New Zealand - Article: Clear heads needed for cannabis conversation (NZ)

[~lostgurl~]

Clear heads needed for cannabis conversation

1 November 2007
Press Release: Green Party
Scoop Independent News

The Green Party looks forward to the end of anxiety-fuelled stonewalling, and the start of an objective and balanced discussion on the status of cannabis in New Zealand society, as called for by a respected authority on drug policy and research.

Associate Health Spokesperson Metiria Turei says that the New Zealand Drug Foundation, which is known for its evidence-based and non-partisan policy advice, is an ideal organisation to facilitate such a discussion.

"The drug debate in New Zealand very quickly becomes dominated by fear and anxiety. Developing a sensible approach to drug use becomes very difficult in that kind of climate. As a result New Zealand has a set of inconsistent and ineffective drug policies that are little more than a drain on public funds and judicial resources."

"The Green Party recognises that the healthiest lifestyle is drug-free, but we also recognise that some current government policies do not reduce harm but rather create a further set of problems."

The Drug Foundation says that half of New Zealanders have used cannabis, and one in eight people use it regularly. "Rather than these figures indicating that every second New Zealander is a drug-addled criminal, they show that current Government policies are not based on the reality of the situation and do not contribute to developing socially responsible behaviour."

"A balanced and informed national debate facilitated by the Drug Foundation will be an excellent step towards developing a constructive approach to drug use, rather than the piece-meal, fanciful and ultimately damaging official response that currently exists," Ms Turei says.

The Green Party's preferred method of cannabis control is to include it in a strengthened regulatory framework that also encompasses tobacco and alcohol. "All of these substances require better regulation, with inadequate advertising standards being of particular concern for tobacco and alcohol. The Green Party considers alcohol, tobacco and cannabis to present similar challenges for New Zealand society, and we seek consistent regulation across all three."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0711/S00005.htm

[~lostgurl~]

It's high time we talked about pot

1 November 2007
Press Release: NZ Drug Foundation
Scoop Independent News

Bud, chronic, dak, dope, ganja, grass, maryjane, reefer and skunk. We all know the slang terms for cannabis. Half of us have tried it, and one-in-eight uses it regularly.

But is cannabis a glorified gateway to harder drugs and suicide, or some sort of herbal cure-all, benignly bestowed by Mother Nature? Should we be selling it from Courtenay Place cafes, or cracking down harder on cannabis smokers and growers?

The New Zealand Drug Foundation wants to start a national conversation about cannabis. Executive Director Ross Bell says, it's high time we took cannabis out of the 'too-hard basket' and started talking about it sensibly and honestly.

"Cannabis is New Zealand’s favourite illicit drug, but it receives scant attention from politicians, policy makers or the media. When it is discussed, evidence is often discarded in favour of myth, misinformation and polarised posturing."

Mr Bell says a number of issues have come to light recently that are of significant importance considering the drug's widespread use. These include the health effects of smoking cannabis, whether there's any valid medicinal use, its links with mental illness, use of the drug by school students, driving under the influence, and the pros and cons of decriminalisation.

He says politicians are happy to spend a lot of time on party pills and P because they know they have the public on side. They don't want to talk about cannabis, because it's not seen as a vote winning issue.

"Parliament hasn't touched cannabis since the Health Commission Inquiry in 2000, which did make a number of recommendations. However, debate was stifled by the 2003 coalition agreement between the Government and United Future, which effectively froze the legal status of cannabis.

"But while politicians ignore the pot problem, its associated social harms continue. We need Government to take the lead in formulating good, well-researched policy discussion based on best evidence. We need the addiction treatment, public health and drug policy sectors to get vocal and inject their knowledge into the debate as well.

"Misinformation and hysteria don't help a society deal effectively with cannabis use, and stigmas around use and fear of prosecution often prohibit cannabis-dependent people from seeking much needed help."

The New Zealand Drug Foundation has kicked off the discussion by dedicating the November issue of its quarterly magazine, Matters of Substance, to the cannabis debate. Leading drug policy researchers, advocates and commentators have provided contributions about cannabis law and policy.

A special "Let's talk about pot" section has also been added to the Drug Foundation website: http://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0711/S00002.htm

[~lostgurl~]

Cannabis conversation must be evidence-based

1 November 2007
Press Release: National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana
Scoop Independent News

Advocates of evidence-based cannabis laws today commended the New Zealand Drug Foundation's efforts in kick-starting a rational conversation about cannabis, but said they risked falling into the same trap they sought to avoid.

Chris Fowlie, spokesperson for the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), said he was pleased to be invited to present ideas for effective cannabis laws in the latest issue of the Drug Foundation newsletter.

"Whatever your take on the health effects of cannabis – and we all have our opinions – it is clear that prohibition has not worked, and a drugs policy re-think is in order," said Mr Fowlie in a guest column written for Matters of Substance.

However NORML said that by featuring a cliché-ridden anecdotal story from someone formerly dependent on cannabis, the Drug Foundation was not reflecting the typical experience of most cannabis users.

Parliament's Health Select Committee noted in its 2003 cannabis inquiry report that the Christchurch Health and Development Study had found "for the majority of occasional recreational cannabis users there is no evidence to suggest that usage has harmful effects" and that those who do experience harm "tend to come from already socially disadvantaged groups and have pre-existing problems."

"The starting point for a conversation about cannabis should be an acknowledgement that most users suffer no harm. Cannabis can even be beneficial in the case of medicinal users," said Mr Fowlie.

"There also needs to be an acknowledgement by all sides that laws themselves can create harm, often in excess of the harm caused by the use of drugs."

In the Drug Foundation newsletter two Australian researchers who were both expert witnesses to the cannabis inquiry point the way toward an evidence-based cannabis policy: "The political process should take into account evidence on both the harms caused by cannabis use, and those that arise from the social policies we implement to prevent its use and resulting harm," said Professor Wayne Hall of the School of Population Health, University of Queensland.

"Taken as a whole, this research finds that removing criminal penalties for cannabis possession and use does not result in higher rates of cannabis use, but does reduce the adverse social impacts of conviction in terms of employment, further contact with the criminal justice system etc," wrote Associate Professor Simon Lenton, Deputy Director at the National Drug Research Institute in Perth.

NORML was not concerned with the conclusion reached by Matthew Hooten, an Auckland public relations consultant. In the newsletter Mr Hooten says there is "no chance of cannabis liberalisation", based on a poll conducted by UMR which had asked whether cannabis laws should be made "tougher" or "more liberal". Mr Fowlie said these were subjective terms that meant different things to different people.

"If tougher means, for example, restricting access by minors, then regulating cannabis sales with a minimum purchase age would best achieve that outcome," said Mr Fowlie.

Successive opinion polls have found strong support for cannabis law reform. A UMR Insight poll published in The Dominion in August 2000 found sixty per cent supported changing the law. More recently, a TV3 poll in November 2006 found 63% support for legalising cannabis for pain relief.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0711/S00002.htm