Friendly warning and disclaimer: These forums are provided for the thousands victims of prohibition who form the pot community of Aotearoa for discussion of marijuana-related issues. NORML reserve the right to delete off-topic posts. The views expressed in any forum are solely those of the contributor and not necessarily approved or endorsed by NORML New Zealand Inc.
yay go standing in the election. have lots and lots of fun
i especially liked attributing medical marijuana to pete hodgson. its making a presumed statement and challenging pete to correct it. and then more media and debate. perfect.
keep it high
t
funnily enough pete hodgson has done more positive good for medical cannabis in NZ than any protester or med supporter that i have come across in the last 3 yrs. We would not have medical support for or recognition of cannabis as a medicine if it were not for his lobbying and support over the last few years in his position as minister of health. Its interesting to note that the govt in usa will not admit that cannabis is a medicine because once they do admit to this the game is over. It may take time for the drip down effects over the years but its like an avalanche that starts with a small flow. Effectively recognising cannabis as a medicine has done this . And pete Hodgson has been , as with meteria , very influencial. Its pretty obvious that the writting is on the wall if there is a change of govt. So I for one as a medical user are thankful for the good efforts so far from him. I do sincerely hope and believe that julian will continue the excellent efforts in this area.
I saw Annette King squirm on the medpot issue for a while , but was starting to fight for it a bit to vigorously , not a good look with the coalition agreement in place..so then Pete took over and has actually made all the right noises , even sucked me in originally , but he was actually only ensuring it was drawn out and we let our guard down by believing him..His job was to ensure natural product was off the agenda and even sativex was stalled .. It was Annette who was bending..
Pete has done a great job , on us ,not for us...we are worse off than ever , just maybe a few wealthy applicants might get approval for Sativex , if he can't avoid it.. But 99.9 percent of the medical users will still be criminals..
And to even consider Sativex is a win to me it will actually be a huge step backwards .. A lesser and expensive drug company product , but gives them the ability to say they have met our demands .. medpot is available.. so the real issue , natural product can be ignored..
Joined: Dec 01, 2003 Posts: 3083 Location: Christchurch, NZ
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:44 pm
Yes I'm with you there tony.
Perhaps they're tired of the ALCP leader always saying "cannabis has been very influential in the makeup of the last couple of governments" : for which a fairly good argument can be made. But the media have never once mentioned it
tony i cant help feeling you are still pissing in the wind. we all know that there are not enough politicians to suppport any changes what so ever. You keep suggesting that there is this great event about to happen and that the sativex is stopping med users and recreational having their own fresh plant supply .Well there are many who would also say "great job and about time that some thing has moved ". Its my understanding that HSC will recommend parliament to pass the greens Medicinal users bill to the committee stage, that is all we can expect and that is good. however I know and most other thinking folks do also that with elections only a few months away the likely hood of anything magically eventuating is as likely as aliens invading between now and then. Having the health department make a statement that cannabis is a medicine is a great step forward. we can use this to build further. with out being swept away by a national political witch hunt if they get in . Personally I am glad that this has gone ahead . Sativex is used in many countries ,as you well know, that also allow medical cannabis to be grown, providing choice. I really also find it rather amusing tony as you said you were advising med users how to fill out their sativex forms ... and that you filled one for your self in effect supporting the decision of the MOH . I wonder about that too as the health spokesman said only one application had been recieved . A second returned as it was incorrectly filled out. The reality tony is we could be sitting here in 10 yrs still waiting for any decision at all regarding medical cannabis and more than likey would be if this had not of been presented by the health department. To believe that the select commity are not going to recommend raw buds for med use /recreational because of Sativex is to believe in Fairy Tales . The reality is There just are not enough politicians who will support a transition into cannabis usage in NZ at present today.whether sativex or marinol or fresh buds or what ever be the option.
Joined: Feb 19, 2004 Posts: 1346 Location: Nelson area
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:03 pm
Hey solarpowered_candle, do you think if ALCP got representation in parliament, and was able to some how force a conscience vote (Helen has said in the past that if cannabis was going to be dealt with it would be through a "conscience vote") to introduce regulation that with the right pressure on members from their constituency that we'd have the numbers? Being that there are members from across all the parties that have the sense to see regulation as a go'er.
Regulation ensures medical marijuana for all who need it.
Regulation makes all parties happy except the tobacco, pharmaceutical, and alcohol industries But we don't give a fuck about them because their product KILLS _________________ Regulation will set cannabis free
Freedom's just a TICK away - VOTE Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party 2008 then everyone's a winner
Contact me: steven@alcp.org.nz Party website http://www.alcp.org.nz
I really also find it rather amusing tony as you said you were advising med users how to fill out their sativex forms ... and that you filled one for your self in effect supporting the decision of the MOH . I wonder about that too as the health spokesman said only one application had been recieved . A second returned as it was incorrectly filled out.
Since 2004 I have personally made 7 applications on my own behalf and assisted others to do the same.
I have acknowledgments from the varied Ministers of Health ,
Each one has has been stalled while the rules get changed ,
I was asked to reapply on the formal MOH documentation released recently , but in the mean time as you know the rules were changed to only included Sativex on the application..and it still has fish hooks that actually mean the application cannot be completed ,
I have sent in an application , but it does include natural product as well as Sativex with still a number of required questions not completed ..Now they don't even send them back or acknowledge them.
Have even filed earlier applications with supporting opinion from the DPHRC.
I am pleased for all those who will have Sativex approvals that Pete has assisted with , I look forward to hearing when it happens..
Joined: Oct 27, 2004 Posts: 242 Location: Dunsterdam
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:31 pm
Tony, I do not agree about you interpretation of the medpot situation in NZ. Pete Hodgeson seems to be a genuine supporter of Medpot but the delays are a natural consequence of the beuracracy and not Pete delaying.
My view of the Sativex introduction is that once it is established it could not be allowed to operate a monopoly and the medpot market opened up to competition. What is stoping us doing what GW has done in the UK and start growing cannabis for future pharmeceutical useage? _________________ Tick the Leaf - www.alcp.org.nz
Welcome to Dunsterdam - www.otagonorml.com
I would say historically my expressing enthusiasm for the potential change to the medpot situation was as a result of messages coming back from Politicians.
Even 5 yrs ago Jim Anderton telling me to be patient for a couple of years.. and explanations as to what they were doing to sort it.
Annette King , working through the difficulties with us..
Pain Clinic specialists just awaiting a response from the Minister / MOH as to methedologies..
Be patient..
After 5 yrs it twigged , especially when Pete Hodgson started from the beginning , but this time Sativex replaced cannabis ..
We have letters from Chemists, Doctors and the like to Pharmac, medsafe, Moh seeking advise on how to meet the requirements but no response ..
Any progress previously made is now being ignored ,
I have stated for the last two years on this forum , I had heard Sativex was going to be used to shut down any medical cannabis debate pre election .
I have yet to see anything that does not confirm this.
Joined: Oct 27, 2004 Posts: 242 Location: Dunsterdam
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 1:08 pm
I think it a fair position from the MoH to approve only pharmeceutically standadised doses, etc...
I think that the issue has been able to be held up until the election because no politician, lease of all the Greens, have been willing to discuss the issue in the public domain.
Will & Billy's excellent piece on the news was the best publicity for medpot in a long while. It goes along way to getting public opinion on side.
If raw cannabis is the medicine of choice, Medpot people should simply advocate for recreational use. Possesion of Personal Amounts without punishment for all cannabis users... Clearly achievable if even our advasaries like Pauline Gardener support it. _________________ Tick the Leaf - www.alcp.org.nz
Welcome to Dunsterdam - www.otagonorml.com
Joined: Feb 19, 2004 Posts: 1346 Location: Nelson area
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 1:24 pm
potshots wrote:
steveoh and BudBeard,
Have either of you read the 2003 Health Select Committee's Inquiry into Cannabis Use?
One of the interesting points within it is the fact that none of the 552 submitters supported Option C: Prohibition with expediency principle, which is "the situation that currently exists in the Netherlands."
On the other hand, 52.3% of the submitters supported Option G: Legalisation and regulation (cannabis available on the open market, like alcohol and tobacco) plus 1.3% supported Option H: Free Trade (cannabis available on the open market, "like bananas").
.
Do you even bother to read any thing I actually post Potshots?
Have you seen the "Signature" at the bottom of my posts??
I thought I was the one pushing REGULATION and you were the one shooting it down!
Also if 1500 people sent in NORML's "postcard" submissions, (even though the Select Committee chose to ignore them) that would show what? Lazy people who couldn't be bothered to get off their collective arses to write their own submission, or a sign of support for "Dutch-style Coffee shops"? Maybe both? Interesting that 552 people submitted their choices, and 1500 others who submitted who were not counted (something to learn from that don't you think?)
The intelligent people that I talk with on a weekly basis all like the idea of going to a specific outlet (lets call it a Dutch-style coffee shop) and purchase small amounts of cannabis Legally. If you have a problem with "these coffee shops" well you are just one vote. If I was meeting people like you on a regular basis then I come to the conclusion that the "model" Cottage styled regulation wasn't palatable the the majority and I'd look at alternatives.
But from my findings it seems you are the one in the minority camp on this, sorry potshots.
Steven _________________ Regulation will set cannabis free
Freedom's just a TICK away - VOTE Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party 2008 then everyone's a winner
Contact me: steven@alcp.org.nz Party website http://www.alcp.org.nz
Joined: Nov 16, 2005 Posts: 443 Location: New Zealand
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:42 pm
steveoh wrote:
potshots wrote:
steveoh and BudBeard,
Have either of you read the 2003 Health Select Committee's Inquiry into Cannabis Use?
One of the interesting points within it is the fact that none of the 552 submitters supported Option C: Prohibition with expediency principle, which is "the situation that currently exists in the Netherlands."
On the other hand, 52.3% of the submitters supported Option G: Legalisation and regulation (cannabis available on the open market, like alcohol and tobacco) plus 1.3% supported Option H: Free Trade (cannabis available on the open market, "like bananas").
.
Do you even bother to read any thing I actually post Potshots?
Have you seen the "Signature" at the bottom of my posts??
I thought I was the one pushing REGULATION and you were the one shooting it down!
Also if 1500 people sent in NORML's "postcard" submissions, (even though the Select Committee chose to ignore them) that would show what? Lazy people who couldn't be bothered to get off their collective arses to write their own submission, or a sign of support for "Dutch-style Coffee shops"? Maybe both? Interesting that 552 people submitted their choices, and 1500 others who submitted who were not counted (something to learn from that don't you think?)
The intelligent people that I talk with on a weekly basis all like the idea of going to a specific outlet (lets call it a Dutch-style coffee shop) and purchase small amounts of cannabis Legally. If you have a problem with "these coffee shops" well you are just one vote. If I was meeting people like you on a regular basis then I come to the conclusion that the "model" Cottage styled regulation wasn't palatable the the majority and I'd look at alternatives.
But from my findings it seems you are the one in the minority camp on this, sorry potshots.
Steven
I don't think anyone is opposed to cannabis cafes - I think its more an argument about what is the best way to get some progress. The proposal of cannabis cafes is fine as a general proposal, but clearly it will come as the result of other changes which are more fundamental, eg the realisation from the poolice that it is no longer in anyone's interest for the filth to continue busting people for cannabis. I think its more important to put effort into acheiving that then getting caught up in the detail of retailing weed. The 2 year moratorium with cannabis offences is something that can be done immediately (though to be realistic with a general election looming, there'll no attempt to change the status quo).
The sure way to ensure change would be for the ALCP to get at least 5% of the vote and so get into parliament. But what does it tell you when the fact is many cannabis "activists" are incapable of supporting that option. The stuff thats being happening in Dunedin is brilliant - with media coverage that hasn't let up over the last 3 months. But unless that is built on it will just become a memory, like the cannabus tour. Besides Steveoh's heroic efforts, what is happening in the rest of the country - anything?
For years NORML has publicised non-cooperation, roaring lion tactics. But what support does NORML actually give people when they are busted?
Question to Bob Marley three decades ago: 'When will cannabis be legalised?"
Answer given: "When Jesus Christ returns!"
I see on the news the yanks are now interested in us as far as a Free Trade Agreement is concerned, what concerns me is what conditions are they going to stipulate for them to agree to an FTA with us....
If they don't recognise cannabis in any form as being medicine that could mean Sativex out the window too. _________________ A pain free day the marijuana way.
steveoh and BudBeard,
Have either of you read the 2003 Health Select Committee's Inquiry into Cannabis Use?
One of the interesting points within it is the fact that none of the 552 submitters supported Option C: Prohibition with expediency principle, which is "the situation that currently exists in the Netherlands."
On the other hand, 52.3% of the submitters supported Option G: Legalisation and regulation (cannabis available on the open market, like alcohol and tobacco) plus 1.3% supported Option H: Free Trade (cannabis available on the open market, "like bananas").
Do you even bother to read any thing I actually post Potshots?
Yes, of course I do, steveoh.
Why would I bother to reply to something that I hadn't read?
Anyway, I read your recent post closely enough to notice that it contains a few snide comments about me.
steveoh also wrote:
Have you seen the "Signature" at the bottom of my posts??
Furthermore, your post also highlights the shortcomings of your political slogan "Regulation will set cannabis free".
and wrote:
I thought I was the one pushing REGULATION and you were the one shooting it down!
steveoh,
The thing is that "regulation" is too vague a term to mean anything by itself.
As I've pointed out before, even prohibition is an attempt to "regulate" cannabis use.
Anyway, if you re-read what I wrote before you will see that the 2003 HSC report's definition of "legalisation and regulation" is quite different to the form of "regulation" that you are proposing.
When the concept of "harm minimisation" became en vogue back in 2000, I can remember thinking that it could be the way forward for CLR.
Unfortunately, the prohibitionists simply adopted "harm minimisation" by giving it their own meaning and now we have the likes of Jim Banderton telling us that "harm minimisation" has been tried and it failed.
That, of course, is nonsense as true harm minimisation is not possible under prohibition.
I can see a similar thing happening with the concept of "regulation".
And steveoh wrote:
Also if 1500 people sent in NORML's "postcard" submissions, (even though the Select Committee chose to ignore them) that would show what? Lazy people who couldn't be bothered to get off their collective arses to write their own submission, or a sign of support for "Dutch-style Coffee shops"? Maybe both? Interesting that 552 people submitted their choices, and 1500 others who submitted who were not counted (something to learn from that don't you think?)
It shows that some people didn't want to write a submission but they didn't mind signing a pre-written postcard expressing their support for cannabis law reform, which is probably why the HSC gave less weight to the postcard submissions.
Funny thing is that I was responsible for getting more than a few of those postcards signed (a few % probably) and most people signed in response to being asked a question like "Would you like to show your support by signing one of these postcard submissions?".
Furthermore, the HSC itself was insistent that my own personal submission (about 18,000 words) be made secret ("...and one was received as secret evidence"). Why do you think they would recommend that?
As far as I know, the HSC didn't suggest to any of the other submitters that it would be best if they make their submission unavailable to the public.
Finally, steveoh wrote:
The intelligent people that I talk with on a weekly basis all like the idea of going to a specific outlet (lets call it a Dutch-style coffee shop) and purchase small amounts of cannabis Legally. If you have a problem with "these coffee shops" well you are just one vote. If I was meeting people like you on a regular basis then I come to the conclusion that the "model" Cottage styled regulation wasn't palatable the the majority and I'd look at alternatives.
But from my findings it seems you are the one in the minority camp on this, sorry potshots.
I think that you have simply miinterpreted what I was saying, probably as a result of you preoccupation with people voting for the ALCP.
IMO cannabis law reform is a far bigger issue than the possibility of the ALCP getting elected.
Anyway, I would urge you to have a look at the 2003 HSC report (if you haven't - you didn't answer my question) because it does go some way to clarifying the various ways in which cannabis could be regulated.
BTW steveoh, your attempts to silence me with insults will not work.
Even if I was a minority of one (which I know that I'm not as I've had some positive feedback about my contributions lately, much to my surprise) I would continue to speak my mind if I thought it was relevant (it seems more irresponsible not to speak out).
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
tony i cant help feeling you are still pissing in the wind. we all know that there are not enough politicians to suppport any changes what so ever. You keep suggesting that there is this great event about to happen and that the sativex is stopping med users and recreational having their own fresh plant supply .Well there are many who would also say "great job and about time that some thing has moved ". Its my understanding that HSC will recommend parliament to pass the greens Medicinal users bill to the committee stage, that is all we can expect and that is good. however I know and most other thinking folks do also that with elections only a few months away the likely hood of anything magically eventuating is as likely as aliens invading between now and then. Having the health department make a statement that cannabis is a medicine is a great step forward. we can use this to build further. with out being swept away by a national political witch hunt if they get in . Personally I am glad that this has gone ahead . Sativex is used in many countries ,as you well know, that also allow medical cannabis to be grown, providing choice. I really also find it rather amusing tony as you said you were advising med users how to fill out their sativex forms ... and that you filled one for your self in effect supporting the decision of the MOH . I wonder about that too as the health spokesman said only one application had been recieved . A second returned as it was incorrectly filled out. The reality tony is we could be sitting here in 10 yrs still waiting for any decision at all regarding medical cannabis and more than likey would be if this had not of been presented by the health department. To believe that the select commity are not going to recommend raw buds for med use /recreational because of Sativex is to believe in Fairy Tales . The reality is There just are not enough politicians who will support a transition into cannabis usage in NZ at present today.whether sativex or marinol or fresh buds or what ever be the option.
