Hard News: But seriously, drug policy
52 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
william blake, in reply to
Mark how does one "bong up" or whatever the kids call it these days, without either behaving like someone with a head injury or getting the FEAR, and hiding in the wardrobe?
-
-
Rob W, in reply to
Thanks Kay, but you are muddling the water here. There is some interesting data that pharmaceutical cannabinoid extracts can help control (what is a tiny number of) kids with severe intractable epilepsy, but that's a pretty unusual scenario. AFAIK there are no decent trials that show the medical benefits of smoking cannabis exceed the harms, but I'd love to be corrected.
And I have already stated I don't think it should be criminalised.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Though, isn’t it amazing that all that public outrage, drama and energy at the start of the year has melted away to absolutely nothing just months later.
Well, they got what they wanted, so it's not that surprising.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
AFAIK there are no decent trials that show the medical benefits of smoking cannabis exceed the harms, but I’d love to be corrected.
How does that work, btw? Considering that the harms is cancer and the benefit is pain relief, how do they trade one off against the other in a medical trial? Is there a magic formula for acceptable change in pain levels vs acceptable lung cancer increase levels? How is such an acceptable formula derived in a lab? Surely it's a moral choice?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Thanks Kay, but you are muddling the water here. There is some interesting data that pharmaceutical cannabinoid extracts can help control (what is a tiny number of) kids with severe intractable epilepsy, but that’s a pretty unusual scenario. AFAIK there are no decent trials that show the medical benefits of smoking cannabis exceed the harms, but I’d love to be corrected.
I agree and disagree with you, Rob. I agree that medical marijuana is not what it's claimed to be -- there's a lot of bullshit talked. But the chronic pain thing is worth considering. If one person perceives a subjective benefit -- feels better and can do more -- that's a result. If they stop relying on something like Tramadol, there's potentially quite a benefit. It seems worth letting them have a crack.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Is there a magic formula for acceptable change in pain levels vs acceptable lung cancer increase levels?
Fwiw, the evidence on marijuana smoking and lung cancer is more conflicted than it is for tobacco smoking.
-
Jake Starrow, in reply to
What an informative, incisive article. Food, or should that be hooch, for thought. Congrats Mr Brown.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
The study, published in the Lancet, shows daily cannabis users under the age of 17 were 60 per cent less likely to complete high school or attend university and were nearly seven times more likely to attempt suicide.
I’m curious as to which is the cause and which is effect. Perhaps those with suicidal tendencies try weed on the way to their destination, and find it deficient in resolving their perceived problems. Perhaps the losers in the education lottery turn to pot to soften their harsh reality.
I stress that I don’t know the answer, but I do wonder if the questions are being asked. The fact that the study is listed in the psychiatry section of the Lancet troubles me a little – if you go hunting for dysfunction, you’ll find it. I’m not hugely in favour of kids having drugs, just as I’m not down with them having grog. I just hope the study is being solidly peer-reviewed because it’s the sort of thing that policy gets based on and it needs to be right. If kids are already failing within the system and are turning to drugs because of that, what needs to be fixed is what’s causing them to fail, not their habit.
[edit] and I see others share my apprehension. Remember, the Lancet published Wakefield's MMR nonsense as well as much reputable stuff.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
the Korean Peninsula and New Zealand.
But these are two very different climates. But, well, whaddaya know? (I'm assuming that Scion, as a CRI, is a touch more respectable and objective than the other top search results in the Google search you suggested)
-
I'm currently living in Colorado. In the first year of legalisation, the visible effect on society where I live is.... pretty much zero. You can legally buy and consume in your own house. You can't legally smoke a joint on the street. Society has not succumbed to reefer madness. I'm not sure about the stats quoted above, but the policy seems to have garnered a narrow margin of popular approval. It seems to me a very honest way to proceed, though there are some wrinkles: apparently the banks can't/won't touch money earned by legal (in Colorado) cannabis sales due to Federal legislation around drug trafficking.
-
Kiwi, in reply to
While, Cannabis may not be the miracle wonder drug some people claim it to be there are very real benefits from extracts from the cannabis plant. The picture of someone smoking a joint to cure some ailment is an aging stereotype in a day when the Cannabidiol (CBD) portion of the plant can be extracted separately to the THC (psychoactive component) and delivered through a variety of mechanisms from sprays to edibles to vaporizers.
-
stephen clover, in reply to
Fwiw, the evidence on marijuana smoking and lung cancer is more conflicted than it is for tobacco smoking.
And let's remember that there are numerous ways to consume cannabis -- medicinal or otherwise -- other than smoking it, and which consequently carry far less health risks from that perspective.
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
Remember, the Lancet published Wakefield’s MMR nonsense as well as much reputable stuff.
The Lancet remembers it as well as you do. The controls put in place to prevent a similar embarassment are extensive (and, if you're trying to get a paper published, tiresome, even though you understand why they're there).
-
andin, in reply to
The picture of someone smoking a joint to cure some ailment is an aging stereotype in a day when the Cannabidiol (CBD) portion of the plant can be extracted separately to the THC (psychoactive component) and delivered through a variety of mechanisms from sprays to edibles to vaporizers
So right. And if were legal and cheaper these options would be much more preferable. Smoking is a bad way to ingest anything.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I just don’t think that dope is the answer to our lack of economic sophistication.
Yes, we'd have to sell an awful lot before it even raised its head as a significant crop, and there wouldn't be much of an export market in it - anywhere it would be legal to export to would already be growing it. And the global demand isn't likely to be anywhere near as much as even the most basic plant crops. People buy their cannabis by the gram or ounce, not by the kilo. A kilo would keep even a hardcore stoner going for a year. If truly legal and produced by professional farmers, its production cost would be around the order of what it costs to produce lettuce. Maybe a greedy retailer could get away with charging $20 per kilo. As an illegal crop that quantity is worth more like $10,000. Even then stoners mostly have as much weed as they want, and medical users too. Legalization would kill it as a profitable business immediately. I doubt that supply couldn't be matched even by casual home growers keeping a small patch in good sun and well tended. People who wanted it could easily grow it, and they could access the very best strains with great ease. It would probably be found growing wild in large stands, if those stands were not instantly ravaged by humans upon discovery, as they are now. Untidy building sites would probably have them cropping up amongst the belladonna and sorrell.
-
I guess a reasonable comparison is suggesting that NZ could dominate the world in growing parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme. Do any countries even import those? Possibly extremely cold climates? I've got an oversupply problem from those just off $10 worth of seeds purchased 10 years ago.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
I guess a reasonable comparison is suggesting that NZ could dominate the world in growing parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme. Do any countries even import those?
Most of the non-gourmet supermarket dried varieties of those four are imported.
-
very valid points Ben and Steven, hadn't thought of the bulk and price issues through at all, it was only an afterthought on the medicinal market potentials (for NZ owned patents and products).
Though a quick google suggests there is at least for now a market for exports used for medicinal reasons: http://hemp.org/news/content/australia-norfolk-island-gives-go-ahead-grow-import-export-medical-marijuana
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Most of the non-gourmet supermarket dried varieties of those four are imported.
Yeah I guess in something low volume and light, where most of the cost wasn't in the growing but in the harvesting, processing, packaging and shipping, storing and selling, it would hardly matter where it hailed from. Probably people would want their cannabis in the most convenient form eventually - either rolled up like cigarettes, or in bags like loose tobacco, or in powder or liquid form if they're taking it in a more modern way like a vaporizer, or in a pill. I'd think a pill the safest and most convenient way if pain relief is the whole point, with maybe a backup inhaler for sudden bouts of pain. If it's to get high, a disposable inhaler is probably still the easiest.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
Apart from an odd section promising to lean on Pharmac to ”take a lead role in seeking to reduce the inappropriate prescribing of drugs such as anti-depressants” (let’s leave that up to doctors and health researchers)
A lighthearted rundown of some issues here (links within):
In 1997, GlaxoSmithKline did something similar when they released the well-known antidepressant Wellbutrin as a pill that helps you quit smoking, but only after rebranding it as Zyban.
The Sept 2014 Pharmac Schedule (PDF) shows Zyban is being subsidised to the tune of $4.95 (manufacturer’s price). Regardless of the merits of Zyban specifically, there’s a case to be made for heightened vigilance in the current market:
GSK is under investigation by Chinese authorities over Rmb3bn (£320m) in potential bribes to individuals at every level of the healthcare system,
etc…
-
S-L,
Why has drugs become so strongly about politics..
In the end people are still going to take cannibis regardless of if it's legal or not.
Reducing anti-depressants is not worth a fight either, it's up to the individual who thinks they need it and the doctors who are in charge of prescribing it to say yes or no. Drugs is an addiction and, to some, a way of coping or just to try it out. If there was a way to reduce the intake it's too late because it's in pop culture and has already been introduced to this generation.
They should be preventing the next generation to be aware of the drugs in existence and change the way people think about taking it. -
Brent Jackson, in reply to
They should be preventing the next generation to be aware of the drugs in existence and change the way people think about taking it.
I believe you need the opposite. You need the younger generation to be aware of drugs, and be aware of the potential problems with them. Withholding information is not the answer.
-
S-L, in reply to
With there being the potential problems is the potential benefits. I mean it's not like people aren't aware of the problems, its like smoking, there are images of the potential problems on the packet but people still smoke.
In saying that, everything that happens is really about curiosity, drugs have a double standard of being good for you and bad for you. -
Stewart, in reply to
Agreed.
It's not like coming from a dysfunctional family isn't having more effect.
And many dysfunctional families are as a result of problems which have political solutions.
So maybe there's a political solution to consider?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.