Drug Policy Idiotology " Child Endangerment By Proxy"
A TradeMe Community correspondent wrote:
I haven't done Kronic. Although I had to look after a friend for the night as he lost his vision, ability to walk and communicate.
I invite the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Associate Minister of Health to consider the above expressed concern in relation to our emerging drug threats' the alcohol (and other drug) law and public health.
Compare kronic, his experience and alcohol.
Um, drug of choice, scale of the problem..... appropriate intervention!
Let me set the table as it were: It is increasingly clear that no government is serious about fixing alcohol unless it is prepared to fix the neighbouring intoxicants FIRST.
I would commend to the TM Community correspondent (and did so) first of all "Thank you for being there for your friend."
It is the preferred protocol. It saves lives (particularly surrounding alcohol) and was the harm reduction measure promoted by the Ministry of Health and Community Health called "hold on to your Mates!".
However when we make something illegal... the implications for anyone 'associated' with illicit drug use is POLICE INQUIRIES, DRUG TESTING, EXPULSION, DOLE QUEUE...etc... it does exactly the opposite.
Now we have something that is evidentially 'safer' than alcohol, in wide use (500,000 est) about to be treated by the system as as toxic as 'P' (until we know what it is.) no one wants to stand around and get into that mess... and your mate is left to it!
Dangerous context is a factor that has nothing to do with the pharmacology of the drug... in drug parlance we call this the "set and setting" and shortgame kneejerk policy wonks and all those who sidle up to the 'just ban it' idiotology are trading the health and safety of our youths for a few more 'get tough' votes, treatment budgets and more research money.
Wrong Wrong Wrong.....
Cases exactly as I describe occur every day in the USA. People die for no good reason, a large number are young people. A TV special on the death of actor 'River Phoenix' captured this superbly. No one called an ambulance. He died for nothing, well not exactly nothing... worst case scenario in failing to protect and preserve the public health comes to mind.
If it was a road accident, you can be prosecuted for 'failing to render assistance'... when it comes to 'drugs' we sanction worst case public health and call it 'getting tough'. Tell that to the parents of someone who dies for no good reason than "I was afraid to make the call!".
If this makes sense, don't just sit there... have the temerity to reflect on where this is taking us.
We are standing by doing nothing rubber necking a 'slow wreck' and watching parliament put the health and wellbeing of half a million mostly youth at risk!
Expiditious drug policy without oversight/community input sanctioned form the top suggests Dunne/Key/Goff et al" should be charged with child endangerment!
Would liability be proven if due process was shown to be flawed? For example: Where is the required 'Policy Impact Statement' ? Still at BERL?
I repeat: No government is serious about fixing alcohol unless it is prepared to "Regulate AND Control" neighbouring intoxicants FIRST.
Bans are no regulation and no control.
To suggest anything else is dangerous 'spin'.
Dangerous to whom? I argue....
OUR CHILDREN, OUR YOUTH, OUR FUTURE
Blair Anderson http://mildgreens.blogspot.com