Archive for October, 2007

Renewed call for conditional debate on cannabis

October 31, 2007

The New Zealand Drug Foundation hopes to reignite the debate over legalising cannabis and has the backing of other (selected) health sector experts. 

Foundation head Ross Bell says politicians had to take cannabis out of the too-hard basket and revisit the discussion. 

"no decision about us, without us".

Health Sector Advocate (not consulted) and MildGreen, Blair Anderson said today that contempory society has become 'distrustful of politico-speak surrounding drugs' and suggests that the way to move the debate forward is to foster unfettered participatory democracy and bring the stakeholders, inparticular the youth demograph onside. Anderson envisages that a MildGreen 'Social Ecology' approach can and will enable local governance 'libertarian municipalities' to respond to local needs.

It begins here…

"Rules 'proscribed' by central governance will strive to mediocrotity, decend to infantile detail and fail to address communities of interest. A transistion to libertarian self governance (and responsibility) is a one way street, New Zealand will never be the same… we better do 'this good' and move on", he said in Christchurch today.

Anderson's recent Mayoral tilt, charted the course commencing with "Time to Talk" drug policy. The challenge to Mayor Bob Parker is, can he deliver on his promise?

Half of New Zealanders had tried cannabis, he said, and one in eight used it regularly, but Parliament had not touched the issue since the 2000 Health Commission Inquiry and subsequent debate was stifled by the Government-United Future coalition in 2003.

"Misinformation and hysteria do not help a society deal effectively with cannabis," Bell said. "And the stigmas around use and fear of prosecution often stop the cannabis-dependent from seeking help."

Politicians were happy to debate party pills and methamphetamine, because the public was on their side, he said. Although cannabis was not seen as a vote winner, questions surrounding its social harm remained, he said.

"These include health effects, whether there is any valid medical use, its links with mental illness, supporting schools dealing with student cannabis (use), driving under the influence and the pros and cons of decriminalisation."

With party pills being made illegal at the end of the year it was time the cannabis debate started, he said. (BZP prevelence or harms as nominal as they have been, wouldnt have been a significant problem at all if Anderton's drug policy hadnt failed in the first place. For a country that can even consider 'legal regulation of pot' the banning of BZP now looks increasingly insane./Blair)

Alcohol and Drug Association chief executive Kate Kearney agreed it was time the debate was relaunched. The association had tracked increasing calls to the Alcohol and Drug Helpline over the last year. The calls had mainly come from men in the 19 to 25 age group.

Professor David Fergusson, who leads the long-running University of Otago's Christchurch Health and Development Study, said the 2003 debate had been politically thwarted. "Secondly, evidence as to the adverse effects of cannabis has increased in the last few years." (as has evidence of the failure of prohibition/Blair)

New Zealand needed to develop a grey position of tolerance which included the criminalisation of the sale, supply or purchase of cannabis, he said. But the possession of cannabis by responsible recreational users should be legal. (and just where do responsible recreational users obtian said cannabis… 'twit' comes to mind!, the right to posess is a barren right without the right to grow, store, process, trade and exchange /Blair)  

Fergusson, whose long-term study has followed 1265 people since 1977, said cannabis was imbedded in New Zealand society. "Now New Zealand has to learn to live with it."

The Drug Foundation has dedicated the November issue of its quarterly magazine, Matters of Substance, to cannabis. A Let's Talk About Pot section has also been added to the foundation's website.

New Zealand, world, sport, business & entertainment news on Stuff.co.nz – Printable

 

Antisocial behaviour in kids key to alcohol trouble in teens [MRC]

October 31, 2007

Antisocial behaviour in kids key to alcohol trouble in teens

30 October 2007

It is not levels of underage drinking, but early signs of antisocial behaviour that best predict future alcohol-related trouble and continued alcohol use by young people. This conclusion is drawn from a study led by Robert Young of the Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit in Glasgow.

Published in the Journal Alcohol and Alcoholism, the study reveals that the strongest predictor of alcohol-related trouble among 15 year-olds is a history of antisocial behaviour rather than their actual drinking habits.

Over a period of four years lead researcher Young and colleagues worked with more than 2,000 school pupils between the ages of 11 and 15 to examine the relationship between under-age drinking, antisocial behaviour and alcohol-related trouble. The pupils completed regular surveys that asked about their alcohol consumption and behaviour.

Robert Young said:

"This research suggests the problem is not that drinking in young people inevitably leads to antisocial behaviour, but rather it is young people who already have a violent or antisocial tendency who are more likely to carry out antisocial acts when drinking."

He added: "Over the long-term, it is past antisocial behaviour, even as early as primary school, which predicts future drinking, rather then the reverse. Young people who have an antisocial past are much more likely to drink heavily or get into alcohol-related trouble in the future."

The results show that people who are inclined to behave badly are particularly prone to alcohol-related trouble. Alcohol can have the added effect of making trivial disputes worse – so even those with more moderate antisocial tendencies may be affected. Young people who got their alcohol from shops, bars, clubs, friends or siblings were more likely to both behave antisocially and indulge in increasing amounts of alcohol. In comparison, young people given alcohol by their parents were less likely to behave antisocially and escalate alcohol use. The results were equally valid for both girls and boys.

 
Hon Jim Anderton should be embarrased….. /Blair

Causation, Correlation, Nicotine, Alcohol & Pot.

October 28, 2007

Teenagers who smoke are five times more likely to drink and 13 times more likely to use marijuana than those who are not smokers, says a US report issued today.

The report by Columbia University’s National Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse presented further evidence linking youth smoking to other substance abuse and spotlighted research on how nicotine affects the adolescent brain.

“Teenage smoking can signal the fire of alcohol and drug abuse or mental illness like depression and anxiety,” Joseph Califano, who heads the centre and is a former US health secretary, said in a telephone interview.

The report analysed surveys conducted by the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and other data on youth smokers. Most smokers begin smoking before age 18.

Smokers aged 12 to 17 were more likely drink alcohol than nonsmokers – 59 per cent compared to 11 per cent, the report found. Those who become regular smokers by age 12 are more than three times more likely to report binge drinking than those who never smoked – 31 per cent compared to nine per cent.

Binge drinking was defined as having five drinks or more in a row.

Asked whether smoking is causing these other behaviours or is just another risky behaviour occurring alongside the others, Califano said, “There’s no question that early teenage smoking is linked to these other things. Now whether it’s causing it or not, I think the jury is probably still out on that.”

Smokers ages 12 to 17 are more apt to meet the diagnostic definition for drug abuse or dependence in the previous year – 26 per cent compared to two per cent, the researchers said.

The report noted that marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug among teenagers, with government data from 2005 showing seven per cent of those aged 12 to 17 used marijuana.

Of these, current cigarette smokers are 13 times more likely to use marijuana than those who do not smoke.

The younger a child starts smoking, the greater the risk, the Columbia team said.

Children who start smoking by age 12 are more than three times more likely to binge on alcohol, nearly 15 times more likely to smoke marijuana and almost seven times more likely to use other drugs such as heroin and cocaine.

Teenagers who smoke also have a higher risk of depression and anxiety disorders, the study found.

The report cited scientific studies showing the nicotine in tobacco products can produce structural and chemical changes in the developing brain that make young people vulnerable to alcohol and other drug addiction and mental illness.

This includes effects on the brain chemicals dopamine and serotonin and changes to brain receptors associated with an increased desire for other addictive drugs.

Reuters

A poverty of reason.

Columbia University’s National Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse have identified that naughty kids do naughty things…. (see MRC: Medical Rearch Council – News Antisocial behaviour in kids key to alcohol trouble in teens )

Like protecting the ‘vulnerable’ is the American way! Balderdash.
When we [NZ included] arrest someone for pot, we turn an otherwise normal person into a ‘victim’ purportedly to save them from themselves.

This study is evidence ‘pot laws’ protect and arguably, promote early entry into the ‘harmful’, albeit legal drug markets.

Worse, it avoids discussing the social ecology, the set and setting of poverty along with the toxic laws that create both the opportunity/incentive for early entry and rejection of social values/alienation and any subsequent ‘deviancy amplification’.

If pot wasn’t illegal, rather controlled by legal regulation, these kids would in all likelihood come to little or no harm. Isn’t that the desired ‘harm minimising’ outcome here?.

Consider; If ALL youth smoked pot and didn’t binge drink or inhale nicotine, the ‘life time’ prognosis would be entirely different.

As I have said on many occasions, prohibition couldn’t promote pot use to kids more efficiently than if pot was made compulsory.

The best advertising to prevent youth uptake would be to say cannabis is really good for rheumatism and other (over 50) age related stuff. It would turn them right off!

A bit of intellectual honesty is the ‘cure’. /Blair

Who is looking in Blairs Brain?

October 28, 2007

Visitor Map

Keep a tab ‘location based’ concerns with MapLoco now enabled right down at the bottom of this blog.

Police Draw Weapons on 14yr old Boy on way to party.

October 28, 2007

Police draw weapons on man in fancy dress
TV3 News – Auckland,New Zealand
Neighbour Blair Anderson, who had just returned from an anti-terror rally says he saw the incident unfolding and approached to find out how old the boy was.
See all stories on this topic

There was of course, a little more to this story… firstly, there was no fancy dress, it was a track suit.

Here’s how I described it elsewhere.

Just thought you might like to know that the ‘militarised’ Police did another “Glock” point and ask later to an under 18yr old. The offficer had this man in his sights – aimed at the centre of his chest. It happened right outside my house [50 Wainoni Road,CHCH] just after 7:30pm, 26thOct]. The young man was terror’ified.

The Police refused to allow an adult observer/advocate (it is a youth right) while the lad detained. I was under duress of arrest for asking his age. [I had volunteered after first determining the lad was under 18yrs.]

The senior Officer’s response was haughty and dismissive.

He inferred I was drunk. I was not. I had just opened and sipped from a small bottle of beer and then this happened outside my living room.

Had, in the very intense moments where the ‘occupation force attired’ officer was in ‘battle cry’ – fired and missed… it would have penetrated the bedroom of my friend Alister, at bed height. (four metres from the ‘offender’ and six from the Glock) This could have so easily become another Stanmore Road.

In this case Guns were presented within seconds of arrival at the scene, and while a Police Dog was present.

We should be lucky this young man was very passive. He was under extreme duress, he could have just as easily been irrational. It is understood that he had a toy ‘cap’ gun. He had not presented at anyone. He had been talking with a member of the public (actually Alister’s tenant) moments before asking for some directions. They were as surprised as anyone, as he was non-threatening.

I am reliably informed however, that the ‘complainant’ was an off-duty police officer who had been following this young man for sometime. There was nothing observable that would leave anyone with the impression this young man was anything but a teen… and despite the black and white track suit (unhooded) all I saw was a chubby faced bedazzled kid who would be more at home in front of a playstation.

Further, separate to and prior to this, the Police have been targeting protest organisers in recent days. Three persons peripherally associated with either Happy Valley or Demozone (Otautahi Social Center & Food Not Bombs) have been busted for minor amounts of cannabis. These are [now] highly suspicious busts, one following personal phone calls to organise ‘to pick up the gear’ [for sound reinforcement] for Saturday’s ‘global day of action’ minutes later… the Drug Squad arrive.

You know my field of advocacy and expertise.. this is seeding gross dissent amongst youth in the community. Very unhealthy Policing and even unhealthier mental health outcomes for those present. (recall, ‘don’t put a label on me!’)

Lest we forget, Terrorism and Drugs Issue are one and the same. You might recall the Woman [who lauded along with David Lange on Scoop], was also a British Cabinet Minister (and Drug Czar) who brokered the Irish [domestic terrorism] Peace Accord. She died November 2005. Her name was Mo Molam. Google her name and the word ‘terrorism’ and ‘drugs’ – [social implications of ‘terror laws’] We should be gravely concerned.

If you’re still curious, substitute the same search with ‘ Ray Kendall ‘ the General Secretary of Interpol. Or for even more informed insight on high level advocacy with a global perspective “Senlis Council” about covers it all.

There is a conversation we are not having… (in CHCH and elsewhere) Time to Talk this Mo’vember?Just be aware and be careful..

Blair Anderson ‹(•¿•)›

Social Ecologist ‘at large’
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com
http://blairformayor.blogspot.com
http://blair4mayor.com

ph (643) 389 4065 cell 027 265 7219

Newspaper Wars

October 26, 2007

Some ‘strong opinion’ on the vested interest in keeping politics of failure quiet…

The New Zealand Herald features a lot of crime stories because crime is the “number one driver of trafficker to the Herald website, the company tells me. Website traffic also means eyeballs exposed to ads, which generate revenue. Crime, police and court stories are also cheap to get, occur frequently (more than daily) and are inherently exciting, shocking and are talked about.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0710/S00398.htm


Blair Anderson ‹(•¿•)›

Social Ecologist ‘at large’
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com/
http://blairformayor.blogspot.com/
http://blair4mayor.com/

ph (643) 389 4065 cell 027 265 7219

Reintegration, not DisCRIMination, the Core Issue.

October 25, 2007

7. Treatment has been a major feature of the past few years. There has been a significant expansion, a fall in waiting times and the quality has improved in many areas. But it is services and support such as housing, training and employment that make a vital difference. These are so fundamental they should not be called wraparound services, but core services. People should not be excluded from housing, education or employment because they have had problems with drugs. This means that we need to start dealing with the stigma and discrimination people who managed or are trying to sort out their substance use face . Which is why DrugScope is asking the Government to learn lessons from the Mental Health and Learning Disability fields about reintegration.

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2E6EF551-B307-4991-8670-6366577C8125/0/drugscoperesponse.pdf

So what's with the lock them up 'Anderton' protocol currently in fashion? /Blair

 
Blair Anderson  â€¹(•¿•)›
Social Ecologist 'at large'
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com
http://blairformayor.blogspot.com
http://blair4mayor.com

ph (643) 389 4065   cell 027 265 7219

Cannabis not dangerous for young people

October 25, 2007
AMSTERDAM – Smoking cannabis does not affect the brains of young people.
Cannabis not dangerous for young people / 17 October 2007

This emerges from research into the effects of cannabis on the brain of young people carried out by neuro-psychologist Gerry Jager. At the Utrecht University Medical Centre De Jager examined forty teenagers, half of whom smoked cannabis regularly while the other half did not. Jager conducted memory and concentration tests and examined MRI scans.

The test results of the cannabis smoking youths were as good as those of the other group. “The things happening in the not yet fully developed brain of cannabis-smoking youths are similar to what happens in the brain of adults,”Jager said. She would advise young people who are suffering from a combination of problems not to use cannabis. But she sees no harm for the large group of young people who occasionally smoke a joint. “In ten years’ time they will be established citizens and won’t smoke cannabis any more.”

All sounds just to damn logical to me… why? Because we intuitively know this from the body of social experience. The plural of anecdote is evidence. No amount of political bleating will make it otherwise. /Blair

Re: Mental illness rate soars among users of ‘skunk’ cannabis

October 23, 2007
Twaddle, your re-inventing 'social nihilism' demonstrating a poor understanding both of what motivates us, and dare I say it, yourself. I am a political nihilist in the true sophist tradition. I'll take that 'and proud' to do so.
 
That said, your truly deluded if you think I am a committed OR addicted Pot smoker. Such is the way of prejudice, you use the belief 'i might be one of those' to justify that I must be one of those yet even you couldn't tell one if you fell over one.
 
They whom consume and enjoy are indistinguishable from non-pot smokers by no more than they enjoy pot. Whereas those who think pot smokers should all be in jail are indeed delusional and dangerous; not so much because I (and  many others) believe you could ever be effective in achieving that goal, but that ON EVIDENCE better men than you have tried and failed to put all the pot smokers in jail.
 
The USA has spent over a hundred billion dollars trying very hard this past decade.. and still haven't managed to do better than knock over a few  percent who it seems turn out to be recidivists, so what show have you got? 
 
Just which part of prohibition  can you declare "working"?  Cannabis is so prevalent that you could argue one would have accomplished better results in reducing uptake if you had just made it compulsory.
 
As to your reference to shooting the messenger… get real. Your quite the sad sack if you believe that I would want to shoot you or anyone else, simply because we disagree.  If by 'shooting' you mean left without any semblance of sustainable argument ie: lifeless; bereft of reason then I'll happily take 'good shot mate!'.  
 
I think you will find the following useful in assisting you understand why I support for the greater part ALL, subject to a few caveats,  the recommendations in the SUICIDE paper you drew my attention to; noting that as a supporter of evidence based interventions and therapies abstention and pandering to a 'higher power' are the least effective. Hence the last sentence below is particularly cogent.  
 

A common, but misleading, description of nihilism is the 'belief in nothing'. Instead, a far more useful one would substitute 'faith' for 'belief' where faith is defined as the "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." A universal definition of nihilism could then well be the rejection of that which requires faith for salvation or actualization and would span to include anything from theology to secular ideology. Within nihilism faith and similar values are discarded because they've no absolute, objective substance, they are invalid serving only as yet another exploitable lie never producing any strategically beneficial outcome. (sounding a lot like prohibition there Leonard!)  Faith is an imperative hazard to group and individual because it compels suspension of reason, critical analysis and common sense. Nietzsche once said that faith means not wanting to know. Faith is 'don't let those pesky facts get in the way of our political plan or our mystically ordained path to heaven'; faith is 'do what I tell you because I said so'. All things that can't be disproved need faith, utopia needs faith, idealism needs faith, spiritual salvation needs faith. F**k faith.

 
Prohibition is a faith based intervention. After fifty years of trial (and error) it has been found wanting. Give me replicable evidence…. and remove the constraint to its delivery. (see http://www.unesco.org/most/dplaniel.htm )
 
As for Gab. Nahas,  he is a proven liar and bespoke 'god fearin man' – his tenure as an academic is purely political. He was the very same scientist who claimed cannabis caused human chromosomal damage… and the truth is? Millions have used it for centuries and there has been NO evidence ANYWHERE of any reproductive or otherwise chromasomal damage.  As the 1998 NZ House of Representatives Health Select Committee found in its report on cannabis harms, "they are largely overstated".  Nahas is a practicing and accomplished "enemy of cannabis". see http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/nanahas.html 
 
But thats not a case for lying to our kids.
 
Lets not let the truth get in the road of a good story!
 
/Blair
 
On 10/23/07, Leonard G Mills <lmills@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

A predictable response Blair
 
As I would have expected from any of the committed (addicted?) 'Pot' smokers that I have contact with, you also predictably describe any information that fails to meet YOUR criteria as 'Exceptional high quality scaremongery' or to put it another way…. you endeavour to "shoot the messenger"
 
 
Please take the time to read this attachment and to look at  http://cannabisvictim.blogspot.com/  
before you leap to any conclusions about what motivated me to become actively
involved in this 'Winnable war on drugs'
 
People who advocate the free use of marijuana ARE 'social nihilists' ….. either unwittingly or deliberately
 
 
 
 

—– Original Message —–
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: Mental illness rate soars among users of 'skunk' cannabis
 
Exceptional high quality scaremongery Leonard. It sells newspapers.
 
TThe Daily Mail item is so full of holes… teh science of small numbers misrepresents reality. There has never been, and there is unlikely to be anything but a correlation in the science covering thousands of research papers – however you and others will likely be lead by this. As might Jim Anderton.
 
The only way to tell a cannbis user from a non-cannabs user is 'by the use of cannabis'. There is no other distinguishing factor.
 
Skunk (hydroponic or otherwise) is not new, nor is more dangerous. It is stronger. Like Wine is to Beer. The increased mental health admissions are best explained by alcohol misuse, especially in UK where young woman are increasingly binge drinking. (as they are here too). Given there a millions of users of cannabis in the UK most of whom use it in moderation, the incidence of mental health issues surrounding cannabis are for the greater part associated with its illicit status. Ramping up the arrest and the humiliation (gee, mental health 'labeling' if it wasn't half obvious) has not been shown to be effective now, in the past and highly unlikely in the future. While a softer and more respectful policy base (ie: legal regulation) may in itself be difficult to justify in your mind… prohibition is harder to justify except to the clinically insane and the receptive ning nongs who are taken in by this garbage 'science' reported as facts.
 
Have you any idea how many psychologists actually believe that cannabis 'treatment' works. It doesnt because? The DSMIV as it applies to cannabis interprets ANY use as Misuse, thus is gravely flawed. It would rank even a 'medical user' as nuts. Sad but true.
 
However, thanks for keeping me and my colleagues informed.
I'll copy you, if you so wish, any significant critiques on the Daily Mail item in due course.
 
/Blair
 

Bad Drunk Driving Laws & False Evidence

October 21, 2007

DUI Marijuana: Does Marijuana Impair Driving?

The U.S. Department of Transportation conducted research with a fully interactive simulator on the effects of alcohol and marijuana, alone and in combination, on driver-controlled behavior and performance. Although alcohol was found consistently and significantly to cause impairment, marijuana had only an occasional effect. Also, there was little evidence of interaction between alcohol and marijuana. Accidents and speeding tickets reliably increased with alcohol, but no marijuana or combined alcohol-marijuana influence was noted. “The Effects of Alcohol on Driver-Controlled Behavior in a Driving Simulator, Phase I”, DOT-HS-806-414.

A more recent report entitled “Marijuana and Actual Performance”, DOT-HS-808-078, noted that “THC is not a profoundly impairing drug….It apparently affects controlled information processing in a variety of laboratory tests, but not to the extent which is beyond the individual’s ability to control when he is motivated and permitted to do so in driving”.

The study concluded that: “…An important practical objective of this study was to determine whether degrees of driving impairment can be actually predicted from either measured concentration of THC in plasma or performance measured in potential roadside “sobriety” tests of tracking ability or hand and posture stability. The results, like many reported before, indicated that none of these measures accurately predicts changes in actual performance under the influence of THC …”.

The researchers found that it “appears not possible to conclude anything about a driver’s impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample“.

Note: “THC” stands for Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, which is the intoxicating ingredient in marijuana. THC is fairly quickly converted by the body into inert metabolites, which can stay in the body for hours or even days. It is these metabolites that police blood tests in DUI arrests detect and measure. In other words, (1) marijuana may not impair driving ability at all, and (2) the blood “evidence” only measures an inactive substance which may have been there for days.

DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution

“We do not want a police state, and it seems we are on the precipice of becoming one in the name of DUI.”- Martin v. Commonwealth