There was a threadjack on another posting asking for reasons for members positions on the Turei bill. I’m sure colleagues will have a variety of views and direct letters and/or emails is probably the best way to obtain their views. I didn’t speak on it but voted against it because it was extremely badly drafted.
I’m not opposed to having a debate on the issue but my view is that any debate would have been diverted towards the obvious faults in the draft bill rather than the principal principle of how medicinal marijuana can be prescribed now and whether that should be extended.
The idea that we have a grow your own approach with the total lack of control implied or that it should be prescribed for a number of mental illnesses where it will exacerbate the problems is just silly.
It shows the importance of sharing draft bills before putting them in the ballot – such a wasted opportunity.
Makes sense Trevor, well done.
Thanks for sharing your reasons Trevor.
I think Metiria Turei recognised that the bill was fairly poorly drafted (she didn’t write it), and her point was that it could be sorted out at select committee – even to the point of completely re-writing it.
It seems a pity that it didn’t even get that chance though. Hopefully if a bill along similar lines, that is better worded, gets more support in the future.
No it doesn’t make sense. Drafting concerns could have been corrected by the select committee. The Electoral Finance Bill was extremely poorly drafter but this didn’t stop it going through the process.
[...] and dry Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 11:24 am Trevor Mallard at Red Alert explains his reasons for voting against the Medical Cannabis bill: I’m not opposed to having a debate on the issue but [...]
Not good enough, Trevor. Agree with Nick. The Electoral Finance Bill was poorly drafted, but that got to committee. The J&E select committee substantially rewrote the EFB for the second reading. Why couldn’t the Health select committee have adopted a similar ethic for the Medicinal Cannabis Bill?
I am furious, mellow.
Nick, I’m with Trevor on this. And the Electoral Finance Bill is an abject example of why he is right.
The EFB was so bad (it made it a crime for MPs to issue press releases) that the entire debate focussed on (fixing) the massive glaring problems. There was an important debate to be had about the place of regulation in an electoral system and the appropriate limits to place on electoral speech, but it was all lost because the initial drafting was so appalling.
The Electoral Finance Act was a vast improvement over the bill, but it also had a number of important (but smaller) problems. But no-one could focus on these during the bill stage because there were much more important things to fix. Had the final form of the Electoral Finance Act been the bill that was introduced, they debate would have been better, and more focussed, and the final result might never have have had the chilling effect that was apparent.
There are numerous other examples of this:
The debate around the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill focussed on whether children should have faced trial in adult courts, instead of whether it might be appropriate to expand the jurisdiction of the Youth Court to some aged under 14.
The debate around the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill focussed on the legal vacuum that could result from just randomly deleting words from statutes (including from treaty settlement legislation), instead of having a debate around whether the judicially-espoused principles were right or appropriate.
We should have a debate on medicinal marijuana; had this bill gone further we’d have had a debate on cannabis-induced psychosis and protections for grow-your-own-medicators. The opportunity for a real debate about the use of cannabis as a medicinal aid would have been side-lined, and that’s too important a debate to let that happen to.
Trevor – a supportive vote from just you would have made little difference anyway, however I believe your rationale is wrong. By voting it down, the message you send is one of opposing the medicinal use of cannabis. By voting for the bill,(had it passed) you would have sent it foward to be made viable through the work of a select committee. The bill did not have ‘mischevious’ aspects that were designed to ‘get a foot in the door’ in order to open the way to anything its detractors cite (decriminilisation of legalisation of cannabis for recreation etc.) It was an honest bill, though seemingly poorly made. The chance for it to be realised in a timely fashion is now lost and you were part of that, which is unfortunate from my position as a well person, but very dissapointinmg, infuriating even, from the point of view of a sufferer from severe pain.
You’re right – grow your own would be a complete disaster. For a start, it would fail to reinforce the entrenchment of the pharmaceutical companies. Surely anything against the status quo is a bad thing. Not only that, but it might put some people’s health in their own hands and take it away from the hands of professionals where it belongs.
Bad drafting is probably putting it too politely. The policy in the bill had not been properly considered. The deal with controversial members bills is that if the mover expects support the s/he shares the draft around before it goes into the ballot not the day before it is to be voted on. I’m never going to vote for something that is frankly stupid on a conscience vote. Other MPs do take the lets fix it at select committee approach for example Grant Robertson :- http://www.grantrobertson.co.nz/2009/07/01/private-members-bills/
Good to have the debate on process though.
The deal with controversial members bills is that if the mover expects support the s/he shares the draft around before it goes into the ballot not the day before it is to be voted on.
Of course, it had been online for years, just as it had been on the Order Paper. But that definitely seems to be a failure of consensus building.
BTW, can I suggest that Labour starts putting its member’s bills online (or rather, making the facility to put them online available to MPs) so that people can debate them and help find any flaws?
What would be very cool if if all draft bills were put on a Wiki so people could improve them before submission
Oh yes, lets let the sewer “improve” draft bills. That’d be funny.
It’s a great way to build a distributed policy network of likeminded individuals. But I wouldn’t for an instant suggest that Parliamentary parties subject themselves to a heckler’s veto in this fashion. Publicising the bills is great. But there’s no need to hand out crayons as well.
Perhaps you could link to your draft bill about League Tables and disclosure Trevor, then we would know what it is that you are “hypothetically” commenting on
It was up on Red Alert within hours of being drafted, as were my amendments on Drug Driving. Lots of useful comments some on blog mainly be email.
While I probably agree with very little you say Trevor, I do agree with you on this issue. The grow your own idea is rediculous, as is not sharing the draft.
However I probably would have gone for the “fix it at select commitee” plan, and voted it down next time if it didnt improve.
I agree Trevor with the weaknesses of the bill – the grow your own approach; also there is the possibility that non-medicinal users will also start to crop up i.e using the cannabis from the medicinal users.
On the other hand at a remit meeting in my electorate, a fellow member had said that countries and states (in federal countries, I assume the US) that have “medicinal law”, actually have fewer people smoking cannabis per state than countries that don’t have medicinal law. This I assume is based on a theory that having cannabis illegal makes it more attractive for people to smoke cannabis, as it has a “James Dean” status.
But what really gets to me Trevor is that certain sectors of society, notably the right, go on about cracking down on drugs, but this is complete hypocrisy. Alcohol and tobacco are two of the country’s most devastating drugs, yet they are legal. Any talk of restricting people’s use on these two drugs is an attack on people’s freedom (that’s the defence the users say). Yet when we mention medicinal use of cannabis people run for the hills. It’s time we started looking very closely at all drugs, and not just the illegal ones.
hey guys run for the hills!!! i just heard something really, really scary! people can actually brew their own drugs at home (just like people want to do with pot), the drug is really dangerous and responsible for far more social problems than pot (which has no lethal dosage). OMG!!!the sky is falling! they are calling this stuff alcohol…
whats really dangerous is big business / big pharma isnt making shitloads off pot
how is grow you own ridiculous for medicine or recreation?
prohibition isnt working, talk to any drug expert and they will tell you that. why are we controlled by people that would deny me the free choice to use pot resonsibly by people that dont even know why it was criminalised in the first place (to protect cotton farmers and timber growers)
http://www.LEAP.cc (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) here are people with far more drug and law enforcement experience telling us straight up with a reasoned/researched argument that prohibition isnt working.
yet we are being told by ex-woodwork teachers and equally unqualified MPs that the current system is fine…
why have experts if you arent going to listen to them? time for MPs to actually grow a pair and debtate the issue at least. shutting it down shows you are either totally uninformed or spineless
why waste money and prisons cells on pot? unless people are selling/giving it to kids then whats the fucking problem? just the same as ciggies and alcohol… oh thats right, medicine isnt medicine unless it costs a shitload, is supplied by big pharma and has a Z or X in the name. our recrational drugs must also come exclusively from big business and a big cut must go to the govt
in 50 years time (provided we are still alive) we will look back on this debate and realise how ridiculous it is. same thing with slavery, womens right to vote and other freedoms.
amsterdam has a lower teen usage rate than the UK and their heroine problem has remained static for 20 years. the UKs H problem has increased 1000% in that same time.
legalisation/decriminalisation DOES NOT = higher use. pot IS NOT a gateway drug.
want to save some prison beds? stop wasting time and money on pot and go after P instead.
99% of the negative effects of using pot come from it being illegal, not the drug itself.
as a productive, educated member of society why do i need to drive to south auckland and deal with gang members (who are doing very nicely from prohibition, thank you) to get my drug of choice? i could go down the road and by as many bottles as spirits as i like and do more harm to myself and others than i could possibly do with pot, all legally.
one last thing, the whole notion of victimless crime has clinging to it the residue of our church/state/law mingling in our past. as explained very well by Sam Harris here:
http://www.synchronium.net/2009/03/22/sam-harris-religion-drugs/
if you support prohibition and think it is working then you are either 1) dont know anything of marijuanas history 2) swayed by your “moral” or religious beliefs 3) too gutless to debate the topic or are uninformed (which is confirmed by every expert and study saying you are wrong)
lets ignore the overseas examples of where medicinal cannabis and prohibition laws have been loosened and do our own thing with nothing to back it up. good work team…
prohibtion will never work. people will ALWAYS do drugs. have done for 1000s of years.
we realised that teens will always have sex and rather than telling them to abstain we teach sex education in schools and have other health/protection resources available to them to minimise the risk to themselves and others. why cant we reach the same conclusion with drugs? the war on drugs will NEVER END. just like we can never prevent every single murder or car accident. the best policy is give people the best education on drugs and minimise their risk IF they choose to use or grow them. when will people realise this? its really not hard…
overseas examples have proven lighter laws and regulation DOES NOT lead to increased use. this idea that people like Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne have that once pot is legal soon the whole country will go crazy and everyone including the kids will be hooked on it is michael bay / jerry bruckheimer level of hollywood ridiculousness. these kind of opinions stand on the shoulders of all the 1930s corporate (eg reefer madness) propaganda smear films which are lewd and false as Nazi films about jews.
look at the results… http://blog.mpp.org/research/drug-survey-dynamites-marijuana-myths/06112009/
and if you want to find out more about the history of why marijuana is illegal and how we are missing out on massive benefits of commercial hemp cultivation because oil companies and other affected interests see these clips:
http://mrlunk.blogspot.com/2009/04/w-r-n-i-n-g-marijuana-is-dangerous.html
I voted in favour of the First Reading. It was a conscience vote for each MP, and before I exercised my conscience I wanted to hear what people had to say. Sending it to a Select Committee would have given people that opportunity.
Had the Bill been reported back in its current form, I would not have supported it further. However, if it had been reworked and had compelling arguments been put forward for the revised version, I would have considered it on its merits.
My views on the alcohol advertising ban legislation (which also failed at first reading) were very similar. I wanted to give people a chance to have their say.
Although I agree with medicinal marijuana, I’m glad you voted against this bill.
These are my notes from my contribution to the debate last Wednesday. I just want GPs to be able to prescribe medicinal cannabis without having to go through the very detailed procedure, which requires his or her application to be endorsed by a specialist and approved by the Minister – I understand the Minister has approved only 5 such applications since Pete Hodgson authorised the use of Sativex when he was Minister of Health. Quite bluntly I don’t think politicians should have any involvement in this – it should be a medical decision, based on the science, which goes to safety and efficacy. It’s the Misuse of Drugs Act that is the problem which is why I am pleased the Law Commission is reviewing it.
Notes:
Despite agreeing with the underlying intention of the Bill, (I believe there should be medicinal cannabis available on prescription, which it is (Sativex)currently in New Zealand on application by a GP and endorsed by a specialist), I believe that the spirit of what the promoter of the Bill has said is not reflected in the Bill itself. The reasons I cannot support this particular Bill are as follows:
There is a Law Commission review of the Misuse of Drugs Act underway at present. I accept that is not a reason of itself not to proceed. If the Bill was in a different form I would support it. However the Bill will force people who agree with the underlying principle to make extensive submissions because it needs to be entirely re-written – this is simply not fair on those who are represented on both sides of the wider drug debate, who will be putting their efforts into the Law Commission review. I do not recall receiving a single letter in opposition to prescribed medicinal use to alleviate pain. This suggests that there will be almost no opposition (if any) to the underlying principle and submissions will be about the particular way of implementing it.
The problems I see with the Bill are:
The introduction of a complex regulatory framework – with a Medicinal Cannabis Registration Board being established to issue Medicinal Canabis Identification Cards and Designated Agent Identification Cards.
A Designated Agent is required to prove him or herself to be of good “moral” character. I totally object to that phrase being inserted in NZ law.
The requirement on the police to supply cannabis seeds to card holders or their designated agents – seeds which they can only supply from stock seized during law enforcement activities.
The inclusion in the schedule of conditions that are specifically contra-indicated for cannabis use – as you know mental illness is a potential exclusion criterion for the use of cannabis medicines (Table 2 Sativex Application form)where it states “increasing evidence suggests that excessive or chronic use of cannabis is linked to psychosis & that it may exacerbate the symptoms of schizophrenia or precipitate this condition.”
I personally would support a Bill that provided for a doctor’s prescription to allow access to medicinal cannabis for the conditions listed in the inclusion criteria – (Table 1 – Sativex form) – which refers to things like nausea and wasting associated to cancer & AIDs, & chronic and neuropathic pain, associated with a range of conditions.
surrounded by morons
One problem with a badly drafted medicinal bill is we end up having a decriminalisation debate masquerading as a medicinal debate. Your posts reinforce that risk. I don’t mind having the decriminalisation debate based on a well drafted bill with work on support before first reading. While I am not likely to support latter stages I’m not averse to voting for a first reading – but again there would have to be good work beforehand.
Right so that’s why you voted against the bill wasn’t it Trevor. Because you believed that voting for this bill would be a signal towards a slippery slope of decriminalisation. So who’s confusing the debates, really?
So tell me. Why do you believe that the bill could not have been cleaned up. Why do you not place enough faith in the integrity of registered medical practitioners to only prescribe to patients for which the medicine is appropriate and not contra-indicated as other medicines are.
It sounds to me like you’re just making excuses.
Very interesting debate here – and I am really glad that the MPs have chosen to share their reasons on why they voted as they did. I hope more continue to do so.
I think the confusion over whether this is a medical debate or a decriminalisation debate has occurred because nobody but the Green Party was willing to take up the challenge in promoting a bill like this. Of course the Greens do also want to push for decriminalisation (for the reasons excellently outlined by “surrounded by morons” above) and perhaps that muddies the waters.
So – the solution would be for a Labour MP to sponsor such a bill. That would avoid scaring the horses, as one could say.
For what it is worth, I voted for the medicinal marijuana bill to go to first reading. I think medicinal use is legitimate and ideally GPs should be able to prescribe Pharmac-subsidised cannabis pills. That, I am advised, is where the policy is heading but it may take a few years to get there. In the mean time, a large number of ill people out there rely on medicinal cannabis and I dont think they should be criminalised. I accept Lianne and Trevor’s arguments around the bill being badly drafted but I don’t think that should have prevented it going to select committee.
On the liquor advertising bill, I think we should treat liquor advertising the same as tobacco advertising. This bill takes a selective approach, singling out broadcast media, but again I felt that shouldn’t stop it going to select committee.
If a patient can not get well, they might as well get high. I can not see the harm in it.
I/S – A Wiki does not have to be open to all. What I would do is only allow people registered under their own name (which need not be displayed) to edit it, and anyone playing stupid buggers gets deregistered.
David Farrar’s post raises the difference between a government bill, that has (ideally) been the subject of consultation with relevant stakeholders and several drafts by qualified Parliamentary Counsel, and a private member’s bill, which is not even subject to the discipline of the regulatory impact analysis required of government bills, and which is not always drafted by experts. I don’t know if Wiki is the answer to that. I think this was a one-off and we have all learned from it. Metiria did not draft this Bill; she inherited it and good on her for continuing the debate. But the Bill didn’t do what she wanted it to do because instead of freeing up the current process, (which I can only assume wasn’t mentioned in the Explanatory Note because the Bill was drafted before Pete Hodgson allowed access to Sativex),it created a whole new one. I don’t accept those who thought that the Bill was a stalking horse for the debate we will have about dicriminalisation in the future – that was the ‘conspiracy theory’ line run by Jonathan Coleman. Metiria will draft another bill and there will be plenty of us who will help her so we can free up access to medicinal cannabis. The decriminalisation debate will be based on a detailed analysis undertaken by the Law Commission – and that is a much more thorough process, which will produce a range of facts and propositions based on evidence for MPs to weigh up.
It’s taken me a while to post on this, haven’t been near a computer much the last few days. I support the use of medicinal marijuana. I had to make a decision about whether I support a Bill to select Committee that is not only badly drafted but dangerous. I had to wrestle with my desire to see the issue debated at Select Committee, versus my horror at supporting a Bill I clearly did not agree with. I chose the latter option and hope I continue to be consistent. It’s an interesting dilemma as a new MP and I’m not sure I’ll always make the right call. As Lianne has written above, Metiria will draft another bill and I hope to be able to support that through the select committee process.
Happy to have further discussion on this.
Trevor, speaking about the decriminalisation of cannabis, you obviously haven’t noted recent comments by the top dog at the UN regarding drugs, who now states that decrimanalisation of cannabis is a better approach because it stops punishing people and offers them help instead. Rejection of the medicinal cannabis bill here now means those who use cannabis as medication will continue to be subject to the laws of this country and could mean imprisonment simply because they use a medicine that is illegal.
One has to ask why this medicine is illegal when it was used for thousands of years before the pharmaceutical industry even began and what motives politicians have for retaining status quo.
Sativex, which is the alternative to using raw leaf is available but as said above has only been made available to 5 people, and it appears those 5 are funded by ACC to use this medication, most of us though are sick and poor and unable to afford the approx. $900 a month to use this medication, I for example can obtain an ounce of raw leaf for $350, and this would last me 4 months, is it any wonder medicinal users will continue using raw leaf even though they know they are criminals for doing so.
[Edited, borderline - admin] you as an experienced politician would know the bill could become something positive under a select committee review but now you rejected it totally, so what are your motives Trevor, without the excuses that is?
It’s a pity Sativex isn’t subsidized.
Spud: That and the fact it still requires the Ministry of Health’s approval to get access to the stuff, it’s not like your doctor can prescribe it like other medications. It’s a system designed not to allow you access to Sativex.
It is a politician who decides if you get this medication rather than a doctor, is this acceptable?
Medicinal Cannabis: Open letter to Paul Hutchison
Tuesday, 7 July 2009, 3:56 pm
Press Release: Scoop Feedback
Dear Hon Paul Hutchison
I have just got access to the Hansard document of the Medicinal Cannabis Bill which you and your party rejected.
I am the one who suffers from the rare condition known as Nail Patella Syndrome, it is something I have lived with my whole life being of the genetic nature and knowing how rare this condition is I am surprised that you made this statement ‘I had a prominent Wellington physician tonight point out how conditions like nail-patella syndrome are absolutely rare and there are many other options to treat it with.’ when every physician I have ever had examine me has never heard or seen this condition before, it is so rare in fact that one orthopedic surgeon who examined me about 3 years ago had it as an exam trick question in 1975 but has never seen a case until I came along.
I have participated in genetic research for Baltimore University in the US who managed to find 5 families in the world with this condition, even then they had trouble tracking that number down.
I question the reliability of the information provided by this prominent physician from Wellington and would like you to give him my details so he can contact me directly.
I have used painkillers, I have used anti inflammatory drugs and I have used anti depressants to block the pain and none have been effective enough to warrant continued use, also it scares me the side effects generated by these drugs and the chance of addiction is foremost in my mind. One of the drugs you would rather we took – Codeine has now given me something else to worry about, I now have reflux. The psychoactive effect of some of these drugs are not pleasant, some have left me fearing for my life, others have left my mind muddled and unable to work.
Cannabis was the drug medical users used before the pharmaceutical industry existed and it works very well for a number of different conditions, is it any wonder that people who use current pharmaceutical drugs who then find they aren’t doing the job they say they do turn to cannabis for solutions? Based on examples provided by the govt, you have made it quite clear that due to health reasons we are not allowed to use raw leaf to alleviate our symptoms and you would prefer that we use Sativex instead. The issue I have here is that Sativex is currently un-subsidised and approx. $900 a month has to be found to use it.
This is un-affordable to many including myself, I can buy an ounce of raw leaf for $350 that will last me 4 months!
If you really care about the health effects of raw leaf on the human body then I’m sure you will go out of your way to ensure a subside is applied to Sativex as soon as possible.
I have had knee surgery from the age of 8, all up I have had 6 knee operations to allow me to walk, my whole life has been one of pain and trying to find the right solutions to try and live a normal life.
I have a Femural Distal Osteotomy coming up shortly and I intend using raw leaf for my post operative care, I hope I am not arrested for using it in this form since it is still illegal which really doesn’t make sense considering a pharmaceutical version is legal.
Failure to try and make the healthier option cheaper will mean more and more medical users of cannabis will be persecuted, prosecuted, convicted and jailed because of your party’s inaction, please ensure these new container cells have wheelchair ramps.
Regards
Name withheld due to legalities of the topic
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0907/S00081.htm
Medicinal Cannabis: Who deserves aid more?
Monday, 13 July 2009, 4:05 pm
Press Release: Scoop Feedback
Who deserves aid more?
As we have seen on the news recently our Prime Minister – John Key enjoying his pacific island holiday with lots of smiles and dancing and busy pledging millions of taxpayers dollars to aid the pacific people, yet is unable to come to the aid of the sick people of New Zealand with the funding of Sativex.
Sativex is a pharmaceutical product derived from the cannabis plant, we are not allowed the natural plant because of health effects specified by his ministry yet we see on the news him partaking in a psychoactive substance called Kava and he did so enthusiastically as it appears it’s not his first try of this drug. His visit to Niue we see in the news him promoting a natural plant that has natural medicinal values that he wants to commercialise here in New Zealand called Noni which is all well and good for those who will benefit from this natural plant, but it smacks in the face of disbelief that his government has such double standards when it comes to Sativex, it simply makes no sense as to why he would partake in one psychoactive substance and promote a natural medicinal plant yet refuse to show interest in a pharmaceutical version of cannabis.
I ask John Key to front up on this issue and tell the New Zealand public why he denies the sick and disabled citizens of New Zealand an alternative medication that will be of benefit to them, why he would rather we were sent to jail for using the illegal substance cannabis, and most importantly why he holds such double standards?
All we feel like now is second class citizens in our own country.
Regards
Name withheld due to legalities of the topic
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0907/S00123.htm
It appears the government doesn’t want to reply to the above letter, even though a select committee recommended THC based medicines they don’t want to allow widespread use, a recent article on Scoop indicates our prisons are at bursting point, wonder how many of those used cannabis as a medicine. Those that requested the cancer drug Herceptin only campaigned for a year, and they got what they wanted, how long have we been campaigning for cannabis related medicines?
no comments or emails from politicians. What was that thing last year about equal rights for those with disabilities? Or was that more to do with just ticking the boxes.
MrNiceGuyNZ – I think that you should keep up the work with the Minister of health who I understand can make a decision to give GPs the right to dispense Sativex. The ministry is working through that issue now. In my opinion that would be a much better solution than having sick people growing their own.
Hello Trevor, thank you for replying, the issue that we have most is politicians tend to drag their heels when it comes to cannabis, in a pharmaceutical version or not.
The other issue Trevor is price, unless it is subsidised it’s not a solution for many, the plant itself is cheaper.