Yes . . . Why, Indeed?

Legalising Cannabis - Why Would We Be So Dumb?

Kate Hawkesby
NZ Herald

I was pleased to see some sense finally reported on the comparison between harm caused by alcohol versus that by cannabis.

A Professor of Psychiatric Epidemiology and Youth Mental Health, from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dr Mary Cannon pointed out the argument - that alcohol is legal and more harmful to people than cannabis, therefore cannabis should be legal too - is redundant.

Or as the professor describes it, "a spurious argument along the lines of 'would you rather be run over by a truck or a bus'."  It's a cop-out for pro-cannabis legalisation lobbyists to argue along these lines, because the one big elephant in the room is psychotic disorder.

Cannabis use is now the most powerful single environmental risk factor for psychotic disorder, according to studies both recent and ongoing.  According to a Herald report, one study the professor was involved in found that "10 per cent of the young people who'd been using cannabis by age 15 developed a psychotic disorder in young adulthood".

She argues that the association between cannabis and psychosis appears to be getting even stronger in line with the increase in strength of cannabis. That's the THC content – which is now regularly over 20 per cent, and much higher than what it used to be.

Cannon says that in her clinical experience, she's seen an "increase in presentations of young men with psychosis related to cannabis over the past few years".  This includes high levels of agitation, aggression and paranoia.  She also cites "several large international studies ... which have shown that cannabis use in youth has a more detrimental effect on cognition and later functioning in adulthood ... than alcohol use does".

And if that wasn't enough, we have local examples too. A "study from Christchurch showed that young cannabis users had greater rates of school dropout, unemployment and dependence on social welfare payments ..."

And, a "Dunedin study showed that young cannabis users had lower incomes later in adulthood than their alcohol-using peers. Heavy, early onset cannabis use has been associated with up to 8-point drop in IQ that appears to be irreversible."  So why are we playing with fire here? Why would we want to normalise this and pretend the harms aren't real?

Often the people arguing for cannabis legalisation are adult casual users, not young adolescents who'll be most impacted by it. The casual pot-smoking luvvie may well buy or grow the legalised amounts and varieties, but the kids won't.  They'll still seek out black market cannabis with dangerously high levels of THC, still propping up gang manufacture.

So, what changes? The message. The message from the adults around them - and the government - that cannabis is OK.

You legalise something, you normalise it. If you want to stack up an argument around cannabis and alcohol – that's surely it.  Look at all the harm alcohol has created. And you want to add cannabis to the mix? Why would we be so dumb?

UK Elites Compromised on Cannabis

Legalise Cannabis? 

Let's Ask the Five Victims of a Crazed London Knifeman First

Peter Hitchens
The Mail on Sunday

If Jason Kakaire had screamed ‘Allahu akbar!’ as he went about his bloody work, you would have heard of him, and he would have been debated in the House of Commons.  But because Kakaire’s five cruel and devastating knife attacks in London could not possibly be given any political or religious motive, there is barely a ripple of interest in his case. This is a mistake.

There are two reasons for the error. The first is that our bloated but unsuccessful ‘security’ apparatus, assisted by posing politicians, likes to use supposed terrorism to boost its power and budgets.

Kakaire is of course a long-term user of marijuana. He should not have been. If the police enforced the law of the land, as happens in Japan in South Korea, he would not have been. But they do not. So he is

It hopes nobody will notice that in fact it is almost entirely useless at preventing such attacks.  Why?

The Chattering Classes Have Become a Madding Crowd

Due Diligence on Today’s Cannabis—a Response

A rejoinder to “What we know, and don’t know, about cannabis, psychosis and violence”,1 Boden and Spittlehouse (26 July 2019).

Bob McCroskrie

In May 2019, as calls for the legalisation of cannabis grew ever louder, and with the upcoming referendum on legalisation in 2020, Family First launched a petition asking the government to first investigate the possible link between cannabis and violence. Emphasis on ‘possible’. We raised the issue for good reason.

Over the past couple of decades, studies around the globe have found that higher levels of THC—the active compound in cannabis—is strongly linked to psychosis, schizophrenia, and violence.

And with increasing THC levels being found in marijuana products consumed via edibles, vaping and dabbing, the risk is growing. In Colorado the average THC content of all tested flower in 2017 was 19.6%, and for concentrated extract products, 68.6%.2 Potency rates can now be as high as 99.9%.3

Changing Opinions

Bob McCoskrie: Don't let Kiwis Go to  Pot Gisborne Herald 23 June 2019 Recently released polls on cannabis have consistently shown a decreasing appetite for the legalisation of recreational dope use. It seems that while we all strongly support a compassionate response to those in real need with a cautious and researched approach around cannabis medicine, when we thoughtfully consider the real implications of legalising the recreational use of cannabis, we completely reject the proposal – and rightly so. Recent polling by Curia Market Research found that 85% of New Zealanders think that cannabis use can damage the brains of young people, 81% think that drivers using cannabis are more likely to cause accidents, 63% think that cannabis users aged under 25 are less likely to get a job, and half of us think that cannabis usage will increase if restrictions are reduced (35% think usage would remain the same). When people think about ‘cannabis’, they probably immediately think about the same overused photos by the media of a marijuana plant and a joint being smoked. Think Woodstock Weed. But legalising today’s marijuana will be far more than that.

Grand Claims; Vacuous Tinkering

Les Grande Jestures

According to one commentator, Labour Governments are habitually prone to "the grand gesture".  Going back into the Pike River Mine is one example.  The passing of a piece of legislation legalising cannabis for medicinal purposes is another.  

John Roughan is not impressed.

Labour governments have one habit that annoys me intensely. They love to trumpet big liberal social advances without doing the hard work. The last Labour Government made an art-form of this and the present one is shaping up to be just the same.

This week its Health Minister, David Clark, moved the final reading of the bill legalising medicinal cannabis and hailed it as "compassionate and progressive" legislation that would make a difference to people living in pain and nearing the end of their lives. You could almost hear the violins playing in Labour minds and see the wistful look in their eyes as they imagined this moment in a movie made for audiences susceptible to simplified social history.

You had to read the news reports carefully to notice that a great deal of work on the bill, now law, has still to be done. "Little" details such as, what cannabis products? How will people know they are effective? Who will be allowed to make them? How are you going to restrict them to people genuinely in pain or terminally ill? [NZ Herald]

We predict that another piece of vacuous legislation will be the "reforming" of government controlled schools.

Medicinal Cannabis

Unintended Consequences

Medicinal cannabis is a hot topic.  Some see it as the thin edge of the wedge.  It may or may not be the case.  It all depends upon the compliance regime surrounding it.  After all, opiates have been prescribed by medical practitioners for years--centuries in fact.   "Prescription only" does not mean widespread use of a drug for recreational or non-medicinal usage.

We remain ambivalent about the long term effects of general (non-medical) cannabis use.  Different positions--all claiming to be research based--have been put forward.  The spectrum ranges from allegations of "no harm done" to allegations of significant damage.  But the medicinal applications appear clear cut.

Here is one example:

The Tyranny of the Administrative State

Asinine Tyrannical Law

The administrative state is one which busies itself organising the lives of its citizens.  Granted, there must be a certain body of administrative law.  Road rules, which prevent accidents, are an excellent example.  But more and more secular Western states seek to administer the lives of their citizens by means of endless administrative regulations.

Breaches of administrative law result in fines and eventual imprisonment.  Note that under administrative law the "criminal" might not have done any actual harm to his neighbour's life or property.  His "crime" was that he transgressed an administrative law which had been promulgated to prevent any harm to his neighbour in the first place.  Administrative law is what we call "cocoon" law.  It is preventative in nature and intent.  But the outcome is a progressive statist tyranny, where, in the end, the only part of the human anatomy not regulated by government rules, regulations, and statutes is the rear end.  For every other human function and activity there are bureaucratically promulgated rules and regulations.