An advt:  Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1935 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Recently the meme of political rhetoric surrounding cannabis has been  harm minimisation as opposed to abstinence being the most useful way of supporting those in our community 'for whom Marijuana use is problematic'.  (note use of perjorative terminology 'marijuana')

What then of the bulk of cannabis use that is not problematic?
Is this to remain 'criminal' and if so, Why?

Are Politicians aware that the Christchurch Longitudinal Health and Development Study shows that 4:5 in the surveyed demograph have used cannabis MORE than five times. (announced at Healthy Christchurch meeting, Baptist Church just before Sept 1010 earthquakes. ref: Dr Jo Boden)

Should everyone of Childbearing age be urine tested for 'criminal' behaviours? Or is this to be another law in name only that still discharges responsibility for quality control and age of consent to be administered by the illicit networks?

Would such a decriminal status be worse or better than legally regulated PSA?

How does decriminalised cannabis improve 'all drug policy' [inc alcohol] ? and why have we never done a policy impact statement for the options before us (including the status quo)?

It looks as though this subject IS going to be an election issue. It is one that defines who can think 'best practice' and who is going to cowtow to prohibitionist thinking.

Blair Anderson http://mildgreens.blogspot.com

Get Blairs Brain on Newsfeed... http://feeds.feedburner.com/BlairsBrain-CanvassingForOpinion