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?
ph nz (643) 389 4065 nz cell 027 265 7219
Labels: Annette King, Legality of cannabis, Statutory interpretation, Tetrahydrocannabinol