Posts by Joe Boden
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Doug Sellman and I have an op-ed in the ODT today about the wording of the referendum.
https://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/question-important-%E2%80%98bit-detail%E2%80%99
-
Hard News: Cannabis reform is a serious…, in reply to Simon Armstrong,
That was a really interesting essay, thanks for posting that, Simon.
-
Hard News: Cannabis reform is a serious…, in reply to simon g,
National's position on this is not smart politics. The usual response on such issues is to say "conscience vote" and let different MPs appeal to different constituencies. So on, for example, marriage equality, the MPs (like Bridges) who opposed it did not taint the whole party. The nods and winks said "We're conservative enough" to their base, while Key and co could legitimately say they voted for it, even spoke eloquently for it.
Giving Paula Bennett a new job title, announcing it at a press conference today ... they're basically declaring that they want the party to be seen as obstructionist. And all the National MPs who differ from their leaders will be forced to waffle and backtrack. Nuances like "conscience vote" won't cut through into public perception. Even if they are allowed one.
Backing a losing horse, and requiring the whole team to back it too - that won't end well.
I've just read the Stuff article; it's really nonsensical. Between this and my own experience with a fact-resistant National MP, I'm starting to wonder whether they are being subsidized to sing from the same hymn sheet.
-
I almost forgot to reply to Dennis, sorry about that!
I note that Joe has briefly commented above. I also note that he looks suspiciously similar to Frank Zappa in the early seventies! Anyway, good to see that he's willing to participate in the commentariat discussion of the issues.
If only I was that good looking! :)
The public have moved on beyond decriminalisation. The recent poll had 60% for legalisation. So why be so cautious? Here's the rationale:
"The Christchurch study involved 1265 people born in 1977 and studied to the age of 35. More than 75 per cent reported using cannabis, with about 15 per cent developing a pattern of heavy use and dependence at some point."
"Data showed cannabis use was associated with educational delay, welfare dependence, increased risks of psychotic symptoms, major depression, increased risks of motor vehicle accidents, increased risks of tobacco use, increased risks of other illicit drug use, and respiratory impairment."
The risks listed here are valid concerns, and do correspond with my lifetime experience (a half-century of mediating between users & non-users, with personal usage for some periods within that). But those vulnerable to such consequences are only a small portion of the whole - 60% of the users studied didn't become victims of the habit. Eliminating the civil rights of all to protect a small bunch of users is ethically untenable. It's analogous to removing the right to drive cars because speeding drivers keep killing people.
I couldn't agree more. In fact, we noted in another publication that a full 50% of regular users at age 35 reported none of the problems that we had found to be associated with cannabis use in earlier studies, suggesting that for most at that age, cannabis use is pretty much harmless. The incremental approach we are suggesting will, in time, restore those civil rights.
-
Hard News: Cannabis reform is a serious…, in reply to BenWilson,
I table this point for at least the 20th time – the harm reduction framework has never made more than partial sense to me because it ignores that the enjoyment people might get from recreational drugs is a good in itself. If that is not acknowledged then harm reduction leads to prohibition being taken seriously and all the arguments against it focussing on the harm of prohibition, the negative side effects of people being taken to task by law enforcement, and the engagement with criminal elements that are required for any would-be users, and the chances of being accidentally (or deliberately poisoned). It treats as irrelevant or even ridiculous the main reason that people take these drugs – that they want to, because they enjoyed doing it, and all the focus is on how to minimize the use of something inherently harmful, short of prohibition.
One of the most influential things I've ever read was a book I found when I was just starting in graduate school over 25 years ago:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/922207.Intoxication
Siegel's argument is that humans have a drive to alter their mental states, and find this to be pleasing. Of course, there is a bit of "Thanks Captain Obvious!" about the argument, but it articulated clearly for me the psychological "good" provided by substance use. That's why harm reduction makes perfect sense to me.
To me that’s only half of the reason for legalization. In general I usually agree with the points raised on harm reduction, and I can see the cunningness of it as an incremental approach (it leverages off people who rate caution higher than fun, typically on behalf of the children), whilst still thinking that the nuances of harm reduction are NOT the source of a general public majority for legalization, they are political window dressing to the enormous number of people who have simply smoked cannabis at some time and had a good time who see THAT as an important reason why it should be legalized, too.
I think it's quite possible that decriminalization would be more palatable to people in certain demographics (thinking of NZF voters here) than legalization. If decriminalization results in no increase in harm, these individuals may be easier to persuade.
A further feature in all of this is the disconcerting level of fact-resistance among some MPs. I had a "debate" at Waikato with two MPs, one National, one Labour, and the National MP refused to accept any data and evidence suggesting that the sky would indeed not fall in if we changed the laws concerning cannabis.
-
Yeah, sorry about the paywall. I can't even read it without the library providing a password. Let me try to provide some clarity. First, Ross Bell's comments.
"Where, in the last few years, have we heard drug law reform advocates arguing that we need to legalise cannabis because it's safe?"
Certainly not in serious circles (including the NZDF), but in talking to a wide range of people about the issue there is still a gap in knowledge about the risks associated with cannabis, as well as a tendency to downplay those risks.
With the half-measure of decriminalisation, are you really happy that the supply of cannabis remains in the criminal black market? If not, you editorial doesn't address the supply issue.
You're right, it doesn't. What did appear in the editorial was a suggestion that if the "half-measure" of decriminalization showed no adverse effects (which I expect it will show), the next step would be legalization.
You do realise that New Zealand could design a model of cannabis regulation very different from the more commercial models in some US states, and that we can learn from NZ's own mistakes on alcohol regulation?
I'm a realist. I think the chances of _designing_ a properly-regulated model for commercial cannabis are great. For example, the NZDF plan, and the plan articulated by Chris Wilkins are both comprehensive and well-thought out.
Having said that, I believe the chances of _implementing_ such a plan are very small indeed. We've already seen in California for example that the costs of compliance are so high that only large commercial interests will be able to afford to join in. That's how you end up with regulatory capture, and I'm not sure how to avoid this. The issue is, if we don't get it right the first time, then we will have a great deal of difficulty "walking it back" (the history of attempted alcohol reform in New Zealand is a great example of this).
If we were able to set up a strictly regulated system, I agree that legalization would be preferable. The history of cannabis legalization thus far would suggest that this is difficult to achieve.
On to Russell...
We’re talking about Joe Boden’s cannabis editorial for the New Zealand Medical Association Journal – which is being widely reported today – and at first glance I think there’s a problem there: the key research he quotes (Hasin) has very little to say about the impact of *legalisation* in the US.
The trends the editorial observes, some of which should be of concern, aren’t attributed to recreational cannabis legalisation. Some are attributed to permissive medicinal cannabis laws, or took place under decriminalisation. And yet Joe *recommends* decriminalisation as a safer step.
Because the law changes are very recent, the data are quite sparse, but well-summarized by Hasin. But you are correct when you mention permissive medical cannabis laws. Most medical cannabis in the US is the same product that is provided for recreational use in places where that is legal.
An important factor in recommending decriminalization were the findings in Portugal, where drug use went down across all but one age group following decriminalization. Again, as noted in my response to Ross, this is intended as a temporary measure until we can confirm that we have not increased cannabis-related harm (as a public health researcher, I tend to tread cautiously until I have data). I anticipate no real increase in harm following decriminalization, but that's an empirical question.
It's also worth noting that some of the data from the US are difficult to interpret. For example, Colorado has shown increases in rates of driving under the influence of cannabis. However, the state also increased their drug testing capability from five mobile units to fifty, so that "uptick" is likely to be a result of increased interdiction.
On the other hand, youth use is either stable or falling in *all legalised states*. It could be that half-pie measures like decriminalisation actually aren’t as effective as comprehensive regulation. Joe needs to demonstrate that’s not the case if he’s to recommend decriminalisation.
Again, please see my point above about this being a cautious, stepwise approach. It's interesting to note that youth substance use rates are falling all over the world (well, in places where we can measure it). Not only that, but reported rates of early onset sexual activity are also down. This is a welcome change, but it may have little to do with kids making smarter choices.
https://www.latrobe.edu.au/nest/generation-dry-why-young-people-are-drinking-less/
There’s also an assumption that legalisation in NZ would look like legalisation in the US. That’s not necessarily the case. Joe could have looked at the impact of, say, the cannabis social clubs of Europe. They legalise and regulate the production and sale of cannabis. Or even what Canada is doing. His assumption that legalisation means big business retail isn’t well-founded either – I can’t think of anyone in New Zealand who wants that, apart from Karl du Fresne, and he’s an unserious fool.
Agreed on du Fresne.
As I noted above, I think we already have some great plans outlined that, if implemented, would provide a very-well regulated legal cannabis market that would in all likelihood reduce the overall level of cannabis-related harm. Our history of attempting to regulate alcohol does not give me a great deal of hope that those plans can be implemented. I would love to be proven wrong on this score.
It’s important to note that the editorial does propose decriminalising small-scale social supply, which is welcome, but its solution doesn’t regulate production at all. It may be easier to prevent supply to under 18 year-olds if you don’t leave production and supply to the criminal market.
Agreed, but again what we are proposing is intended to be more cautious. The counterfactual in this argument is a situation in which we have legalized cannabis, but have ended up with the regulatory capture we see with alcohol, with attendant increases in cannabis-related harm. It would be nigh on impossible to walk that back.
I'd like to conclude by saying that I think we are all pulling in the same direction. We all want to reduce substance-related harm, but our approach is more incremental. I'd be happy to support a well-regulated legalization scheme, if we could achieve it, because I believe it would deliver the best results. I'm just skeptical that we will achieve it.
-
Hard News: Cannabis reform is a serious…, in reply to Russell Brown,
... it was striking how far legal peril came down the list of reasons for stopping.
That's precisely what we found as well with the Christchurch Health and Development Study data. Being arrested or convicted of a cannabis-related offence had no effect on subsequent involvement with cannabis.
-
Makes a great deal of sense, but some of us are blessed with "black thumbs", the magical ability to kill any kind of plant we might try to grow.
-
One major opponent will be the pharmaceutical industry. They are a major funder of anti-cannabis groups in the US.
-
Watergate. I'm 50 (almost 51) and the story broke in late 1972.