|
PRESS RELEASE - 27th JANUARY, 2004
 Edition
28.
Cannabis News Items From Around the World
Venezuela Decriminalizes Drug Possession
http://www.bigleftoutside.com/archives/000313.php
January 15, 2004
Venezuela Decriminalizes Drug Possession
Today's neo-libertarians, if they truly believe what they claim
to believe about freedom, really need to take a second look at
Venezuela and it's president Hugo Chávez.
The democratically-elected government of Venezuela has survived
attempted coups - military, economic, and mediatic - and keeps
moving forward with the most sweeping reforms and advances in
democracy and human rights in the hemisphere today.
The latest: a reform of the penal code that, while increasing
penalties for drug traffickers like every other country, has just
decriminalized possession. According to the oligarch's daily El
Universal, which leads its report in a panic over the reform's
simultaneous legalization of abortion and euthanasia, here's what
the new law does for drug users:
"As personal dose for consumption, the (allowable) quantity
of the drug substance is extended to that which is necessary for
average individual consumption for no more than five days; and
as a provisional dose, the quantity of the substance that is employed
for average individual consumption (according to forensics experts)
for no more than ten days."
In sum, the drug addict or user no longer faces prison or penalty
in Venezuela if he possesses small amounts of his drug of choice
(specifically mentioned by the law are marijuana, hashish, cocaine
and its derivatives, opium and its derivatives, and synthetic
drugs).
This is truly revolutionary. How and why did it happen? This giant
step for drug policy reform and human freedom in this hemisphere
happened because Venezuelan democracy was defended and US-backed
coups were defeated. This
historic development is a discrediting knockout blow to all the
hysterical accusers who claimed that the government of Hugo would
somehow become "authoritarian" simply because he and
the Venezuelan majority don't agree that "the market"
should govern their land.
The vestiges of McCarthyism or "Fear of a Red Planet"
appeared in recent years even from some quarters that claim they
want to liberalize drug laws.
Our own newspaper, Narco News, took heat and sustained hard hits
over the past two years in particular for our strong defense of
Venezuelan democracy. "But that has nothing to do with drug
policy," the fearful voices accused.
Today, you can see the whole truth, kind reader. Fear no more.
In January 2004, Venezuela decriminalized the drug user and the
small doses he possesses. And if the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
sustains the inevitable backlash from Washington that will now
come for daring to exercise its democratic will to increase human
freedom, you will soon see other Latin American nations follow
suit. Ecuador had already done it quietly (reported only by Narco
News), but Venezuela's action, because of the size and influence
of the country and its economy, and the context of its role in
the current American drama, now provides cover for Brazil, Argentina,
and the rest of the continent to do the same.
To those of you who wisely understood this connection between
defending democracy in Latin America and reforming the insane
war on drugs, and who raised your voices across the world to
prevent the coups d'etat, this is your victory, too. Congratulations,
remain vigilant, apply for your copublisher account to amplify
your voice across the continents, and
onward...
Update: This story is already having an impact in Brazil, a country
where the Health Ministry, the Attorney General, the top Public
Safety Secretary, and the President, Lula da Silva, all want to
decriminalize drug users, too.
Coroner claims Welshman died of "Cannabis Toxicity"
Death, Madness, Mayhem! Brit Tabloids in Fits Over
Pot
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/321/fits.shtml
A full-blown outbreak of Reefer Madness has occurred in Great
Britain in the last couple of weeks as segments of British society
react hysterically to impending changes in that country's cannabis
laws. Under an already-approved reclassification scheme
that will go into effect January 29th, cannabis will be downgraded
from a Class B to a Class C drug. Changes in daily practice
are expected to be minimal, with the primary difference being
that police will generally no longer make arrests for simple cannabis
possession.
They will instead issue tickets. In some aggravated cases
-- public disorder, smoking near schools or around kids, repeat
offenders -- police will make arrests.
But to read the British tabloid press and the pronouncements of
some "experts," one would be forgiven for mistakenly believing
that the British government was about to embark on a program of
mandatory daily cannabis injections for all citizens and the fate
of civilization rested in the balance. In the past few days,
the tabloids have been full of half-baked reports linking cannabis
to
madness and mayhem:
"Hedge-Feud Coroner Warns About Dangers of Cannabis" (Daily
Telegraph, January 16). The warning came in the
case of a pot- smoking man who killed his neighbor after a simmering,
years-long feud boiled over. Coroner Roger Atkinson called
it "undoubtedly the worst case I've come across of somebody under
the influence of cannabis." He added: "I have stressed that
cannabis is not a harmless drug, and this demonstrates, if nothing
else, how devastating its effects can be."
"Hedge Fracas Death Fuelled by Cannabis" (The Independent,
January
16). Same incident, additional quote. Detective
Inspector Peter Bray of Lincolnshire Police told reporters outside
the court: "It does nobody any good to use cannabis and can lead
to these sorts
of things." The Independent article, however, contained
critical information not apparent from the headline: The
shooter was drunk!
"Why I Ditched My Liberal Views on Dope" (The Observer,
January 18).
Here essayist Sue Arnold, who credits cannabis with saving her
eyesight, explains that she changed her view after her college-age
son "had what psychiatrists call 'a psychotic episode,' triggered
by cannabis." Arnold is unclear about whether the diagnosis
was made by a Cuban psychiatrist (her son was in Cuba) or from
afar. "To cut a long, long story short, my son came
home heavily sedated, spent six months in hospital in an intermediate
care unit (ICU). He was prescribed different drugs and,
after a series of events which are too difficult and painful
to describe, has just resumed his final year at university.
He's still on medication and will probably have to take it for
ever. It goes without saying that if he ever smokes another
spliff he will have a relapse."
"Ban Tobacco, Legalize Cannabis -- Are We Barmy?"
(Daily Telegraph, January 19). Here the essayist, WF
Deeves, explores the contradictions between the two policies,
and even concedes that limited marijuana use isn't so bad.
"In the days when I knew something about dangerous drugs, sat
on government committees dealing with them and talked to schools
about them, I learnt a bit about cannabis. In truth the
occasional spliff does most people no more harm than the occasional
cigarette or cigar." But then he goes on to note that cannabis
is stronger now and reports ill- effects, the most serious of
which he mentions is that "some of the girls we interviewed mentioned
that relations with the boyfriend had become eerily estranged
since he took it up." Eerie or barmy? You decide.
"Cannabis Law is 'Threat to Health'" (Peterborough Evening
Telegraph, January 20).
Cannabis reclassification is a "mental health time bomb" waiting
to go off, warned Verina McEwen, the Peterborough Drug Action
Team coordinator, adding that pot-smoking was a factor in 80%
of inner-city mental health cases. "My fear is young people
will be confused about the health risks," she said. "We
know cannabis can be linked to confusion, both short- term and
long-term, depression, and trigger more serious problems, such
as paranoia."
"Doctors Support Drive Against Cannabis" (Times of London,
January 20).
The Times is no tabloid, but here the British medical establishment
contributes to the climate of fear. Dr. Peter Maguire, deputy
chairman of the British Medical Association's board of science,
said: "The public must be made aware of the harmful effects that
we know result from smoking this drug. The BMA is extremely
concerned that the public might think that reclassification equals
'safe.' It does not. We are very worried about the
negative health effects of smoking cannabis and want the Government
to fund more research on this issue."
But none of those stories, as frighteningly dramatic as they are
designed to be, can hold a candle to one that hit the British
press on Sunday. In a shocking coincidence, just days before
cannabis reclassification is scheduled to go into effect in Britain,
the first purported cannabis overdose fatality was reported --
in Britain, no less! "Man Killed By 23,000 Spliffs!"
roared the Daily Record. "Cannabis Blamed as Cause of Man's
Death," chimed in the Daily Telegraph. A real shocker, if
true.
The story, however, appears to be a combination of a coroner's
stab in the dark and the tabloids' insatiable appetite for titillation.
Lee John Maisey, 36, died in August of unknown causes. Those
causes are still unknown, despite the coroner's verdict that "cause
of death was probable cannabis toxicity."
That verdict appears to be based solely on the fact that he had
cannabinoids in his system and the coroner could find no other
cause.
According to the Pembrokeshire Coroner's Office: "An inquest was
held on 18th December 2003 into the death of Lee John Maisey,
who had died on 24th August 2003. A full autopsy had been
carried out which had failed to reveal a cause of death.
A histological examination also failed to establish a cause of
death and, in consequence, a toxicological examination on blood
samples obtained was carried out by Forensic Alliance. The
samples showed a high concentration of Carboxy-THC, consistent
with heavy cannabis usage. There were also traces of cannabidiol,
indicating that cannabis and/or cannabis resin was used within
a few hours of death. In the view of the pathologist, and
in the absence of any other significant abnormality in spite of
exhaustive
investigation, it was likely that death occurred as a manifestation
of cannabis toxicity. The coroner recorded a verdict of
death by misadventure and that the cause of death was probable
cannabis toxicity."
"They've proven nothing. We're still at zero fatalities,"
said a leading marijuana researcher who asked to remain unidentified
for employment reasons. "They have no more proved he died
from
cannabis toxicity than he died from Mad Cow Disease from drinking
orange juice," he said. "If you read carefully, you see
it wasn't even a firm diagnosis. This does not constitute
proof, either
medical or legal." When asked for an alternative explanation,
he pointed to heart disease. "Most often, when someone of
that age dies suddenly, it is from cardiac arrhythmia," he speculated.
"This is ridiculous."
Of course, such considerations did not stop a steady stream of
British "drug experts" from confirming the fatal danger of cannabis.
Nor did it stop the Daily Telegraph from printing those
ill-informed pronouncements. "This type of death is extremely
rare," said Prof. John Henry, a toxicologist at Imperial College,
London. "I have not seen anything like this before.
It corrects
the argument that cannabis cannot kill anybody."
Dr Philip Guy, a lecturer in addictions at the University of Hull,
said: "Cannabis is not the nice hippy drug it used to be.
It has been experimented with to produce stronger varieties."
Guy
guessed that Maisey had eaten himself to death on pot brownies.
"I would not be surprised if in this case the deceased had ingested
a fatal amount of cannabis."
And Tory shadow home secretary David Davis was all aflutter, using
the alleged news to jab at the Labor government. "This highlights
what we have been saying about the effects of cannabis all along.
When will people wake up to the fact that cannabis can be a harmful
drug? By reclassifying the drug David Blunkett has shown
he has lost the war on drugs. In my eyes, it's nothing more
than an admission of failure."
So did Tristan Millington-Drake, the chief executive of the Chemical
Dependency Centre. "We have always taken the view that cannabis
is an addictive drug, unlike the pedlars who try to
persuade us that it is harmless," he said. "The government's
decision to reclassify cannabis is a mistake."
"All this was to be expected, the backlash is always waiting to
pounce," said Danny Kushlick of the Transform Drug Policy Institute
(http://www.tdpf.org.uk). As for the amazing
coincidence related to the alleged cannabis fatality, Kushlick
pronounced himself boggled. "That's quite something, isn't
it?" he laughed wearily. "They've done the same thing with
this mental
health stuff. They find some sort of correlation, but the
causality gets very spurious when you look at it closely, and
the correlation turns out to be extremely tiny."
"We are witnessing the dying gasp of prohibition there" said the
anonymous marijuana expert. "Now we see a whole spate of
articles about schizophrenia. That argument has been around
forever; it's been studied for 115 years, ever since the Indian
Hemp Commission in 1894, and the answer is always the same.
The fact is, yeah, some people smoke and seem to go nuts for awhile,
but it is self- limiting, and there is no evidence whatsoever
that you can create schizophrenia with cannabis. People
who are susceptible to schizophrenia could have problems, but
at the same time, there are many schizophrenics who find it helps
their symptomology."
And all of this over a simple rescheduling of cannabis.
"The change is really minimal," said Kushlick. "For the
police, they have to rely on their arrest guidelines, not the
reclassification, to get that presumption against arrest.
Ultimately, this should lead to fewer arrests for possession.
The fact is, for the amount of furor around this, the government
could have made a much bolder move."
To read the coroner's report in the "marijuana overdose death,"
visit http://www.pembrokeshirecoroner.org/coroner/faq.php#1
online.
A WAR ON DRUGS OR A WAR ON HEALING?
Pubdate: Mon, 05 Jan 2004
Source: Tallahassee Democrat (FL)
Copyright: 2004 Tallahassee Democrat.
Contact: letters@tallahassee.com
Website: http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/444
Author: Philip Terzian, Providence Journal
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm
(Opinion)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/rush+limbaugh
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/oxycontin.htm
(Oxycontin/Oxycodone)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?232
(Chronic Pain)
A WAR ON DRUGS OR A WAR ON HEALING?
Everyone's had a good laugh this season at Rush Limbaugh's expense:
The news that Mr. Know-It-All Conservative was addicted to prescription
painkillers was nearly as pleasing to critics as the prospect
of his indictment for buying controlled substances. Not since
the pursuit of Linda Tripp by a zealous prosecutor in Maryland
has there been such excitement among people ordinarily skeptical
about law enforcement.
Yet Rush Limbaugh is more emblematic than people might imagine.
It is estimated that some 50 million Americans suffer chronic,
sometimes debilitating, pain of some sort, and medical progress
to treat this human torment is on a collision course with the
War on Drugs.
Physicians who prescribe painkillers, especially such effective
morphine-based nostrums as OxyContin and Lortab, to suffering
patients are now treated with suspicion by agents of the federal
Drug Enforcement Administration. Undercover "patients"
are sent to doctors' offices with fraudulent complaints, and pharmacists
are directed to report "suspicious" patterns of pain
relief. Some physicians who specialize in pain relief have been
arrested, some indicted and tried, and a few have been imprisoned.
Many have lost their licenses to practice medicine, and all have
incurred mountainous legal bills.
No doubt, there are some substandard doctors out there: They may
be addicted to narcotics themselves, or they may trade prescriptions
for cash or favors. But there is a large difference between purposefully
defying the law for profit and relieving people's chronic pain.
That the frontiers of pain relief involve opiates fraught with
emotion and history - morphine, opium, etc. - seems to have dangerously
distorted civic judgment. After a prominent Washington-area physician
was indicted for prescribing large doses of OxyContin, Attorney
General John Ashcroft spoke as if he had nabbed a Colombian drug
kingpin: The pursuit of Dr. William Hurwitz, said Ashcroft, shows
"our commitment to bring to justice all those who traffic
in this very dangerous drug."
Unfortunately, it tells us something about the national state
of mind when a singularly effective pain-relieving narcotic is
regarded as a "dangerous drug." No doubt, drugs like
OxyContin are "dangerous" in the sense that, as narcotics,
patients can become dependent on them, and they should be consumed
only under a physician's supervision. But what is it about the
effective relief of pain that transforms a lawyer-politician like
John Ashcroft into a man of science, or puts the cops-in-suits
at DEA in charge of the medical profession?
Part of the dogma, I suppose, is a vestige of the notion that
suffering is good for the soul. The United States is particularly
backward in its presumption that pain may be deserved and ought
to be endured, and that the pitfalls of relief - addiction, dependence
- are infinitely worse than the agony itself. This principle is
applied to people dying of cancer, children in torment, patients
in their 90s.
Last summer, my son had surgery in Boston, and in the immediate
aftermath of an eight-hour procedure, the machinery that injected
his narcotic inevitably malfunctioned. Needless to say, it was
the middle of the night, the "pain specialist" on call
was unable to attend, and the key required to administer the drug
(not to mention the authorized nurse) could not be found. In due
course, another nurse administered relief by injection, but not
until several hours of post-operative misery had passed - all
unnecessary, and all designed (I presume) to prevent his parents
from stealing the drug from their suffering offspring and selling
it on the Harvard campus.
The paradox here is that the science of pain relief has advanced
steadily in recent years, and people who endured years of chronic
torture are now able to control and overcome discomfort with new
drugs and new specialists devoted to pain management. At the same
time, the War on Drugs has followed the pattern of bureaucratic
growth and revised and expanded its power over citizens. Having
failed to affect the heroin trade, or reduce the demand for designer
drugs, the DEA is now battling the healing art.
Instead of finding doctors to alleviate their torment, patients
will find SWAT teams wrestling physicians to the ground. In pain?
Take two aspirin and call Dr. Ashcroft in the morning.
Philip Terzian is the associate editor of the Providence Journal.
US Feds Promoting Prohibition--in Ghana
Pubdate: Thu, 8 Jan 2004
Source: Metro (CA)
Copyright: 2004 Metro Publishing Inc.
Contact: letters@metronews.com
Website: http://www.metroactive.com/metro/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/261
Author: G. Pascal Zachary
Note: G. Pascal Zachary served in 2003 as Ghana director for Journalists
for Human Rights, a media training group based in Toronto. He
is a senior
writer with the 'Wall Street Journal' and former editor of the
'San Jose
Business Journal.' His books include 'Showstopper,' 'Endless Frontier'
and
'The Global Me: New Cosmopolitans and the Competitive Edge.'
AFRICA'S POT WAR
Feds Promoting Prohibition--in Ghana
WHAT IF a poor African country could grow a plant that would fetch
healthy prices in the U.S? What if the plant was harvested on
small farms, encouraging democracy in this poor African country
by putting cash into the hands of its poorest and most powerless
people? What if
such a crop would reduce the poor African country's dependence
on U.S. aid?
Of course, America's government would cheer such a plant and the
country that grows it. And President George Bush would be especially
happy, since improving living standards in Africa is supposed
to be one of his key global objectives.
Such a crop does exist, and an African country is growing it in
good measure. Yet President Bush isn't cheering. Worse, the Bush
administration is fighting a war against the plant and the farmers
of
the poor African country that grows it.
The country is Ghana, in West Africa, and the plant is cannabis
or "ganja," the term preferred by Ghanaians. Marijuana
grown in Ghana is of good quality, plentiful and relatively inexpensive.
Twenty neatly rolled sticks of pot, or about half an ounce, sell
for about $3 American.
That's right, good pot sells for $6 an ounce in Ghana. Here is
the highest stage of capitalism--the free market--in action.
Ghana is one of the most peaceful countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
The country rarely sees any violence (a benefit of pot-smoking?),
has a democratically elected government and boasts one of the
freest societies in Africa. Pot has been grown and smoked in the
country for decades, drawing little comment. In Accra, the coastal
capital of Ghana, people smoke discreetly, to be sure, because
the sale and possession of pot is technically illegal. But pot
is easy to purchase, arrests are rare and smoking is popular,
especially among American and European aid workers in the country.
For pot smokers, Accra is an African paradise. But like many a
paradise in Africa, Accra is threatened by a man-made disaster.
The disaster, funded by American tax dollars, is the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA).
I am no expert in the world's drug wars, or the DEA, but I spent
the better part of the past two years in Ghana and I never saw
any signs of pot ripping apart the fabric of Ghanaian life. There
are no drug lords in Accra, no gun-toting bodyguards or pot addicts
strewn across the city's derelict roads.
Just the opposite is occurring, actually. Pot is giving a people
starved for economic opportunity a chance to participate in the
global economy. Ghana is one of the losers in the world's experiment
with widening trade. Goods flood into Ghana from China, Brazil,
Mexico - - even the U.S. And not just manufactured products either.
Butter is imported from France, pasta and canned tomatoes from
Italy, rolled oats from Germany and rice from the U.S. Because
the cost of producing and shipping these foods is subsidized by
European, U.S. and Canadian governments, their cost in Ghana is
sometimes less than it is in the country of origin. And even if
it isn't, these imports ruin the lives of African food producers.
American rice, imported into Ghana, sells for substantially less
than rice grown in Ghana.
The burden of food imports would be less crushing if Ghana exported
an equal amount of goods. But the country doesn't. It hardly exports
anything. The country's two leading exports are cacao beans (the
basic ingredient in cocoa and chocolate) and gold. These exports
are the foundation of Ghana's economy--today and 100 years ago.
Ghana has low farm costs, making it an attractive place (in theory)
to grow fruits and vegetables. But because of deplorable "feeder"
roads to Ghana's cities and ports, roughly one-third to one-half
of the country's crop of delicious pineapples rots before reaching
market. Nearly as many of Ghana's plentiful bananas suffer the
same fate.
Marijuana has a longer shelf life. For poor Ghana, it offers a
lifeline to a more diverse and durable economic future.
To achieve this does not require a revolution in world drug laws
either. European countries have eased their restrictions on marijuana,
creating a chance for African growers to tap the huge market in
cities such as Amsterdam, Stockholm and Copenhagen. After all,
West Africa is a short hop by sea or plane to Western Europe,
giving Africans an edge over producers elsewhere in the world.
Simply, then, by sticking to the gray area of the world's fuzzy
pot laws, Ghana could reap substantial benefits. Instead, the
U.S. insists that Ghana buy American rice, yet refuses to allow
its citizens to purchase Ghana's marijuana. Whatever the arrangement
is, it is not free trade.
Adding to the injury, the Bush administration wants to fuel a
drug war in Ghana, where pot exporters are so sophisticated and
nefarious that their preferred method of transporting weed is
to hide it in shipments of yams bound for Europe.
Against this menace stands the DEA. About six months ago, the
agency privately persuaded the government of Ghana to accept its
advice and mount a campaign of resistance against pot production
and distribution. The DEA offered the carrot of "technical
assistance"--jargon in foreign-aid speak for equipment and
cash that African police, who are woefully underpaid, long for.
For now the DEA-inspired move against Ghana's pot growers has
resulted in publicized destruction of fields, some arrests--and
more aid for Ghana from a grateful U.S. government.
HOW DANGEROUS IS DOPE?
Pubdate: Tue, 20 Jan 2004
Source: Daily Telegraph (UK)
Copyright: 2004 Telegraph Group Limited
Contact: dtletters@telegraph.co.uk
Website: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/114
HOW DANGEROUS IS DOPE?
As The Reclassification Of Cannabis Draws Near, Joe Muggs Investigates
Its
Links With Mental Illness
The inquest last week into the death of Robert Dickinson, who
shot dead his neighbour in a dispute over a garden hedge and then
committed suicide in prison, heard that he had been "drunk
and drugged" and had smoked "up to five cannabis cigarettes
a day".
Roll up: cannabis use will no longer be so heavily penalised
The coroner told jurors: "I would want to stress... that
cannabis is not a harmless drug and this case demonstrates how
devastating its effects can be." Outside the court, Det Insp
Peter Bray, of Lincolnshire Police, said: "It does nobody
any good to use cannabis and can lead to these sorts of
things."
Yet cannabis use is steadily increasing, and the drug will be
redefined later this month from a Category B controlled substance
(like amphetamines) to Category C (with prescription-only drugs,
such as Valium). Many high-profile police officers have campaigned
for the relaxation of the law, most notably Brian Paddick, who
controversially introduced de facto decriminalisation of cannabis
in Brixton last year.
So how does the resurgence of the term "cannabis psychosis"
square with the seeming increased acceptance of the drug? Dr Zerrin
Atakan of the National Psychosis Unit, who has researched the
issue, is cautious about the use of the term:
"Cannabis psychosis is a very vague term. If we ever use
the phrase, it is only to describe very short-term effects immediately
following smoking, and it certainly doesn't refer to users having
a psychotic disorder. People may feel frightened or paranoid,
but these feelings pass in a matter of hours or, more rarely,
days, and practically never require treatment."
Certainly, many people who have smoked cannabis talk of experiencing
these paranoid ymptoms. One user recalls:
"When I was smoking all day every day, I would read so much
into everything that people said. A friend could say 'Hello' to
me and I'd reply: 'What? What do you mean by that?' "
But there are more serious risks. "What we are finding is
that people who smoke very strong stuff very regularly from a
young age - when their brains are still forming - are, in fact,
in danger of triggering problems," says Dr Atakan.
"If you have a genetic predisposition - and you may not be
aware of this - then it appears that heavy usage can set off schizophrenic
symptoms, for example."
Dr Atakan points to the new varieties of the drug, which are deliberately
bred to contain very large amounts of the active ingredient THC
(tetrahydrocannabinol), are grown in this country, and are replacing
the more traditional imported varieties of grass and hash on the
streets.
He says: "The other main active substance in cannabis is
cannabidiol or CBD, which has a calming effect - indeed, there
is research being undertaken at the moment into its potential
uses as an anti-psychotic. The problem with the new varieties
is that they are bred to contain more THC and less CBD, and the
amounts are unpredictable."
This means that people who smoke cannabis as a relaxant may buy
a new variety and find that its effects are drastically different
to those they are used to, and have a very unsettling experience.
Research shows that strong cannabis causes a tolerance to build-up
in users, and is very habit-forming, which can exacerbate these
problems, causing users to buy without discriminating between
varieties.
A spokesman for the mental health charity Mind is circumspect,
though: "We have no proof at all of a direct link between
the immediate disorientation caused by cannabis and violent behaviour.
If anything, the average user is unlikely to venture far beyond
their front door, if they do over-indulge
and suffer from paranoia.
"It's true that people who use a lot of cannabis are statistically
more likely to be convicted of violent crime, but there is a very
complex web of factors at work here. These tend to be people caught
up in criminal activities, thanks to their contact with the drug
world, so they may be violent anyway, or simply more visible to
the police. There is, however, absolutely no evidence that cannabis
itself causes violent behaviour.
"The direct link between alcohol and violence is proven,
and the damage caused as a result is increasing constantly. Even
prescription drugs have huge hazards - only recently, the entire
new generation of anti-depressants, apart from Prozac, were banned
for under-18s, because, like cannabis, they can trigger severe
mental illness in later life."
Will the forthcoming recategorisation have any useful effect?
Dr Atakan is not convinced: "It's a fudge, it won't make
any difference at all to who is selling and who is buying the
stuff.
"Without education, it is completely useless. Children need
to be taught the hazards at an early age, and it needs to be regulated
so people know what they are getting. This can only happen through
legalisation."
NAP is ready to rumble in 2004.
With five activists still loose on bail following their
jailing for the Legislative Assembly Job, planning is well under
way for the year ahead. But for deft legal footwork, the LA Five
would be behind bars now. NAP meetings will recommence this week
with its first meeting on Wednesday night at m at the Darwin Railway
Club, Somerville Gardens Road, Parap. As usual, everyone is welcome.
Kicking off the year – besides several low-key court
cases that have been and gone – is this weekend’s
Strategic Planning Day. It starts at 10am on Saturday, January
31, and goes until 4pm. Planned activities will be discussed and
lunch and refreshments will be turned on. Input is invited, particularly
about the campaign against the drug house legislation.
Anybody interested is asked to email us so we can get
an idea for catering on this, our most important day for 2004.
The roll-call through the courts has already begun, with
our favourite magistrate – David Loadman – handing
Mick Lambe a suspended 12-month sentence for his role in the 6th
smoke-in of 2002. Loadman is known for the contempt he has shown
NAP activists. As with all convictions, this will be appealed.
Other recent court cases have been adjourned. The Parliament Five,
who are presently on bail awaiting their appeal (sentences ranged
from 14 to 21 months for ‘’invading’’
parliament), will appear in the Supreme Court on February 4 to
set dates.
Mick has lodged an application to the High Court to have
the matter moved from the Supreme Court to the High Court. The
other defendants are set to follow.
Scott White, NAP parliament storm trooper who was extradited
from Tasmania to stand trial in Darwin, will appear in the Supreme
Court on February 3 to be arraigned, which basically means, to
set dates for his trial by Judge and Jury.
And they did find that “lost” piece of evidence
– the Hansard Video.
On March 11, we will need supporters at the Supreme Court
in Darwin as NAP activists argue legal points before Justice Bailey.
The activists face two sets of charges, arising from the 6th smoke-in
and the peaceful occupation of the Chief Minister Clare Martin’s
electorate office on August 1 the same year. Our activists are
facing a significant amount of jail time if found guilty.
We will also need supporters on March 24, again at the
Supreme Court. This will be the first time NAP has appeared before
the full bench of the NT Supreme Court (three Judges). Rob Inder-Smith,
Stuart Highway and Gary Meyerhoff were found guilty of trespassing
for a peaceful occupation of the NT Chief Health Officer’s
office in 2002. They lost their appeal to Justice Bailey, and
are now taking it to the next step, the Full Bench. A sign of
things to come for NAP cases perhaps Now that we are getting to
this level, we need your support more than ever.
In many ways, this will be a defining year for this group
of peaceful human rights activists, who will continue the struggle
against a system that is inherently biased against us. The schedule
is:
· one
Full Bench appeal
· four
Justices Appeals (to one judge)
· three
Supreme Court Trials and
· several
Magistrate’s Court hearings.
It goes without saying that we really need your support.
We are unrepresented in all of these cases so as well as continuing
the NAP campaign, we have been forced to study the criminal “justice”
system on the job.
We’re not despairing, though, and nor should you,
because we also have heaps of fun activities planned, including
direct-action and protest events, arrestable and non-arrestable.
We will be kicking off our Smoke-ins with a major Community Smoke-in
for Human Rights combined with NAP’s second birthday on
Saturday, March 13. As usual, it will be at Raintree Park, from
midday. Santa will be back for Christmas in July. This should
be a stocking full of fun for the kids.
Other big news includes the upcoming 15th International
Conference on the Reduction of Drug Related Harm, in Melbourne,
in April. NAP members have also been invited as honoured guests
to the Nimbin Mardis Grass. If anyone else from the Top End wants
to go to Nimbin with the NAP crew, please contact us.
Stay tuned for the Third Darwin International Syringe
Festival. This event gets bigger and better every year . . . a
fit-full of fun for all involved!
We couldn’t start the year without asking for donations.
NAP is a volunteer-based organisation and we receive no corporate
or government funding. Legal Aid is refusing to represent us in
our court cases unless we let them do it on their “conditions”
– and that means pleading guilty. We need fund for such
things as transcripts, which cost an arm and a leg, thanks to
the privatisation of the system. Every little bit helps. You might
even want to consider making a monthly direct=debit to NAP’s
bank account. Every cent goes back to the community through the
NAP campaign.
The Website
The website – which is always worth checking –
has been revamped. Suggestions are always welcome. Just email
us. If you aren’t already a member of our yahoogroup, now
is the time to join. The yahoogroup receives 3 to 4 emails per
month and is the best way to be kept up to date with what’s
happening.
We hope to see you at the Strategic Planning day and/or
at some of our many events and court cases though-out 2004.
February 9 is another important date.
It is the last day for submissions to the Senate Inquiry
on changes to the Disability Discrimination Law in Australia that
will mean that addiction to an illicit drug is not covered by
the Legislation. If you want to make a submission and need more
information, see the thread “Drugs, Addiction and Disability”
in the AIVL web forums’ General Discussion Forum.
Let’s team up to end this heinous War on Drugs!
Nap Mob
Note: to view this article with links see:
http://www.napnt.org/blog.html
Marijuana Survey
Hello,
This is to tell you about 'Marijuana Survey'.
www.marijuanasurvey.com
The main function of our website is to collect
data from marijuana users and to post the results when enough
data has accumulated. Our main mission is to advance policies
and attitudes that best reduce the harms of both drug misuse and
drug prohibition, and to
promote the sovereignty of individuals over their minds and bodies.
And perhaps this site can
have a impact on legalization... but we won't know that until
enough traffic and results are increased.
- Help to participate in the worlds largest marijuana survey.-
Any suggestions about the site would be appreciated.
--
Ryan Needham
Marijuana Survey
THAT'S ALL FOR NOW FOLKS!
|
