Peter Dunne loves booze, ciggies and gambling but not medicinal marijuana
No clinical trials for medicinal cannabis - Dunne
The Government has poured cold water on the Law Commission’s recommendation to conduct clinical trials for the medicinal use of cannabis. Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne made the ruling today when he announced the Government would be overhauling and replacing the 40-year-old Misuse of Drugs Act.
Peter Dunne loves tobacco, alcohol and gambling but hates synthetic marijuana and medical marijuana.
The synthetic marijuana we all understand because seriously, who would buy crappy synthetic stuff when NZ grows some of the best real marijuana in the world.
Duh!
But banning HIV and cancer sufferers, those with chronic pain and legitimate patients who would benefit from the scientifically proven pain relief benefits of something as natural as a growing plant seems, in light of Dunnes love affair with tobacco, booze and gambling, the height of hypocrisies.
HIV sufferers and those with and cancer, those with chronic pain and legitimate patients are not criminals, yet Peter Dunne wants to continue to criminalize them if they seek out medical marijuana.
Look, we all know the joke that is prohibition, but why punish the sick and those who could benefit from the medicinal properties? And don't give me that, 'we want legitimate pharmacies to produce medicinal cannabis' crap, the legitimate pharmaceutical industry has no interest in putting their legal drug pushing empire that is pain relief at any risk by a plant that needs no further refining than lighting up the cherry.
Waiting for legitimate pharmaceutical companies to come up wither own medical marijuana product is like waiting for the oil company to come up with electric cars.
posted by Bomber @ 5:54 am
8 comments
8 Comments:
I imagine large donations from international drug companies have something to do with this. The idea of people treating themselves with freely obtained home grown remedies is clearly the first domino in the collapse toward communism.
Watch a documentary called ' The Hemp Revolution ' a bit old now but a goodie . It pretty much answers most questions on pot and the seeming insanity of it's illegality . And do people actually listen to peter dunne ! ? For Gods sake .... why ?
Banning Kronic in under a few weeks: done and dusted.
Implementing reforms on marketting, display, and sale of liquor: Too Hard basket.
Deaths attributed to Kronic: nil
Deaths attributed to booze: 87 (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/5579955/Alcohol-contributes-to-quarter-of-child-deaths-report)
Cost to society of Kronic: negligible
Cost to society of alcohol: $4.4 billion annually (http://www.berl.co.nz/874a1.page)
Dunne's pretense that what we have is OK until he can make it worse is a vile abrogation of due process. It his 'election' campaign by any other description. It further delays what is inevitable, wholesale reform of drug policy. It is hte delay that is improper, not the test of what works vs what doesnt. National is going along with it because it is self serving (votes!) not becasue it is the right thing to do, and they are ashamed to debate it hiding instead behind perpetuated human rights violations we call 'the misuse of drugs act' a bunch of fabricated ideas, now described as unfit for use. If they are unfit, why delay due process? Dunne is wrong. Dunne is dangerous. His and those who endorse his analy retentative response to thelaw commission recommendations are hurting young people. If you hurt young people you are no different from pedaphiles. The source of the hurt is not important or somehow more repugnant, hurt is hurt, it is failure to measure the damage and quantify the scale of the problem that makes it vile. Dunne is moraly repugnant.
So I suppose what he's saying here is that "the current policy works and we're not going to change it."
Interesting definition of "works" that he has. If drug policy is written to incarcerate vast numbers of people for victimless crimes, or to inflict criminal records on those who least deserve them, then yes - the policy "works."
By any objective measure, the current drug policy causes more harm than the drugs they're allegedly trying to protect people from.
The best example of sensible drug policy is tobacco. It's legal, widely available and is pretty much the only drug which is showing declining use over time. This proves that you don't have to have a big stick to stop people using drugs - just sensible, honest and open policy to allow adults to make informed decisions.
If they really wanted to reduce the harm caused by drugs they'd be falling over themselves to implement the law commission's report.
Peter: Obviously you feel that current policy is working and does not need to change. Can you share with us all how you've reached that conclusion?
Did anyone notice how the copyright infringement cables from US included explicit instructions on the enabling of better access (ie total market penetration) to NZ by the pharmaceutical industry?
What really gets to me and this is a side issue, the clown does absolutely nothing for 3 years and coming to an election we have reforms. If Peter was serious about his job he would be targeting the abuse of alcohol and the cost to society. I know that doesn't go down well with the alcohol lobby groups. Two faces .... that all I can say!!! Oh that and bastards!!!
why is it that labour stick on jim ol do nuthin Anderton and the nats give it too Dunne,must be the too hard basket portfolio for wall flowers and right wing stooges,what i really want is some new approaches to policy that will also be fiscally lucrative instead of socially prohibitive fear vehicles i liken all this to the days before homosexual law reform,after dragging our heels we finally seeded to growing international pressure,but the damage caused took twenty years to heal...
Post a Comment
<< Home