(But please don't give them another win!)
Thanks for your work on this Russell. In response to some comments I'd just note that being a qualified medical doctor and being a GP are not the same thing. Yes Dr Hotu is qualified, but no, he does not appear to hold a current certificate to be a GP. That makes it doubly-weird he would poke his head up claiming to be the "only" medicinal cannabis clinic, while running it apparently without the specialist needed.
And "Reeferendum" gets a vote from me too please. I like how implies an end to reefer madness (a stretch, but I live in hope)
Thanks for getting clarification here that controlled drugs such as cannabis might be part of a PSA-like law, rather than the PSA itself, which is currently fatally flawed (in part due to themselves!). The major issue for me is that the PSA takes a medicines approach which is not warranted (as the substances are not trying to cure a disease or treat a condition), and especially for natural plants and herbs. It's one thing to demand pharmaceutical-level tests for novel chemicals - and of course Jessamine and Medsafe would insist on this, it's what they do - but there are other approaches for plant-based drugs that could treat safety issues more like foods or, duh, herbs. The Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill comes to mind.
You probably thought the Greens already wanted to free the weed, right? Not lately. The current policy offers only to prioritise enforcement elsewhere and (as a “long term goal”)
The old policy said this under Medium Term Steps:
Introduce a legal age limit of 18 years for personal cannabis use.
Define in law the limits on growing cannabis for personal use.
Despite calling for adult use and cultivation to be made legal, the old policy (which I helped Nandor write back in 1999) was deliberately conservative. I agree the latest version is pretty good but it still seems conservative given the polls and what's been happening overseas. I wish they had taken a position on what form the markets should take for adult use. Surely we're at the point when we can debate the merits of cannabis clubs or dispensaries compared to govt grown etc. Canada's approach looks set to hand the entire market to a few large corporations with no right to grow your own.
"I thought it might be"? I said this last week, when I told you CBD is not a tetrahydrocannabinol and therefore not covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act's definition of a cannabis preparation. While CBD is in the Medicines Act, that only covers therapeutic use, not non-therapeutic use. I have written to the Ministry of Health seeking their confirmation this is the case.
Might be being picky but all plant derived cannabinoids are "phytocannabinoids", including naturally occurring THC, CBD, and approx 100 others. CBD can also be made synthetically, or isomerised from other cannabinoids - just like THC can too - in which case it would not be a "phytocannabinoid" (that term refers to it's origin, not it's structural classification).
A word of caution regarding that 1997 case study that purports to claim eating hemp seed oil can result in a positive drug test. The allegation is often used by Police and Customs here and in Australia to block the sale of hemp foods, which in turn keeps the hemp industry very small here. I wrote about this last year:
"the hemp industry in the US has already addressed this concern, commissioning comprehensive research that showed hemp seed foods do not produce positive drug test results. New Zealand’s ESR also has conducted research. They obtained hemp seed oil products from The Hempstore, including our hemp lollipops, and fed them to test subjects who produced no positive results..."
Nitpicking over, it is bloody good progress we're making lately...! NORML started a "whispering campaign" three years ago, putting good ideas into the minds of the right people (as opposed to putting ourselves out front and centre, and possibly alienating some people with our radicalness), and while we can't take all the credit it seems to be bearing fruit. Finally. Cue smile emoticons.
Andrew, why do you think it has to be "on your person (but not by mail"?
I understood Sue Grey argued that for the purposes of the Act they were one and the same.