Political Intelligence Lead to Deaths

Media Release:  no embargo

Blair Anderson, Christchurch Mayoral Candidate.

Friday, 3rd Sept, 2010

Inadequate Intelligence leads to Deaths.

The Police incident that resulted in the Coronial Inquiry into Napier Police Officer Len Snee's death and injury to others parallels the incident a year later in Christchurch that resulted in the death of Police Dog Gage and the wounding of two other police officers. 

The common but unresolved issue in both events is the failure by successive Governments to ensure SAFER COMMUNITIES TOGETHER by legally regulating the popular and seemingly  socially acceptable recreational psychoactive soft drug, Cannabis.

Lets all be "Intelligent" says the MildGreen Social Ecology activist and Christchurch Mayoral Candidate Blair Anderson, "and fix this anomaly."

Yesterdays (sept2) presentation in Christchurch to Community Health leaders regarding what is to be learned from NZ's world  renowned Multidisciplinary and Longitudinal health studies has informed us that cannabis is not just popular amongst youth (80% <25yrs) but its use remains prevalent into adulthood. It also shows that few come to any problem but identifies that it is also enforced disproportionally profiling males, young and those who have previously come into contact with the law clearly identifying that enforcement is problematic, ineffective and inefficient.  

For those that do experience the full force of the law, the science shows it doesn't do anything to deter use.

A scientific review by emminent Canadian epidemiologists completed in March 2010 following similar incidences involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police asking "Does drug law enforcment affect levels of drug market violence? (Werb, Rowell, Kerr, Montaner, and Wood, Urban Health Research Initiative, Vancouver)  shows such violence is a NATURAL CONSEQUENCE of drug prohibition.

So why do we do "prohibition" so badly, as demonstrated by the terrible cost borne by Police and their Dogs?

Time to Get Smart and apply some decent Drug Intelligence. No stab proof vests or extra supervision required.

"Perhaps my compatriot Mayoral Candidate and former Associate Minister of Health, Hon Jim Anderton can tell us why he ignored the science for change in the legal status from as far back as 2006 round table and answer this question, would Len Snee, Gage and Jan Molenaar be alive or dead today if he had made Cannabis a SAFERCHOICE alternative to to Alcohol under the provisions he passed by Order In Council gazetted in October 2008 - legally regulating recreational psychoactive soft drug sales, under the supervision of the Ministry of Health?"

see Misuse of Drugs (Restricted Substances) Regulations 2008 (SR 2008/373)  at legislation.govt.nz

If the answer is as the science suggests, Anderton does not deserve to be rewarded for failure with the golden chains to New Zealand's SAFEST CITY.  

Nor too should Mayor Bob Parker escape scrutiny, on the day Parker was accepting the UN accredited SAFER CITIES award, the very mechanism of 'drug market violence' was being perpetrated with Samuri Swords, Axes and Knives on a family 'for their stash' in Cashel Street. [They didn't even have any.]

Mayor Parker's corporate media machine touts his reelection stand for SAFER Christchurch, but he admonished Anderson for being disrespectful to Police before full council for positing community safety and SAFERCHOICE.ORG on the day that Len Snee was being buried.

"Parker deserves to be stripped of those chains for promoting inner city VintageTrams to and from Wine factories and (fmr Mayor) Garry Moore's Bar, past David Henderson's developments and 'the Strip' all the while being a pretender to public safety" says candidate Anderson whose last run in with the law, saw him arrested 'for daring to say so in public' resulting in Police Bail "forbidden from entering the Four Ave's for a month."  John A Lee would be spinning in his grave.

"Parker is a Champion for Alcohol all right;  must the underground advice he's getting from his almost academic wife, though for what they have in common he and Anderton would make a great couple."

Blair (for Mayor) Anderson  affiliation: http://blairformayor.blogspot.com ph nz  (643) 389 4065   nz cell 027 265 7219

note to all media: the affiliation is officially approved as evidenced on voter forms and election literature published by the Chief Returning Officer. It is democratically remis to fail to advise the electorate of ALL candidates affiliation. The writer's use of a 'webaddress' was pioneered in 2002, and upheld by the Justice and Electoral Committee after a formal complaint by Hon Jim Anderton. See Hansard. The writer is the only person contesting the Christchurch Mayoralty to have won the right (again) to use new media as an effective democratic tool. Anderson's campaigns are notable for the absence of visible street signage.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Earthquake destroying Anderton's chances - Parker expected to win Christchurch according to polls... (peter-petterson.blogspot.com)
• Drug counsellor compromised by TRUTH (mildgreens.blogspot.com)
• Parker overtakes Anderton in mayoral race - poll (nzherald.co.nz)
• Rival personalities vie for top job (nzherald.co.nz)
• Anderton presses on with mayoral bid (nzherald.co.nz)
• Just Say... Why Not Now. (mildgreens.blogspot.com)

If Hypocrisy Was Capital

Image via WikipediaIf the hypocrisy that underpins our ‘all drugs’ policy was capital we would be in surplus.


No adjustment to alcohol ‘regulation’ can be made effective while the double standards that apply to cannabis (NZ most popular other drug) exist. Ramping up youth targeted partial prohibition of alcohol will serve ony to drive that demograph to illicit alternatives with contingent downsides, just as prohibition of the SAFER cannabis drives people to drink.

Related articles by Zemanta

• It's time to end the propaganda. Prohibition simply doesn't work | The big issue (guardian.co.uk)
• Alochol, Knighthood, Cannabis, Jail (mildgreens.blogspot.com)
• Cannabis and Depression Study Proves Need for Drug Law Reform... (peter-petterson.blogspot.com)
• The Guardian talks legalization (drugwarrant.com)

Put Jim Anderton in Jail for his Crimes Against Humanity.

Image via Wikipedia On Sunday last I was speaking at St Mary's Catholic Church Hall in New Brighton launching informally my third Christchurch City Mayoral campaign... just as the UK's Guardian/Observer was publishing an opinion piece that cited LEAP colleagues of mine.  [retired judge Maria Lucia Karam]

Amongst other things of high import to the October postal election I argued that Hon Jim Anderton has no place being rewarded with the Mayoralty of my home town for the legacy of failure that he had both responsibility for (assoc Min of Health)  and under his watch saw the ramping up of drug prohibition. (like banning BZP despite 'best practice' recommendations to put it in Class D)

I was applauded for having the courage to postulate, were cannabis put under Anderton's "restricted substances regulations" [cf: Class D], would the Police dog "Gage" be alive or dead today?  If the answer is ALIVE, then you cannot vote for and thus reward failure.

An excerpt: 

Related articles by Zemanta

• "The People's Mayor" and related posts (keepingstock.blogspot.com)
• Jim Anderton: Wrong and stupid (norightturn.blogspot.com)
• Sex, Drugs and Moral Goals. (mildgreens.blogspot.com)
• It's time to end the propaganda. Prohibition simply doesn't work | The big issue (guardian.co.uk)
• A unique chance to rethink drugs policy (guardian.co.uk)
• Alochol, Knighthood, Cannabis, Jail (mildgreens.blogspot.com)

SAFER Choices (for Christchurch/New Zealand?)

Image via Wikipedia

New Videos from Safer Choice

Denver could see $1 fine for marijuana possession

Denver goes for Safer Communities ~ Huh? Surely not... The Mayor of Denver chairs this committee!

So why would Christchurch's Bonny Prince Bob Parker [and his fiefdom] not want to discuss why so?

He's for SAFER communities, or is he just a media savy pretence on two legs?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Safer Recreation In Seattle (horsesass.org)
• Search Of Michael Jackson's Home Uncovered Marijuana (mtv.com)

And this on Cancer Society Day....

Tashkin Defends His Findings

Investigators from New Zealand recently got widespread media attention for a study contradicting Tashkin's results. "Heavy cannabis users may be at greater risk of chronic lung disease –including cancer– compared to tobacco smokers," is how BBC News summed up the New Zealanders' findings.

(extract from http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/142271/smoking_marijuana_does_not_cause_lung_cancer/?page=entire )

The very small size of the study –79 smokers took part, 21 of whom smoked cannabis only– was not held against the authors. In fact, the small New Zealand study was given much more coverage by the corporate press than the large UCLA study that preceded it.

Image via Wikipedia

The New Zealand study was portrayed as the latest word on this important subject. As if scientific inquiry were some kind of tennis match and the truth just gets truthier with every volley.

Tashkin criticized the New Zealanders' methodology in his talk at Asilomar: "There's some cognitive dissonance associated with the interpretation of their findings. I think this has to do with the belief model among the investigators and –I wish they were here to defend themselves– the integrity of the investigators… They actually published another paper in which they mimicked the design that we used for looking at lung function."

Tashkin spoke from the stage of an airy redwood chapel designed by Julia Morgan. He is pink-cheeked, 70ish, wears wire-rimmed spectacles. "For tobacco they found what you'd expect: a higher risk for lung cancer and a clear dose-response relationship. A 24-fold increase in the people who smoked the most… What about marijuana? If they smoked a small or moderate amount there was no increased risk, in fact slightly less than one. But if they were in the upper third of the group, then their risk was six-fold… A rather surprising finding, and one has to be cautious about interpreting the results because of the very small number of cases -- fourteen— and controls -- four."

Tashkin said the New Zealanders employed "statistical sleight of hand." He deemed it "completely implausible that smokers of only 365 joints of marijuana have a risk for developing lung cancer similar to that of smokers of 7,000 tobacco cigarettes… Their small sample size led to vastly inflated estimates… They had said 'it's ideal to do the study in New Zealand because we have a much higher prevalence of marijuana smoking.' But 88 percent of their controls had never smoked marijuana, whereas 36% of our controls (in Los Angeles) had never smoked marijuana. Why did so few of the controls smoke marijuana? Something fishy about that!"

Strong words for a UCLA School of Medicine professor!

As to the highly promising implication of his own study –that something in marijuana stops damaged cells from becoming malignant— Tashkin noted that an anti-proliferative effect of THC has been observed in cell-culture systems and animal models of brain, breast, prostate, and lung cancer. THC has been shown to promote apoptosis (damaged cells die instead of reproducing) and to counter angiogenesis (the process by which blood vessels are formed —a requirement of tumor growth). Other antioxidants in cannabis may also be involved in countering malignancy, said Tashkin.

Of course, a certain 'anti-cancer in society public speaker" standing on Christchurch's High Street this afternoon, brought this, and more, to the notice of an engrossed public gallery. All while the 'city ambassadors' continued to ask said offending soapboxer to cease 'standing on the furniture'. The Police were called. The right to stand on the furniture was upheld. As was the right to be anti-cancer!

Blair Anderson ‹(•¿•)›

ph (643) 389 4065 cell 027 265 7219

Related articles by Zemanta

• Are You Sceptical about What Causes or Prevents Cancer (medicineandtechnology.com)
• Smoking pot causes as much damage as tobacco: Study (canada.com)
• Calif. regulators warn of pot's cancer capability (ctv.ca)

The Side-Effects of Abstinence-Only Education

One in three teenage girls in the US becomes pregnant. Recent media hype and movies like Juno give teen pregnancy a certain kind of treatment.

If sex education impacts the rate at which men impregnate teenage girls, then these results are effects. Calling them side-effects is equivocation.

RE: Side-Effects? / Posted by: MildGreens on Jul 7, 2008 2:36 PM

The appearance of prejudices fails to do justice to the debate. Men impregnate woman, true enough, but woman can only be impregnated by men.

The inference that men are DOING THIS to teenage girls carries baggage, firstly because it misrepresents the facts and secondly it stereotypes men.

Teen pregnancy AND STD's is for the greater part a teen issue for BOTH males and females.

Both suffer consequences.

It represents a larger systemic failure in health promotion as evidenced by the bio-psychosocial health indicators in jurisdictions where age of consensual sex is much lower.

Where the rules say 'you just cant, its not allowed' (ie: zero tolerance with disproportionate punishment) the harms are maximised. With rules like these we may as well line them up and shoot some of them arbitrarily.

Intolerance sets up failure as 'proof we have a problem, justifying more inevitable failure'. The corollary with youth drug policy is also useful in this case.

There are impediments to [sex ed and other stuff] health promotion, the Ottawa Charter (the bible of Public Health) says where these can be identified, remove them.

There is no place for artificial red-lines in the dynamics of teen angst. This creates a climate dishonesty and mistrust that masks what is really going on. It creates a perception of safety without delivering.

The teen health data correlated to age of consent makes for revealing reading.

The 'shocking' (ie moral panic) driven data set is completely unsurprising to educators who think about this problem. It is almost a determinate outcome. We, by 'doing nothing' to change the policy base are guilty of creating the problem we set out to solve. We are as it were, collectively responsible making girls pregnant. And that requires an adult maturity to 'see'.

Ipso facto, teen pregnancy is a symptom of a larger problem adults as instruments of change are just not talking about.

Thus, it is more accurate to say older Men AND Woman are making teens pregnant and saddling teens AND society with unnessary burdens.

We have to, as adult rule makers, realise no policy is going to solve all the problems and that an optimal policy has to embrace harm minimisation in a reality based education paradigm.

Those for whom this reality check is objectional... are witness to the harms they are creating and the evidence, in this case, is on my side.

To get significant change one has to make significant change. It is long overdue.

--
Blair Anderson ‹(•¿•)›

Social Ecologist 'at large'
http://mildgreens.blogspot.com
http://blairformayor.blogspot.com
http://blair4mayor.com
http://efsdp.org

ph (643) 389 4065 cell 027 265 7219

Reforming liquor laws to combat crime (Cant Issues)

Image via Wikipedia

The issues surrounding liquor and violence in Canterbury can be roundly brought into the local perspective where we have seen Police District Commander (and relevant officers in charge of the inner city and alcohol laws) participate in the NATIONAL Party (MP Nicky Wagner) city crime/violence meeting at the Limes Room (Town Hall) followed recently by his participation at the LABOUR (MP wannabe Brendan Burns) meeting on Alcohol Policy. Mayor Parker participated as well but seemingly continues to be offended (I wont meet with you while you say nasty things about me) by the writers call  'that inner city property developer David Henderson, whose developments are characterised by a Bar on every corner was his primary, some say sole, election funder'.

Why should the District Commander meet and discuss 'drug policy' ? (a) because he said he would listen to the community. (b) the implementation of zero tolerance intersects with drug policy (c) there is a national debate and a bill before the house (d) there is an international debate and ten year UN review (e) and the NZ LAW COMMISSION is examining drug laws and the respective UN international conventions.Why is he not willing or prepared to do so? 

A birdy tells me the excuse is 'it's to close to the election'.

Retiring Christchurch Central MP Tim Barnett said several years ago that "the centre of NZ's drug reform is in Canterbury". It is sincerely hoped that our District Commander gives some respect and equity to this issue and accepts public delegations as he has committed to do.  He may recall a comment heard at both of the recent political huis - Our NATIONAL DRUG POLICY formulation documents highly recommended a holistic approach such that failure to address this in a 'communitarian all drug' context was just continuing pithing into the wind.

The Canterbury POLICE are participants in and signatories to "HEALTHY CHRISTCHURCH" and its principles embodied word for word in the Ottawa Charter.

Or is he (and his ilk) addicted to the 'drug war' funding?

Somewhat ironically, MP and Minister of Commerce Lianne Dalziel was at the last 'its acohol' meeting, and she is a 'cost benefits' kinda gal. It may yet be Canterbury at the centre of the drug policy maelstrom! Those who think otherwise may regale but we have here the best research 'evidence based' engine and data in the Otago School of Medicine's longitudinal and multidisciplinary studies.

We are an educated lot, its in our nature and heritage, and Police have a precedent in having had this discussion some ten years ago with both then Acting District Commanders Dave Haslett and Paul Fitzharris. It was generally agreed that were a enlightened social directive to treat cannabis either as a 'lowest possible priority' or by 'means other than arrest' it should logically apply consistently to the whole South Island. But that was before HEALTHY CHRISTCHURCH. 

Canterbury is the global home to the Needle Exchange (NEPS) and by dint of its uptake of Party Pills' the Anderton GoodFriday2004 "Class D" legislative model for controlled drugs. We are as it were "at the cutting edge of reform' - like it or not.