Thanks Sofie for the heads up :)

Couple of things.

The first is that its a tragedy that the Drug Foundation was initially informed but then not included in the development of the index. A proper harm index would be enormously helpful in two way

1. in placing different substances on a scale of harm and allowing them to be treated in a coherent and consistent manner. That doesn't mean legalise all drugs, but rather being rational about what should be relatively freely available (Chocolate and coffee?), what should be regulated by eg age and advertising (BZP?), what should be decriminalised but not commercialised (tobacco?) and what should be only available on prescription eg to registered addicts (heroin)

2. evaluating policy approaches to see what kinds and levels of harm are caused and mitigated by different policy approaches.

But as is obvious from the discussion here, the point seems to be getting more funding for the drug squad. Another missed opportunity in the drug policy world!

I havent read it but the discussion reminds me of the NZIER analysis of the waste minimisation bill. It basically applied a neat economic formula to the issue, but the author clearly had no actual knowledge of how the waste industry worked so it was largely irrelevant. A nice ideological wallpapering of a subject far too complex to be susceptible to such generalisations.

second thing:

"The analysis that shows (smoked) marijuana to be more harmful than tobacco contrasts a joint with a cigarette - the carcinogen level of the joint is around 20-30 times (don't quote me) that of the cigarette, etc. (in part caused by the lack of filters in a joint)."

Cannabis does contain substances that should be cancerous, but unlike tobacco we don't appear to have oncology wards full of cannabis smokers. Accepted that prohibition makes id a little more difficult but even so.

There is growing evidence that cannabis also contains substances that inhibit cancers. Maybe they mitigate? Like many other studies of cannabis, many (not all) of the supposed problems don't show up in real world data.

The point is, if you want to talk about cancer don't study (isolated examples of) what's in the joint, have a look at whose in the wards.

ps hope you're all tuning in to my valedictory tomorrow - 5.30pm on www.parliament.nz