All posts in the topic COMT polymorphism test in Christchurch yet? (Short link)

From: Kevin O'Connell Date: Oct 23 18:49 UTC Short link

brian,

it is prohibiton and criminalisation that is the worry. half a million
criminals in NZ, 50,000 in canterbury (well actually they are non-criminals)

please find some better way to protect the people, as the black market and
pernicious double standards and criminal injustice system DO NOT.

we need to grow up as a society and have respect for fellow citizens and allow
cannabis for adults. deglamorise and demystify.

There is a need to police supply to minors, not adults who make an informed
choice. Close the 'illegality' gateway to methamphetamine. decriminalise and
Downsize the prison industrial state, the benefits go on and on. it has to be
done.

i pointed out the bad mix of criminalisation and mind-opening herb. that is not
good for anyones mental health. The nation has a cone of silence on this issue
of cannabis law reform (despite R18 being on the ballot paper this time) and
the repression and taboo, division and LACK OF EQUITY is no good for our
community's collective mental health.

i would much rather see us all pulling together in the same direction - genuine
harm minimisation.
    

regards
kevin





--- On Fri, 10/24/08, Brian Sandle <bsandle@snap.net.nz> wrote:

> From: Brian Sandle <bsandle@snap.net.nz>
> Subject: [Canterbury Issues] COMT polymorphism test in Christchurch yet?
> To: "Canterbury Public Issues Forum"
<canterburyissues@forums.e-democracy.org>
> Date: Friday, October 24, 2008, 2:00 AM
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1078876.ece
>
> gives that those persons with a COMT genetic variant are
> much more at risk of mental trauma from cannabis.
>
> I asked a while back that means be found to perhaps know
> who might be at risk from cannabis. I did not know about
> this test at the time.
>
> I worry when it is claimed that legalising cannabis would
> alleviate the worries.
>
> One problem of cannabis is paranoia. Paranoia is not only
> fixated on worries about prosecution. Under legalised use
> cannabis paranoia would find many objects, especially in
> relationships between people, thus worsening socialisation.
>
> I ask you Paula to spend some time visiting with people
> afflicted with early dementia, to find out about
> paranoia-suspicion which may have nothing to do with fear of
> legal consequences.
>
>
> Brian Sandle
>
> Info about Brian Sandle:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/briansandle
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/TM0bQrwRYiPHSMTYsWELW
> -----------------------------------------
>   To post, send your message to:
> <email obscured>
>   To leave or for daily digest, type
> "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>   in subject line and send to:
> <email obscured>
>
>   More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>   http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
>   E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at
> http://OnlineGroups.Net

From: Paula Lambert Date: Oct 23 23:00 UTC Short link

Brian first of all I will note the 2005 article at your link also says the
research hasn't yet been replicated, as well as that it many be an adjacent
(unnamed) gene.
Brian, in the past I have heard Prof Fergusson, lead researcher of the
Dunedin longitudinal study, raise the issue of a COMTv gene too, so I went
away and read up.  I'm still taking it with a grain of salt at the moment,
particularly in view of these two UK articles.
Guardian article Friday 4th April 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/04/drugsandalcohol.justice
"The Guardian understands that at the ACMD meeting, the 23 medical and drug
experts heard a personal presentation on the possible mental health impacts
of higher potency cannabis from psychologist Dr Martin Frisher, of Keele
University pharmacy school. The presentation used unpublished data from a
confidential report he has drawn up for the Home Office.
He and his colleague Professor Illana Crome, of Keele's academic psychiatry
unit, used data from 183 GP practices across Britain between 1996 and 2005
to work out whether schizophrenia is on the rise, and whether it can be
linked to the increase in cannabis use since the 1970s.
Their confidential paper found that between 1996 and 2005 there had been
significant reductions in the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia.
From 2000 onwards there were also significant reductions in the prevalence
of psychoses."
Times article Friday 4th April 2008:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3672080.ece
"The council's decision came after a discussion of research from Keele
University on trends in schizophrenia. The study found nothing to support a
theory that rising cannabis use over the past three decades had led to
increases in the incidence of schizophrenia in later years. Instead, the
research by Martin Frisher, of the school of pharmacy, and Ilana Crone, of
the academic psychiatry unit, said that between 1996 and 2005 there were
significant reductions in the prevalence of schizophrenia and from 2000
onwards in the prevalence of psychoses.
"The data are not consistent with the hypothesis that increasing cannabis
use in earlier decades is associated with increasing schizophrenia or
psychoses from the mid1990s onwards," the report said."
    

--

Athough the UK govt has still not released that research,  they reclassified
cannabis anyway, which is indicative of the general political usefulness of
having people who use cannabis as a sideshow tool for 'tough on crime'
posturing.

Additionally, at the time I learned about the COMTv gene possibility, Prof
Fergusson called cannabis a "dirty drug" and when I asked him why he replied
because he'd heard a caller on a Sydney talkback show say that.   He had
repeated it without the faintest idea why, ie. without contextualising it.
On reflection I believe that compared with taking an Ecstasy or other pill
you could accurately say cannabis could be a dirty drug.  Because to make a
cannabis cigarette with a sticky cannabis bud you first need to pull it to
pieces, thus getting slightly green sticky fingers.  So Fergusson's
throwaway line was misleading and prejudiced, to say the least.

Brian I also agree that paranoia "is not only fixated on worries about
prosecution" *simply because the majority of cannabis users do not get
arrested, ie. there are way too many to arrest.*  But there is a very large
"Cannabis Curtain" that runs through communities and families, because as
well as prosecution there is also a powerful *persecution*, stigma,
prejudice, or whatever else the bone-pointing could be called.   Anyway,
given the very rapid socio-cultural changes we've all lived through over the
last several generations, there is a host of other worries and pressures on
individuals, family, and social groups which add to the toxic mix for our
children, and not a few adults as well.

The cannabis issue is nuanced and requires people to think rationally, and
in order to encourage that the threat of police/corrections/shame needs to
be removed from the equation.   That alone would probably go a long way
toward reassuring early-onset dementia sufferers.  I believe it would be
utterly stupid to change the law overnight, but a long term moratorium on
arrests would be a superb first step, followed up by a rational media
coverage of a multi-level discussion of the pros and cons.   In order for
that there needs to be a political will that is sadly lacking, because
politicans understand the usefulness of public ignorance and prejudice.   I
certainly didn't see the admission by our own Ministry of Health that
cannabis was an effective medicine

I've lost count of the number of short-sighted people who say cannabis is a
single issue.  It impacts on everyone on many levels.   However there are
many and varied vested interests in maintaining the current prohibitory
status quo.  While there seems to be a hell of a lot of cash about for
studying cannabis harms,  I bet there isn't a lot of research cash about for
studying the social effect of consumerism as a result of full-on
capitalism.  These days it seems to solely be all about our wallets.  Where
has our firm sense of 'society' disappeared to ?

I'm pretty darn tired of the political lip-service paid to 'tough on crime'
as a  knee-jerk vote grabbing exercise, but its my perception that theres
nothing constructive being focused on and given a similar weighting.  For
example, its long been known that early intervention for at-risk children is
a key factor to turning things around.  Its ten years since 'Project Early'
was piloted yet where is our collective political will for supporting a
widespread rollout of that sort of assistance ?  The money has been poured
into CYFS, WINZ and prison-building.

This current determined herding of our kids into engaging with the black
market isn't doing anyone any favours at all.  The relentless political
wittering about gangs and mentioning cannabis in the same context as p is
sheer idiocy.

The 1991 Proceeds of Crime Act (National Party) was intended as a
gang-buster, to confiscate their assets and substantially reduce the black
market drug supply.  What a farce.  All it did was encourage gangs - who'd
almost without exception done the bulk of the business at their own gang
clubhouse properties - to spread out into the community (there were
virtually no darn 'tinnie houses' until then).   Coupled with the DPB slash
around the same time, there was ample opportunity to take advantage of DPB
mums and set up large networks of outlets.   At the same time other cannabis
wholesalers, who were otherwise reasonably law-abiding citizens, withdrew
from the market.

Anyway, at least you have an intelligently focused concern Brian, not a
general dumbed-down one.  I'm sorry, I didn't mean to write such a book, but
the bottom line is (in my view) in order to highlight the systemic failings
of cannabis prohibition effectively its required to first engage people in
the discussion *without fear of arrest.    *And when someone asks a question
like you have my views just pour out LOL
Kind regards,
Paula.

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Brian Sandle <bsandle@snap.net.nz> wrote:

> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1078876.ece
>
> gives that those persons with a COMT genetic variant are much more at risk
> of mental trauma from cannabis.
> I asked a while back that means be found to perhaps know who might be at
> risk from cannabis. I did not know about this test at the time.
> I worry when it is claimed that legalising cannabis would alleviate the
> worries.
> One problem of cannabis is paranoia. Paranoia is not only fixated on
> worries about prosecution. Under legalised use cannabis paranoia would find
> many objects, especially in relationships between people, thus worsening
> socialisation.
> I ask you Paula to spend some time visiting with people afflicted with
> early dementia, to find out about paranoia-suspicion which may have nothing
> to do with fear of legal consequences.
>
>
> Brian Sandle
>
> Info about Brian Sandle: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/briansandle
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/TM0bQrwRYiPHSMTYsWELW
> -----------------------------------------
>  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>  More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
>  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>

From: Brian Sandle Date: Oct 24 13:31 UTC Short link

Paula Lambert wrote:
> Brian first of all I will note the 2005 article at your link also says the
> research hasn't yet been replicated, as well as that it many be an adjacent
> (unnamed) gene.
> Brian, in the past I have heard Prof Fergusson, lead researcher of the
> Dunedin longitudinal study, raise the issue of a COMTv gene too, so I went
> away and read up.  I'm still taking it with a grain of salt at the moment,
> particularly in view of these two UK articles.
> Guardian article Friday 4th April 2008
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/04/drugsandalcohol.justice
> "The Guardian understands that at the ACMD meeting, the 23 medical and drug
> experts heard a personal presentation on the possible mental health impacts
> of higher potency cannabis from psychologist Dr Martin Frisher, of Keele
> University pharmacy school. The presentation used unpublished data from a
> confidential report he has drawn up for the Home Office.
> He and his colleague Professor Illana Crome, of Keele's academic psychiatry
> unit, used data from 183 GP practices across Britain between 1996 and 2005
> to work out whether schizophrenia is on the rise, and whether it can be
> linked to the increase in cannabis use since the 1970s.
> Their confidential paper found that between 1996 and 2005 there had been
> significant reductions in the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia.
> >From 2000 onwards there were also significant reductions in the prevalence
> of psychoses."
>
http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/0/fe056868e15068c6cc256d27001ef42f/$FILE/SuicideFacts2000.pdf

Between 1968 when canabis started to be more widely used and 1996 the 15
- 24 age group suicide rate increased more than 5 times.

I haven't enough time at the moment to investigate much but maybe the
cannabis-intolerant are getting weeded out.


The same age suicide rate has dropped a bit since then.

Had those people still been alive what would the schizophrenia rate have
been now?

It would be interesting to track the incidence of the COMT or its
neighbour, whatever may be a trouble.
    

> Times article Friday 4th April 2008:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3672080.ece
> "The council's decision came after a discussion of research from Keele
> University on trends in schizophrenia. The study found nothing to support a
> theory that rising cannabis use over the past three decades had led to
> increases in the incidence of schizophrenia in later years. Instead, the
> research by Martin Frisher, of the school of pharmacy, and Ilana Crone, of
> the academic psychiatry unit, said that between 1996 and 2005 there were
> significant reductions in the prevalence of schizophrenia and from 2000
> onwards in the prevalence of psychoses.
> "The data are not consistent with the hypothesis that increasing cannabis
> use in earlier decades is associated with increasing schizophrenia or
> psychoses from the mid1990s onwards," the report said."

From: Paula Lambert Date: Oct 25 01:51 UTC Short link

While we're being less than academic and indulging in stabs in the dark,
lets see ....1968-96... the rise of individualism, materialism and
consumerism, the decline in community cohesion, the advances of media and
marketing aimed at youth, greater personal empowerment than any other era,
the explosion in pharmaceutical, alcohol and other drug use ... where shall
I start .....

There are few reliable sets of stats pre 1968 on anything - I think the
exceptions are weather, and deaths, births, marriages - with which to
compare rising or lowering prevalence of suicide, let alone the factors or
causes.  Mental health issues were swept under the carpet until the last
decade or so.

The UK is streets ahead of us in compiling stats comparisons and wild
assumptions about cannabis, and I've never seen anything like your comment,
even from Margerie Wallace of SANE, the mental health charity most vocal in
talking about cannabis harms there.

While I have great sympathy for people who have lost loved and unloved ones
that way, it is nothing short of dangerously shortsighted to blame cannabis
use for the many and varied causes of suicide or the incidence of
schizophrenia.   The COMTv gene or its neighbour are a minor side issue.

Now, Brian .... how can you explain the near 200,000 cannabis cigarettes
smoked daily in NZ, when its ... um, ILLEGAL ?    Prohibiting it isn't very
effective at protecting those you are concerned about, is it ?

As I said before, make a permanent moratorium on arrests, its a health not a
criminal issue.  And bring on the facts, lets have a rational debate,
without the hysterics !
    

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Brian Sandle <bsandle@snap.net.nz> wrote:

> Paula Lambert wrote:
> > Brian first of all I will note the 2005 article at your link also says
> the
> > research hasn't yet been replicated, as well as that it many be an
> adjacent
> > (unnamed) gene.
> > Brian, in the past I have heard Prof Fergusson, lead researcher of the
> > Dunedin longitudinal study, raise the issue of a COMTv gene too, so I
> went
> > away and read up.  I'm still taking it with a grain of salt at the
> moment,
> > particularly in view of these two UK articles.
> > Guardian article Friday 4th April 2008
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/04/drugsandalcohol.justice
> > "The Guardian understands that at the ACMD meeting, the 23 medical and
> drug experts heard a personal presentation on the possible mental health
> impacts of higher potency cannabis from psychologist Dr Martin Frisher, of
> Keele University pharmacy school. The presentation used unpublished data
> from a confidential report he has drawn up for the Home Office. He and his
> colleague Professor Illana Crome, of Keele's academic psychiatry unit, used
> data from 183 GP practices across Britain between 1996 and 2005 to work out
> whether schizophrenia is on the rise, and whether it can be linked to the
> increase in cannabis use since the 1970s.
> > Their confidential paper found that between 1996 and 2005 there had been
> significant reductions in the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia.
> >From 2000 onwards there were also significant reductions in the prevalence
> of psychoses."
>
>
http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/0/fe056868e15068c6cc256d27001ef42f/$FILE/SuicideFacts2000.pdf
>
Between 1968 when canabis started to be more widely used and 1996 the 15- 24
> age group suicide rate increased more than 5 times.
> I haven't enough time at the moment to investigate much but maybe the
> cannabis-intolerant are getting weeded out.
> The same age suicide rate has dropped a bit since then.
> Had those people still been alive what would the schizophrenia rate have
> been now?
> It would be interesting to track the incidence of the COMT or its
> neighbour, whatever may be a trouble.
>
> > Times article Friday 4th April 2008:
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3672080.ece
> > "The council's decision came after a discussion of research from Keele
> > University on trends in schizophrenia. The study found nothing to support
> a
> > theory that rising cannabis use over the past three decades had led to
> > increases in the incidence of schizophrenia in later years. Instead, the
> > research by Martin Frisher, of the school of pharmacy, and Ilana Crone,
> of
> > the academic psychiatry unit, said that between 1996 and 2005 there were
> > significant reductions in the prevalence of schizophrenia and from 2000
> > onwards in the prevalence of psychoses.
> > "The data are not consistent with the hypothesis that increasing cannabis
> > use in earlier decades is associated with increasing schizophrenia or
> > psychoses from the mid1990s onwards," the report said."
>
> Brian Sandle
>

From: Paula Lambert Date: Oct 25 07:57 UTC Short link

Brian, sorry,  I was talking about impressionable youngsters, not 45-64
year-olds who supposedly are more adequately capable of separating the wheat
from the chaff.
BTW where are you getting your stats ?   I had a quick google around but
haven't been able to find exactly what you're using.
    

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Brian Sandle <bsandle@snap.net.nz> wrote:

> Paula Lambert wrote:
> > While we're being less than academic and indulging in stabs in the dark,
> > lets see ....1968-96... the rise of individualism, materialism and
> > consumerism, the decline in community cohesion, the advances of media and
> marketing aimed at youth, greater personal empowerment than any other era,
> the explosion in pharmaceutical, alcohol and other drug use ... where shall
> I start .....
>
> *I'd think at least some of your issues above must  impinge on the 45- 64
> year-olds. But they had a delcine in suicide rate over the same period.
> * *
> Brian Sandle*
>

From: 'Just Blair' Anderson Date: Oct 26 10:21 UTC Short link

High Brian et al....

I would like to put this issue of may be there is a maybe connection to mental
health and suicide....

Knowing something of the truth behind this issue is important to me, I have
came to a position that anyone who thinks cannabis is responsible for the
mental-health/suicide 'causation' are nuts.

I learn from listening to my peers directly up close and in person and from
reading volumes of science from folk that I have over the past thirty years
acquired a degree of respect for.

(including the experience very recently, that there wasn't a professional
mental health researcher of any useful standing that spoke at the Sept.
"Cutting Edge" conference, who had a good word for prohibition (including Prof
Ferguson, [Dr?] Richie Poulton, and Prof Doug Selman).

I recently travelled with Judge Jerry Paradis whose 'life-long experience'
dealing with 'facts' (including testimony from people who would declare that
they know someone they have seen destroyed by cannabis) defend the science that
'exonerates' cannabis of the overstated harms. That still doesn't amount to a
clean bill of health, but is puts the perpetuated fears into perspective.

I have to put good public health folk like Professor Max Abbot (Vice Chancellor
AUT) and retired Pharmacology Professor Emeritus Fred Fastier  way above the
tired ol saw you keep trotting out about this...

It doesn't matter how you couch your argument Prohibition is deficient,
inequitable, unjust and just plain wrong... the politics are of deception and
hypocrisy - no more exemplified by 'a system' that continues to tolerate both
exacerbating the suffering from illnesses like cancer, HIV/AIDS, and multiple
sclerosis while 'threatening' arrest and jail for simply trying to alleviate
their pain. Its enough to drive one mad and make suicide look good!

But there is worse... and seeing as your on the good side of fifty years like
myself... you may come to the same conclusions I have (and have published
variously on my blog) the following from a good Internet colleague and 'peer' -
(fmr Chair, Biology, Colorado University) -  Dr. Robert Melamede.

"Cannabis is the only plant that ties into our endocannabinoid system. The
endocannabinoid system literally regulates everything in our bodies in that it
is an all pervasive regulator of biochemical balance. We all suffer from the
imbalance of aging. Cannabis is an anti-aging drug with benefits for all
age-related illnesses including autoimmune, cardiovascular, and neurological
diseases as well as cancers. The harm done to health by prohibition far out
weighs the relatively minor harms of cannabis consumption. It’s about time that
governmental policies had a scientific foundation instead of ones based on the
paranoiac delusions of fear mongering prohibitionists who are in bed with the
pharmaceutical companies."

Are you keen to die a day earlier than you have to in defence of the
indefensible....
For that is the state of affairs... for all of us, not just you.

And, I regret to add, we about to have an election. If on current polling we
have a National Government it is highly likely that we will have a Minister of
Health who in respect of cannabis "makes it up as he goes' - He would be the
first to sign up to another "lets not talk about cannabis" coalition agreement.
(curiously ommitted from any political commentator or journalistic insight..
despite it shaping the last 6 years of 'governance' and determing the balance
of power since 1996)

Come November 11 Suicide maybe looking Real Good! - It might be better than an
intolerable three years of Tony Ryall looking after your health..... you may
recall Ryall made up that little vote catcher about all the mental health
patients who got into the system due to cannabis addiction, roundly refuted by
those who care for them.

I cant help but think of AB John Kirwin's 'labelling' at a time like this.. Its
enough to make ya vote Republican!
    

From: N. Perzylo Date: Oct 27 05:39 UTC Short link

> Brian asks: And how should families relate to people who are using cannabis
with its
> behavioral changes?

 In a prohibition environment-- ring the cops because dope is
illegal-- they can put that person in jail, and spend a huge amount of
tax payers money to "send a message"..
 (and the person still has a mental issue)

In a regulatory system-- ring/visit your doctor and they may refer you
on to someone who can help the person who feels he's self medicating
and who can help the family deal with this.
    

/Natalie

--

From: Brian Sandle Date: Nov 02 13:34 UTC Short link

Brian Sandle wrote:
> Doglinks NZ wrote:
>
>>> Brian asks: And how should families relate to people who are using cannabis
with its
>>> behavioral changes?
>>>
>>>
Still no real reply to me, just the assertion that criminality is a problem.

Perhaps I shouldn't be pushing the ALCP members, several of whom write
on this group, it seems.

It doesn't take criminality to cause problems. A religious conversion of
a family member can change family dynamics a lot. That might relate to
new needs for solitude for prayer, or changed diet, or who one may eat
with. A parent may have to profoundly upgrade their acceptance of a
faith which they had been conditioned to irk. Sometimes the stress may
lead to the need for a doctor for one or other family member. What about
with cannabis? Is there any reason to try to find ahead of time that
certain types of person may be more affected by cannabis, therefore more
likely to put stress on the family? Then maybe the situation gets to be
that problems because of genetic makeup are likely, but is still going
to happen. Then is there help with how to relate? Should there be less
demands placed on the users at certain times, same as sometimes for new
religion or maybe new meditation?
    

Brian

>>  In a prohibition environment-- ring the cops because dope is
>> illegal-- they can put that person in jail, and spend a huge amount of
>> tax payers money to "send a message"..
>>  (and the person still has a mental issue)
>>
>>
> I thought it is not usual to send family members off to jail unless the
> situation bvecomes very abusive.
> In a family situation in which there is love then you are not expected
> to report each other to the police are you?
>
> A wife does not have to give evidence against a husband I thought, is
> that not still the case?
>
>
>> In a regulatory system-- ring/visit your doctor and they may refer you
>> on to someone who can help the person who feels he's self medicating
>> and who can help the family deal with this.
>>
>>
> So you think then the new set of behaviors will not disappear, and the
> family will need help?
> Let's have some discussion on what is available in Christchurch.
>
> Brian
>
> Brian Sandle
>
>

From: Paula Lambert Date: Nov 03 00:29 UTC Short link

Brian those families concerned about what you describe - a change in
demeanour or attitude - need honest rational information.  There is a lot of
very biased or irrational and some plain nasty information out there.  It is
pointless sidelining the issue of dishonesty by trying to discuss what is
available in Christchurch for panicky or disillusioned families.   Treatment
providers have their hands somewhat tied as a result of the systemic
dishonesty.

Its no wonder families and/or pot users have stress about it !    If there
was more valid information, and no fear of arrest or alienation out there, *
most*  (but not all, granted) of them would need no more 'treatment' than a
conversation, a cup of tea and a biscuit.   I would like that truth
addressed, in order to focus on those who might need more holistic
assistance.

There is a great fear of arrest and stigma surrounding the issue, and to
enable a rational debate there needs to be a mechanism for facilitating such
debate.  Not a 30 minute tv shallow 'infotainment' programme consisting of
random sound-bites, but an ongoing debate entered into by *all *the
knowledgeable stakeholders *without fear of arrest, stigma or alienation.
*Concerned people need their fears and questions answered honestly, with
both sides of the arguments addressed.

I am sick and tired of hearing the police and others bleat about a 'lack of
community support' when in fact they are the chief supporters of the cause
of a lot of intergenerational bad feeling due to cannabis policing.

I am also sure a lot of professional people have their incomes/livelihoods
connected to their silence on contentious issues*, *eg. workers under
contract to government-funded NGO and other organisations* *such as
faith-based initiatives. * * All we ever hear are the naysayers toeing the
official dishonest line, the moral panic brigade, or else its completely
ignored, the old "just say nothing."

But I and many others know full well there are dissenters amongst them,
afraid to open their mouths.*  * They have seen what happens to colleagues
who have had the guts to publicly dissent.*

*A positive change for the better could be signalled via a semi-permanent
moritorium on arrests, or by downgrading pot policing to the lowest possible
priority.

The reason this isn't happening is that the powers-that-be are aware they
are being hypocritical or downright dishonest.   The very negative
downstream effect of prohibition helps keep a lot of people in employment.
There is a strong vested interest in the status quo, and to hell with the
consequences.

Forgive my garbled Bible quoting,  but ignoring "Judge not, lest ye be
judged" surely leads to "As you sow, so shall you reap".    At the moment we
have "Bugger the children, parents, taxpayers and voters... the almighty
dollar comes first."
    

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:22 PM, kevin oconnell <kevvoc@yahoo.com> wrote:

> hi from West Auckland!
>
> Brian, i truely wish you could see just how dysfunctional our cannabis laws
> are in NZ (and on the ground out here). We have a massive culture of people
> involved in the black market.
>
> the weed is glamorised and glorified by its legal status, school kids love
> the weed, and i am constantly being told by my compainions (That house there
> too - 'tinny house' or 'p house')
>
> and our nation is deeply divided over the legal status of drugs. (you
> should have seen the public meeting at the Hobsonville baptist church last
> night...ALCP was alienated and excluded, btw but i wont bore you with the
> details)
>
> Now, i am in auckland this week, but prohibition is a canturbury issue too,
> and a southland issue too where i also live (in another life) and it seems
> every second person you run into there, is into weed as well....
>
> the official consumer prevalence is 373,000 - but that is likely to be a
> massive underestimate - more like double that i think. We are growing
> criminals and building prisions instead of having laws which genuinely
> protect people. and the mayors and police of the nationan pride themselves
> on safer communities - what a delusion.
>
> prohibition does not stop people consuming marijuana ,and does not help
> people who run into problems with it - your concern.
>
> When hauled through the criminal justice system it creates major mental
> health trauma for the victims (15,000 convictions per annum). I have met
> some very angry people up here, and it is because of the abuse they received
> at the hands of the police - invariably over cannabis. When people loose
> faith in the justice system, where do they go from there?
>
> It just wrecks mutual commumity respect and makes the rule of law a total
> ass. Helen clark says its time we had a rational debate on cannabis.
> Unfortunately that was where we were at 9 years ago in the election, and NZ
> has got nowhere in the intervening years.
>
> i hope this forum can help resolve the issue and canterbury can lead the
> way out of the shadow of gangs and crime and black market and self serving
> policing.
>
> Did you notice in your voter pack that ALCP has got 'r18' into the mix?
>
> regards
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 11/3/08, Brian Sandle <bsandle@snap.net.nz> wrote:
>
> > From: Brian Sandle <bsandle@snap.net.nz>
> > Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] COMT polymorphism test in Christchurch
> yet?
> > To: <email obscured>
> > Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 2:03 AM
> > Brian Sandle wrote:
> > > Doglinks NZ wrote:
> > >
> > >>> Brian asks: And how should families relate to
> > people who are using cannabis with its
> > >>> behavioral changes?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > Still no real reply to me, just the assertion that
> > criminality is a problem.
>
>
>
>
>
> Kevin O'Connell
>
> Info about Kevin O'Connell: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/kevinoconnell
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/l8O2V1QKdIGiem8XvTgWN
> -----------------------------------------
>  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>  More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
>  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>