Posts by Craig Young
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
From Spinoff, this time. A columnist talks about her father's deadend life using pot to blot out an otherwise grim deadend life. The most obvious rejoinder to this is which subsspecies of weed he was using, and whether there were meaningful intervention services in the area her dad lived in. If not, that explains the pattern of his problematic use, Compare her description to that of anyone who's lived with an alcoholic parent: https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/04-02-2019/my-father-lost-in-smoke/
-
And the latest scare tactic is (drumroll) cannabis toxicity, adverse reactions and psychosis (c/o Canada's tabloid National Post):
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/opinion-think-cannabis-is-harmless-i-used-to-too-i-know-better-nowWhat about New Zealand's pharmacovigilance regulators? Wouldn't they undertake assessment of specfic subspecies of weed in the event of legalisation? It'd be interesting to see if any human genome research has identified particular genes that affect the onset of adverse reactions to pot and specific other drugs.
-
Okay, here's a new one from FamF. How can one expect that New Zealand's existing regulatory agencies will deal properly with legalised pot, when the United States has an opioid crisis from legal prescription drugs? Possibly because working class Americans are addicted to opioid prescription medicines due to the weak US trade union movement and absence of welfare state protections, do you think?:
https://www.familyfirst.org.nz/2019/01/americas-opioid-crisis/
-
Here’s Gary Christian, DFA’s ‘research officer’ on pill testing at music festivals, c/o Family First:
https://www.familyfirst.org.nz/2019/01/pill-testing-is-a-furphy-that-can-only-spread-drug-usage/
Amusingly, the article that Family First cites here includes a harm minimisation perspective from Dr Alex Wodak from the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation:
https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/pill-testing-arguments-for-and-against/And this is who he is, and what he believes:
Gary Christian
Honorary Secretary
Highlights:
Gary Christian is high up in the Seventh Day Adventist Church
A well known Creationist
Speaker for Drug Free Ambassadors, an initiative started by the Church of ScientologyQuotes:
"High overdose rates at the centre were due to drug users experimenting with higher doses, knowing nurses would be on hand to help them"
-September 2003. Spreading lies to gather support for the closure of Sydney's Safe Injecting Room"Mrs McKay can be naive on the facts of drugs,"
-February 2002"I still support her in her fight against drugs but I have been told that she upset people at the Drug Summit with her attacks on the harm-minimisation policy."
-February 2002Science was a "belief system", Biblical fables were "Scientific evidence", and "Civil Rights are a metaphysical illusion",
Books:
The Kings Cross Injecting Room - Case for Closure written by Gary Christian
(Over the past 4 years, the MSIC and a range of respected health professionals working in the addiction medicine field have pointed out the errors in Gary Christian’s various calculations and extrapolations). -
Family First's latest tirade for cannabis prohibition is from an organisation called "Drug Free Australia." Well, according to the Canberra Times (30. 2015), Drug Free Australia is a front group for the Australian Christian Right
"Drug Free Australia is affiliated with conservative organisations including the Australian Family Association and [the defunct] Melbourne-based Christian Right group Salt Shakers. Political campaign group the Australian Christian Lobby has linked to its materials online." [The Australian Christian Lobby is the Australian version of Family First]: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/act/controversial-antidrugs-group-opposes-medical-marijuana-plan-20150330-1mayhy.html
Here's another critical piece on Drug Free Australia, in more detail: https://luckylosing.com/tag/drug-free-australia/
And as for their leadership, few of them actually seem to have the requisite qualifications in toxicology and pharmacology:
http://theaustralianheroindiaries.blogspot.com/2008/01/who-are-drug-free-australia-dfa.htmlHere's a profile of Australian drug prohibitionist groups in general: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36963098.pdf
So why is Family First cravenly dependent on this flawed organisation (as you can see):
-
Update: McCoskrie's latest spinnery is that Portugal is uncertain about whether or not to decriminalise/liberalise/legalise cannabis in the wake of having decriminalised personal use of other drugs. Is this accurate or is it fake "news?"
-
Bob McCoskrie's latest cheap publicity grabbing stunt is arguing that Portugal has developed social problems as a 'result' of its overall drug decriminalisation policy. Rebuttals, anyone?
-
Du Fresne's been a pain in the arse for years insofar as the abortion debate goes, given how rabidly anti-abortion he is. And yet he denies any residual Catholic leanings.Anyhow, apart from that, one thing that unifies du Fresne and Stephen Franks is that they're both social conservative apparatchiks (one ex-ACT voting fiscal conservative friend told me the reason she stopped voting for that party were the shrill social conservative histrionics from him and Muriel Newman while they were still in Parliament). The thing to remember is that both of these fellows imbibe rhetoric from the same populist anti-science fringe media sources, which, fortunately, are not at all strong in New Zealand,,, and we can use our own media contacts to deconstruct their prohibitionist populist drivel.
-
One of the things I noticed after covering him for many years for Gaynz.Com was that the man has risible strategic planning skills. Remember too, his tertiary qualifications are in tax policy and accountancy, so while I'm sure Family First is well managed when it comes to fiscal probity, he has no qualifications in toxicology and pharmacology. Family First does tend to do a good job in initial mobiisation when it comes to 'fact' sheets and mobilising people to make parliamentary submissions, but doesn't seem to realise that his opponents are motivated enough to keep up the pressure through the process of successive parliamentary debate and MP lobbying. For that reason, he keeps ultimately losing any political debate that he is involved with. Apart from the "New" (sic) Conservative Party and sundry anti-drug populist outfits, they're on their own this time. Moreover, cannabis prohibition is not a frontline issue for US social conservatives so he lacks the constant updates when it comes to propaganda, tactics and strategy that he'd get when it comes to abortion, homosexuality and assisted suicide.
-
Hard News: About that Rhythm and Vines…, in reply to Russell Brown,
One thing I always wonder about in these cases is the polydrug angle. Was it a specific substance, or was it a mixture of specific substances?