Dr Tom O’Connell on Evidence Based Policy

When feigning deafness eventually becomes impossible, as with Evolution, Global Warming, or certain aspects of the “wars” on drugs and terror, the fall-back positions of those in denial often become unsupported claims that their favored alternatives are morally superior, and the ones they oppose will lead to disaster.

Thus do they usually favor war over negotiations, profits over environmental preservation, and imprisonment over rehabilitation. In the case of the drug war they have gotten away with a particularly egregious injustice by defining safe self-medication as a crime; entirely on the basis of deductive logic which has been assiduously protected for nearly a century from the rigorous scrutiny supposed to be applied to “evidence based” policy, and despite its obvious failures and piously dishonest claims.

– Dr T. O’Connell

When the practice and principles of (harm minimisation) medicine are applied to health related to the popular herb cannabis somehow the truth of the matter just flies out the window. Cannabis ‘as medicine’ is ignored because ‘*it is illegal, and there is no money in it’.

How damned convenient, that we can proscribe to a medically efficacious plant ‘criminal sanction’, ignore all that is good for the patient and still call the US$100billion ‘annual research budget’ in best practice & pharmacology science ‘evidence based’.

“I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.” – Hippocrates, the father of medicine

(*public lecture at the University of Otago, Christchurch School of Medicine by visiting speaker from Oxford University, Professor Paul Glasziou. He is an expert in the important area of evidence-based medicine and how to transfer health research into best practice.)

Blair Anderson
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com

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

Here is how to talk about drugs! [British Medical Association]

Boosting your brainpower:

Ethical aspects of cognitive enhancements

There may be a few readers of this blog who will remember the 2000 MildGreen Millennium Initiative for Cognitive Liberty.

There has been a maturation in the global dialogue about ethnobotanicals, entheogens, off-label pharmaceuticals and emerging new psycho stimulants.

This highlights the ethical inadequacy of and corresponding marginalisation of Kiwi Drug Czar and MP (Wigram) Hon Jim Anderton’s propaganda machine along with his Ministry of Health’s parlous 2006 drug policy’ consultation.

Read on, but be aware, this is both a precursor blog entry and a weapon of mass emancipation. Enjoy. The underlines are courtesy of your blogmiester, /Blair)

The key aim of this paper is to facilitate informed debate amongst doctors, scientists, policy-makers, and members of the public about the future development and use of cognitive enhancements. Providing the facts, information and some of the arguments it signals the beginning of a debate about how, as a society, we should consider and respond to the opportunities and challenges presented by cognitive enhancements. A discussion paper from the *BMA / November 2007

Executive summary

• People have long been interested in improving their brainpower. Developments in medicine and pharmacy could provide new ways of doing that but because they raise ethical issues that have not been widely discussed, there is a need for public debate about them. In Part One, this paper sets out some definitions and a framework for debate.
• Drugs and medical interventions designed as therapy for people with diagnosed problems are likely to be sought in future by healthy people to “improve” on nature. It is important to distinguish, however, between what is possible now or will be in the near future and more abstract speculation about longer-term developments. In Part Two, the document examines the evidence (or lack of it) for different methods of enhancement, including nutritional supplements, pharmaceuticals and surgery.
• People may not only want to choose enhancement for themselves but also for their children. The possibilities and limitations of genetic manipulation and selection as a means of enhancing future people are also covered in Part Two.
• Individuals have always been able to try and improve their own or their children’s intellectual abilities through study and effort. The possibility of shortcutting that process and lessening the effort required by using nutrition, drugs or medical techniques is more controversial. Part Three considers why this might be.
• It looks at the speculation about how the new technologies might bring about either positive or negative social and cultural changes, affecting not only individuals but the fabric of society. Arguments that have been put forward by those for and against such a change are briefly summarised.
• One of the main arguments concerns interconnectedness. For the purposes of discussion, the paper looks at cognitive functioning as if it could be isolated from other parts of a person’s life. In reality the potential risks or benefits of cognitive enhancement for other aspects of individuals’ personality, such as emotional stability and creativity, cannot be isolated. People are also interconnected in a social sense, so that choices made by some are likely to impact on others and possibly on society at large. This is highlighted throughout the paper and discussed in detail in Part Three where some suggestions are considered about how a balance might be attained between personal liberty and responsibility to the community.
• Why we may have quite different moral views about different methods, even though they all have the same goal, is also discussed in Part Three.
• Almost anything we try may have some unforeseen side-effects or carry some risks. In order to decide whether change should be regulated, the scope and limits of what individuals should be able to choose for themselves or for other people also need to be discussed. Part Four sets out the arguments for and against limiting choice and considers how regulation, if needed, might be implemented.
• The main questions arising from the paper are summarised in Part Five. The BMA does not have policy or recommendations to put forward on these issues but would welcome informed public debate about how, as a society, we should respond to these developments .

* The British Medical Association – the professional association for doctors. With over 139,000 members, representing practising doctors in the UK and overseas and medical students, the BMA is the voice of the profession and students.
—
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

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

Russell Brown sells ‘Anti Violence’ campaign?

From: Kevin O’Connell

I am not sure that Russell Brown has done much for his credibility by being the first guy lining up earnestly on the family commission’s new tv commercials preaching (along with people like radio personality Phil Gifford and half a dozen other ordinary Kiwis) that ‘family violence is not ok’

…the target audience is alienated by government and its do-gooder sycophants and agencies. Russell, how much did they pay you and do you really believe the campaign (telling people to tell on their neighbours) is going to work? ( narc’ing up / blair)

Also you are lining up with government’s feeble and scientifically invalid ‘separate issue’ mentality where NZ social problems are all separate and can be alleviated by funding the various community programmes and government agencies and early intervention initiatives. (which co-incidently is good for the economy, but i digress…)

Labour seem to genuinely believe or are at least implying that family violence

• has nothing to do with ‘youth crime’
• has nothing to do with ‘binge drinking culture’
• has nothing to do with ‘criminality in general’
• has nothing to do with ‘drunk driving’
• has nothing to do with ‘gambling addiction’
• has nothing to do with ‘police corruption’
• has nothing to do with ‘kiwi underclass’
• has nothing to do with ‘drug harm prevention’,
• has nothing to do with ‘matrix of dysfunction’
• has nothing to do with ‘closing the gaps’…

If you get my drift: the problems in NZ are intrinsic and the family commission is looking at things ‘peicemeal’ IE THEY’VE GOT IT WRONG, and the adds cost heaps but aint worth shit.

I guess Russel’s ‘getting older’ and becoming more and more a ‘safe pair of hands’ for authorised media (eg Radio NZ) to get opinions from. How about focusing on the inequity and alienating factor of NZ’s drug laws Russell – you know there’s a lot of bullshit and injustice and hypocrisy goin on in this particular area of the kiwi experience. (i know because i’ve posted your insights to this forum (cclr-public), many a time)

(i do not have Russel’s email so if someone can foward this to him…)

Regards
Kevin O’Connell

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

Government Reports on Marijuana

Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1894:
“The commission has come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all.” Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, Simla, India: Government Central Printing Office (1894).

U.S. Panama Canal Zone Report, 1925:
“The influence of [marihuana] … has apparently been greatly exaggerated…. There is no evidence … that it has any appreciably deleterious influence on the individual using it.” Canal Zone Committee, The Panama Canal Zone Military Investigations (1925).

U.S. LaGuardia Commission Report, 1944:
“There [is] no direct relationship between the commission of crimes of violence and marihuana … and marihuana itself has no specific stimulant effect in regard to sexual desires. The use of marihuana does not lead to morphine or cocaine or heroin addiction.” Mayor’s Committee on Marijuana, The Marijuana Problem in the City of New York: Sociological, Medical, Psychological, and Pharmacological Studies, Lancaster, PA: Jacques Cattel Press (1944).

The British Wootten Report, 1969:
“[We] intended to present both sides of the controversy…. But once the myths were cleared, it became obvious that the case for and against was not evenly balanced. By any ordinary standards of objectivity, it is clear that cannabis is not a very harmful drug….. Possession of a small amount of cannabis … should not be punished by imprisonment….” Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, Cannabis, London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (1969).

The Canadian LeDain Commission Report, 1970:
“Physical dependence to cannabis has not been demonstrated and it would appear that there are normally no adverse physiological effects … occurring with abstinence from the drug, even in regular users…. Since cannabis is clearly not a narcotic we recommend that the control of cannabis be removed from the Narcotic Control Act…. The Commission is of the opinion that no one should be liable to imprisonment for simple possession.” Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry, The Non-Medical Use of Drugs, Ottawa, Canada: Information Canada (1970).

U.S. National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972:
“There is little proven danger of physical or psychological harm from the experimental or intermittent use of natural preparations of cannabis…. Marihuana’s relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it…. Existing social and legal policy is out of proportion to the individual and social harm engendered by the drug.” National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Marihuana: A Signal of
Misunderstanding, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1972).

The Dutch Baan Commission, 1972:
“Cannabis does not produce tolerance or physical dependence. The physiological effects of the use of cannabis are of a relatively harmless nature…. The current law does not respect the fact that the risks of the use of cannabis cannot be equaled to the risks of the use of substances that are pharmacologically much more potent…. This hurts the credibility of the drug law, and the prevention efforts based on the law are made untrustworthy.” Werkgroep Verdovende Middelen, Background and Risks of Drug Use, The Haque: Staatsuitgeverij (1972).

Commission of the Australian Government, 1977:
“One of the most striking facts concerning cannabis is that its acute toxicity is low compared with that of any other drugs…. No major health effects have manifested themselves in the community…. Legal controls [should] not [be] of such a nature as to … cause more social damage than use of the drug…. Cannabis legislation should be enacted that recognises the significant differences between … narcotics and cannabis in their health effects…. Possession of marijuana for personal use should no longer be a criminal offence.” Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, Drug Problems in Australia –An Intoxicated Society?, Canberra: Australian Commonwealth Government Printing Office (1977).

U.S. National Academy of Sciences Report, 1982:
“Over the past 40 years, marijuana has been accused of causing an array of antisocial effects including … provoking crime and violence, … leading to heroin addiction, … and destroying the American work ethic in young people. [These] beliefs … have not been substantiated by scientific evidence…. The advantages of a policy of regulation include … the savings to economic and social costs of law enforcement … , better controls over the quality and safety of the product, and, possibly, increased credibility of warnings about risks.” National Research Council, An Analysis of Marijuana Policy, Washington, DC: National Academy Press (1982).

Australian National Drug Strategy Committee, 1994:
“Australia experiences more harm … from maintaining cannabis prohibition policy than it experiences from the use of the drug…. We conclude that cannabis law reform is required in this country.” McDonald, D. et al., Legislative Options for Cannabis in Australia, Report on the National Task Force on Cannabis, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service (1994)

Report by the Dutch Government, 1995:
“Cannabis is not very physically toxic…. Everything that we now know … leads to the conclusion that the risks of cannabis use cannot … be described as “unacceptable” …. It has been demonstrated that the more or less free sale of … [marijuana] for personal use in the Netherlands has not given rise to levels of use significantly higher than in countries which pursue a highly repressive policy…. Dutch policy on drugs over the last twenty years … can be considered to have been successful.” Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport,
Drug Policy in the Netherlands: Continuity and Change, The Netherlands (1995).

source: CCLE Legislative Analysis Service
Prepared for Members and Committees of the Connecticut Legislature
Blair Anderson
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com

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