What else should be done to limit the problems and reduce the harm associated with drug abuse?

Stop treating drugs that are relatively safe as illegal. People will always want to alter their consciousness and have been doing so for thousands of years, society forces us to choose only alcohol or cigarettes, both of which are considered worse than MDMA or LSD on a rational scale of drug harm.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17382831

If there are alternatives out there, people won't resort to P because it's easy to make in New Zealand and doesn't rely on importing it.

Party pills like BZP get banned, and it just forces people to take drugs with less history and study behind them. Eventually this is going to lead to only harmful drugs being made because all the relatively safe ones have been made illegal out of moral panic.

You say "We are interested in updating the current law to give greater attention to measures which reduce the demand for and limit the current problems associated with drug abuse".

I thought the original aim was to Review the Misuse of Drugs Act. Not to update it!

What do you mean "... the demand for...drug abuse". That statement is so strange.

A good start to reduece problems associated with drugs and their use would be to analyse the nature and cause of those problems. Problems that are caused by or exacerbated by the drug policy rather than the drugs themselves should be identified and changed. Isn't that obvious? Isn't that what the MODA review should have been about?

Brandon Hutchison

The most harmful aspect of illegal drugs is that they are illegal. This means they are more expensive (which leads to crime), lower quality (which leads to overdoses and other health problems) and being caught with them leads to long jail terms (which wastes society's time and money and blights the lives of those caught).

Therefore the best approach to minimise the harm from illegal drugs would be to make them legal.

Authorities say there are 55,000 methamphetamine addicts in NZ and 700,000 binge drinkers and dependent drinkers. The current funding of $105 million a year allows only 25,000 people to receive treatment. In other words there is a massive funding shortfall for addiction treatment. As a result of years of chronic underfunding, over 10 residential treatment centres have closed in the last 10 years including Queen Mary Hospital in Hanmer.

This is one of the reasons why judges are unable to put drink drivers (and other drug offenders) into treatment programmes. There aren't enough programmes available and so judges find it easier to send an offender to prison than put him/her into a rehabilitation programme.

90% of prison inmates have a history of alcohol and drug dependence. Putting drug and alcohol dependent people in prison is hideously expensive and doesn't address the underlying issues.

Roger Brooking, Clinical Manager ADAC Ltd, www.adac.co.nz

To reduce the demand for mind altering substances is to try and act against the nature of humans as a species with a large brain that enjoys stimulation.

Get up, eat, got to school, eat, work sleep, work, eat sleep. work, eat sleep, work, eat sleep, work, eat sleep, work, eat sleep, work, eat sleep, work, eat sleep, work, eat sleep, work, eat sleep, work, eat sleep, work, eat sleep..... retire, garden, eat sleep, garden, eat, sleep, garden, eat sleep... die.

Life is boring, life is stressful, life is dull and for thousands of years, the boredom inherent in living has been eased by taking mind altering substances from the mild, to the extreme.

The proposition that this proposed law makes that there is life without boredom without the use of some kind of mind altering substance (ie coffee) is farcical, ignorant and not based on the real life experiences of the human species throughout its history.

So much for limiting demand.

Stopping problems (drug related crime)? Easy- legalise drugs and have the Government make them and be the only maker/distributor. Tax sales, raise revenue and use the money to destroy the organised crime syndicates.

I wonder how many of those people who create the 'demand' for treatment programmes are forced into those programmes through the criminal justice system, simply for having been found in possession of drugs - and don't actually have a drug problem at all.

I think that identifying users who actually need treatment as distinct from users who have simply been caught with drugs may help to reduce the demand. In addition, I'm sure that the diversion of funding from enforcement to education/treatment would produce a much-needed boost to resources in this area.

I support drug consumption rooms for heroin users as a safer alternative to methadone, which is simply replacing one addiction with another. In addition to testing kits, anonymous and readily available access to chromatography testing in places where it's actually useful should be made available.

For those who really do need help to overcome drug problems, follow-up support after rehabilitation to ensure successful re-integration into communities may be helpful. Many of the issues leading to problematic drug use are social - addressing these issues in personalised help for individuals with long-term support.

If the case load of social workers was similar to that of prison officers, I wonder how different things would be?

'We are interested in updating the current law to give greater attention to measures which reduce the demand for drugs and limit the current problems associated with drug use.'

Excellent to see in NZ you are grasping the nettle and reviewing outdated legislation. Here in the UK we are still working to drug legislation which is almost 40 years old. How much knowledge, understanding and social life has changed since 1971.

However, it is the law that is inadvertently causing harms. The false and arbitrary distinction between legal and illegal drugs is misleading and dangerous. Legal drugs (caffeine, alcohol and tobacco) are seen in society as somehow less problematic, less risky and damaging. The people who use legally acceptable drugs (which are also culturally and commercially promoted drugs)don’t tend to see themselves as drug users or ‘addicts’. This is not surprising because these drugs are legal, can be bought and used freely (albeit with some restrictions), and possession or supply doesn’t risk serious criminal sanctions. Being legal helps to prevent a number of additional risks which arise when drugs are made illegal and driven underground, for example someone using a drug that has been made illegal:

1 Has no idea of the strength of the drug – it could be so strong it could result in risk of overdose or death.

2 Has no guarantee about the purity or indeed content of the drug – it could be contaminated or even mixed with toxic ingredients that could cause serious harm even death.

3 Has to buy the drug ‘underground’ – exposing the person to the vagaries of a potentially dangerous criminal underworld.

4 Buying, using and sharing illegal drugs puts the person at risk of serious criminal sanctions such as a community sentence with a drug rehabilitation requirement or even imprisonment.

5 A person using an illegal drug risks acquiring a criminal record for a drugs offence – which could have lifelong consequences upon employment prospects, opportunities for world travel and housing.

6 Has to use the drug in secret. For some people this may mean using in an isolated location which could be potentially dangerous especially when intoxicated – such as a condemned building, under a railway bridge, a canal etc.

7 Has to hide the use of illegal drugs making it more difficult to manage and harder to seek help, support or advice if a problem arises.*

So a key way to reduce harm is to remove the possession of drugs from the criminal justice system - in other words decriminalise possession, explore avenues for legalisation and you'll go some way to begin to address the considerable risks and harms listed above caused by criminalisation.

Professor Julian Buchanan, Glyndwr University, Wales, UK

j.buchanan@glyndwr.ac.uk

http://julianbuchanan.wordpress.com/

*Adapted from Buchanan J (2009) Understanding and misunderstanding problem drug use: working together, in R Carnwell & J Buchanan (eds) Effective Practice in Health, Social Care & Criminal Justice: A partnership approach, Open University Press, Maidenhead.

We will always have a drug problem as long as the funding goes to unworkable programs.

"So before any government strikes too heavily at spreading drug use, it should recognize that it is a symptom of failed psychotherapy. The social scientist, the psychologist and psychiatrist and health ministers have failed to handle spreading psychosomatic illness."

Drug Addiction [full article]

http://www.psychosomatic-healing.co.nz/drug.addiction.html

"In the absence of workable psychotherapy wide drug addiction is inevitable. When a person is depressed or in pain and where he finds no physical relief from treatment, he will eventually discover for himself that drugs, remove his symptoms. In almost all cases of, psychosomatic pain, malaise or discomfort the person has sought some cure for the upset

When he at last finds that only drugs give him relief he will surrender to them and become dependent upon them often to the point of addiction. Years before had there been any other way out most people would have taken it. But when they are told there is no cure that their pains are "Imaginary," life tends to become insupportable. They then can become chronic drug takers and are in danger of addiction."

Second Chance Program [Video Criminal Rehabilitation]

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#!/video/video.php?v=129242447257

Rehabilitating 800 inmates at a time in one program. 99% on drugs. Recidivism rate is 10%.

The same program is being implemented throughout indonesia's 365 prisons

Criminon Indonesia

http://www.rehabnz.co.nz/pages/criminon-indonesia.html

Before we get any improvement, those in charge need to be aware of what has really gone wrong. The information below gives one some insight into the above point.

Rehab Fraud Psychiatry's Drug Scam

http://www.mental-health-abuse.org/rehabFraud.html

Report and recommendations on

methadone and other disastrous psychiatric

drug 'rehabilitation' programs

http://www.psychosomatic-healing.co.nz/media-cchr/CCHR_Pamphlet_Rehab_Fraud%5B1%5D.pdf

“It is very important to understand one thing about much of the drug rehabilitation field today. Our hope of a cure for drug addiction was not lost. It was buried by an avalanche of psychiatry’s false information and false solutions. Drug addiction is not a disease. Real solutions do exist.”

— Jan Eastgate, President, Citizens Commission on Human Rights

Contents:

Click on your choices below.

INTRODUCTION What Hope Is There?

CHAPTER ONE The Selling of ‘Incurability’

The Methadone Program—A Clever Hoax

REHAB FAILURE Like Switching Seats on the Titanic

CHAPTER TWO Harmful Diagnostic Deceptions

More Celebrated Poor Results

“Harm Reduction” Harms

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY What Experts Say

FATAL FLAW Psychiatry’s Lack of Science

CHAPTER THREE The Hope of a Real Cure

RECOMMEDATIONS

Psychiatry: No Cures No Science [4 mins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHu7Ik36128

Psychiatrists openly admitting at the 2006 APA convention that they have no scientific tests to prove mental illness and have no cures for these unproven mental illnesses.

What’s Wrong with Psychiatry? A Psychiatrist Explains…[2 mins]

http://www.cchrint.org/videos/experts/whats-wrong-with-psychiatry-a-psychiatrist-explains/

Dr. Niall McLaren, a practicing psychiatrist for 22 years, explains what is wrong with the psychiatric profession: That this is an industry which cannot take criticism, for fear the entire model of biological psychiatry will unravel.

That there is no science to psychiatric diagnoses, no brain based diseases. And that psychiatry only pushes mental disorders as biological disease/illness in order to convince people to take psychiatric drugs, causing a host of dangerous side effects

Ways to reduce drug use

We can implement Psychosomatic Healing to handle the reasons people take drugs,

The Discovery Of Dianetics [The Modern Science Of Mental Health]

http://www.psychosomatic-healing.co.nz/dianetics.html

"The human body was found to be extremely capable of repairing itself when the stored memories of pain were cancelled. Further it was discovered that so long as the stored pain remained, the doctoring of what are called psychosomatic ills, such as arthritis, could not result in anything permanent."

We can lift the Morality Level of society so that it becomes unacceptable to use drugs including antidepressants.

Morals For A Modern World [Free Package]

http://www.psychosomatic-healing.co.nz/twth-precepts.html

http://www.psychosomatic-healing.co.nz/twth-precepts.html

We live in a world of many divergent views — religious beliefs, factions, ethnics. Who can agree? What if we could all agree on moral precepts that were common to all cultures? A code that creates bonds between all ethnics and races. A code for all men. The Way to Happiness fills this void

We can blanket the country with workable drug education.

Free Drug Education

http://www.psychosomatic-healing.co.nz/drug-education.html

WELCOME TO ALL TEACHERS, EDUCATORS, COUNSELORS, MENTORS & PARENTS

The Truth About Drugs Education Package contains practical tools to educate young people about substance abuse

Did you know?

"The National Committee for Addiction Treatment reports that in one study 74% of a representative sample of people seeking alcohol and drug treatment from Community Alcohol and Drug Services had a co-existing psychiatric disorder."

I did know that. That's the reason they are drug addicts. What does the psych profession do, well they put them on another drug, but they call these drugs medication, all funded by the tax payer.

Are We Being Unkind To The Psychiatrist

http://www.rehabilitatenz.co.nz/pages4/psychiatrists.html

A year later, 20 percent of your employees have a drug problem. The original two percent still take drugs, but they are legal, prescription drugs. It doesn't matter to you—they are still too stoned and out of it to work.

Psychiatry: No Cures No Science [4 min video]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHu7Ik36128

Psychiatrists openly admitting at the 2006 APA convention that they have no scientific tests to prove mental illness and have no cures for these unproven mental illnesses.

What’s Wrong with Psychiatry? A Psychiatrist Explains…[2 min video]

http://www.cchrint.org/videos/experts/whats-wrong-with-psychiatry-a-psychiatrist-explains/

Dr. Niall McLaren, a practicing psychiatrist for 22 years, explains what is wrong with the psychiatric profession: That this is an industry which cannot take criticism, for fear the entire model of biological psychiatry will unravel.

That there is no science to psychiatric diagnoses, no brain based diseases. And that psychiatry only pushes mental disorders as biological disease/illness in order to convince people to take psychiatric drugs, causing a host of dangerous side effects

While the psyches are puting more people on drugs, we are training youth to get themselves off, with Drug Free Withdrawl Training. Something the establish psych based programs are unable to do yet, as the whole system is set up to put people on drugs [medication]

Narconon helps Mexico rehab centers (video)

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=247423812257

Narconon International helps drug rehabs in Mexico with the training of the Drug-free withdrawal program called The First Step.

First Step Program

http://www.rehabnz.co.nz/pages/first-step-program.html

Alcohol is entrenched in western societies because of vested interests (including lucrative advertising $$$) and excise tax, unfortunately this in unlikely to change. What is the true social cost of alcohol-related harm? However the media plays this down, while hyping drug news. Recreational drugs should be treated as a "consumer choice" to accord with how the rest of western society operates. I agree with infringement notices at the most for possession offences. Mis-education and hype is propogated by the media, I think this situation is mostly caused by the $$$ they make from liquor advertising.

Promoting safe drug use such as teaching children how to use drugs "safely" is a contradiction in terms. Likewise programs that attempt to get a person off one drug by getting them on to another (such as methadone) is equally unworkable.

My username is Iatrogenic Doctor (iatrogenic: illness caused by doctor mistake/ doctor of) as my purpose is to remedy the fact that over 8000 New Zealand citizens die every year due to the mistakes of doctors (conveniently labelled and hidden from public eye as "iatrogenic disease") This is more than die by smoking every year...and I only know that because of the current advert stating that only 5000 NZers die every year by smoking...evidently considered more important than correcting the doctors. Frequently those mistakes include mis-prescription and over-prescription of drugs.

Having spent 2 1/2 years directly putting in place what is now one of the largest drug detoxification programs in the world I consider I have the knowledge and credentials to give an opinion. I am also a third generation New Zealand citizen.

For those wondering, the program I put into action exists every day now in almost every major city in Russia, the largest continent internationally. Every day Russians are getting off drugs and alcohol as a result of the program. It is not a question of does this work; it has been proven time and time again. The program uses the technology developed by L Ron Hubbard and already vindicated by many distinguished Doctors the world over. Yet it is interesting that this program is not only not used in New Zealand, but ignored while unworkable programs are held in place by the selfishness for reasons of self-importance or financial gain by certain (un-named here) persons holding positions of responsibility. This enforced status-quo will not last. Most of these people are drug-users themselves and will die before their time by the very drugs they protect. Kevin Owen; I take my hat off to you for your relentless perseverance at informing the public at large of the drug rehabilitation technology and education resources L Ron Hubbard has made openly available to the people of Earth. The drug education booklets published based on this technology are currently the only concise, accurate and informative education booklets of any note in New Zealand.

The solution exists but is being ignored currently. Given the resources I could easily place this same program into New Zealand and it is not a question of whether it would work; the essential problem is how many people would try to prevent it for the reasons as given above.

education,there is none ,schools avoid the subject , smokers avoid the attension, but something has gotta change,

I'm sick of being put in where i don't fit in ,cannabis , it's a herb , what a waste of tax payers money. it's been here since jesus was a shepared ,

I am posting my submission edited:

I respond to your invitation to comment on the proposed review of the law.

Can I just make one immediate point please - the Law Commission and numerous other sources continually make a serious error of law in discussing this subject. This mistake is a fatal flaw in the entire consultation process as it misleads all commentators and obscures the truth. The point is often made that the NZ law is based upon the UK 1971 legislation. Under the law, the object of which is the amelioration of social harm caused by drug misuse, the Government is afforded many powers under Sections 7, 22 & 31 of the UK Act to achieve this. This can only be done by recognising that peaceful use of controlled drugs is distinct from misuse of such drugs - the powers government have already can make Orders to achieve this balance. Why is it not being done? Because of the error of law you make throughout your reports, documentation, introduction, terms of reference to the consulation etc - the description of drugs as being 'legal' or 'illegal'.

If you think about it the error is fundamental. You are flipping the subject and object of legal control. Objects are not subject to law, people are. When we talk of illegal guns, we are getting it wrong - guns are not illegal, what is illegal is the unauthorised possession of them. All drug offences are property rights offences concerning people, not drugs!

This expression is nonsense - drugs are controlled or not under law. No harmful drug is outside of the purview of the Act. This means that alcohol and tobacco are included in the Act, but due to administration of law (and not the law itself), they are still not classified despite accounting for more harm than all controlled drugs put together. This is because it seems impossible to prohibit alcohol, and this belief that classification equates to prohibition is the error that means that there is an artificial divide at the heart of the administration of drug law. This divide means that drinkers and smokers are not afforded the relative protection by deterrence of criminal law, whilst consumers of controlled drugs have no protection from consumer law. So-called legal highs are sold without either protection as well. The idea of excluding alcohol and tobacco from this review is akin to having a review of the health service and not including hospitals and GP's.

My submission is also a letter from a US citizen to the new chair of the UK Advisory Council.

Regards

Darryl Bickler

Letter:

10 February 2010

Casey William HARDISON - POWd (Civ)

HMP Wellingborough LH5330

Wellingborough

NN8 2NH

Professor Leslie Iverson

Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs

6th Floor, Peel Building

2 Marsham Street

London SW1H 4DF

Re: Advisory Council remit & Legal Advice

Dear Professor Iverson,

Welcome to what you already know is a difficult job. Thank you for volunteering and thank you for your courage and wisdom.

This letter intends to communicate the key understandings I have gleaned from five years of legal scholarship on the purpose and objects of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 ("the Act") and the key discoveries about the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs ("Council") revealed in Freedom of Information Act 2000 responses from your predecessors, particularly the discovery that since the Act's inception the Council have not taken or received independent legal advice re the purpose and objects of the Act or the Council's remit.

It is my sincere hope that you, the new Council Chair, will procure and make public this desperately needed legal advice. Short of that, I lay out below my interpretation of the Act. In so doing I highlight notable passages of Council scholarship, compare and contrast these with Government declarations and show how they led to the confused dismissal of your predecessor by the Secretary of State for the Home Department ("SSHD"). I implore you, Professor; only full legal advice will enable you to discharge the Council's duty to protect the public effectively. Please have a current copy of the Act to hand.

a. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 - The Preamble & Section 1 in brief

The preamble indicates that the Act's area of competence is public protection re "dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs" i.e. harm minimisation or harm reduction:

"An Act to make new provision with respect to dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs and related matters, and for purposes connected therewith."

Nowhere in the Act are the terms "dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs" defined. The closest I find in the Act is found in s1 which creates the Council and then defines its duty. In s1(2), it can be found that the Act concerns:

"drugs which are being or appear to [the Council] likely to be misused and of which the misuse is having or appears to [the Council] capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem".

Thus, it is for the Council to define what "dangerous or otherwise harmful" means and so too the meaning of "harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem". I suggest that any drug use that impacts on the public purse in any way is "sufficient to constitute a social problem". With that quick intro, let us step back for a wide view.

b. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 - The Principles of Law

Recognising that the exercise of various activities re "dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs" may result in a variable likelihood of risks and benefits to public welfare and individual autonomy and that these must be consciously balanced, Parliamentarians embodied four principles of law in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971:

1) A determination, read from the Act's preamble, s1(2) and the offences stated in the Act, to employ education, health and police power measures to prevent, minimise or eliminate the "harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem" that may arise via any self-administration of "dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs''.

2) A determination, read from ss1, 2(5), 7(7) & 31(3) of the Act, to employ an independent Advisory Council to help the Secretary of State exercise the Act's discretionary powers in a rational and objective manner, particularly when making contingent subordinate legislation and interstitial administrative rules and when considering regulatory options.

3) A determination, read from s1(3), to employ an independent Advisory Council to consider any matter relating to drug dependence or the misuse of drugs that may be referred to them by any Minister and to advise them as required or requested.

4) A determination, read from ss1l(2)(a)-(e), to enable persons affected by drugs misuse to obtain advice and secure health services; to promote stakeholder co-operation in dealing with the social problems connected with drugs misuse; to educate the public in the dangers of misusing drugs, and to give publicity to those dangers; and to promote research into any matter which is relevant to prevent drugs misuse or deal with any connected social problem.

Crucially, this first principle of law is neutral and generally applicable, coherent with s31(1)(a) of the Act, and based on outcome, irrespective of the drug, the agent's status, class, or intent, or the circumstances in which the drug-related activities occur.

The second principle of law facilitates Due Process and seeks to ensure that the Act's police power measures are employed proportionate to available objective evidence of the potential risk each drug presents when used and are suitably targeted to achieve the Act's objective.

The third and fourth principles facilitate a coherent social conversation for minimizing harms risked by drug use through the intelligent use of education, health and ministerial services.

c. The Object of Regulation - People not Drugs

The Act concerns itself with public health and safety; however, the Act does not concern itself with absolute safety. Rather the Act seeks to prevent, minimise or eliminate the "harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem" that may arise via any self-administration of "dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs".

The Act targets these "harmful effects" only indirectly through "restrictions" ss3-6, "prohibitions" ss8-9 and/or "regulations" ss7, 10 & 22, on the exercise of enumerated activities re controlled drugs: import/export, production, supply, possession, etc., whilst generating a harm minimisation conversation at all levels of society via education, research and the provision of specific health services.

Accordingly, the Act does not regulate drugs; the Act regulates human action.

d. General Provisions as to Regulations - Section 31(1)-(3)

"31. General provisions as to regulations. (1) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under any provision of this Act - (a) may make different provision in relation to different controlled drugs, different classes of persons, different provisions of this Act or other different cases or circumstances; and (b) may make the opinion, consent or approval of a prescribed authority or of any person authorised in a prescribed manner material for purposes of any provision of the regulations; and (c) may contain such supplementary, incidental and transitional provisions as appear expedient to the Secretary of State. (2) Any power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. (3) The Secretary of State shall not make any regulations under this Act except after consultation with the Advisory Council". (My emphasis)

This means the Council is in the driving seat and that the Council's advice or recommendations are not limited to scientific or medical matters re drug harm and classification. Section 31 conjunct ss7 & 22 would allow a completely regulated legal commerce in controlled drugs.

e. Section 7 - Authorization of activities otherwise unlawful under foregoing provisions

Section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 shows Parliament's intent not to implement Article 4(c) of the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs by the creation of the Act. Only HM Government, the executive, is a "party" to the UN drug Conventions. Only they are bound; and this is a matter of international law not domestic law. The Council, Parliament and the Judiciary are all independent of HM Government.

In creating global "prohibition", Article 4(c) of the 1961 UN Single Convention states:

"The parties shall take such legislative and administrative measures as may be necessary: (a) to give effect to and carry out the provisions of this Convention within their own territories; (b) to co-operate with other States in the execution of the provisions of this Convention; and (c) subject to the provisions of this Convention, to limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs". (My emphasis)

Parliament did not intend to implement Article 4(c) fully because s7(1) states:

"(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations: (a) except from section 3(1)(a) or (b), 4(1)(a) or (b) or 5(1) of this Act such controlled drugs as may be specified in the regulations; and (b) make such other provision as he thinks fit for the purpose of making it lawful for persons to do things which under any of the following provisions of this Act, that is to say sections 4(1), 5(1) and 6(1), it would otherwise be unlawful for them to do". (My emphasis)

Section 7(2) builds on and qualifies s7(1)(b):

"Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above, regulations under that subsection authorising the doing of any such thing as is mentioned in that paragraph may in particular provide for the doing of that thing to be lawful - (a) if it is done under and in accordance with the terms of a licence or other authority issued by the Secretary of State and in compliance with any conditions attached thereto; or (b) if it is done in compliance with such conditions as may be prescribed". (My emphasis)

According to ss7(1) & 7(2) the SSHD "may" by regulation "except" a controlled drug from restrictions on their import/export, production, supply, possession and/or make it "lawful" for anyone, within reason, to produce, supply, possess, or cultivate controlled drugs.

Conjunct s31(1)(a), above, this means the SSHD can do whatever the SSHD wants provided (1) the regulation promotes the purpose and object of the Act, viz harm reduction; (2) the Council have been consulted; (3) Parliament does not oppose it; and (4) the regulation is not open to judicial review. This is a very broad power! In legal speak this power is "unfettered".

This means the Act does not mandate "prohibition". The Act does not intend to "limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs". Sections 7(3)-(4) make this distinction.

Section 7(3)-(4):

"(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, the Secretary of State shall so exercise his power to make regulations under subsection (1) above as to secure - (a) that it is not unlawful under section 4(1) of this Act for a doctor, dentist, veterinary practitioner or veterinary surgeon, acting in his capacity as such, to prescribe, administer manufacture, compound or supply a controlled drug, or for a pharmacist or a person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business, acting in either case in his capacity as such, to manufacture, compound or supply a controlled drug; and (b) that it is not unlawful under section 5(1) of this Act for a doctor, dentist, veterinary practitioner, veterinary surgeon, pharmacist or person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business to have a controlled drug in his possession for the purpose of acting in his capacity as such.

(4) If in the case of any controlled drug the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it is in the public interest - (a) for production, supply and possession of that drug to be either wholly unlawful or unlawful except for purposes of research or other special purposes; or (b) for it to be unlawful for practitioners, pharmacists and persons lawfully conducting retail pharmacy businesses to do in relation to that drug any of the things mentioned in subsection (3) above except under a licence or other authority issued by the Secretary of State, he may by order designate that drug as a drug to which this subsection applies; and while there is in force an order under this subsection designating a controlled drug as one to which this subsection applies, subsection (3) above shall not apply as regards that drug". (My emphasis)

Sections 7(3) & 7(4) closely resemble HM Government's obligation re Article 4(c) of the 1961 Single Convention. Prohibition is therefore a regulatory option not a command.

Please note, the "classes of persons" in terms of s31(1)(a) that ss7(3)-(4) distinguish are professionals who would be unable to carry on their professions without the SSHD making provision for them. This is the reason for the "shall" in s7(3); it is mandatory that the SSHD provide for these professionals work with controlled drugs.

The "may" in other clauses of the Act, such as in ss7(1) & 31(1) are merely permissive, however, the Courts have held that if relevant and sufficient evidence exists, that goes to the jurisdiction of a permissive statutory discretion, then the permissive "may" will be read as a "must" and the Courts will require the decision-maker to exercise the discretion.[1]

So, what are the Council's duties? What discretions must the Council exercise?

f. Section 1(2) - Whether or not involving alteration of the law

"(2) It shall be the duty of the Advisory Council to keep under review the situation in the United Kingdom with respect to drugs which are being or appear to them likely to be misused and of which the misuse is having or appears to them capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem, and to give to any one or more of the Ministers, where either the Council consider it expedient to do so or they are consulted by the Minister or Ministers in question, advice on measures (whether or not involving alteration of the law) which in the opinion of the Council ought to be taken for preventing the misuse of such drugs or dealing with social problems connected with their misuse, and in particular on measures which in the opinion of the Council ought to be taken - (a) for restricting the availability of such drugs or supervising the arrangements for their supply; (b) for enabling persons affected by the misuse of such drugs to obtain proper advice, and for securing the provision of proper facilities and services for the treatment, rehabilitation and after-care of such persons; (c) for promoting co-operation between the various professional and community services which in the opinion of the Council have a part to play in dealing with social problems connected with the misuse of such drugs; (d) for educating the public (and in particular the young) in the dangers of misusing such drugs, and for giving publicity to those dangers; and (e) for promoting research into, or otherwise obtaining information about, any matter which in the opinion of the Council is of relevance for the purpose of preventing the misuse of such drugs or dealing with any social problem connected with their misuse". (My emphasis)

Section 1(2) charges the Council with the "duty" of: (1) keeping the drugs "situation" and relevant law "under review"; (2) giving ministers advice on exercising the Act's powers; and (3) giving ministers advice on any measure or measures thought necessary by the Council to achieve the Act's purpose, "whether or not involving alteration of the law".

Again, the Act's purpose and object is to prevent, minimise or eliminate the "harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem" that may arise via any self-administration of "dangerous or otherwise handful drugs". The Act contains various mechanisms for doing this. The foremost is the creation of the independent Advisory Council whose "duty" is to give ministers (and the public) advice on any measure or measures thought necessary "whether or not involving alteration of the law".

But what law? The phrase "whether or not involving alteration of the law" does not say "the Act" nor does it say "this law", "this section", or even "these regulations". If, in the opinion of the Council, a clause in the Medicines Act 1968 needs changing, the Council can and should say so; so too with other relevant legislation, including regulations re alcohol and tobacco.

Obviously, the phrase "whether or not involving alteration of the law" applies to the Act. Thus, it is the Council's "duty" to provide advice to the SSHD, and other ministers on regulations, regulatory strategies and regulatory options. This is supported by s31(3) which shows that the Council's advice is not limited to scientific matters, e.g. drug risks, drug harms, drug classification; nor to the regulatory option of "prohibition".

Thus, I believe that Alan Johnson was wrong to censure Dr Nutt for criticising Government policy. It was indeed the entire Council's duty to criticise Government policy, if "the Council consider it expedient to do so". All the more so because the Council is one of three procedural safeguards on arbitrary and unreasonable government; the other two are Parliament, in ss2(5), 7(6) & 31(2), and the Judiciary via judicial review.

This highlights a possible legal challenge against the Council.

g. Pathways to Problems- a Neglect for Duty

On 14 September 2006, the Council published a commanding report, Pathways to Problems: hazardous use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs by young people in the UK and its implications for policy, in which the Council declared unequivocally that the artificial divide in drugs policy lacks rationality:

"We believe that policy-makers and the public need to be better informed of the essential singularity in the way in which psychoactive drugs work: acting on specific parts of the brain to produce pleasurable and sought-after effects but with the potential to establish long-lasting changes in the brain, manifested as dependence and other damaging physical and behavioural side-effects. At present, the legal framework for the regulation and control of drugs clearly distinguishes between drugs such as tobacco and alcohol and various other drugs which can be bought and sold legally (subject to various regulations), drugs which are covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) and drugs which are classed as medicines, some of which are also covered by the Act. The insights summarised [here] indicate that these distinctions are based on historical and cultural factors and lack a consistent and objective basis". (Paragraph 1.13, p22, my emphasis)

A few pages earlier the Council admitted "neglect[ing]'' their duty under the Act by discriminating between "harmful psychoactive drugs' on the ground of 'legal status":

"The scientific evidence is now clear that nicotine and alcohol have pharmacological actions similar to other psychoactive drugs. Both cause serious health and social problems and there is growing evidence of very strong links between the use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs. For the ACMD to neglect two of the most harmful psychoactive drugs simply because they have a different legal status no longer seems appropriate". (Introduction, p14, my emphasis)

Consistent with this, the Council's first recommendation in Pathway to Problems reads:

"As their actions are similar and their harmfulness to individuals and society is no less than that of other psychoactive drugs, tobacco and alcohol should be explicitly included in the terms of reference of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs". (My emphasis)

I believe that Dr Nutt was on the Prevention Working Group that led this report. To this day, the Government has not replied to this report or its recommendations!

In 2007 I reminded Sir Michael Rawlins that alcohol and tobacco are implicitly included in the Act's remit as the term "drug", as used in the Act, is not synonymous with the phrase "controlled drug" found in s2(1); thus, "drug" means any drug irrespective of its chemical structure, delivery method, legal status and/or purpose of use.

Sir Michael apparently accepted this as page two of the Council's 20 October 2008 contribution to Me Department of Health's 2008 alcohol consultation paper, "Safe, Sensible, Social - consultation on further action", stated the Council's remit and then said:

"This therefore implicitly includes alcohol and tobacco"

Accordingly, an important question for you to consider which has legal ramifications: Why is the Council still neglecting its duty re the so-called "legal highs" alcohol and tobacco? I believe the answers lie in "historical and cultural factors [that] lack a consistent and objective basis" and I have discovered a thought-provoking way of demonstrating this.

h. Reasonable Differentiations Fairly Related to the Object of regulation

With the exception of opium smoking, s9, drug use is not an offence under the Act or at common-law. And whilst the difference between the activities enumerated in ss3-6 of the Act and drug use might seem insignificant, Parliament drew the line here.

Crucially, s37(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 states:

"References in this Act to misusing a drug are references to misusing it by taking it; and the reference in the foregoing provision to the taking of a drug is a reference to the taking of it by a human being by way of any form of self-administration, whether or not involving assistance by another". (My emphasis)

Therefore, in ensuring consistency with the Act's object of preventing, minimising or eliminating the "harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem" that may arise via "the taking of a drug" differentiations should distinguish drug use from drug misuse.

With respect to drug use, i.e. "self-administration", I believe the Act's principles of law afford three reasonable differentiations fairly related to the object of regulation:

1. A primary differentiation between drug use that is reasonably safe to the agent and does not result in harm to others and drug use that is reasonably safe to the agent and results in harm to others; (e.g. drinking in a pub versus drinking and driving)

2. A secondary differentiation between drug use that is reasonably risky to the agent and does not result in harm to others and drug use that is reasonably risky to the agent and results in harm to others; (e.g. smoking outside versus smoking in enclosed public spaces)

3. A tertiary differentiation between drug use harmful only to the agent following competent informed choice and drug use harmful only to the agent not following competent informed choice. (e.g. smoking by adults versus smoking by minors)

These reasonable differentiations, based on the outcome of drug use, are neutral with respect to the drug, the agent's intent, and the setting in which drug use occurs, and consistent with s31(1)(a) of the Act. Only in this way are autonomous individuals separable from the public interest and education and health measures separable from the need for police power.

Yet, because of historical accident, cultural factors and political vision, the Government only affords these reasonable differentiations to the use of drugs preferred by the majority, alcohol and tobacco. As a result, they are familiar to us. This familiarity has led to irrationally, which in turn has led the SSHD and the council to exclude them from the Act.

This denies equal protection to the public from the "harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem" caused by alcohol and tobacco use whilst denying equal liberty to persons who produce, commerce, and use controlled drugs for peaceful, amateur purposes. This is an abuse of power by the SSHD. For persons prosecuted for unauthorised activities with "controlled drugs", this ultimately manifests two inequalities of treatment:

1. a failure to treat like cases alike, viz the unequal application of the Act to persons concerned with equally harmful drugs without a rational and objective basis; and

2. a failure to treat unlike cases differently, viz the failure to regulate persons concerned peaceful activities re controlled drugs differently from persons causing harm.

I believe the source of these two inequalities of treatment lay in Government's interpretation of the Act; and Government's interpretation has become the Council's interpretation.

i. The Government's interpretation of the Act

On 13 October 200G, Government let loose their interpretation in Cm 6941,The Government Reply to the Filth Report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Session 2005-6 HC 1031 Drug classification: making a hash of it?, where the Government said:

"the classification system under the Misuse of Drugs Act is not a suitable mechanism for regulating legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco". "The distinction between legal and illegal substances is not unequivocally based on pharmacology, economic or risk benefit analysis. It is also based in large part on historical and cultural precedents. A classification system that applies to legal as well as illegal substances would be unacceptable to the vast majority of people who use, for example alcohol, responsibly and would conflict with deeply embedded historical tradition and tolerance of consumption of a number of substances that alter mental functioning [...]. Legal substances are therefore regulated through other means. [...] However, the Government acknowledges that alcohol and tobacco account for more health problems and deaths than illicit drugs". (p24, emphasis added)

These six sentences from Cm 6941 admit that the SSHD administers the Act unequally without a rational and objective basis fairly related to the Act's policy and/or objects. These admissions pare from within the SSHD's three incoherent and/or subjective attempts to justify excluding alcohol and tobacco from the Act:

1. "[T]he Misuse of Drugs Act is not a suitable mechanism for regulating legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco". (Emphasis added)

2. "The distinction between legal and illegal substances is not unequivocally based on pharmacology, economic or risk benefit analysis. It is ... based in large part on historical and cultural precedents". (Emphasis added)

3. "A classification system that applies to legal as well as illegal substances would be unacceptable to the vast majority of people who use, for example alcohol, responsibly and would conflict with the existence of a deeply embedded historical tradition and tolerance of consumption of a number of substances that alter mental functioning". (Emphasis added)

My analysis of these three justifications follows. This analysis elucidates three errors of law supporting an abuse of power and shows that the subsequent application of the Act in the courts has manifested the two inequalities of treatment under criminal penalty, here repeated:

1) a failure to treat like cases alike, viz the unequal application of the Act to persons concerned with equally harmful drugs without a rational and objective basis; and

2) a failure to treat unlike cases differently, viz the failure to regulate persons concerned in peaceful activities re controlled drugs differently from persons causing ham.

It is precisely because of these inequalities, and Government's three justifications for them that the Council needs to procure independent legal advice. It is the Council's duty to interpret properly the Act's powers and to advise Government on how to use them to reduce harm.

a. The First Justification

The first justification the SSHD gives in Cm 6941 for the first inequality of treatment admits an abuse of power. In effect, the SSHD says, "[The Act] is not a suitable mechanism for regulating ... alcohol and tobacco". This is manifestly absurd and shows inter alia that the SSHD has failed to give effect to two established and relevant facts:

1) Alcohol and tobacco are harmful drugs within the Act's scope as the term "drug", s1(2), is not synonymous with the phrase "controlled drug", s2(1)(a).

2) Alcohol and tobacco misuse is "having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem", s(1)2; or as Government declared in Cm 6941: "alcohol and tobacco account for more health problems and deaths than illicit drugs".

These two facts appear to underpin the ACMD admission in Pathways to Problems:

"For the ACMD to neglect two of the most harmful psychoactive drugs simply because they have a different legal status no longer seems appropriate". (p14, emphasis added)

The SSHD's failure to act on these two facts conjunct the claim that the Act "is not a suitable mechanism for regulating legal substances" unveils two errors of law:

1) The SSHD believes that the Act permanently proscribes the enumerated activities re controlled drugs, bar medical and scientific purposes, i.e. "our policy of prohibition [is] reflected in the terms of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971".[2]

2) The SSHD claims a power, the SSHD does not possess, to "exempt individuals or classes of individuals from the operation of the law"[3] by excluding de facto the "dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs" alcohol and tobacco from the Act's control.

Re the first error of law, the SSHD's belief that the Act permanently proscribes the enumerated activities re controlled drugs, bar medical and scientific purposes. This belief shows that the SSHD has failed to understand and give effect to two powers:

1) The SSHD's unfettered power to authorise the exercise of any of the enumerated activities re any controlled drug by any class of person for any purpose, i.e. "for doing things . . . it would otherwise be unlawful for them to do", s7(1)(b) & 31 (1)(a); and

2) The SSHD's unfettered power for "excluding in such cases as may be prescribed ... the application of any provision in [the] Act which creates an offence", s22(a)(i).

Re the second error of law, the SSHD's assumed power to exclude alcohol and tobacco from the Act's remit, the Act has jurisdiction to regulate the exercise of the enumerated activities re alcohol and/or tobacco. So, the SSHD's failure to give effect to the two established and relevant facts re alcohol and tobacco thwarts the Act's policy:

"to make ... provision with respect to dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs ... which are being or appear ... likely to be misused and of which the misuse is having or appears ... capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem".[4]

b. The Second Justification

The SSHD's second justification, given in Cm 6941, for the first inequality of treatment exposes a third error of law while declaring that the inequality is "based in large part on historical and cultural precedents". It reads:

"The distinction between legal and illegal substances is not unequivocally based on pharmacology, economic or risk benefit analysis. It is ... based in large part on historical and cultural precedents". (Emphasis added)

The third error of law is the SSHD's belief in the "illegality of certain drugs",[5] i.e. the belief that some drugs or "substances" are "legal" whilst the Act makes other drugs or substances "illegal". A decision maker holding this belief does not understand the Act correctly.

A drug is either "controlled'' under the Act, s2(1)(a), or it is not. If the Act controls a drug, only the unauthorised exercise of the enumerated activities re that drug is unlawful. All three of the SSHD's justifications for the inequality of treatment contain this error of law.

Without this error the second justification reads:

"The distinction between [. . .] substances is . . . based in large part on historical and cultural precedents". (Emphasis added)

Re the "historical and cultural precedents" at the heart of the "distinction", this and other related phrases found in Cm 6941 are not rational and objective grounds relevant to the Act's policy and/or objects; rather, they are suspect "indicia"[6] of unjustifiable majoritarian discrimination equally applicable to homophobia, sexism and racism.

And whilst "historical precedent" may have an objective basis, "cultural preference"[7] can only mean the subjective preference of the majority as the SSHD has not consulted affected minorities and so unfairly treats as irrelevant their cultural drug preferences. Understanding this, the ACMD declared in Pathways to Problems that these "historical and cultural" factors re drugs and drug policy "lack a consistent and objective basis".[8]

Similarly, a decade ago, the 1997 United Nations World Drug Report recognized the contradiction inherent in "cultural and historical justifications" re harmful drugs:

"The discussion of regulation has inevitably brought alcohol and tobacco into the heart of the debate and highlighted the apparent inconsistency whereby use-of some dependence creating drugs is legal and of others is illegal. The cultural and historical justifications offered for this separation may not be credible to the principal targets of today's anti-drug messages - the young".[9] (Emphasis added)

Truly, the SSHD's allegiance to "historical and cultural precedents" lacks credibility because it diverts the Act's measures from the "harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem" that arise via alcohol and tobacco misuse. This denies equal protection to the public from the harmful effects caused by alcohol and tobacco misuse whilst denying equal liberty to persons concerned with controlled drugs for peaceful, amateur purposes.

c. The Third Justification

The first clause of the third justification the SSHD gives in Cm 6941 for the first inequality of treatment exposes the second inequality of treatment. It claims:

"A classification system that applies to [alcohol and tobacco] as well as [controlled substances] would be unacceptable to the vast majority of people who use [alcohol and tobacco] responsibly'. (Mutatis mutandis, emphasis added)

I believe this justification shows the SSHD fears the political cost of applying a "policy of prohibition"[10] to alcohol and tobacco and thus the SSHD is close-minded to evidence: (1) that peaceful, amateur use of controlled drugs is both possible and commonplace; and (2) that the permanent proscription of production and commerce activities re controlled drugs, bar medical and scientific purposes, is equally "unacceptable" to the millions who are concerned in the peaceful, amateur use of controlled drugs.

On this, the Third Report from the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Session 2001-2002 HC-3 18 The Government's Drug Policy: is it working? stated:

''Around four million people use [controlled drugs] each year. Most of these people do not appear to experience harm from their drug use, nor do they cause harm to others as a result of their habit". (Para 20, emphasis added)

The second clause of the SSHD's third justification for the first inequality of treatment embodies the first error of law, the belief that the Act permanently proscribes the enumerated activities re controlled drugs, bar medical and scientific purposes. Essentially, this clause declares that the SSHD's "policy of prohibition":

"conflict[s] with deeply embedded historical tradition and tolerance of consumption of a number of substances that alter mental functioning". (Emphasis added)

This illuminates a deep, unsettled legal controversy whereby the State facilitates access to certain drug mediated mindstates whilst concomitantly obstructing access to other drug mediated mindstates. This would appear to violate freedom of thought.

Overall, the SSHD's third justification for the first inequality of treatment suggests three general duties re the use of "[drugs] that alter mental functioning":

1) a duty to respect an individual's "free and informed choice''[11] in the peaceful, amateur use of "[drugs] that alter mental functioning"; and

2) a duty to differentiate the peaceful, amateur use of "[drugs] that alter mental functioning" from the use of "[drugs] that alter mental functioning" ... "having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem", s1(2). This is use versus misuse; and

3) a duty to subject all commerce and production of ''[drugs] that alter mental functioning" to reasonable, necessary and proportionate regulations.

Yet, Government only executes these general duties re the drugs preferred by the "vast majority", alcohol and tobacco. Hence, the SSHD fails to regulate persons concerned in peaceful activities re controlled drugs differently from persons causing harm. The SSHD fails to target regulations at the problem: misuse. This creates the second inequality of treatment.

j. So, where do we go from here?

In Pathways to Problems, the Council nailed the solution in their Recommendation 11:

"A fully integrated approach should be taken to the development of policies designed to prevent the hazardous use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs". (Emphasis added)

What would this require?

1) The Council needs to agree, under Schedule 1 Section 3 of the Act, a inclusive set of procedural guidelines'[12] for risk assessment, particularly the specific criteria prompting the Council to recommend that the SSHD seek to control and classify a drug and proportionately regulate activities re that drug. This helps ensure due process and creates unimpeachable decisions, advice and recommendations based on best practice.

2) The Council and the SSHD need to agree, "whether or not involving alteration of the law", a proportionate regulatory structure similar to the 5 tiers of the Medicines Act 1968. This would allow for:

a) more familiar drugs - those drugs the general population have demonstrated their ability to manage the risks of harm to a substantial degree - to have proportionately less restrictive regulations re production, commerce and possession; and for

b) less familiar drugs - where understanding of the risks of harms and the means of ameliorating them have not reached the majority of the general population - to have progressively and proportionately restrictive regulations re production, commerce and possession.

3) The Council needs to recommend and the SSHD needs to control under s2 alcohol and tobacco.

a) On the other hand if the SSHD and the Council are committed to excluding persons concerned in the production and commerce of alcohol and tobacco from the sections of the Act applied to those concerned with controlled drugs and the SSHD and the Council believes that there is a rational and objective basis for doing so, Due Process, and the Act mandates that the SSHD apply s2 to alcohol and tobacco and then ss7(1), 7(2) & 22(a)(i) as required. Section 22(a) (i) states:

"22. Further powers to make regulations. The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision . . . (a) for excluding in such cases as may be prescribed . . . (i) the application of any provision of this Act which creates an offence". (Emphasis mine)

However, if the SSHD and the Council choose this route, an inevitable question arises, why are those who produce and commerce the dangerous drugs alcohol and tobacco excluded when those concerned with other less harmful controlled drugs are not?

b) Here again, s22(a)(i), like ss7(1) & 7(2), reveals Parliament's intent not to implement Article 4(c) of the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs by the Act.

Having said all the above, Professor Iverson, I again implore you to procure independent legal advice, and to do so immediately.

And in doing so, please attend closely to ss7(1), 7(2), 22(a)(i) and 31(1)(a). These sections allow for a path out of the intractable mess of current prohibitionist drug policy. These sections allow for a completely regulated drug control system that properly targets the "harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem" that may result from the self-administration of drugs.

And all of this is within the power of the Council to recommend - "whether or not involving alteration of the law". Whether the Government of the day bows to the rationality is another matter.

I leave you with a quote by Richard Brunstrom QPM, B.Sc., M Sc., former Chief Constable North Wales Police from his 9 October 2007 document Drugs Policy: a radical look ahead?

"If policy on drugs is in future to be pragmatic not moralistic, driven by ethics not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral, to be replaced with an evidenced based unified system (specifically including tobacco and alcohol) aimed at the minimisation of harms to society. [. . .] This logical, rational and consistent approach will inevitably lead to the legalisation and regulation of all harmful drugs".

Thank you for your time! Please share this letter with other Council members. And, if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

—Fiat Lux!

Casey William Hardison - POWd (Civ)

www.drugequality.org

[1]Padfield v Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries & Food [1968] AC 997, 1039; Julius v Lord Bishop of Oxford (1880) LR 5 App Cas 214

[2] Home Office (2007) Response to Better Regulation Executive, 27 September 2007 www.betterregulation.gov.uk

[3] Pretty v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 1 at 77

[4] Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 c.38 Preamble conjunct s1(2), emphasis added

[5] Cm 6941 (2006) page 18

[6] San Antonio School District v Rodriguez (1973) 411 US 1 at 29 'the traditional indicia of suspectness'

[7] Cm 6941 (2006) page 15; Cf. Hansard, HC Deb, Misuse of Drugs Bill 1970, 16 July 1970 Vol. 803 Col 1801

[8] ACMD (2006) Pathways to Problems, Para 1.13

[9] UNODC (1997) UN World Drug report 1997, p198 www.unodc.org/adhoc/world_drug_report_1997/CH5/

[10] Home Office (2007) Response to Better Regulation Executive, 27 September 2007, www.betterregulation.gov.uk

[11] Cm 41 (1998) Smoking Kills, at 1.26, "the right to smoke"; Cf. Wockel v Germany (1998) 25 EHRR CD156 smoker's "interests"

[12] Via Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests of your predecessors, I established that no such procedural guidelines exist for the Council. Cf. s811 US Controlled Substances Act 1970, 21 USC 811; and s4B NZ Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

If you want to fix the drug problem in NZ, first you have to deal with the gateway drug alcohol.

We currently have open slather in regards to how alcohol is sold, its everywhere!

Sold in supermarkets and dairies so kids can see mum and dad buying this stuff and to them they think he if it's ok for my parents to use this stuff it's ok for me.

I hear South Auckland has one liquor outlet for every 135 people.

We have sports stars promoting the stuff, it's on nearly every ad break on TV and in every magazine you buy, this has to stop.

The media constantly bash the drug cannabis about it's harms yet say nothing of the harms of alcohol.

Given recent statistics that say alcohol is costing us over $2 billion in harm per year and the BERL report saying cannabis is costing us $440 million odd in harm indicates cannabis is the safer option of the two but it remains illegal.

Anybody with common sense keep asking themselves "whats up with that?"

The thing is, nothing is going to change, the laws are made by politicians and politicians pander to business so alcohol will remain open slather and the lesser drug cannabis will remain illegal.

When laws are left to politicians rather than scientists/medical professionals, nothing of common sense will occur.

As for treatment of drugs, nothing will change, you will still get that $105 million to try and run treatment programs and politicians will be patting each other on the back for doing a good job of doing nothing as usual.

LOOKS LIKE wer`e stuck with the UN conventions so positive change is severely constrained - Transform Quote `Supporters of prohibition present any steps towards legal regulation of drug markets as ‘radical’, and therefore innately confrontational and dangerous. However, the historical evidence demonstrates that, in fact, it is prohibition that is the radical policy. Legal regulation of drug produc- tion, supply and use is far more in line with currently accepted ways of managing health and social risks in almost all other spheres of life."

The creation of a dynamic society would lessen the need of the populace to escape reality. By building a better country, the demand for consciousness shifting methods will reduce as people are now happy to be here.

"We are interested in updating the current law to give greater attention to measures which reduce the demand for drugs..."

If a proportion of the demand for alcohol were redirected towards cannabis the net reduction in harm to society caused by drugs would be immense.

I believe the problem is one of the denial of relative harms. Or, the refusal to accept the reality of relative harms between different drugs - legal and illegal. We must, as a society, start to be honest with our youth and educate them according to the facts. We must be honest about the relative harms that different drugs present.

Perhaps we can not reduce the overall demand for drugs. Perhaps part of the human condition makes it inevitable that a percentage of society will seek out drugs (i.e. states of altered consciousness). If so, is this really so wrong if it is responsible, non-problematic use by adults?

Whether or not this is the case I think we need to understand what is intended by the term 'harm reduction'. If, through law changes, a significant number of alcohol drinkers were able to change their drug of choice to cannabis the positive impact on society would be immediate and it would be massive. Think of the reduction in violent crimes, road accidents and negative health consequences.

The fact that alcohol and tobacco were excluded from this review screams hypocrisy. I commend the law commission for their work but unfortunately I feel we are still not being honest with ourselves. We are still making false distinctions.

Is the ultimate goal to reduce the overall demand for drugs or is it to reduce the overall harm caused?

If it is to reduce the overall demand for drugs I ask - to what end? If it is to reduce the overall harm caused I laugh as I watch another alcohol commercial on television.

First and foremost is the opening up of access to treatment facilities. Facilities like Queen Mary in Hamner need to be reopened. We do not have enough places to cater to demand.

Priority should go to education involving peers, with the focus being on honesty and not hysterical comments. Teaching people the truth with a high focus on harm reduction and not just saying dont. You say don't to a teenager and they will do the opposite.

Free access to clean sterile equipment without legal repercussions and the safe disposal of used equipment should be achieved without the risk of prosecution.

Access to clean equipment in jails and correctional favcilities should be a priority.