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, March 30, 2018

Time to Submit, Mr Key!

UNDP Ms. Helen Clark meeting with New Zealand ...
UNDP Ms. Helen Clark meeting with New Zealand Prime Minister John Key (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Prime Minister, UN Development and Sustainability, and all-around great lass, Rt. Hon Helen Clark on her retirement from the UN promptly joined the Global Drug Commision. Helen Clark served as New Zealand's Prime Minister when Labour's Caucus gazetted the "Restricted Substances Regulations" by Order in Council in 2008 prior to the Nation going to the polls. She lost the election, but the "Class D" crucial legal adjustment received royal assent the day John Key became Right and Honourable. Following the Synthetics Substances Sentencing Bill passing its first reading and going to select committee, 'Aunty Helen' chimed in "And I think all the people who know about drug policy, who know what's happening around the world, need to come to the [select] committee and spell it out how it is." This tells us a great deal about what her thinking was, and how that might have been the ball breaker at the UN for her to take the reigns.

It also informs the debate about prison muster and the Chief Science Advisor's advice that we have our Justice system arse about face. The MildGreens think tank has some insight no one seems to notice or weight. that it is not about how many beds, rather the 'prison churn' and the rate at which we criminalise our population that Gluckman et al have missed.

While it is good to have Helen on the case, it must not be forgotten that Labour spent a lot of time doing nothing before it magically came up with the idea (after hearing it at Select Committee) that we could create a better 'all drug policy' by Order in Council. And that 'we did' create the worlds best drug laws, now countered by NZ1 and National support in the house with its Private Members Bill tripling the sentencing guidelines to the yet to be used Psychoactive Substances Act notably created by those who would see its continuing failure as success.

Blair Anderson http://mildgreens.blogspot.com
View blog reactions

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Labour Party Cannabis Inquiry Call, Twenty Years Old.

From the Floor.....  Twenty Years Ago
Deal with the Fax, Labour

Blair Anderson http://mildgreens.blogspot.com
View blog reactions

Police continue to warn 'emerging drug threats' - so what makes them harm redux experts again?



The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know banning low alcohol beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know banning low alcohol beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.
The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know banning low alcohol beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know banning low alcohol beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.
The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know banning low alcohol beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while pretty much all the people survived our BZP experiment, in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these claims of  'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well.

Ball-and-stick model of the fentanyl molecule ...
Ball-and-stick model of the fentanyl molecule
Journal of Chemical Crystallography : 
We banned BZP despite its high safety profile (millions of doses per year), and got, for our moral wowser'ing a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So too, when they were banned, we get these 'new' threats. The latest is fentanyl, a seriously potent opioid diverted from legal sources.

We know banning low alcohol beer leads to the whisky stills.

The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to the elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand.

On this matter, the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals nor scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been by senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start.

Thankfully former NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference.

There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.

Blair Anderson http://The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know banning low alcohol beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act..blogsThe greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know banning low alcohol beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.pot.com
View blog reactions

Monday, March 26, 2018

Why is thinking Illegal?

English: Dust jacket of the book Mein Kampf, w...
English: Dust jacket of the book Mein Kampf, written by Adolf Hitler. Courtesy of the New York Public Library Digital Collection. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
If, on the premise, the Misuse of Drugs Act posits that USE (of some drugs) leads to Harm then by definition possession is a thought crime.

Certainly, no more than my tattered copy of Mien Kampf makes me anti-semite.

View blog reactions

Friday, March 23, 2018

Helen Clark "Partial Prohibitions" on cannabis

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs requir...
The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs requires governments to regulate cannabis cultivation, but does not ban medical use. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
"Partial Prohibition" is R18...  just as was defined in the last policy implementation her Caucus did gazette into law the "Restricted Substances Regulations 2008", and all we needed to do was make Cannabis Class D!
View blog reactions
 

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