In this paper, the author, Toby Seddon, argues we should embrace those online markets and include them as part of a overall new way of agile regulations (I paraphrase).
I think these sites are really quite useful ( as you've written about recently too, Russell), and should be seen as critical to innovative harm reduction.
[By the way, I can flick people a copy of Seddon's full paper, or check out his blog here: https://tobyseddon.wordpress.com/]
Thanks for the post Frank.
A quick question: why is your board all blokes?
Plus there's been a ridiculous Catch 22 with med cannabis: we don't have evidence about possible effectiveness because research funding has been withheld (US have only recently overturned its ban on federal money for med pot research). It's telling that many more pharmaceutical companies are moving into medical cannabis research... that should tell the minister something.
Wow, just wow. Peter Dunne has just released the speech he'll soon give at the Commission on Narcotic Drugs in a couple of hours. Brilliant stuff (except the medical cannabis stuff - some work still to be done).
Pomo is *so* 1991.
Oh, thanks for the shout out Russell. Very kind words. We love your work too, so do our readers - we had an MP into the office this morning who said he was all up-to-speed on the status of the legal high law thanks to your recent piece.
p.s. I heard your very first @95bFM Hardnews on Graeme's show as an Akl uni first year in '91, and have been a #fanboy ever since.
Chris, I've not heard the term "synnies", but agree with Andre:
- synthetic high
- synthetic cannabis
- legal highs (an early 2000s term making a come back)
And also "beagle".
Damn you, Brown!
And then we have this research which reinforces earlier work highlighting the harms from early and heavy use. For me this strengthens the argument that drug policy is a valid debate during an election. Cannabis is harmful, which is why we need to change the law (and our wider policy approach).
And man, contrast the leadership shown by the Global Commission with what we have in NZ: National supports status quo. Labour and Greens have other priorities. ACT will leave it to the conscience of its MPs.
Parties don't want to debate drug policy in an election year, nor in the years in between.
I quite like the IM policy, and I liked the process the Internet Party used to develop the policy - it was crowd sourced to a greater degree: the first iteration was a big shit so I gave it no more thought; the final product is well thought out - it shows for example quite a good understanding of the current barriers to medical cannabis, which could be corrected with a very minor legal and regulatory amendment.