as an affirmative defense to any prosecution involving marijuana, or paraphernalia relating to marijuana, under chapter 420b of the general statutes or any other provision of the general statutes, provided such qualifying patient or such primary caregiver has strictly complied with the requirements of sections 1 to 9, inclusive, of this act.

(b) No person shall be subject to arrest or prosecution solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the palliative use of marijuana as permitted under sections 1 to 9, inclusive, of this act.

Sec. 7. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) A physician shall not be subject to arrest or prosecution, penalized in any manner, including, but not limited to, being subject to any civil penalty, or denied any right or privilege, including, but not limited to, being subject to any disciplinary action by the Connecticut Medical Examining Board or other professional licensing board, for providing a written certification for the palliative use of marijuana under subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of section 2 of this act if:

(1) The physician has diagnosed the qualifying patient as having a debilitating medical condition;

(2) The physician has explained the potential risks and benefits of the palliative use of marijuana to the qualifying patient and, if the qualifying patient lacks legal capacity, to a parent, guardian or person having legal custody of the qualifying patient; and

(3) The written certification issued by the physician is based upon the physician’s professional opinion after having completed a full assessment of the qualifying patient’s medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship.

Sec. 8. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) Any marijuana, paraphernalia relating to marijuana, or other property seized by law enforcement officials from a qualifying patient or a primary caregiver in connection with a claimed palliative use of marijuana under sections 1 to 9, inclusive, of this act shall be returned to the qualifying patient or the primary caregiver immediately upon the determination by a court that the qualifying patient or the primary caregiver is entitled to the palliative use of marijuana under sections 1 to 9, inclusive, of this act, as evidenced by a decision not to prosecute, a dismissal of charges or an acquittal. Law enforcement officials seizing live marijuana plants as evidence shall not be responsible for the care and maintenance of such plants. This section does not apply to any qualifying patient or primary caregiver who fails to comply with the requirements for the palliative use of marijuana under sections 1 to 9, inclusive, of this act.

Sec. 9. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) Any person who makes a fraudulent representation to a law enforcement official of any fact or circumstance relating to the palliative use of marijuana in order to avoid arrest or prosecution under chapter 420b of the general statutes or any other provision of the general statutes shall be guilty of a class C misdemeanor.

(b) Any person who makes a fraudulent representation to a law enforcement official of any fact or circumstance relating to the issuance, contents or validity of a written certification for the palliative use of marijuana, or a document purporting to be such written certification, shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

Sec. 10. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2007) There is established a palliative marijuana administration account which shall be a separate, nonlapsing account within the General Fund. The account shall contain the fees collected pursuant to subsection (b) of section 4 of this act, and any other moneys required by law to be deposited in the account, and shall be held in trust separate and apart from all other moneys, funds and accounts. Any balance remaining in the account at the end of any fiscal year shall be carried forward in the account for the fiscal year next succeeding. Investment earnings credited to the account shall become part of the account. Amounts in the account shall be expended only pursuant to appropriation by the General Assembly for the purpose of providing funds for administering the provisions of sections 1 to 9, inclusive, of this act.

This act shall take effect as follows and shall amend the following sections:
Section 1	October 1, 2007	New section
Sec. 2	October 1, 2007	New section
Sec. 3	October 1, 2007	New section
Sec. 4	October 1, 2007	New section
Sec. 5	October 1, 2007	New section
Sec. 6	October 1, 2007	New section
Sec. 7	October 1, 2007	New section
Sec. 8	October 1, 2007	New section
Sec. 9	October 1, 2007	New section
Sec. 10	July 1, 2007	New section

Statement of Purpose:

To allow Connecticut residents with certain debilitating medical conditions to cultivate and use marijuana for palliative purposes under certain circumstances and with certain restrictions when a treating physician provides a professional opinion that the benefits of the palliative use of marijuana outweigh the health risks for the patient.

[Proposed deletions are enclosed in brackets. Proposed additions are indicated by underline, except that when the entire text of a bill or resolution or a section of a bill or resolution is new, it is not underlined. ]

Have an utterly excellent day….

—
Blair Anderson

ph (643) 389 4065 cell 027 265 7219
http://mildgreens.com
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion

Whats wrong (with drug ed) in School?

….a rough guide to the drugs being used by today’s teens and 20-somethings:

METHAMPHETAMINE ( ice and speed ): Amid a sustained heroin drought (since Mr Asia affair in NZ) ice has become the second-most commonly taken drug after marijuana. (Australian data, 2006)

It is absolutely predictable methamphetamine was going to become prevalent in New Zealand, it was primed for ‘worst case scenario’ by the elevated level of largely incidental cannabis busts, a national police force utilising post911 technologies, lousy drug education and a propensity to innovate.

Again, in that this regards the very same matrix of maladministration, the kids in New Zealand from anecdote and observations attest that cannabis is a dirty drug…

If NZ’s FADE endorsed and widely used Physical Education curricula aimed at Year 10 is anything to go by, with its focus on harms is directed at cannabis, we bought right into this problem.

In police approved ‘supplied cannabis content’ FADE’s curricula on harms from illicit status is left unquestioned while perpetuating harm myths.

The drug section in this real world example follows directly after ‘SELF-ESTEEM’. (Do they not get it?, its not lack of self esteem that gets these kids into trouble with drugs, its that the ones they want to talk to have either switched off or they are smart enough to listen to their own bullshite detectors.)

Use of cannabis: “is likely to be suspended or indefinitely to appear before the Disciplinary Sub-Committee of the Board of Trustees”… Who made the rules? The High School Board of Trustees.

The Board then asks of this kid;
[3] “What group on the Board assess the scale of offences and appropriate action?”,
[4] “Would you expect the Board to ‘indefinitely suspend in all drug cases? Yes/No?”

and then, here’s the killer questions ,

[5] “Explain your reasons for answering [4] as you did” {three lines to answer it in}
[6] Would you inform a staff member of the school is you saw or were offered drugs?
[7] Explain your answer to number [6] {four lines}
[8] Do you think drug use is widespread as SBHS? Y/N/?
Explain your answer fully: {four lines}

These workbooks are named and dated!

Other notable points. The perjorative term “marijuana” is used everywhere, headings like “The Deal on Dope”, “The Real Deal on Marijuana” are examples, complimented with cartoons.

(it is ironic, when i was a kid, cartoons were seditious! Did they discover something about the medium??))

The content is arguably suspect in its simplistic and often erroneous assertions. Marijuana is the ‘dried leaves of the Indian Hemp plant’, the 400 Chemicals, THC “is a depressant” that slows down thinking and other processes in the brain (like it doesn’t do anything else) . These saws are worthy of discussion.

But: there’s more.

It asserts that hash oil is ‘even stronger’ than solid hash. While this might be debatable in the exception more than the rule who ever in this ‘education’ climate is going to debate it? (Sorry Socrates!) See where this is leading? Where is the harm reduction/minimisation strategies when there is no integrity in the message. This is the impediment to credible (anti) drug education the Health Select Committee identified in its report published in 1998. Ten years of National Drug Policy later and even that review is stalled in stables (with a flawed due process choking on cannabis ‘legal status’, twice recommended by statutory empowered committee.).

If we are to understand Cannabis in Context – discussion is required surrounding this Board of Trustees approved cannabis education aid.

The Boards of Trustees are ‘elected’. They are lobbied by the Managers Guild, the Police and just about every other moral guardian in the school district. They are with doubt a conservative body. Reputation is everything.

If drug use is a health issue, under the ‘no decision about us without us’ standard applies (NZ Disabilities Act).

Perhaps if some common civility was restored to the manner in which we deal with drugs per se the methamphetamine problem would simply evaporate along with the graduated scale of lying that is co-morbid with retributive drug policy.

“A person doesn’t really know it will affect them each time they use it” – they bloody enjoy it you clods! Oh but you said that here. “Reactions include a feeling of well being with a tendency to talk and laugh more. This may be followed by a sense of relaxation and tiredness”. (Sounds an awful lot like sex to me!)

This phrase is unacceptable in 2007

Long-term effects
There is much about marijuana that is not known. A lot more research needs
to be done. However, scientific research has been able to show that long-term,
heavy use may result in some serious health effects.

It goes on to associate cannabis with paranoia, vomiting, hallucinations, amotivation/apathy, cancer, less sex hormones and ‘triggering’ depression and schizophrenia.

“THC from a single joint can take up to 30 days to be completely eliminated from the body”
“marijuana was detected in 11 percent of road fatalities”
“tobacco smokers are more likely to smoke marijuana than non-smokers”
“a foetus exposed to marijuana may be born smaller and lighter”

Legal Issues
After working through the legal truths and myths activity answer the
questions below:

1] Are any laws that you disagree with? If yes, give at least one reason
why. If no, why do you agree with the laws?

2] Would you adjust any of the drug laws that we have in place now –
why/why not and how?

3] What would happen if these laws did not exist?

Note: the answers are reviewed and graded by physical education teachers accountable to the Board of Trustees.

Here is a graphic image of one page [link 150kb] . Read the instructions carefully and consider the implications (for both the student and his/her peer).

Aside from facts suggesting at this age any class room could contain 3-4 experimental users (or more, this data is in all likelihood under reported), these questions would fail ANY ethical test in a questionnaire for research purposes. There is no informed consent using this modality(to ask peers these questions, report what they said and name them). This is neither a private conversation nor is an an accurate record, but it is permanent. And that makes it erroneous.

I consider this a grave development in an ongoing disaster in drug education, ethically worse in many respect than lying to them. At least in the exaggerated harms scenario the individual can discern the truth. Whereas this Stasi like cross reference is likely to be held to contempt by some, if you don’t need to know, there is no right to ask?

Where problems or problematic behaviours exist, sure jump in and treat them.

A Tripartite resolution is the required protocol. Restorative Justice in Schools, as in Life should be the derigour. Drug education should be in context and across the curriculum. FADE is an experiment. They still tell Rotary’s that MDMA makes holes in your brain.

BTW: I stood in the Shirely by-election, the hot issue in the media at the time, the Shirley Boys High students were bonking the intermediate school next door girls… in exchange for cannabis.

Which was about the time FADE stepped in.

I thank and appreciate the honesty of the current PE teacher who supplied this information and commend his integrity for agreeing to some applied oversight and review. (FADE had been, or was going to be invited to consult on curriculum development this year.)

I have long concurred with PE teach’s mentor, Gillian Tasker [formerly of Christchurch College of Education] that Ottawa Charter principles be ‘our guide’.

Now it will be up to due process, and a school board to see to it that the drug education we deliver out kids is ‘safety first and do no harm’.

Pity the PPTA [NZ] wont come on board.
The Californians PTA seem to get it… see “Alternatives to Zero Tolerance”

Blair Anderson

http://mildgreens.com/

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion

Walters/Nadelmann’s message from Ottawa

I am up in Ottawa today to welcome John Walters in town. See my op-ed bellow. / I think the Canadians, by and large, are too smart for him.

• MEDIA ADVISORY: CHALLENGE TO US DRUG CZAR CRITICISMS OF CANADIAN DRUG POLICY (here is an excellent link) Who: Senator Larry Campbell, Ethan Nadelmann, Line Beauchance, Eugene Oscapella Where: Charles Lynch Press Theatre, Parliament Hill, Ottawa When: Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 1:30 p.m

  Also Transform Drug Policy Foundation (TDPF) UK’s leading centre of expertise on drug policy and law reform cited Nadelmann and Walters “frosty reception” see The US Drugs Tsar is currently on tour in Canada, part of his ongoing mission to export and entrench the disastrous ‘War on Drugs’ around the world,

Huffington Post… well what else! Walters’ Sugarcoating to Canadians Can’t Hide US’s Miserable Record on Drug Policy

Canada must not follow the U.S. on drug policy
Ethan Nadelmann, Citizen Special

Thursday, February 22, 2007

The U.S. drug czar, John Walters, is in Ottawa today, trying his best to put a positive spin on one of the greatest disasters in U.S. foreign and domestic policy. Part of his agenda is to persuade Canada to follow in U.S. footsteps, which can only happen if Canadians ignore science, compassion, health and human rights.

The United States ranks first in the world in per-capita incarceration, with roughly five per cent of the earth’s population but 25 per cent of the total incarcerated population. Russia and China simply can’t keep up. Among the 2.2 million people behind bars today in the United States, roughly half a million are locked up for drug-law violations, and hundreds of thousands more for other “drug-related” offences. The U.S. “war on drugs” costs at least $40 billion U.S. a year in direct costs, and tens of billions more in indirect costs.

It’s all useful information for Canadians to keep in mind when being encouraged to further toughen their drug laws to bring them in line with those of the United States.

What’s most remarkable about U.S . drug policy is the way it endures despite persistent evidence that it is ineffective, costly and counterproductive. One report after another — by the U.S. General Accountability Office, the National Academy of Sciences, independent agencies and even the Bush administration itself — consistently fault federal drug-control programs for failing to achieve their objectives.

But funding nonetheless persists. The DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program, which relies on police to “educate” young people about drugs, keeps being funded despite an impressive run of studies demonstrating no effect on adolescent drug use. Ditto for the
government’s border interdiction and anti-drug ad campaigns, and its funding of federal-state anti-drug task forces, and much else.

Drug-policy reformers in the United States have been cheered by Canada’s willingness — at least until now — to look to Europe rather than the United States for drug-control models. When HIV/AIDS started spreading a generation ago among people who inject drugs, both Europe and Canada were quick to implement needle exchanges and other harm-reduction programs, even as the United States opted instead to allow hundreds of thousands to become infected and die needlessly.

Heroin-prescription trials are now underway in Montreal and Vancouver, trying to determine whether what worked so well in Switzerland, Germany, The Netherlands and other countries can also work in Canada. The same is true of supervised injection sites, which have proven effective in reducing fatal overdoses, transmission of infectious diseases and drug-related nuisance. And most recently, Vancouver’s mayor, Sam Sullivan, has broken new ground by proposing that cocaine and methamphetamine addicts be prescribed legal substitutes.

But I wonder whether Canada just can’t help following in U.S. footsteps. DARE survives in Canada too, notwithstanding evidence of its lack of efficacy. Almost three quarters of Canadian federal drug-strategy spending is for law-enforcement initiatives, few of which demonstrate
any success in reducing drug problems. “While harm-reduction interventions supported through the drug strategy are being held to an extraordinary standard of proof,” the director of the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Dr. Julio Montaner, recently observed, “those receiving the greatest proportion of funding remain under-evaluated or have already proven to be ineffective.”

The survival of Vancouver’s supervised-injection facility is currently at risk, for reasons having everything to do with politics and nothing with science or health, while federal drug-enforcement authorities know that all they need to do to preserve funding is make arrests and avoid
scandal.

What matters most to U.S. drug czar John Walters, though, is cannabis, which he occasionally, and absurdly, describes as the most dangerous of all drugs. Seventy per cent of Americans say cannabis should be legal for medical purposes, and one study after another points to its efficacy
and safety as a medicine. A similar percentage also think personal possession of marijuana should be decriminalized (i.e., resulting in fines rather than arrest and incarceration) and 40 per cent say it should be taxed, controlled and regulated, more or less like alcohol.

But Mr. Walters will have none of it. He travels the country, railing against cannabis and urging schools to drug test all students, without cause — and without any scientific evidence that testing will work. And when he visits or talks about Canada, it’s typically to complain — erroneously — that Canada is a major supplier of marijuana for the U.S., never mind the fact that Americans now produce most of the marijuana consumed in the United States.

Canada needs to lead, not follow, the United States when it comes to dealing sensibly with drugs. Mr. Walters’s Canadian hosts today should remind him of the 2002 report of the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, chaired by Conservative Senator Pierre-Claude Nolin.

It’s probably the best, most comprehensive, most evidence-based report on drug policy produced by any government in the past 30 years. And its recommendations are all about dealing with drugs as if politics were an afterthought, and all that mattered were reducing the harms associated with both drug use and failed drug policies. Imagine that.

Ethan Nadelmann is the founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance ( www.drugpolicy.org), the leading organization in the U.S. promoting alternatives to the war on drugs, and co-author of Policing the Globe: Criminalization and Crime Control in International Relations.

(c) The Ottawa Citizen 2007

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion

Justice, equity and compassion, oh and C&C!

Justice, equity and compassion are core principles treasured by all civilised nations. We must uphold them if we are to restore our conflict-ridden global society. By applying the equity principle, enshrined in the UN Charter and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, as Aubrey Meyer reminds us, we could avoid the vortex of rising global warming calamities, and increasing inequity.

Kay Weir, Editor, Pacific Ecologist issue 13 Summer 2006/07

Blair Anderson
http://mildgreens.com

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion

Doctors and Labour Party agree sick patients should be arrested [ALCP]

For the many sick people who are desperate enough to risk expensively – and often dangerously – engaging with the NZ cannabis black market, in order to obtain the most effective medicine for their condition, there are no valentines this year.

Earlier this week it was revealed that the Ministry of Health very quietly acknowledged last October that there is “sufficient evidence of safety and efficacy of cannabis in some medical conditions.” However, the next day political expedience raised its ugly head when PM Helen Clark, perhaps concerned about a grip on power that depends on support from prohibitionists Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton, denied that a law change for medicinal cannabis users might happen any time soon. [more] http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0702/S00043.htm

Blair Anderson
http://mildgreens.com

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion

Smoking Issue non-issue

The data failed to show an association between long-term marijuana smoking and airflow obstruction (emphysema), as measured by airway hyperreactivity, forced expiratory volume (FEV), and other measures, investigators reported. Short-term use of cannabis was associated with bronchodilation. (Hence the effacious Asthma intervention of yesteryear/Blair)

Investigators did find that long-term marijuana smoking was associated with an increased risk of certain respiratory complications — including cough, bronchitis, phlegm, and wheezing. Most of these complications persisted even after researchers adjusted for tobacco smoking.

Previous reviews of long-term cannabis smoking have noted similar respiratory complications, though an association between cannabis use and lung and/or upper aerodigestive tract (UAT) cancers has not been found.

Authors suggested that cannabis inhalation via specialized delivery systems such as vaporizers would likely yield different results.

February issue of the journal Archives of Internal Medicine.

Minor Respiratory Complications, No Decrease In Pulmonary Function Associated With Long-Term Marijuana Smoking, Study Says

see http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7179

Blair Anderson
http://mildgreens.com

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion

Another ‘moral’ law that obsfucates reality

Whose fault is it that 13-year-old “Julie Doe” lied about her age, met a guy on MySpace.com and was allegedly sexually assaulted by him in a Texas parking lot?

It is not someones fault, it is yet another ‘moral’ law that obsfucates reality. Who was the victim here?

see Judge says MySpace isn’t liable for alleged sexual assault on girl

Age of Consent issues were raised by Phil Goff a couple of years ago (my press release on this appears to have been removed from SCOOP.CO.NZ)

Blair Anderson
http://mildgreens.com

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion

Respectful Schools (Restorative Justice)

http://ips.ac.nz/events/downloads/Respectful%20schools.pdf

(all this and not a mention of the word drug, drugs, cannabis, dope, pot, marijuana… go figure!)

We spend a fortune telling everyone pot is the problem and now its not…. Look, it either is or it isn’t?

The NZ ommissioner for Children needs to take a look at the latest UN report on how our kids are doing and duly note where Netherlands appears. Is that the top? Empowered Parents and Children, perhaps the double standards are not getting in the way anymore….

—
Blair Anderson

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion

On Ending Global Apartheid

“the inequity of drug policy, on a global scale, is bigger than apartheid”

(Blair Anderson, Jackson/Tamahere, Radio Live, 15 Feb)

“Averting climate change actually means ending global apartheid,”
(Principles to reverse global warming and end poverty, Aubrey Mayer, Pacific Ecologist issue 13 Summer 2006/07)

Blair Anderson
http://mildgreens.com

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion

Comment to Maxim on Unicef Report

attn: Greg Flemming, Maxim

UNICEF report… top contender in the kid raising stakes?? Netherlands. How odd.

1/4 as likely as our kids to teen pregnancy, deviancy, std’s, and 1/5 teen suicide.

How do I convince skeptics this has nothing to do with effective ‘restorative practices’ in dutch youth management….

Especially the iniquitous drug policy area.

Cindy Kiro’s/Parl Commish report on restorative practices in Schools report doesn’t even mention cannabis/marijuana/pot/dope or drug or drugs….

I commend readers vexed by the problems raised by these issues to see http://www.beyondzerotolerance.org/ by visiting Professor Rodney Skager (May 2006). Rodney applauded Maori restorative practices in this area.

(Rodney is keen to come back and talk about what he learned while here, Auckland Rotaries are keen to have him speak….)

Getting tough on tagging fails to address, despite the frustrations of some in what is broken here; alienation from rule of law and rejection of moral values systems….

But we heard all that before haven’t we…its the constrained dialogue that is ‘outdated’, not te data….

Blair Anderson,
mildgreens.com

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed…
http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion