New Zealand Doctor 18 May 2020
Family First Comment: More health harms from the drug
“The potential for adverse effects on respiratory health from smoking cannabis has had much less attention than the social and mental health effects. We believe policies around the liberalisation of cannabis should consider the potential impacts on the lungs… there is sufficient evidence that cannabis causes respiratory symptoms and has the potential to damage both the airways and the lungs… Many people smoke both cannabis and tobacco and are likely to get the worst of both substances.”

Cannabis is harmful to the lungs, but in a different way to tobacco, causing significant respiratory symptoms such as bronchitis with evidence to suggest it can result in destructive lung disease –sometimes referred to as ‘bong lung’ – in heavy cannabis users.

These are the key findings from a review of research on the effects of smoking cannabis on the lungs undertaken by respiratory specialists, Professor Bob Hancox, from the University of Otago’s Department of Preventive and Social Medicine and Dr Kathryn Gracie, from Waikato Hospital’s Respiratory Department.

Cannabis is the second-most commonly smoked substance after tobacco and the most widely-used illicit drug world-wide. Although cannabis remains illegal in most countries, many countries – like New Zealand – are considering decriminalising or legalising its use.

Professor Hancox explains that much of the debate about legalising cannabis appears to revolve around the social and mental health effects. Both he and Dr Gracie believe policies around the liberalisation of cannabis should consider the wider health effects of smoking cannabis.

“The potential for adverse effects on respiratory health from smoking cannabis has had much less attention than the social and mental health effects,” Professor Hancox says.
READ MORE: https://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/article/undoctored/smoking-cannabis-causes-bronchitis-and-changes-lung-function

Coquitlam actor Logan Williams, star of TV’s The Flash, died of fentanyl overdose
Vancouver Sun 17 May 2020
Family First Comment: A tragedy.
“Williams was best known for playing young Barry Allen on the DC superhero series The Flash…. just one week shy of his 17th birthday. Marlyse Williams told the Post that her son started smoking marijuana at 13 and then moved on to harder drugs.”
How many tragedies before we realise that DrugFree is the only option.

The mother of Logan Williams says drugs claimed the life of the teen actor last month.

The Coquitlam native, whose TV credits included roles on Supernatural and When Calls the Heart, died on April 2, just one week shy of his 17th birthday.

In an interview with New York Post, Marlyse Williams said preliminary toxicology results indicate that Logan died of a fentanyl overdose, following a three-year struggle with addiction.

“His death is not going to be in vain,” Marlyse Williams told the Post. “He’s going to help a lot of people down the road.”

Williams was best known for playing young Barry Allen on the DC superhero series The Flash.
READ MORE: https://vancouversun.com/news/coquitlam-actor-logan-williams-star-of-tvs-the-flash-died-of-fentanyl-overdose/

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

James Farmer QC, LL.M (Hons) Auckland, Ph. D Cambridge
Also published in LawNews Issue 14, 14 May 2020
Family First Comment: Excellent commentary and analysis from a Lawyer (published in the latest LawNews of the Auckland District Law Society) who has examined the proposed cannabis legislation in detail – and highlights “the inherent contradictions of the bill and its failure to achieve its stated goal of reducing harm from cannabis use by allowing adults to cultivate and use cannabis without legal sanction”. James Farmer QC concludes:
“No doubt the middle classes who fashionably use cannabis for their recreation will happily bear the extra costs of, and enjoy the greater access, to their habit and also be relieved that their reputations are no longer at risk from prosecution.  The harm that is being done with the growth of the cannabis, meth and heroin markets elsewhere is to them someone else’s problem.”
Read this excellent article.  

• What does the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill (to be voted for or against in the Referendum) provide?
  My previous paper on cannabis legalisation http://www.jamesfarmerqc.co.nz/legal-commentary/the-forthcoming-referendum-on-the-growing-and-supply-of-cannabis-for-personal-recreational-use
• The inherent contradictions of the Bill and its failure to achieve its stated goal of reducing harm from cannabis use by allowing adults to cultivate and use cannabis without legal sanction

This Bill does not absolutely legalise cannabis.  It does so only in the limited sense that it allows adults to cultivate limited amounts of cannabis for their own use under strict conditions including limiting consumption to their own homes and to special cannabis cafes.  It also permits and regulates cannabis production, wholesale distribution and licensed specialist cannabis retail outlets.  Further, it controls price, quantity sold and potency and imposes excise tax and a levy intended to fund services “that will assist in reducing the harm caused by cannabis use”.   In short, the more cannabis that is sold and used, the more money that will be raised to apply in measures to reduce the harm that is being caused.

There is a very long list of offences, which can lead to prosecution and conviction with a fine or in some cases imprisonment, in the Bill.  These include: home-growing more than permitted (fine or imprisonment if more than 10 plants: cl. 24), possessing more than 14 grams in a public place or in a vehicle (cl.29), supplying or purchasing more than 14 grams per day (cls.31, 36), possessing cannabis under the age of 20 (cl. 32), supplying or offering to supply a person under the age of 20 (cl. 35), selling to a person under the age of 20 (fine or imprisonment: cl. 38), consuming cannabis in a public place or in a vehicle (cl. 37), selling cannabis without a license (fine or imprisonment: cl. 39), supplying by mail or courier (cl. 40), importing or exporting (fine or imprisonment: cl. 41), exposing a person under 20 to cannabis emissions or vaping (cl. 43).

One very serious anomaly is that this Bill, if enacted, will emasculate the very beneficial provision that was enacted in August last year referred to above, namely section 7(5)(6) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. That provision applies to all drug offences, affirms prosecutorial discretion and directs that a prosecution should not be brought for possession or use unless it is in the public interest to do so.  In that respect, consideration must be given “to whether a health-centred or therapeutic approach would be more beneficial to the public interest”.  Clearly, given the option of prosecution or voluntary submission to counselling, medical or other therapeutic assistance, most if not all offenders who are apprehended will take the latter.  That is what is envisaged also in the Bill in the case of youth offenders who are subject to an infringement fee or fine but will be waived if the offender engages with a support service.

Under the Bill, however, it will no longer be an offence for an adult to possess or use cannabis (within the allowable limits) and so there will be no ability to incentivise a user to seek health or therapeutic assistance to deal with what may well be harmful effects from regular cannabis use or addiction.  In its campaign for the Bill to be supported at the referendum, the Green Party seems to have overlooked the fact that, if passed, the Bill will be destroying the benefit that section 7(5)(6) of the 2019 amendment achieved when it was enacted last year, an enactment which its spokesperson described at the time as “a triumph for compassion and a triumph for common sense”.

So will this Bill, if it passes the referendum hurdle and is enacted, achieve its other main objective claimed by its supporters – the elimination of the Black Market and, with it, a safer drug for those desperate for that form of recreation?   I refer above to the American experience which has been that the drug lords have simply switched cultivation and supply to a more potent and cheaper drug that undercuts the price of regulated and lawful marijuana with the result of a substantial increase in deaths from drug use.  In New Zealand, it will not be difficult for meth manufacturers and sellers to do the same.  Cannabis will be subject to regulatory costs, to excise tax, to the levy and then income tax that licensed growers, distributors and retailers are not able to avoid.  The meth and heroin markets do not have regulatory, excise or other tax costs.  Nor do illegal cannabis suppliers who will have little difficulty in undercutting the regulated product and increasing its THC potency beyond the regulated limit for those who want a bigger kick.

That has been the Canadian experience to date. Those who cite Canada as a success reform story should read the following recent account of the Canadian experience from The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/05/stoners-cheered-when-canada-legalised-cannabis-how-did-it-all-go-wrong

The journalist who researched and wrote this piece said: “… all drug [reform] laws are unworkable, illogical, unjustifiable, unscientific, counterproductive and generate unintended consequences – in fact, drug laws often create the exact opposite outcome to those desired.”

There is another perspective of the relationship between legally and regulated produced and sold cannabis and black market cannabis which, once stated, is obvious.  The point was made by Patrick Cockburn, who refers to the body of scientific research that establishes a firm link between cannabis use and the onset of schizophrenia (as to which see also the Judgment of Jagose J in The Queen v. Brackenridge [2019] NZHC 1004), and then says (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/cannabis-legalisation-psychosis-billy-caldwell-william-hague-schizophrenia-a8410581.html):

“…legal restrictions alone will not stop … people who take cannabis from going on doing so.  But the legalisation of cannabis legitimises it and says a message that the government views it as relatively harmless.”

And on the subject of the legislating to eliminate the black market, he says:

“The legalisation of cannabis might take its production and sale out of the hands of criminal gangs – [as stated above, I would suggest not entirely] – but it would be put into the hands of commercial companies who want to make a profit … and increase the number of their customers.  Commercialisation of cannabis has as many dangers as criminalisation.”

Drs Robin Murray and Wayne Hall have recently researched the increase in the use of cannabis in those States in America that have legalised cannabis and found that the risk of dependence among those who use cannabis was estimated at 9% in the 1990s but is now closer to 30% with attendant increases in such harmful effects as cognitive impairment and effects on the unborn child by women who use it to combat nausea.  They also refer to some evidence of increased risks of depression and suicide but then say that “by far the strongest evidence concerns psychosis [including] an increased risk of later schizophrenia-like psychosis”: Will Legalization and Commercialization of Cannabis Use Increase the Incidence and Prevalence of Psychosis, (American Medical Association, JAMA Psychiatry, 8 April 2020).

No doubt the middle classes who fashionably use cannabis for their recreation will happily bear the extra costs of, and enjoy the greater access, to their habit and also be relieved that their reputations are no longer at risk from prosecution.  The harm that is being done with the growth of the cannabis, meth and heroin markets elsewhere is to them someone else’s problem.

James Farmer QC
READ MORE: http://www.jamesfarmerqc.co.nz/legal-commentary/will-the-proposed-cannabis-legislation-achieve-its-overarching-objective-of-reducing-the-harms-assoc

Stuff co.nz 17 May 2020
Family First Comment: “Indications are it is highly likely he will have significant brain damage with associated effects on his sight, hearing and physical development,” court documents state. “Smoking cannabis was a regular factor in Jacob losing control and letting anger and frustration take over, according to the pre-sentence report“
Why would we legalise and normalise drugs?
#saynopetodope #VoteNO

Frustrated his seven-week-old twin baby would not take a bottle, Jorhde Alex Te-Pere Jacob repeatedly rammed it into the infant’s mouth.

He then gripped the baby’s face tightly, attempting to burp him. His actions left the baby with bleeding on the brain and paediatricians say the baby’s long term injuries may not be known for years.

Jacob, 23, was sentenced to three years in jail after pleading guilty to one count of causing grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard and a second of wounding with reckless disregard.

According to the summary of facts, obtained from the court, the baby’s injuries were sustained at the Hamilton home Jacobs shared with his now former partner, and their twin sons, on June 13, 2019.

Jacob had been working night shift, and later admitted to being under the influence of cannabis, when the abuse occurred during a 10am feeding session in which he became increasingly frustrated at the baby’s lack of interest in taking the bottle.

Smoking cannabis was a regular factor in Jacob losing control and letting anger and frustration take over, according to the pre-sentence report.
READ MORE: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/120345591/father-jailed-after-ramming-bottle-into-babys-mouth-causing-head-injuries

NewsHub 10 May 2020
Family First Comment: McCroskie (sic) believes CBD medicine could be an “exciting” alternative. “I think there is promise cannabidiol medicine can be an alternative to opioids that aren’t beneficial. That doesn’t mean you need to legalise it (for recreational use),” he told Newshub.

Drug Foundation executive director Ross Bell believes the legalisation of recreational cannabis would benefit patients who need cannabis for medical reasons.

“Let’s say the medical cannabis scheme is too strict, there are fewer products and the products that are available are very pricey – then the referendum becomes important.”

New Zealand’s medical cannabis scheme, which aims to give patients better access to medicines came into effect in April. The scheme allows GPs to prescribe CBD, as well as New Zealand-based growing.

However, Bell is still concerned about cost.

“A major barrier is still in place, being the cost of medicines, which face major hurdles in obtaining Pharmac or other price subsidies,” he wrote on the Drug Foundation’s website.

“We know that when patients are not able to obtain medicines from the formal scheme they will buy from the informal, illicit market, and face the risk of criminalisation.”

Although in favour of the referendum, Bell has voiced his concern about the set potency limit of 15 percent. He has suggested the Government lower the limit to 6 or 7 percent.

Family First national director Bob McCroskie is strongly against legalising cannabis for recreational use, as he believes it is harmful to the brain.

“This is not a ‘war on drugs’ – it is a defence of our brains. It is a fight for health and safety,” he wrote on his organisation’s website.

Family First is behind the ‘Say No to Dope‘ campaign, which aims to encourage families to vote ‘no’ in the upcoming referendum.

However, McCroskie believes CBD medicine could be an “exciting” alternative.

“I think there is promise cannabidiol medicine can be an alternative to opioids that aren’t beneficial. That doesn’t mean you need to legalise it,” he told Newshub.

Bell says those critical about legalising cannabis need to understand the current approach is harmful.

“People are getting criminal records, a lot of money gets wasted on law enforcement, police should spend their time doing other things,” he says.

“We don’t fix these issues by keeping cannabis illegal.”
READ MORE: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/05/cannabis-referendum-explained-what-kiwis-will-vote-for-or-against.html

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

NZ Herald 8 May 2020
Family First Comment: Sadly, these tragedies will increase if we legalise cannabis. Just look overseas…
“Kinita’s vehicle was seen swerving within the lane shortly before the crash. Witnesses said she made no attempt to brake before colliding with him, flinging him into the air. She had smoked both cannabis and methamphetamine the day before.”
Read more – saynopetodope.org.nz/driving-stoned/

A drugged driver who killed a cyclist nine years after her own son was killed by a drunk driver has been sent to prison.

Cathryn Kinita appeared in the Palmerston North District Court this afternoon, having earlier pleaded guilty to causing Levin man Peter Jenkins’ death by driving under the influence of drugs.

She has also admitted possessing cannabis, methamphetamine and drug utensils.

Jenkins, 54, was out for a regular Sunday training ride when he was hit by a van being driven by Kinita on State Highway 1 at Manakau, north of Otaki, in November.

Jenkins’ father John told the Herald his son has been riding a bike for as long as he could remember and he’d grown up to love cycling with an insatiable passion.
READ MORE: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12330527

University of Canterbury 6 May 2020
Family First Comment: New Zealand 🇳🇿 based research…

“there is already strong evidence that chronic, heavy use of cannabis can increase the risk of mental health issues such as depression and schizophrenia. It is also associated with heart disease. This study shows how cannabis use is linked to changes in gene pathways that may explain the link between heavy cannabis use and those adverse health outcomes.”

Heavy cannabis use has an impact on human DNA but the effect is stronger in people who smoke tobacco as well, according to new University of Canterbury (UC) research.

The study, recently published in Translational Psychiatry, investigates how heavy cannabis use can lead to alterations in “DNA methylation” – chemical changes in the body that influence how our genes work.

UC College of Science lecturer Dr Amy Osborne, lead author of the UC study, in collaboration with colleagues from the University of Otago Christchurch, University of Otago, and ESR, says there is already strong evidence that chronic, heavy use of cannabis can increase the risk of mental health issues such as depression and schizophrenia. It is also associated with heart disease.

“This study shows how cannabis use is linked to changes in gene pathways that may explain the link between heavy cannabis use and those adverse health outcomes,” she says. “However, in terms of the effect on the genome and DNA methylation, cannabis appears to have a distinct and somewhat more subtle effect than tobacco. It’s not altering gene pathways to the same extent, but it does affect them in very specific ways.”

The 48 subjects in the new research – all heavy cannabis users – were members of the Christchurch Health and Development longitudinal study. Blood samples were taken when they were aged 28 and analysed for DNA methylation differences between cannabis users and non-users.

The biggest changes were in those who smoked tobacco as well as cannabis, but there was also evidence of distinct and specific DNA alterations in those who smoked only cannabis, compared to non-users.

The most affected genes were identified as those involved in brain and heart function.
READ MORE: https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/news/2020/new-uc-study-finds-heavy-cannabis-use-affects-human-genome.html

Stuff.co.nz – Lynne Bower and Deborah Stevens 6 May 2020
Family First Comment: Boom! Superb commentary – which asks the right questions:
“Setting aside the obvious question of why are we legalising and making readily available a product that is associated with a number of “harms to individuals, families/whānau and communities”, we need to carefully consider whether legalisation will enable any of the bold claims that are made in regards to promoting the wellbeing of New Zealanders. Firstly, legalisation is not necessary for “raising awareness of the health risks associated with cannabis use” — we can do this without legalisation. Further, there is nothing in the bill that says how “access to health and social services, and other kinds of support for families/whānau” will be improved. Further still, we need only look to other jurisdictions that have legalised cannabis for recreational use to see that eliminating the illegal supply of cannabis, restricting young people’s access to cannabis, and making sure the response to any breach of the law is fair, are unlikely to happen.
#saynopetodope

Setting aside the obvious question of why are we legalising and making readily available a product that is associated with a number of “harms to individuals, families/whānau and communities”, we need to carefully consider whether legalisation will enable any of the bold claims that are made in regards to promoting the wellbeing of New Zealanders.

Firstly, legalisation is not necessary for “raising awareness of the health risks associated with cannabis use” — we can do this without legalisation.

Further, there is nothing in the bill that says how “access to health and social services, and other kinds of support for families/whānau” will be improved.

Further still, we need only look to other jurisdictions that have legalised cannabis for recreational use to see that eliminating the illegal supply of cannabis, restricting young people’s access to cannabis, and making sure the response to any breach of the law is fair, are unlikely to happen.

Evidence does not support the argument that the black market and its associated gang involvement will disappear with the legalisation of cannabis. In Canada and California, government-authorised sellers are unable to keep up with the newly created cannabis demand, and government prices are higher than those of the black market. The range of cannabis products available is also greater on the black market. Hence, the black market continues to find support and thrives.

Although the bill sets the legal age of cannabis use at 20 years, this will not guarantee the safety of younger people. Research has found a significant increase in adolescent cannabis-associated emergency department and urgent care visits following legalisation, with greater numbers of young people requiring treatment for acute medical or psychiatric symptoms following cannabis use.

Research from jurisdictions in the USA that have legalised recreational cannabis use also shows that responses to breaches of the law in regard to cannabis are not applied fairly. Minority groups and indigenous people remain disproportionately represented in cannabis-related arrests, contrary to what legalisation proponents suggest.

Alcohol and tobacco companies have invested heavily in the newly created cannabis industry overseas. Cannabis is set to be the next addiction-for-profit industry. Given the way in which corporations are already organising themselves for legal recreational cannabis use, we need to ask ourselves: “Who will really benefit from such legalisation?”

If we recognise that there are harms associated with cannabis — as we do — then legalisation is not the way to address those harms.  A better way forward may be to take the time to explore and publicly discuss the decriminalisation of cannabis, as opposed to its legalisation.

Decriminalisation would facilitate the separation of cannabis use from issues of social justice and health, and provide space in which the work of focusing on the wellbeing of New Zealanders can be better addressed. It will be wiser to vote “no” to the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill, and instead push for public discussion on the decriminalisation of cannabis.

— Dr Lynne Bowyer and Dr Deborah Stevens are co-directors of The New Zealand Centre for Science and Citizenship Trust.
READ MORE: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300005217/better-to-decriminalise-cannabis-rather-than-legalise-it–bill-opponents

The proposed law if NZ votes to legalise recreational cannabis use says:

ANY PERSON WILL BE ALLOWED TO GROW TWO PLANTS FOR PERSONAL USE, TO A LIMIT OF FOUR PER HOUSEHOLD

So how many joints could be produced from home?

ANSWER:
Obviously these numbers are very general because grow techniques vary, but conservatively one marijuana plant in a hydroponic indoor set-up could produce a harvest about every 110 days and from that harvest the grower would get between 198 grams and 311 grams of buds (Median 254.5grams) and also about 198 grams to 311 grams of leaf (Median 254.5grams).  In NZ the buds are desired for smoking because they have the highest amount of THC and the leaf is also smoked.  However now in the U.S with legal states whether medicinal or recreational Leaf is now most commonly used by individuals to make concentrated THC by way of Butane Hash Oil (extremely high potency THC), which is also on a side note causing a lot of explosions and fires in the U.S.

Therefore annually one plant could be producing a median of 1,527 grams smokable product per annum.

We estimate that the mean weight of marijuana in a joint is 0.32 g (95% Bayesian posterior interval: 0.30–0.35).

So even if you were generous and said that .5 grams per joint then essentially one plant would yield as a Median 3,054 smoking joints per annum equivalent to 8.36 joints per day.

 NZ legislation is proposing up to 4 plants can be home-grown

4 plants the median would be 12,216 smoking joints per year – equivalent to 33.46 joints per day over the year of the psychoactive substance THC.

And they call it “control”. Go figure!