Any tripme member who paid any attention to the US election should know that Colorado and Washington have become the first two states to legalise cannabis (growing, selling and consuming) for recreational purposes in the US and effectively the world.  No "leniency laws" or "police discretion" no “decriminalisation” over there.  Regulation like alcohol, is the unabashed order of the day.  This is a big step up from Californias dodgy doctors and dispensaries.
And it's not like Colorado or Washington are particularly liberal states; in Colorado it took 40% Republican support for the legalisation bill to pass by 4%.  Women and latinos, historically hard sell demographics for CLR, have also reportedly turned out in favour or closely divided enough for the high level of support amongst young voters to carry the measure.

What happened before the election is interesting.  No one from Obama's administration came forward to oppose legalisation.  There were a few stuffy press releases about the unchanging status of federal law but in the weeks before the election the Drug Czar, Attorney General and everybody else studiously avoided media on the issue.  What's happened since is even more interesting.  It was widely speculated that Obama would be afraid to oppose a popular measure amongst his voter base in a swing state like Colorado, once he'd secured four more years however the pessimistic envisaged a quick reactionary response.   So far, not a peep.

NORMLs Allen St Pierre sees it as a crossing of the rubicon.  The beginning of a gradual repeal similar to that of alcohol prohibition in the US during the late twenties and thirties.  If Obama and co. continue to ignore the issue then St Pierre may very well be right.  Eventually there's bound to be a return match with the supreme court (last time cannabis law reform lost a 6-3 split) but as the conservative justices get older and Obama appoints more liberal replacements the odds swing in Normls favour and in the meantime public opinion is trending against the status quo and toward a new approach.
St Pierre says that after years of being a political leper NORML now has senators and congressmen coming to them for advice and funds to support reform.  Californian representatives from both sides of the bench now see legalisation as an inevitable step and are approaching lobbyists asking for advice on how best to mitigate conflict with federal laws and directives.  In the next two years we could see the draft and introduction of prohibition repeal at a federal level, although St Pierre sees this as testing the waters and believes the real battle will be in the supreme court.

That may all be American politics but this is important stuff down here in godzone for a couple of reasons.  One, the US has historically been the biggest advocate, enforcer and populariser of the war on drugs.  Any softening in their stance gives other countries more room to move without fear of trade based reprisals.   Two, as states and countries reform their laws and begin reaping the benefits of harm minimisation and tax takes without imploding into a boxed out haze there'll be more and more evidence against prohibition and for regulation.
Couple the forward progress in the US with the the kiwi attitude to weed and it’s easy to see we’re ripe for reform.  New Zealanders smoke a lot of cannabis already being some of the top consumers in the world by some measures, large scale production is an income source for violent gangs and public acceptance of personal use is generally high while official harm minimisation products, services and education are anemic or completely absent.

New Zealand lagging behind the US states in this regard is a product of our political system.  While I'd never dream of swapping MMP for the US Electoral College, many states have provision for voter driven referendums that allow citizens to have their say on specific issues like cannabis law reform.  It's easy to imagine that a similar referendum in New Zealand would yield very positive results but Kiwi governments don't have a great track record of responding to petitions and I don't think the Electoral Commission is considering  any proposals to include issues specific voting into our elections.

The lack of this direct issue voting leaves kiwis somewhat hamstrung.  The only party in parliament dedicated to an evidence based reform of New Zealand's drug laws is the Green Party.  Labour has poor track record to say the least.  National are staunchly prohibitionist as shown when they declined the best chance for reform in twenty years by largely ignored the Law Commission Review.  ACT voted for medicinal cannabis which is something but then they threw Don Brash out for mentioning decriminalisation and replaced him with the "moralist" John Banks.  If you're a right wing voter and oppose the war on drugs you may need to investigate the libertarianz but it’s couple of years until the next election at any rate.

No matter which party you support you can email them and let them know that this is an issue where you think New Zealand should lead the way.  If finding your local MPs email is too much google(hint: go here)work for you then at least share a fun fact with a friend or your significant other or workmate or someone:



And here in NZ it just might beat John Key too.

Dunne bans substance found in K2 testing
Monday, 26 November 2012, 11:34 am
Press Release: New Zealand Government


Hon Peter Dunne
Associate Minister of Health

Monday 26 November 2012 Media Release

Dunne bans substance found in K2 testing

Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne today announced a Temporary Class Drug Notice banning a substance found in tested samples of the K2 synthetic cannabis product.

K2 has recently caused concern in communities, particularly in the lower South Island, where it has been connected to a number of incidents, and its use has been tied to elevated heart rate, vomiting, anxiety and psychosis.

A substance identified as EAM-2201 was found in two K2 products seized by police from a retail outlet, and will now be subject to a temporary drug notice taking effect from Thursday, December 6.

From that date, it will be illegal to import, manufacture, sell or supply the substance.

“The Health Ministry considers that EAM-2201 poses a risk at least comparable to other already banned synthetic cannabis substances, therefore I have made the decision that it needs to be banned.

“This is clearly not a product we want in the market place, and the fact that it is on the market tells you that we have an industry that does not give a damn about the safety of its customers.

“Any product containing EAM-2201must be off the market under this order, which will stay in force for 12 months.”

Mr Dunne said a permanent psychoactive substances regime will be in place by the middle of next year, reversing the onus of proof so manufacturers and distributors will have to prove their products are safe before they can sell them.

Products that pass testing will still have age and other restrictions applied.
“The regime will fix this industry once and for all and make it comply with proper standards. K2 is just another example of why you cannot trust these people to self-regulate and conduct themselves responsibly,” Mr Dunne said.

“Temporary Class Drug Notices were always a holding pen until we could bring in permanent legislation, and they have done the job well. With this latest ban, we have now removed 32 substances, and therefore effectively more than 50 products, from the market,” he said.

Ends.

Dunne: legal highs regime costs and penalties announced
Wednesday, 10 October 2012, 1:43 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Government

Hon Peter Dunne
Associate Minister of Health

10 October 2012

Dunne: legal highs regime costs and penalties announced

Legal high manufacturers will face estimated $180,000 application fees plus $1 million to $2 million in testing costs for each product they want to sell, and up to eight years in prison for selling banned substances, Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne said today in announcing details of the permanent psychoactive substances regime.

“I make no apologies for setting the bar high on public safety and putting in place a regime with the process costs squarely on the legal highs industry, and not the taxpayer,” Mr Dunne said of the regime which should be in place by the middle of next year.

“I have said all along that this regime will be fundamentally based on reversing the onus of proof so those who profit from these products will have to prove they are as safe as is possible for psychoactive substances.

“We will no longer play the cat-and-mouse game of constantly chasing down substances after they are on the market.

Penalties under the new regime will include up to eight years in prison for importing, manufacturing, supplying or possession with intent to supply analogues of controlled drugs that come under the Misuse of Drugs Act, and up to two years for import, manufacture, supply or possession with intent to supply unapproved substances.

Other key features of the new regime that have been approved by Cabinet include:

• Personal possession of an unapproved product will incur a $300 fine.
• There will be a minimum purchase age of 18.
• No advertising except at point of sale.
• Restrictions on outlets, including barring dairies from selling such products, and labelling and packaging requirements.

Mr Dunne said the $300 personal possession fine is deliberately not being legislated as a criminal offence.

“What we are trying to do is actually protect young people, not criminalise them and thereby jeopardise their job and travel prospects. The approach we are taking is similar to that used with alcohol infringements,” he said.

Labelling and packaging requirements will require all products to have a label listing their active ingredients, the phone number for the National Poisons Centre and contact details for the product’s New Zealand manufacturer or supplier.

‘To date, there has been no ingredient information, so no one who buys these products has the first clue what is in them, which is as ridiculous as it is dangerous and irresponsible,” Mr Dunne said.

“We have had considerable success with the Temporary Class Drug Notices that we instituted in August last year. They have taken 28 substances and more than 50 synthetic cannabis products off the market, but that was always a temporary measure until we could get this regime in place,” Mr Dunne said.

He said he will introduce the required legislation later this year and it is expected to be in place by the middle of next year. In the meantime, all existing temporary notices will be rolled over so they remain in effect until the permanent regime is in place.

The Cabinet paper and Regulatory Impact Statement can be found at www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/legislation-and-regulation/regulatory-impact-statements/new-regulatory-regime-psychoactive-substances

Psychoactive Substances Regime Questions and Answers

What are low risk psychoactive substances?
This refers to new psychoactive substances for which the risks are low enough that they meet the approval criteria set by the regulatory. We say 'low-risk' to avoid implying that they will be entirely safe, as there will always be some risk. This is because different people have different reactions to pharmacologically active substances.

Why is the Government bringing in a psychoactive substances regime?
We are doing this because the current situation is untenable. Current legislation is ineffective in dealing with the rapid growth in synthetic psychoactive substances which can be tweaked to be one step ahead of controls. Products are being sold without any controls over their ingredients, without testing requirements, or controls over where they can be sold. The government must prove a risk of harm before controlling a substance. The new regime will require a supplier or manufacturer to apply to a regulator for a safety assessment before any product can be sold.

Are we legalising drugs?
No. The regime will provide stronger controls over psychoactive substances. At the moment, these products are unregulated, with no control over ingredients, place of sale, or who they can be sold to. Because they are synthetic substances, there are a huge number of potential ingredients, which makes it unfeasible to deal with them individually.

It will be illegal to sell any product which has not been through an assessment. There will be strict restrictions on where products can be sold, the purchase age, and marketing restrictions.

What will the implications of the new regime be for cannabis?
The legal status of cannabis will not change. This is because the regime will only cover new psychoactive substances that are not already classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

Why don’t you just ban everything?
Legislation should not be used to restrict behaviour that cannot be proved to be harmful. Products that meet the approval criteria will be approved. However, our position will still be that not using these products is the safest option.

Is this a stealthy way of banning everything and never approving any product?
No. Clear testing requirements are being established to determine the risks of psychoactive products. Products that meet the approval criteria will be approved.

How will risk/safety be determined?
Consistent toxicological and behavioural testing will be required for every product seeking approval. A new regulator will be established to consider the data from this testing for each product. Products that meet the approval criteria will be approved.

What do you mean by the regulator?
A regulator will need to be established for psychoactive substances. This regulator will oversee the approval of products, monitor for compliance with post market restrictions, and reassess products in light of any new evidence of harm that might arise.

How many drugs will get approved?
We don’t know this yet. Products that meet the approval criteria will be approved. This will require toxicological and behavioural testing.

Who will do the risk assessments?
The new regulator will consider toxicological and clinical data for each product.

Does this mean the Government is endorsing drugs?
No. At the moment these products are available without any information regarding their risks to health. We are changing the system to require industry to prove they do not pose a greater than a low risk of health before they may be sold.

Will there be controls to stop children buying these drugs from dairies?
Yes, it is intended that there will be restrictions on where substances can be sold and a minimum purchase age which will be set in due course.

What happens when the legislation comes into force? Will everything be pulled from the shelves?

A transition period will follow enactment of the new regime. During the transition period, a sponsor will only be able to sell:
• products with an application pending approval by the regulator; and
• that have been legally on the market for at least six months prior to enactment of the new regime; and
• provided that there are no health concerns about the products concerned.

Will this just backfire and create a bigger black market?
No. We expect that having low risk psychoactive products legally available will make it less likely that consumers will resort to a black market.

ENDS

It's got to be one of the most often done debates on the internet. Right up there with the death penalty, evolution and global warming, the legal status of cannabis is both a staple filler on current events message boards and a common topic to pop up in any web forum with members under half a century old. Yet for a topic with so much bandwidth dedicated to it's discussion it's appallingly done on average. Both sides commonly descending into a tangle of red herrings, ad hominems, memes and arguments broken off to go get dorritos. Ahhh the internet.

Here's a breakdown of my approach to this sticky(icky and skunky) topic:

In an argument, particularly an internet argement, it's vital to stay focused on the end game. You're not going to win over the trolls, or make the drive by posters stop and think, but on any thread in any current events forum there'll be lurkers, fence-sitters, people cherry picking opinions to quote like their own; it's from this often silent middle ground that you win your converts. It's to these people, not your supporters nor your detractors, that you have to aim your points, it's for their benefit that you avoid attacking the opposition and instead focus on putting together a clear picture of our side of the debate.

(xkcd)

Which simply stated is that "Law Reform doesn't have to be perfect it just has to be better than prohibition." This is the crux of it and what I base my argument around. Doesn't matter if pot is safer than booze. Doesn't matter if it's your 'right,' or if the government should be involved in your life. Doesn't matter if god hates it or jesus was anointed with it. What does matter is the net balance of social outcomes, or to put it in a less wanky manner, whether things on the whole get better or worse.

Of course this is just one approach and attacking in other ways may better suit certain demographics. Never limit yourself, but by making the issue 'utilitarian;' about the balance of benefit and harm, you avoid being labeled a hippy, libertarian or idealist, and if you think utilitarian sounds nobbish you can call yourself 'practical' which is a good term for winning the middle ground. Another winning term is 'honest' which means you should be careful how much you claim and how strongly you word your points; remember everyone has google and all it takes is someone to know how to use it and your off-hand comments can look sneaky and underhanded. Which we don't need because we're not saying MJ is gonna save the world here, it doesn't have to cure cancer and fix the economy in one swoop, all we need to show is that regulation looks a good option what with how badly prohibition is doing.

So just how bad is prohibition? Massive income for organised crime is bad. Avoidable health effects are bad. Turf wars and drug murders are bad. Wasted police, court and jail time is bad, doubly so when the punishment and conviction impair a persons life more than the weed ever would. Patients not getting effective (and cheap!) treatment is bad. The erosion of respect for government and law enforcement is bad. The under utilisation of hemp is bad... The status quo is really pretty damn bad! Unfortunately a lot of people are isolated from these negatives and part of any argument is getting across the cost in taxes, cost in human potential, cost in increased crime and loss of social liberty. Many will take some time to realise the evils they once associate with "drugs" are the product of prohibition.

Other people though, just can't get past the idea that people using cannabis recreationally is bad, period. For these people we have to bring out one of the more counter-intuitive arguments against prohibition; that prohibition isn't stopping people. Look at Holland, Portugal, studies across US states with differing legislation. Aotearoas laws and our incarceration rates. They all point to the same thing; people who want to get pot can generally get it, regardless of legal status. You make this safer and legal for them and it doesn't lead to a giant upsurge in users because the prohibition we have is failing to provide a deterrent anyway.

The other half of the argument is what makes us think cannabis law reform will make things better? Apart from the obvious; the opposites of everything mentioned above. The hobbling of the gangs, the treating of the sick, toughening up on serious crime and saving a lot of money, there are three things which ensure the positive outcome of the repeal of prohibition. Education, Regulation and Taxation; the three pillars of cannabis law reform.
Taxation. To cover the costs of health, education and compliance enforcement.
Regulation. To ensure the product becomes safer with better quality control, labeling, age restrictions and price minimums.
Education. So people can make informed decisions if and when they choose to take recreational drugs.

Three simple ideas that improve the safety of the product, the safety of the consumer and the safety of the market. A trifecta of winning moves that ensures we're not shoveling harm from one area to another. If someone still has doubts throw 'Rehabilitation' at them as a fourth foundation for reform, because with Cannabis Law Reform there'll be funds for addiction services that have been forever promised but never delivered upon under prohibition.

For specific points, facts and refutations check out the cannabis section on the TripMe forums or Norml.org(.nz), or google; there are many many great sources out there and despite prohibition plenty of cannabis related science has been done. Google scholar is your friend when it comes to academic papers, reference your best claims when you can and keep an eye out for a follow up article where I'll look at Resources and Research for CLR.

Remember, you don't have to paint legalisation as a cure all. You don't have to save the world with weed. What you have to make people understand is that we have three rough options: get tougher and multiply the negative effects of prohibition, endure the current situation and hope for organic change(sixty years and still waiting), or update our laws to minimise the harm of cannabis use and start addressing real problems rather than filling our jails. If you do this well enough you don't so much win arguments as win people.