Blog Title: Blairs Brain on Cannabis - Canvassing for Opinion

For your liberty, pleasure, health and safety........ Our specific agenda with no apologies is the required macro-social change & gateway to truth, freedom, cognitive liberty, and harm minimisation - Cannabis Law Reform. It's the stuff of social capital.

Critchley Deserves Whistle Blower Award [Drug prohibition ? an untenable hypocrisy]

Image via Wikipedia

Cindy McCain - Drug Dealer

"This is not about party politics; it is about partying politics." - M.Tvert

Cindy McCain: Drug Dealer Campaign Launched by SAFER press release (05 Aug, 2008) Pro-Marijuana Group Launches National Campaign Labeling Cindy McCain, the Head of the Hensley Beer Cartel, a "Drug Dealer" A Colorado-based marijuana policy reform organization, Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER), unveiled a national campaign titled "Cindy McCain: Drug Dealer." The campaign highlights the hypocrisy of laws that may allow a major alcohol dealer to become First Lady, yet make criminals out of adults who possess marijuana, a drug that has been found to be far less harmful than alcohol both to the user and to society. The campaign has launched a Web site -- http://www.drugdealercindy.com/ -- detailing Cindy McCain's role as the head of Hensley & Co., one of the nation's largest beer distributorships, as well as the relative harms of the two drugs. The site also includes an on-line ad titled "Drug-Deal-Er," downloadable "WANTED" posters featuring a photo of Cindy McCain, and a petition expressing the signer's belief that adults should be allowed to make "the rational, SAFER choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol for relaxation and recreation." SAFER Executive Director Mason Tvert will formally announce the launch of the campaign at a press conference at 10 a.m. MST (1 p.m. EDT) in front of the Hensley Cartel's Headquarters in Phoenix (4201 N. 45th Ave.). "SAFER is not an anti-alcohol organization," said Tvert. "Our purpose is to draw attention to the fact that our government steers citizens to choose alcohol over marijuana, despite the fact that marijuana is far less harmful. Through this campaign, we hope to highlight the hypocrisy that exists in our society. While adults are arrested for mere possession of marijuana, Cindy McCain has made a fortune dealing a far more harmful drug." "This is in no way a partisan attack," Tvert said. "In fact, we ran a similar campaign surrounding popular Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper -- a Democrat and a brewpub owner -- in the past. SAFER simply takes advantage of any opportunity to point out the hypocrisy inherent in our nation's alcohol and marijuana laws. This is not about party politics; it is about partying politics." http://www.drugdealercindy.com/ http://www.saferchoice.org/

One Response to "South Ossetia"

The Law, Logic and the UYB test!

A woman prison officer's humiliation - being body cavity searched after being set up by malicious inmates - has led to her being granted name suppression after she admitted cannabis charges. (CHCh Press 7Aug)

Data Sorely Lacking on Effectiveness of Nation's Drug-Enforcement Programs

Drugs swoops 'have little impact'

Image via Wikipedia

Police are fighting a losing battle against drugs crime, with seizures having little impact on reducing supply or demand, research has suggested.

The UK Drug Policy Commission said despite the large sums of money spent tackling the problem, traditional police tactics were not working.

It said the £5.3bn British drugs market was too "fluid" for law enforcement agencies to cut supply. It added more should be done to reduce the effects of drugs oncommunities.

A Home Office spokesperson said: "The government agrees that enforcement in isolation is not effective."BBC home editor Mark Easton said the report was a "very bleak assessment of where we are in what some people call the war on drugs".

The report, titled Tackling Drug Networks and Distribution Networks in the UK, concluded that although the amount of Class A drugs seized between 1996 and 2005 doubled, the market had proved to be "extremely resilient".

This was despite 12% of the heroin and 9% of the cocaine in Britain being impounded during the same period, and despite the convictions of dealers and traffickers. The independent think-tank said dealers were able to adapt quickly to interruptions in supply, for instance by reducing purity, enabling them to maintain their profit margins. The report estimated that between 60% and 80% of drugs would need to be seized to put major traffickers out of business - yet crackdowns on such a scale have never been achieved in the UK.

It went so far as to warn that police crackdowns could have a negative effect on the problem.

They could threaten public safety and health by "altering the drug users' behaviour and potentially?setting up violent drug gang conflicts as police move dealers from one area to another", said our correspondent.

Instead, the study's authors suggested the government concentrated on the "collateral damage" of the trade - sex markets, gangs, human trafficking, corruption, drug-related crime and anti-social behaviour. They added that resources should be focused on disrupting "street-level markets" and tackling violence and intimidation in communities.

The criminal justice costs of class A drugs alone are estimated at £4bn ayear. Tim McSweeney, one of the report's authors, said: "We were struck by just how little evidence there is to show that the hundreds of millions of pounds spent on UK enforcement each year has made a sustainable impact."

David Blakey, of the UK Drug Policy Commission, said enforcement agencies tended to be judged by the amount they had managed to capture."This is a pity as it is very difficult to show that increasing drug seizures actually leads to less drug-related harm," he added.

The Home Office said seizures were only part of the government's approach,with intervention programmes getting 1,000 offenders into drug treatment each week."Many of the report's recommendations are already being implemented," the spokesperson added. "Our drugs strategy encompasses enforcement, prevention, education and treatment."

Our correspondent said while few politicians would suggest that less should be spent on being tough on drugs, the government's own 10-year drugs strategy was already cautious in its claims on the effectiveness of law enforcement."

There is a recognition that we "have to do more than just catch people and lock them up, we have to do something else, it's not working," he added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7531860.stm

UK, drug expendature "waste of money".

The Meth Mess

overseas drug bust, tiny amount of hash, RNZ

THE UNGASS REVIEW PROCESS

The UN General Assembly?s 20th Special Session on the World Drug Problem met in 1998, setting objectives centred on the achievement of significant and measurable reductions in the supply of and demand for illicit drugs over the ensuing 10 year period. The 2008 CND in Vienna began the process of reviewing the progress made toward these objectives, and will be followed by a period of reflection and analysis prior to deciding the future direction of the international drug control system.

The delegates to the 2008 CND confirmed that a 2 day, high-level, political meeting will be held in March 2009 in Vienna, which will agree the framework for the next phase of UN drug policy. The material and reports to be considered at that meeting will be generated through five intergovernmental working groups meeting between June and September 2008, and present draft texts for consideration by governments. These working groups are, respectively, covering Supply Reduction, Money Laundering, Crop Eradication & Alternative Development, Demand Reduction and Precursors & Amphetamine-Type Stimulants. The draft texts from the working groups will then be debated by member states in a series of ?intersessional? meetings (the first is scheduled for September 29th), and a prepared set of texts presented to the high-level meeting in March 2009.

VIENNA NGO COMMITTEE- THE BEYOND 2008 GLOBAL FORUM

The second week in July saw over 300 NGO delegates, from all regions of the world, meet in Vienna. The goal of the "Beyond 2008" event, a partnership between the UNODC and the Vienna Non Governmental Organizations Committee on Narcotic Drugs (VNGOC), was to develop a set of NGO-derived consensus documents for the CND to take into consideration as part of the preparations for its 2009 High Level Segment to review the UNGASS process. After three days of intensive and sometimes heated debate within the Vienna International Centre, the forum successfully produced a Declaration and three associated resolutions. The event was of significance not only because of its unprecedented nature; it also provided the only official mechanism by which civil society can directly contribute to the UNGASS review next year. In-depth discussions of the event can be found on the websites and blogs of some of those NGOS involved in the process
http://www.ungassondrugs.org/
http://www.ihrablog.net/
http://blog.aclu.org/

Here we outline the key points of discussion, provide a taste of some the debates and issues and highlight the notable aspects of the declaration.

During the forum the following issues dominated the proceedings:
? Harm Reduction
? Human Rights
? Fitness for Purpose of the UN Conventions
? Engagement of Drug Users and Other Affected Populations in Drug Policy Analysis
? The Need for a ?Copernican Revolution? i.e. Evidence-Based Drug Policy
? Unintended Negative Consequences of the War on Drugs
? A Special Status for Coca Leaf
? Drug Use as a Health Issue
? Distinctions between Drug Use, Misuse, and Abuse
? NGO Potential to Contribute to Drug Policy
? The Shortfall in Medical and Therapeutic Opiates
? Cost Effectiveness
? A Special Status for Cannabis
? Mechanisms for Reviewing Drug Policy

Somewhat worryingly, the event began in a far from promising fashion. During the first day of the forum various aspects of the procedure were immediately questioned. Of particular concern to some delegations was the process of reviewing the draft declaration word by word?a procedure borrowed from the CND sessions. There were concerns such a procedure left the process open to filibustering? a claim that was justified during the later phases of the debate. However, as Michel Perron, chair of the Beyond 2008 Steering Committee, reminded delegates, the CND was the target audience, and if CND processes were followed the outcome of the forum would be more intelligible to and more likely to be included in policy making by those government officials assembled in March. Other participants were alarmed by the twin issues of the balance of the representatives and the use of the consensus model. In particular, however, anxiety over protocol was dominated by disquiet about a number of abstinence-oriented NGOs having their interventions directed by what appeared to be a US government representative ( a situation referred to in the ACLU blog as "A spy in the House.") Anxieties about these practices were intensified when an official request was made to the UNODC to halt filming of the proceedings by the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union. The appeal was attributed by some to a desire of those involved to remain out of sight and "off-camera."

However, when the debate on the draft documents began, a mood of consensus gradually emerged. For example, perhaps unsurprisingly bearing in mind the array of NGOs involved, there was considerable discussion as to whether harm reduction should be accepted and supported as legitimate practice or whether some elements, such as safe injection sites, are contrary to the UN conventions. Nonetheless, a compromise was achieved in the form of a consensus definition. Preambular paragraph 6(iv) of Resolution Objective One thus defined harm reduction as meaning "efforts primarily to address and prevent the adverse health and social consequences of illicit/harmful drug use, including reducing HIV and other blood borne infections." There was also consensus that human rights should be a driver in drug policy and that the UNODC and CND should work more closely with ECHR. The majority of delegates appeared to talk of Human Rights with reference to the contents of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, a group of delegates did propose, without obtaining consensus, that "living in a drug free world" should also be recognized as a human right. Many other issues were also thoroughly discussed and debated with the unanimous declaration of the NGOs at beyond 2008 calling for:

? Recognition of the human rights abuses against people who use drugs;
? Evidence-based drug policy focused on mitigation of short-term and long-term harms and full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms;
? The UN to report on the collateral consequences of the current criminal justice-based approach to drugs and to provide an analysis of the unintended consequences of the drug control system;
? Comprehensive reviews of the application of criminal sanctions as a drug control measure;
? Recognition of harm reduction as a necessary and worthwhile response to drug use;
? A shift in primary emphasis from interdiction to treatment and prevention;
? Alternatives to incarceration;
? The provision of development aid to farmers before eradication of coca or opium crops;
? Acknowledging that young people represent a significant proportion of drug users worldwide, are disproportionately affected by drugs and drug policy, and should be actively involved in the setting of global drug policy.

For a copy of the final declarations and resolutions click here:

Despite some initial misgivings, the majority of delegates were optimistic about the process and the eventual consensus outcome. As Martin Jelsma of the TNI, commented, the event was a "remarkable accomplishment that will impress many officials now involved in the UNGASS review process as this can be presented as a consensus outcome of NGOs from all around the world and from different ideological perspectives."

UNGASS EXPERT WORKING GROUPS?THE STORY SO FAR

In the first ?UNGASS News?, we described how the work of the five intergovernmental expert groups was structured, and how they were meant to review progress over the last 10 years, and agree papers to enter into the intersessional process that will start in September, and will draft the declarations to be agreed at the political meeting in march 2009. Now that three of the expert working groups have met, it is clear that this process is not running as smoothly as intended:
- While the working groups were meant to be a forum for exchange of information and expert advice, and objective review of the situation, all three conducted so far have seen that objectivity curtailed by member state boasting of achievements, and the taking of political positions. While this is always to be expected to some extent, it has led to the second problem:
- It was hoped that the working groups would agree consensus statements on the progress achieved in the last 10 years, and the nature of future challenges, but (at the time of writing) none of the working groups has produced a clear report of conclusions that can be considered by member states in the run up to the intersessional meetings.
The first three expert working groups met in late June/early July. The earliest, covering Supply Reduction, Manufacturing and Trafficking, clearly came up too quickly at 23rd to 25th June. Few member states had the time to prepare properly, and the discussion document produced by the UNODC did not contain any detailed strategic analysis of the achievements, challenges, and forward policy options for attempts to reduce the production and distribution of controlled drugs. Perhaps it is therefore unsurprising that the working group, as tends to be the case with supply reduction policy discussions, failed to get to grips with the strategic issues (what have current strategies achieved, what are the unintended consequences of current strategies, what can they be expected to achieve in the future, are we working to the correct objectives, what new approaches may produce better results?), but concentrated on operational issues such as co-ordination mechanisms and resources. That said, the proceedings did include some useful exchanges, including consideration of the human rights issues in relation to supply reduction efforts, and the need to focus law enforcement on the organised crime groups causing the most harm to communities and societies. Much of this more sophisticated debate is in danger of being lost, however, as the proceedings were concluded with no clear attempt to embed the key agreements within a report ? even those member states who attended the group are unclear what the outcome is, and when and in what format it will be presented.

The same problem exists with the outcome of the working group on Crop Eradication and Alternative Development. In many ways, this working group ran more smoothly, with many member states well prepared, and sending experts as part of their delegation, leading to a more textured discussion. Also, with this subject area, there is a clear division of opinion between those member states (largely from Europe and Latin America) who support a development-based approach to reducing cultivation, and those (primarily the USA) who prefer to put the emphasis on forced eradication and strong military and law enforcement interventions. These differences were played out in the working group around the ?sequencing? of interventions (ie whether eradication should only be undertaken when viable alternative livelihoods for farmers are in place), and whether to remove the ?conditionality? on development assistance (ie linking it, as the US currently does in several countries, to achievements in crop eradication). There were also notable exchanges as a group of North African countries tried to introduce a greater focus on cannabis cultivation, and the Bolivian delegation called again for Coca Leaf to be removed from the conventions, both proposals receiving little support. This is particularly unfortunate in the latter example, as many independent experts agree that the current status of coca leaf is at best ambiguous; however, it seems that few countries are yet willing to take any diplomatic risks in terms of the scheduling of substances under the conventions. (A fuller report on the proceedings of this group has been posted on the TNI website ? www.tni.org ? by Tom Kramer, who attended as part of the Dutch delegation).

The uncertain outcomes of this round of working groups means that the process of producing materials on these subjects for consideration at the first of the CND intersessional meetings (scheduled for 29th September) is at present unclear. It is likely that the UNODC will now be preparing such documents, which will at least be loosely based on the conclusions of the working groups, but which may also be influenced by the views of officials in Vienna, or behind the scenes lobbying by member states. When these documents emerge, those involved so far will be able to see to what extent they reflect the discussions held so far.

Two more expert working groups will be held in September, on Drug Demand Reduction (15-17 September), and Precursors and Amphetamine-Type Stimulants (17-19 September). The first of these is of priority interest to IDPC members and partners, and we will be holding a satellite meeting in the margins. There are encouraging signs that member states are preparing well for this group, and many are planning to include NGO experts in their delegations. As this is the working group that will address issues around harm reduction, enforcement against drug users, and standards of prevention and treatment, many of the fundamental strategic differences between member states will play out here, before being passed on to the intersessional meetings. The next ?UNGASS News? will report on the outcome.

THE RIGHT TO HEALTH

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the World Health Organization have recently co-authored a fact sheet on the Right to Health, which is available at the following URL: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet31.pdf

Of special relevance during the UNGASS "period of reflection" is the publication?s grounding of the Right to Health in current international law. While numerous treaties and resolutions refer to health, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is generally considered the central instrument in this respect, and recognizes the right of everybody to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

The fact sheet is of significance to drug policy in a number of important ways. The key element is the central role it gives to the principle of non-discrimination, which means that health services, resources and technologies must be available equally to all sections of society. It recognizes that presently certain groups are marginalized along the lines of ethnicity, religion, political belief and "other social status"; this last category includes drug users (as people subject to health-related stigmatization).

The text informs us that States are under obligation "to prohibit and eliminate discrimination on all grounds and ensure equality to all in relation to access to health care and the underlying determinants of health." (our emphasis). Moreover, "Considering health as a human right requires specific attention to different individuals and groups of individuals in society, in particular those living in vulnerable situations. Similarly, States should adopt positive measures to ensure that specific individuals and groups are not discriminated against."
Explicit support is also given for the role of UN agencies in countering discrimination in access to healthcare, and to the recognition that combatting HIV depends crucially on a commitment to such inclusive measures, and to human rights in general.

We hope that you have found the second edition of UNGASS News to be both informative and helpful to your work in various parts of the world. The next issue is due to appear at the end of September 2008, and will include a report back from the demand reduction working group, and preparations for the intersessional phase of the process.
(snip)
hat tip to IDCP.INFO

Blair Anderson
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com

Drug ban will fuel gang black market - warning

Hon. Jim Anderton, former
Deputy Prime Minister
and current Associate Minister
of Health, popularily known as
NZ's 'Drug Czar'. The banning of BZP party pills was "a sham" based on unreliable research and will feed a black market headed by drug-running gangs, a criminal law professor says. (By KERRY WILLIAMSON - The Press Friday, 01 August 2008 )

In an article in the New Zealand Law Journal - titled The Great BZP Hoax - Otago University professor Kevin Dawkins accuses the Government of rushing through legislation to ban BZP, ignoring regulatory measures that could have curbed rampant use of the drug.
He calls the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Act, passed on April 1, "legislative folly" and writes that the BZP ban will push the drug underground and expose users to other drugs such as P and ecstasy.

"Since prohibition cannot repeal the law of supply and demand, those who prefer to continue using BZP will be forced into the black market and the arms of the gangs," he says.

Associate Health Minister Jim Anderton - who dismissed Professor Dawkins' article as "careless" - pushed through the BZP ban after a recommendation from an expert advisory committee on drugs. The research showed the pills caused migraines, hallucinations, vomiting, confusion, seizures and insomnia.

The ban came after regulatory measures were considered, including restrictions on dosages, labelling, points of sale, and advertising.

Professor Dawkins said those regulations were simply "a stalking horse" for prohibition.
"Not to have implemented the regulatory regime for BZP is a gross deception in itself," he writes in the Law Journal. "But to have jettisoned regulation in favour of prohibition aggravates the hoax."

He attacks the research used to support the ban, saying it was based on "unpublished, unreplicated and unreliable research, potentially compromised by conflicts of interest".
Mr Anderton said the BZP ban was implemented after "carefully weighing all the evidence I could". (that Anderton paid for and presented to the Expert Advisory Committee now overpopulated with justice, police, corrections, border control and other prohibitory vested interests, the very committe then Minister of Health, now Minister of Police, Hon Annette King said would 'take the politics out of drug policy'. Yeah Right! /Blair)

He said Professsor Dawkins had a "long record" of advocating drug law liberalisation. (so what!)
"The evidence told me very clearly that the drug had enough potential to cause harm that it could be banned," he said. (and alcohol doesnt?)

Mr Anderton said there was little evidence that banning BZP had turned users toward harder drugs.

Drug Foundation executive director Ross Bell said he had questions about "the quality of some of the research" used to support a ban but that Mr Anderton "played a pretty straight bat" over party pills.

"I think [Professor Dawkins] is trying to find a conspiracy where there isn't one. I agree with him that there were a number of regulations put in place and they weren't enforced, and I think that's a real shame. But I disagree with his conclusion that there was a direct attempt by the minister to get his way."

Pity that the Press didnt take the opportunity to inquire into the larger 'legislative and public policy fraud' simmering behind the banning of BZP; the ommision of any discussion around the legislative framework for controlled availability; Class D.

That would have been the acid test to determine any Anderton agenda, or indeed if Bell 's opinion that 'this was about BZP' held water. / Blair Anderson

Maxim/Business Round Table nails it

Maxim/Business Round Table nails it... and the implications for drug policy are?

Curiously Robert Sirico's visit follows MAXIM's hosting of eminent kiwi Law Professor Jeremy Waldron.

I particularly admire Waldron's discourse on disproportionate punishment, a matter highly relevant to international drug policy especially where the death penalty is applied. Seemingly the principle is forgotten when New Zealand Judges send medpot users 'down' for 5 months 'jail time' for possessing a couple of grams of weed 'just because they still growing'. /Blair

Listen to Waldron on "Parliamentary Recklessness"

(snip)
At a lecture, co-hosted by Maxim Institute and the [NZ] Business Roundtable, Father Robert Sirico (President of the US-based Acton Institute) discussed the role of social justice in a free society.

"Do we know who we are? I think that has to be the beginning question with regard to statism and social justice. I think we have to begin with the question of anthropology, if for no other reason than two facts: first, the human person is prior to the state. If we're going to understand what statism is, what the state is, we have to understand first that the human person is prior to the political arrangement. And the second fact that we have to keep in mind is that the state exists for man, and not man for the state."

By statism, I mean the presupposition that when confronted with human and social needs, the resort of first resort is the central government. That's what I take by statism. By social justice, I take my definition from the Catholic Catechism (though I believe the definition is broadly accessible to believers and non-believers alike) and so I quote: "Society ensures social justice by providing the conditions that allow associations and individuals to obtain their due."

"We ask the question of who we are with a sense of wonder. The very fact that we can wonder is itself an indication of our dignity: human beings have the ability to self reflect. We have the capacity of not merely to know, but to know that we know?and that there exists that which exceeds our knowledge. This capacity for transcendence takes place from within the reality of our corporal / physical dimension, which is the first and most obvious thing we know about ourselves and we see in others; that we are physical, we are material. We are located in time and space, but somehow sense that we are more than things. We are made up of a biological reality, to be sure, but we are not defined by that. We relate to the material world, and depend upon it, yet we do not ultimately discover our meaning from it ... because we transcend our material reality."
(end snip)

see: Statism vs Social Justice
Listen to "Statism vs Social Justice"
There is also an interview with Father Sirico in the New Zealand Herald

Blair Anderson
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com

Evidence Is In, and is Exonerative......

UN Security Council
in disrepute? "Evidence Is In" and is Exonerative......

What should be a matter of social justice and inclusive politics has been reduced to the logical equivalent of water-boarding.

The failure of 'due process' in the USA is dirt on the hands of those who govern and they should be held to account.

It is therefore up to the citizens of the USA to regale at the UN Convention on Narcotics under which they are shackled and join in the global push to disenfranchise the INCB's hold on the debate.

There has never been a better chance available to all world citizens to circumvent the tyranny of the majority than UNODC Vienna 2009.

It is, as it were, in your hands... each and everyone of you.

see Beyond 2008 NGO consultation recommendations containing clear harm reduction and human rights language, calling for evidence-based, culturally and socially sensitive approaches, calling for inclusion of all affected and stigmatised populations, access to alternative livelihoods before eradication, improved access to essential medicines under treaty control, encouraging alternatives to criminal/prison sanctions, analysing unintended consequences of the drug control system, taking into account traditional licit uses, and many more.

This is the stuff of social capital. Back the horse that is winning.

Full-body Armour for WAR'rior Cops?

People Abuse on NZHerald Website. [LTE]

Human Rights a Drug War Casualty

Image via Wikipedia The drug war's dirty washing is exhibited everyday in popular media, absent scrutiny or oversight from academic or civil society.

I suspect all those living in this institution we call New Zealand would be generally appalled if it were argued that by our collective (in)actions we were held to be unfit members of the UN, yet everyday we incarcerate and continue to deprive the freedom of thousands of people in the name of compliance with one UN "Single Convention" - and to what end?

I have on many occasions raised the glaring human rights anomaly with government select committee and commissions including the NZ Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan.

It has been the character of the response that 'drugs are illegal' and that people may choose not to consume them, thus consumption or possession is not a 'rights issue', rather society has the preeminent right to be protected from drugs' harms and consumers. Else why the law?

This is wrong. It doesn't matter how one spins the moral probity of drugs on society and the self, it is still wrong. It is not a little wrong, nor is it a little right. It is neither gray nor fudgeable. UN Drug policy focused on punitive 'consequences' purportedly sending signals to some market has delivered the very market it set out to eliminate. It is a policy that is condemned by its own failure that one can legitimately ask "what is the moral probity of those who maintain it?"
.
This week past has seen 'tit for tat' claims and counter-claims surrounding Shapelle Corby's kilo's. Another, incarcerated for 20 years for possessing enough methamphetamine one could sneeze and the evidence would have been mere vapours. Yet another, a candidate whom has stood his good name before his electorate and has politically and actively engaged for reasoned drug policy now stands charged with possession of 1.6grams of cannabis plant (ESR weighed it)material - doubtless with 'active' THC in nanogram quantities. All this in the same week that the Health Select Committee was hearing from NORML and others about the undoubted efficacy of the herb. [Sativex/Marinol proves the lie]. Methamphetamine is a prescription drug so safe it is given to Children (Ritalin) and to stroke sufferers. It's prevalence and associated harms are a product of the very rules intended to protects us. There is little in the pharmacology of methamphetamine that redeems it as an 'illegal stimulant'. It is not a good drug by any means.. but the more dangerous a drug is the less responsible it is of governments to abrogate its control, distribution, profits and quality to unaccountable networks.

So do drug users have human rights? or are we to maintain the notion that 52% of adult NZer's are so craven that they should be deprived of their liberty, possessions and future options simply because we REFUSE TO BELEIVE they, drugs or consumers have any worth. For that is the PREJUDICE masked by this LAW. It is wrong. It must change. It is institutionalised 'othering' of people's master status expressly prohibited under UN Charter. Discussion within the community is no longer avoidable. Civil Society cannot ignore the unresolved tensions between the 'UN Single Convention on Narcotics' and 'Human Rights'. And is so doing it must engage those whose 'other status' has for too long been ignored. It is the stuff of social capital.

Protection of human rights is clearly, specifically and repeatedly identified as one of the purposes of the UN in the Charter, and as a specific legal obligation of all UN member states, whereas drug control has been conceived from the outset as a subset of the higher aims of the Organisation and its Members.

Furthermore, the Charter?s own provisions make it clear that Charter obligations take precedence over other, conflicting treaty obligations. The principal recommendation making body of the UN, the General Assembly, has specifically stated that drug control ?must be carried out in full conformity with the
purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and other provisions of international law, and in particular with full respect for?all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and on the basis of the principles of equal rights and mutual respect.?

If a principal organ of the UN directs that drug control must be in conformity with human rights, then this must be reflected in the operations of the UN. Human rights violations stemming from drug control must be highlighted and brought to an end, and the drug control machinery must adopt a rights-based approach to its work in order to avoid complicity in human rights abuses and to influence domestic implementation of the international drug control conventions in line with human rights norms. / http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/pdf/report_13.pdf

Obama's "Rolling Stone"

Obama "on the cover of the rolling stone"

Barack Obama on the horrendous human and financial cost of mass incarceration of non violent drug offenders. 'It's expensive, it's counterproductive and it doesn't make sense'

"Anybody who sees the devastating impact of the drug trade in the inner cities, or the methamphetamine trade in rural communities, knows that this is a huge problem. I believe in shifting the paradigm, shifting the model, so that we focus more on a public-health approach. I can say this as an ex-smoker: We've made enormous progress in making smoking socially unacceptable. You think about auto safety and the huge success we've had in getting people to fasten their seat belts.
The point is that if we're putting more money into education, into treatment, into prevention and reducing the demand side, then the ways that we operate on the criminal side can shift. I would start with nonviolent, first-time drug offenders. The notion that we are imposing felonies on them or sending them to prison, where they are getting advanced degrees in criminality, instead of thinking about ways like drug courts that can get them back on track in their lives ? it's expensive, it's counterproductive, and it doesn't make sense." - Rolling Stone Magazine (also see Barack Obama supports cannabis decriminlisation - Transform)

It makes one wonder, why we cannot ask the same question in New Zealand?

"If there are no enemies out there, we will create them,"- fmr New Haven Police Chief Nicholas Pastore.

(backstory) A Yale University law professor maintains mandatory jail sentences for some drug offenders has backfired, leaving America's "war on drugs" bankrupt with too-powerful prosecutors and dubious witnesses. "There's a lot of innocent people in prison as a result of mandatory minimum sentencing," said Professor Steven Duke Thursday.

"This is simply an insane approach to the problem."

The problem lies with prosecutors who can lord 20- or 40-year prison sentences over the heads of defendants and then offer them deals or even immunity if they turn informant.
"When someone is facing that kind of time, most people are willing to do most anything," Duke said. And that includes lying to save your own hide, he said.

Duke spoke during a forum at the New Haven Free Public Library sponsored by Hartford-based Efficacy, a nonprofit group that espouses legalization of drugs and elimination of mandatory minimum jail terms.

Also speaking at the event were Nicholas Pastore, research fellow with the Criminal Justice Policy foundation and former New Haven Police Chief; and Derby Superior Court Judge Philip E. Mancini Jr.

"America's war on drugs does far more harm than good," Mike Gogulski, vice president of Efficacy, said Thursday, And he said the failed "war on drugs" is creating a new class of lost and disenfranchised citizens -- what the activists called the prisoners of the drug war.
Mandatory minimum prison sentences tear apart families for crimes that are, in many cases, "bottom of the totem pole offenses," Gogulski said.

Efficacy is currently sponsoring a photo exhibit at the library as a way of giving that lost population faces and names.

Margaret Thornton, executive director of the organization, said the photos often tell the tale of non-violent, first-time offenders facing decades in jail under tough federal guidelines.
She said that despite the $1 trillion spent on combating drugs in the last 25 years, "drug problems are still as persistent as ever, if not worse."

The photo exhibit, "Human Rights and the Drug War," will be on display through Nov. 26.
Mancini, a former prosecutor and judge for 28 years, said the answer doesn't lie in more jails and stiffer sentences. "I don't think drug users belong in jail," he said. "The cure is building drug centers."

Pastore agreed, saying the war on drugs had an effect on police too, transforming them from "public servants" to "soldiers in the war on crime and drugs."

"If there are no enemies out there, we will create them," he said.

Efficacy promotes complete legalization of marijuana and legalization of all other drugs by medical prescription. (It was Efficacy Executive Director Clifford Wallace Thornton jr who came to NZ 2003-2004 that lead to the tours by LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Clifford is now also co-chair of the USA Green Party Policy committe/Blair)

Clifford Wallace Thornton jr

• Barack Obama supports cannabis decriminlisation
• Tough crime policies ineffective, U.S. sentencing expert contends
• Dispatches from Vienna NGO Committee on Narcotic Drugs
• Edwards: War On Drugs Too Punitive
• WHO Says US/NZ Drug Policies "a failure'
• Canada's drug crime bill brings calls for caution from U.S.

School shooting: It's when, not if.

(Police address to School Trustees Annual Conference)

Police are pushing for schools to implement an emergency response strategy in the event of a shooting similar to those that have happened overseas.

On radio today, police were interviewed and this media release suddenly become the "P" [methamphetamine] problem... [yet another 'meth-con'?] sad but true! / Blair

The New Zealand School Trustees Association (NZSTA) holds its annual conference in Christchurch from tomorrow and police say it is a good opportunity to discuss the realities of a shooting.

"Like it or not, it's not a matter of whether a shooting could happen in a school, but more of a matter of when," Superintendent Bruce Dunstan said.Mr Dunstan, commander of the police national tactical group, said such an event could involve anything from a person carrying a firearm to someone shooting one or more people.

While schools had plans for emergencies such as earthquakes, flooding and fires, few - if any - were prepared for an armed incident.

He said police expectations of boards of trustees in terms of emergency preparedness would be discussed at the conference."We don't want to create panic and say it's going to happen tomorrow, but it is a form of emergency like many others that schools face, and we'd like schools to think about how they'd respond to minimise chaos should they be so unfortunate to be faced with such a scenario."Just because a school hasn't faced an emergency before doesn't mean they can't plan for it," Mr Dunstan said.

He said police wanted a standard emergency response ratified so schools and police could be prepared and respond in a consistent way."If we're all on the same page it doesn't matter whether the school is in Invercargill or Whangarei, the response and procedures will be the same for both schools and police.

"It means that on the day schools and students in particular will know how to react."
Part of the response plan would be to consider how the alarm would be raised and how schools would react.

Police are currently in talks with the Ministry of Education and NZSTA, and want the ministry to make a response plan widely available to schools, who can then decide whether or not to adopt it.The conference will also cover student discipline issues, and issues that arise from complaints to the Ombudsmen's Office by parents or students about board of trustees' disciplinary decisions.

(and how many of these complaints will be around the contestable discipline policy and procedure issues relating to unresolved drug policy? /Blair)

No dope in dem cookies, just dopey Police.

WHO Says US/NZ Drug Policies "a failure' ?

On the Take, and other media myths

Half truths layered on half truths couched in the pejorative.

Notably NZH's Marketplace [below] is addressed to the reader in Any-City, Any-Town New Zealand and reveals more insight into the real drug problem.

Nine million contributors to last weeks Vienna NGO meetings highlighted the systemic failures in drug policy overlooked by drug warriors and its followers the anti-drug league. This report proves the case, availability of drugs of concealment and horror are a product of bad policy, while overlooking the real plague (up to 70%of the entire health vote according to the UK NHS) ... legal alcohol.

It is notable too that the drug consumer is the only person asked and the inferences drawn from those answers applied to a general populace (by city). There is a dangerous inference that 'everyone is doing it' but in reality the figures indemnify the cannabis consumer who by far are under represented in this data set but who are, by slight of manufactured consent, made to appear next to heroin.

Lead researcher Chris Wilkins said overall levels of methamphetamine use appeared to be fairly stable, but there was a growing number of heavy users experiencing health and legal problems. (why are the problems 'compounding?' drugs are a health problem and the misuse of drugs act exacted under the warrant of the minister of health.)

That is at loggerheads with last weeks unreported UN Vienna NGO's call for a new approach to drug control policy recognising "the human rights abuses against people who use drugs",

Christchurch drug users 'take whatever they can get' - report - NZH 14-07-2008

Photo / Glenn Jeffrey

Drug users in Christchurch have a take "whatever they can get" mentality, according to a report out today.

In Auckland, the "drug of choice" is methamphetamine or 'P', while in Wellington it is ecstasy, Massey University's third annual Illicit Drug Monitoring System report says.

But researchers found that Christchurch users stretched to injection of pharmacy and industrial-use drugs like the horse tranquiliser ketamine (only available from vets) , behavioural drug Ritalin (only available from doctors) , and opiates made from prescription morphine sulfate (only available from patients).

Opiates, usually morphine sulfate converted into heroin and injected, were the second most commonly used drug in Christchurch after cannabis. They ranked seventh in Auckland and fifth in Wellington. (proof the differential may be due to social and economic factors than the pharacology of the drug... doh!)

As a result, Christchurch had a large efficient black market for the drugs, the report said. (and Auckland and Wellington doesnt? - huh! )

Cannabis was still the king of the country's drugs, with the highest use and availability of any illegal substance. (the comparison is irrational... )

Lead researcher Chris Wilkins said overall levels of methamphetamine use appeared to be fairly stable, but there was a growing number of heavy users experiencing health and legal problems. (legal problems, is this a cure and is it effacious? see above!)

Frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to have committed violent or property crime last year compared to the 2005 findings, he said. (still unclear, but panders to the 'everybody knows' syndrome facilitated by a media that misrepresents the association)

Police National Drug Intelligence Bureau co-ordinator Detective Inspector Stuart Mills said the intensification of P use was worrying as it led to more crime. (it certainly has, and by all accounts it is getting worse, about in proportion to the application of prohibition, so why does he support continued use of a policy that has so evidentially failed to deliver. )

The report, an annual snapshot of the nation's drug use, was produced by interviewing 642 drug users from the three main centres.

Easy to obtain

The survey found methamphetamine was easy or very easy to obtain in its locally made form, commonly known as P, but imported "crystal" methamphetamine was more difficult to get than in 2006.

This was possibly because of large seizures made by police and customs in the last two years.

The price of methamphetamine was stable at $100/point (0.1g).

The survey, which was established in 2005 to provide information on drug use and drug-related harm in New Zealand, interviewed 110 methamphetamine users, 105 ecstasy users and 109 injecting drug users.

It found that frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to have used an ambulance, use accident and emergency departments or see a GP than in 2005.

They were also increasingly using counsellors, psychologists and social workers.

Frequent methamphetamine users were also more likely to have committed violent or property crime last year compared to the 2005 findings, Dr Wilkins said.

"Users are under increasing financial pressure, however only minorities of frequent users reported paying for their drug use with money from property crime and even smaller minorities committed violent crime," he said.

The survey found that 53 per cent of respondents had used their unemployment benefit to pay for drugs and 14 per cent had performed sex work.

On average, individual methamphetamine users had spent more than $8000 on drugs in the last six months.

When users were asked if they had experienced specific harmful incidents as a result of the drug, 53 per cent said at times they had no money for food or rent, 46 per cent had been arrested and 39 per cent had had sex and later regretted it.

Of those questioned, 8 per cent said they had been sexually assaulted.

- NZPA, NZ HERALD STAFF

More Articles:

Next Drug abuse Story: Schapelle Corby may be investigated over drug admission

Drug abuse Homepage

P epidemic

• Monitor to sniff out meth labs developed
• Cooper daughter charged

Herald Marketplace

• French Champagne SAVE $50
• Sale Flyer on this week only!
• Register-Win a bottle of Moet

---

This story was found at: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=181&objectid=10521433&ref=rss

Copyright ©2007, APN Holdings NZ Limited

Dispatches from Vienna NGO Committee on Narcotic Drugs

• We recognized "the human rights abuses against people who use drugs"
  
• We called for "evidence-based" drug policy focused on "mitigation of short-term and long-term harms" and "full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms"
  
• We called on the U.N. to report on the collateral consequences of the current criminal justice-based approach to drugs and to provide an "analysis of the unintended consequences of the drug control system"
  
• We called for comprehensive "reviews of the application of criminal sanctions as a drug control measure"
  
• We recognized harm reduction as a necessary and worthwhile response to drug abuse (harm reduction is a set of practical strategies that reduce negative consequences of drug use, incorporating a spectrum of strategies from safer use, to managed use to abstinence; harm reduction strategies meet drug users "where they're at," addressing conditions of use along with the use itself)
  
• We called for a shift in primary emphasis from interdiction to treatment and prevention
  
• We called for alternatives to incarceration
  
• We called for the provision of development aid to farmers before eradication of coca or opium crops
  

--
Blair Anderson ?(?¿?)?

Social Ecologist 'at large'
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com/
http://blairformayor.blogspot.com/
http://blair4mayor.com/
http://efsdp.org/

ph (643) 389 4065 cell 027 265 7219

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition NZ Tour

Founded on March 16, 2002, LEAP is made up of current and former members of the law enforcement and criminal justice communities who are speaking out about the failures of our existing drug policies. Those policies have failed, and continue to fail, to effectively address the problems of drug abuse, especially the problems of juvenile drug use, the problems of addiction, and the problems of crime caused by the existence of a criminal black market in drugs.

Cannabis grower denied home detention

Home detention was "inappropriate" for a man who had been growing cannabis to supplement his sickness benefit, a judge said today. It was precisely the sort of offending Lawrence Frederick Williams had been committing from home, said Judge Christopher Harding in Tauranga District Court.

Williams, 43, was jailed for 12 months when he appeared for sentence on four charges - cultivating, possessing and supplying cannabis, and possessing methamphetamine.

The defendant was nabbed after police visited the house on an unrelated matter, smelt dope and found the drugs. There were 30 plants about eight weeks old and 338g of dried cannabis material.

Lawyer Jim Smylie said Williams acknowledged he had a problem with cannabis and had also had trouble with alcohol. (The problem was the 'law!', cannabis is not criminogenic, what kind of dum harse lawyer is this guy. The evidence should be before the court, the evidence is exonerative.) Prohibition incentivise's ANY cash value in excess production. )

Since appearing in court in May, Williams had started a fulltime forestry job and was "trying to do something with himself," Mr Smylie said.

After his release from prison, special conditions would remain in place for six months, including treatment for drug and alcohol dependency. (and the success rate is?)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10520390&ref=rss

Jacob Sullum comments