The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know banning Low Alcohol Beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know Banning Low Alcohol beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.
The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know banning low alcohol beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know banning low alcohol beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.
The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know banning low alcohol beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while pretty much all the people survived our BZP experiment, in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these claims of  'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well.

Ball-and-stick model of the fentanyl molecule Journal of Chemical Crystallography :

We banned BZP despite its high safety profile (millions of doses per year), and got, for our moral wowser'ing a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So too, when they were banned, we get these 'new' threats. The latest is fentanyl, a seriously potent opioid diverted from legal sources.

We know banning low alcohol beer leads to the whisky stills.

The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to the elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand.

On this matter, the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals nor scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been by senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start.

Thankfully former NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference.

There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.

Blair Anderson http://The greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know banning low alcohol beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act..blogsThe greater risk of harm the less logical it is to hand over the quality control of 'emerging anything' to the black economy. It should be noted that, while all the people survived in spite of the risky nature of their experiential dalliance, these 'harms' occurred on the watch of prohibition. It is utterly predictable. History instructs us well. We banned BZP despite its high safety profile, and got, for our moral wowsering a raft of new entries, untested, untried and of highly variable potency. So to when they were banned, we get this 'new' threat. We know banning low alcohol beer lead to the whisky stills. The science and economics demonstrate quite clearly the banning and elevated enforcement of cannabis lead to elevated availability of methamphetamine. (google ICE and Pokalo). It amounts to policy, politics and police trying to rewrite the law of supply and demand. On this matter the Police are neither experts nor equipped to make reasoned argument despite purporting to have 'drug intelligence'. They are neither health professionals or scientists. Acceptance of this continuing demonisation of drug use, itself a recipe for failure, demonstrates a severe anomaly in civil discourse where those who are briefed to uphold the law also practise the making of it. It can be fairly said, and has been my senior judge's, that "cannabis is not criminogenic, whereas prohibition is!" - for that is where the conversation must start. Thankfully President Obama, even if belatedly, is now on the case. Our continued support for this 'locked in paradigm' will, in time, become nothing more than an embarrassment that we could be so stupid to believe doubling and redoubling our prohibition efforts will eventually make a positive difference. There comes a point where ceasing banging our collective heads against a brick wall becomes an evolutionary act.pot.com