On Drugs, Medicine and Some Harms

Image via Wikipedia

Part of the problem with Met’s Bill (and Nandor’s earlier) is that it occurred at all.
(comment as posted to the Daktory Forum)

While med pot is an important issue, the diamonds in the sky is D’classification of cannabis. It would matter diddly what med pot provisions were made (as per Sativex) there would still be injustice. The argument for med pot (even as a wedge issue towards full Class D implementation, the rules are all ready there ) fails to do justice to the issue. AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE TO RAISE THE ROOF before the Law Commission (LC).

The LC is doing some very creative stuff around ‘privacy’ and the internet… using the internet to both air the issue contructively and gain insight into public concerns, suggestions and fulfill the responsibility of ‘consultation being seen to be done’.

This is the stuff of social capital. The ‘drug debate’ will be the better for it. One can (will be able to) even send a comment in via ones cellphone. Suddenly the debate (has the POTential to) become relevant to young people.

So donut worry to much about the vote in Parl. There was NO drug debate in the run up to the election, but the day after John Key was elected PrimeMonster we legally regulated psychoactive recreational drugs (it got Royal assent two days before the election, became law on the Sunday). Much more has been accomplished than either media or MP’s are prepared to

Image via Wikipedia

concede. We are the first country in the world to take a ground up approach to analyzing drug policy – including adherence to and relevance of the International Covenants and Conventions.

It really doesn’t get better than this. Although the anticipated in april/may ‘issues paper’ is yet to be released (so that the framework for the debate is clear – and thats a head start) it has been delayed somewhat due to [political] prioritisation of the Alcohol issue. The drug we drink, Alcohol (legal) and Drugs (illegal) will according to the Law Commission(er) ‘inform each other’. Again, no country has (IMHO) realy taken this holistic evaluation of ‘all drug policy’.

Consider fmr PrimeMunster Palmer on Drugs we Drink, “The exclusion of these substances from the terms of reference does not preclude the Commission from taking into account the relative harms of these and other substances.” and “Lessons learnt from the regulation of alcohol and tobacco will be taken on board in the course of this review.” (media release 2008[url]

We are turning full circle back to where our National Drug Policy (framework) pre 1996 HIGHLY reco

Image via Wikipedia

mmended an ‘all drugs’ framework rather than a drug by drug approach.
This serves reform VERY WELL.

Like Alcohol and the recent academically critiqued BERL report on Alcohol harms – the area of cost/benefit need to be explored thoroughly. Daktavists MUST ask for this, ‘where’s the the baseline?’ – and the more we do this, the greater weighting will be given to getting the likes of Prof Jeffery Miron (or the like) out here from Harvard to give this international credibility.

Be Empowered, Submit Unconditionaly.
/Blair Anderson,
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Time to Legalize Drugs? (kristof.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Medicinal Cannabis Bill (mildgreens.blogspot.com)
• New Scientist: Cannabis Kamatua Needed. (mildgreens.blogspot.com)
• Three Strikes, Prison Muster and RealCostofPrisons.org (mildgreens.blogspot.com)

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