Blair Anderson
Since: Jun 2011
Posts: 1
Correspondent Howgoodisit makes a strong case, one that is based on evidence and harm reduction/minimisation reasoning.
Rather than treating this issue reactively on an ongoing drug by drug basis (contrary to Ministry of Health, Ottawa Charter and National Drug Policy formulation documents) it is time to do the required policy impact statement and cost/benefit analysis of partial prohibition usingr the USE OF DRUGS provisions ammended in 2008 to the Misuse of Drugs Act, of both synthetic cannabinoids and cannabis.
Aspro and Cialis are synthetic, as is alcohol. Are we to declare these withdrawn from the market until manufacturers prove these 'safe'? How about Ritalin? SSRI's? Caffiene?
Further, when you were asked what are your intentions regarding the Restricted Substances Regulations as you entered the 2009 Te Papa Drug Symposium, you were without answer.
Yet these regulations (then pending) were heralded as world class at the Beyond 2008 Ministry of Health funded 'treatment industry' junket.
Why then did you not talk about them in Vienna? Are you embarrased by good drug policy?
Is it because you're going to continue to pretend that regulating synthetic cannabinoids was your idea? Especially as it was your United Future party call to prevent (and subsequently pass) any currently classified recreational soft drug ie: THC, LSD, MDMA, BZP from being downgraded, despite evidence of low risk of harm.
Before UF passed that absurd amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act the restricted substances regulation would have been able to capture JWH018 type indoles by expeditious order in council.
Is it true that the delay and necessary amendments to the legislation you speak of are only necessary because UF moved this ridiculous only up/never down amendment.
I earnestly suggest you (and yours) re read the explanatory note in the 'class d' regulatory model and consider again where recreational cannabis's low risk of harm, declared by law judge and advisor to the DEA (Justice McCart) as one of the safest therapeutic's known to man should fit.
Your reply here would suffice to inform your supporters and UF membership how you intend to comply to the holistic intent of the National Drug Policy.
Oh and finally, would you please stop lying to the public about 'we don't know enough about' cannabimimetic flavonoids. To continue to do so is nonfeasance, when there are over 8000 peer reviewed published papers the past few years on the subject.
Look up on Google Scholar "diabetes AND cannabinoid" or "obesity and cannabinoid" or "fatty liver disease AND cannabinoid" and tell us all out here in the real world what part of "protect the public health' you don't understand.
