Ed

NewsRoom 14 October 2020
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/cannabis-referendum-misses-the-point
David Menkes is alarmed at how the current debate has scarcely mentioned cannabis-induced psychosis. He explains why.

We note this comment:
As frontline hospital doctors, my colleagues and I are alarmed at how the current debate scarcely mentions cannabis-induced psychosis. This is a prevalent and serious clinical problem, unmissable in acute psychiatric wards around the country, and doubly worrying because of the profound and sometimes irreversible social and occupational disability that can result.

Otago Daily Times 14 October 2020
Our additional comment: Robert Hamlin is a senior lecturer in the department of marketing at the University of Otago.
“It can be argued that the impact of the proposed legislation on business behaviour will lead to considerably increased consumption of both cannabis and other illegal drugs, plus a significant increase in enforcement expense. Given this, I personally won’t be voting for it.”

Most comment about the cannabis legalisation referendum has come from a social and public health point of view. However, as the proposed legislation aims to legalise pretty much everything about the cannabis business except the commercial marketing of it, a commentary on its likely outcomes based on a commercial and marketing perspective might be timely.

When the proposed legislation is looked at through the lens of a business analyst, there is considerable scope for concern about what the consequences of its introduction would be for the public good.

These concerns can be broadly separated into two groups: those that stem from the behaviour of the industry’s current extralegal incumbents, and those that stem from the behaviour of new entrants into a legalised industry.

There appears to be a rather naive expectation that the current industry will just “go away” if this Act passes into law. Marketing theory does indicate that the illegal cannabis industry itself may well do this over a period of time, as the distribution of illegal goods requires a pyramidal sales network based on a large number of individuals that is both very labour intensive and usually well remunerated due to the personal risks involved.

The legal industry will have structurally lower costs, and should be able to undercut the high prices that are required to sustain the illegal network as a viable business.
READ MORE: https://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/cannabis-legislation-raises-public-good-concerns

The SpinOff 14 October 2020
Our additional comment: Just as those who are being treated in the healthcare system have the right to give informed consent, those who are voting in the referendum are entitled to be informed of the link between cannabis and schizophrenia.

For many, a quick flick through these brochures could be the extent of their research on the proposed changes to cannabis law; others may have delved further into the pros and cons of legalisation on sites such as The Spinoff. Still, no matter how much attention a voter has paid to the issue, it’s likely they’ve seen no mention at all of one incredibly important factor: the link between cannabis and schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia is a form of psychotic illness which affects the way we think. It is characterised by a loss or re-interpretation of reality through delusions, hallucinations, and other bizarre thinking. Episodes of the illness are referred to as psychosis. Research shows a significant connection between schizophrenia and Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the chemical component responsible for cannabis’s psychological effects. This form of schizophrenia is also known as cannabis-induced psychosis.

According to Robin Murray, professor of psychiatric research at the Institute of Psychiatry at London’s Kings College, the risk of schizophrenia increases with the potency of the cannabis used: “if the risk of schizophrenia for the general population is about 1%, the evidence is that, if you take ordinary cannabis, it is 2%; if you smoke regularly you might push it up to 4%; and if you smoke ‘skunk’ (high-strength cannabis) every day you push it up to 8%”.

Auckland University psychiatry professor Graham Mellsop has further found that the proportion of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia is significantly higher in instances of prolonged illicit substance abuse than in prolonged alcohol abuse.

So why are the links between cannabis and schizophrenia not a greater talking point in this referendum?
READ MORE: https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/14-10-2020/cannabis-can-cause-schizophrenia-why-isnt-that-part-of-the-legalisation-debate/

Tearaway 12 October 2020
Family First Comment: The voice of NZ youth!! So many good points…
• A late-2019 University of Pennsylvania report, entitled “Marijuana Legalisation in the United States: A Social Injustice,” points to how cannabis legalisation is disproportionately affecting minority communities.
• Considering the recent Black Lives Matter movement and the push to increase social justice, legalising cannabis could be a major step backwards in our strive for equality.
• It is common knowledge that cannabis use can be particularly harmful to young people, but it is an urban myth that legalisation will reduce this harm.
• The argument against cannabis legalisation is not one based on morals, but evidence. Sound research is staring us straight in the face and our country needs to pay attention. If we fail to recognise the adverse effects legalising cannabis undeniably brings, we are in danger of falling into a situation that we cannot get out of.

It’s a big political year for New Zealand. Along with October’s general election, Kiwis will be having their say on the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill referendum. For young New Zealanders who’ll be voting for the first time, this is a lot to think about.

There are plenty of reasons why cannabis legalisation can be a good thing: thousands of dollars are wasted each year convicting those on minor cannabis charges, and creating a regulated cannabis industry may just give our economy the boost it needs post-Covid. However, the negatives of cannabis legalisation cannot be ignored, and overseas research is showing that legalisation may cause more harm.

One of the supposed benefits of legalisation is reducing social injustice, but recent studies have shown that this is not the case. A late-2019 University of Pennsylvania report, entitled “Marijuana Legalisation in the United States: A Social Injustice,” points to how cannabis legalisation is disproportionately affecting minority communities. In the two years immediately following Washington D.C.’s 2015 move to legalise weed, distribution and public consumptions arrests relating to cannabis nearly quadrupled. Among these arrestees, 84.8% were African American. Like Big Tobacco and liquor stores, the cannabis industry targets lower socio-economic groups as its main profit base; in Denver, Colorado, which was also included in this study, businesses selling cannabis were largely located in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Higher crime rates follow areas in which cannabis stores are located, and the ownership of these stores do not mirror the communities they are based in – as little as 2% of cannabis businesses nationwide are owned by minority groups. New Zealand needs to take note of these warnings. Considering the recent Black Lives Matter movement and the push to increase social justice, legalising cannabis could be a major step backwards in our strive for equality.

The harm that legalising recreational cannabis can cause does not end with increased social injustice. A 2016 study by the ‘Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area‘ shows that the consequences are numerous, and particularly with cannabis-related road accidents. New Zealand already has shocking drug-driving rates: studies have pointed out that as many as one in three drivers involved in serious and fatal crashes were under the influence of drugs, namely cannabis. These statistics are sure to increase with legalisation, as seen in Colorado, where cannabis-related road deaths increased 62% after legalisation. Considering our country’s desperate attempts to reduce drug driving – just last year, the New Zealand Transport Agency launched its “Unsaid” campaign to raise awareness of the issue – pushing the legalisation of a mind-altering drug is a slap in the face to these efforts.
READ MORE: https://tearaway.co.nz/opinion-legal-highs-a-social-low/

Book club viewpoints: “No” to cannabis
Capital October 2020
Our additional comment: Dr Graham Sharpe ONZM FANZCA is a specialist anaesthetist practising in Wellington. Graham Sharpe tells us why he’ll be voting “No”.

Two chaps with contrasting views on marijuana are in the same Wellington book club. They share their thoughts on the upcoming the Cannabis referendum.

Here, Graham Sharpe tells us why he’ll be voting “No”.

A declaration – after much thought and reflection I will vote “No” in the upcoming marijuana referendum.

I was tending towards saying no, but the more I see of the proposal and the arguments, the more concerned I become. The “debate” has been characterised by misleading and, at best, misguided claims by “Yes” proponents.

I am an anaesthetist. I know drugs, particularly sedative drugs. Here are my reasons for voting no.
Harm Minimisation
The Process
“Medical Marijuana”
Equity
Libertarianism
Criminal Involvement
Consumption Levels
The Outcome
Money
Health
To Sum Up
I will vote “No” in the referendum. My reasons are largely health related, but the more I look at this, the wider my concerns become.
READ MORE: https://capitalmag.co.nz/2020/09/21/book-club-viewpoints-no-to-cannabis/

Keep up with family issues in NZ.
Receive our weekly emails direct to your Inbox.

Helen Clark criticises Medical Association after ‘very late’ clarification on cannabis stance
TVNZ One News 13 October 2020
Our additional comment: “Our position has not changed in that we continue to be concerned about the harms of cannabis use, but we are not telling people how to vote.” On its website under, ‘New Zealand Medical Association And Cannabis 2020 Referendum’, it stated on May 6 that “NZMA does not condone the use of cannabis for recreational purpose and opposes legalisation”.  “This position has not changed with the Government’s announcement of a 2020 cannabis legalisation  referendum.”

Clark, who has put her support behind the ‘yes’ vote in the cannabis referendum, said it was “disturbing when organisations make claims to speak for their entire membership when clearly they do not”.

Stuff co.nz 13 October 2020
Our additional comment: Another great commentary from Mike Yardley
“ In a nation racked with a mental health crisis (much of which is drug-induced), legalisation of grow-your-own and the proliferation of 400 licensed dope shops will simply lead to a greater prevalence of drugs for supply and a greater prevalence of kids taking them. We have enough societal ills without blithely adding fuel to that fire, nor society surrendering to recreational cannabis by legitimising its sale and use for a cheap and nasty tax grab.”

OPINION: It’s the final sprint, the final lunge at the finishing post. But with just four days of campaigning left, and a million advance votes already banked, predicting the outcome of our two referendums is a far safer bet than the election itself.

Conversely, the legalisation of recreational cannabis is destined to be defeated – and rightly so. Despite the best efforts of some pro-cannabis advocates to muddy the waters by lumping (already legalised) medicinal cannabis into the referendum debate, middle New Zealand will send this referendum to the knackers’ yard.

In a nation racked with a mental health crisis (much of which is drug-induced), legalisation of grow-your-own and the proliferation of 400 licensed dope shops will simply lead to a greater prevalence of drugs for supply and a greater prevalence of kids taking them.

We have enough societal ills without blithely adding fuel to that fire, nor society surrendering to recreational cannabis by legitimising its sale and use for a cheap and nasty tax grab.

The prime minister’s refusal to come clean on how she voted on the cannabis referendum, despite passionately supporting the enabling legislation, speaks volumes. She knows this referendum is going down, powered by the backlash from middle New Zealand, and she doesn’t want her brand sullied in the process.
READ MORE: https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/123060796/referendum-outcomes-look-done-and-dusted?cid=app-iPhone

Keep up with family issues in NZ.
Receive our weekly emails direct to your Inbox.

NewsHub 13 October 2020
Family First Comment: Well said Dr Daly 👏👏
Papakura GP Dr Mary Daly says there is no evidence legalising cannabis will reduce the serious harms associated with it. “The proponents of legislation say we can reduce these harms by legalising… well that is absolutely not borne out by the evidence. Cannabis is a harmful substance. It’s associated with a lot of serious harms – psychosis, mental health issues, depression, suicide, prenatal problems, fertility issues.”

Two Kiwi doctors have revealed their opposing thoughts over the referendum on the legalisation of cannabis in this year’s general election.

Wellington GP Dr Nina Sawicki says she hopes the legalisation of cannabis will provide more safety around the existing use.

“The whole purpose of voting yes is to try to provide more safety and quality around the existing use that we have in New Zealand,” she told The Project on Monday.

But Papakura GP Dr Mary Daly says there is no evidence legalising cannabis will reduce the serious harms associated with it.

“The proponents of legislation say we can reduce these harms by legalising… well that is absolutely not borne out by the evidence,” she told The Project.

“Cannabis is a harmful substance. It’s associated with a lot of serious harms – psychosis, mental health issues, depression, suicide, prenatal problems, fertility issues.”
READ MORE: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/10/nz-election-2020-kiwi-doctors-on-opposite-sides-of-cannabis-legalisation-referendum-share-views.html

NZ Herald 12 October 2020
Our additional comment: “The message that seems to have got lost in the furious “evil” or “harmless fun” rhetoric of opposing sides is that what’s proposed would be the most grudging of liberalisations. The proposed law is framed in such a way that, if enacted, it could cause almost as much aggravation to those who support legalised cannabis as those who oppose it… A further caveat on voters’ decision is that the legislation could change. This Parliament cannot bind the next with what is still just a draft bill. In contrast, the legislation that would give effect to voluntary euthanasia if the vote there is “yes” has been passed… [T]hose wanting to develop the new commercial industry could be expected to lobby hard to soften some of the proposed restrictions to give them a better chance of viability.

Anyone who approaches the referendum on the legalisation of cannabis in the binary spirit of Roundheads versus Cavaliers is in for a few surprises.

The message that seems to have got lost in the furious “evil” or “harmless fun” rhetoric of opposing sides is that what’s proposed would be the most grudging of liberalisations. The proposed law is framed in such a way that, if enacted, it could cause almost as much aggravation to those who support legalised cannabis as those who oppose it.

Look past the exuberant Rasta colours of its supporters and it’s clear the legislation is predicated on the basis that cannabis use is not good for us. For a not insignificant proportion of users, the evidence shows it’s catastrophically, life-blightingly bad.

The proposed legal framework will enable people to use the drug more freely, but its overarching purpose is to discourage its use. It treats cannabis not as a harmless pleasure, but as a medical threat deserving of intervention.

Those hailing an economic bonanza may be right – but the law would make new cannabis entrepreneurs behave in ways that will be antithetical to their commercial interests. They won’t be allowed to advertise or sell online. As for finding ways to pitch to new demographic segments or grow the market – that’s not the success this legislation is designed to achieve. Again, the purpose is to discourage and reduce use of the drug, not to foster it and not to make it socially acceptable.
READ MORE: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/election-2020-cannabis-referendum-smoke-signals-why-supporters-should-be-careful-what-they-vote-for/CC2ULQ2WD7O6KQDHLPJ6CLESNM/

Stuff co.nz 12 October 2020
Our additional comment: “There appears to be a rather naive expectation that the current industry will just ‘go away’ if the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill passes into law. The legal industry will have structurally lower costs, and should be able to undercut the high prices that are required to sustain the illegal network as a viable business… It can be argued that the impact of the proposed legislation on business behaviour will lead to considerably increased consumption of both cannabis and other illegal drugs, plus a significant increase in enforcement expense. Given this, I personally won’t be voting for it.”

OPINION: Most of the commentary about the cannabis legalisation referendum has come from a social and public health point of view. However, as the proposed legislation aims to legalise pretty much everything about the cannabis business except the commercial marketing of it, a commentary on its likely outcomes based on a commercial and marketing perspective is timely.

When the proposed legislation is looked at through the lens of a business analyst, there is considerable scope for concern about what the consequences of its introduction would be for the public good.

These concerns can be broadly separated into two groups, those that stem from the behaviour of the industry’s current extra-legal incumbents, and those that stem from the behaviour of new entrants into a legalised industry.

There appears to be a rather naive expectation that the current industry will just ‘go away’ if the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill passes into law. Marketing theory does indicate that the illegal cannabis industry itself may well do this over a period of time, as the distribution of illegal goods requires a pyramidal sales network based on a large number of individuals that is both very labour intensive, and usually well remunerated due to the personal risks involved.

The legal industry will have structurally lower costs, and should be able to undercut the high prices that are required to sustain the illegal network as a viable business.

However, marketing theory has another powerful concept known as ‘core competency‘. This means that you should focus on doing what you are naturally good at.

The current illegal industry employs thousands of people, and presumably pays quite well to those who are good at it. These people will not go away, but they would have to move on in some way.
Robert Hamlin is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Marketing, University of Otago
READ MORE: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cannabis-referendum/123057085/cannabis-referendum-why-the-proposed-legislation-is-likely-to-cost-taxpayers-a-fortune