Canvassing for Opinion - aka "Blairs Brain on Cannabis"

IMHO prohibition sentiment requires inherent addiction to status quo, an incapacity to visualise beyond the here and now and a desperate desire to know others might feel the same... Reform is not revolutionary, rather it is evolutionary. Having survived banging your head against a brick wall the evolutionist relishes having stopped. / Blair

Friday, April 15, 2011

Challenging the Warrant under Statute Interpretations

there is a well-established and perfectly sensible rule of statutory interpretation which says that where one statute replaces another, and where the new statute does not repeat a particular provision in the previous one, then it is to be presumed that Parliament has omitted that earlier provision deliberately, and therefore the legal situation is different from what it was under the previous law. (OpEd by David Round "free" beaches)
What might this say about a possible legal defence for cannabis possession based on statutory interpretation using the "Class D" provisions of the restricted substances regulations [RSR] where it explicitly cites that there are currently no restricted substances, and where provisions to regulate are (ie: pending cannabimetic indoles  AKA synthetic THC ) to be administered by the Ministry of Health?

Is the law regarding possession of natural THC without force and effect? And does the provisions for sale, manufacture, advertising etc of synthetic indoles speak to and thus override the previous legislative instrument.
Is Associate Minister Dunne being thrifty with the truth (ie: politically deceptive )  when he postulates variously that these indoles have to be classified as hazardous... if clearly they are not. ?
Was former 'drug law' warrant holder Minister of Health Hon. Annette King right to describe cannabis legislation (in particular as it stood prior to the Restricted Substances Regulations) as making an Arse of the Law? 
note:  The warrant for all drug surveillance, arrests, convictions and incarcerations are made under the master status of the current serving Minister of Health, not Police, not Justice, not Corrections and certainly not Border Control/Customs. It is a law exacted to save us from ourselves. It is absent tripartite scrutiny. Where is the complainant?
The Law Commission Drug Policy review has effectively written off consideration of the RSR for natural THC attributing the difficulty to 'politically not possible' hiding under the blanket of our international obligations to the Single Conventions and subsequent Covenants.
Suggesting the correct forum to test  "statutory interpretation" of the RSR is a NZ High Court,  or is such a court to high for such trivial matters?

Blair Anderson 
ph nz  (643) 389 4065   nz cell 027 265 7219

Enhanced by Zemanta

Labels: , , ,

View blog reactions


  • At 8:06 pm, April 25, 2011, Blogger Blair Anderson said…

    As a matter of law, the Misuse of Drugs Act, in force right now, spells out very clearly that Cannabis is a Class C drug, & that's the end of the matter. It may well be a striking anomaly that natural cannabis/THC is Class C, & artificial THC may be lawful , but ~ (a) I daresay Parliament may alter that in future, and (b) it is the basis of an argument that for the sake of consistency the current law should be altered so that natural cannabis/THC be removed from the list, not an argument that there is some implied removal already. Nothing can override the clear words of a statute, & certainly not an implication in regulations.

    I hope this helps.

    Kind regards,

    David R


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Another Mild Green Initiative

  (search tips)

Visitor Map
Visitor Map, daily!

Visitor Map, previous 6 months

MildGreen Technorati Search
Web Blog Pinging Service Blog Flux Directory Blogarama - The Blog Directory Find Blogs in the Blog Directory Search For Blogs, Submit Blogs, The Ultimate Blog Directory Health Blog Top Sites Google PageRank Checker Tool Top Blogs Health blogs