I have long been involved with a wide range of matters related to the process leading up to the formation of the 2001 Expert Advisory Committee on Drug(s) Policy, or EACD (supposedly a safe pair of hands) and observed the various directives to it such as to prioritising resolution surrounding cannabis. (The second health select committee inquiry, Cannabis and the Law,  recommended a review of the law ‘as a matter of priority’ circa 2002 ffs!)

Certainly, the weakness of the EACD’s functional role surely must be the bulk of its membership are turkeys being asked to vote for Christmas. Justice, Corrections, Police, Border Control and the Treatment Industry, along with some seriously token maorism. (seriously?, what percentage of EACD meetings did the supposed consumer representative, Msrs Warbrick attend?).

My second crucial objection is the narrow scope applied to Drug Policy, treating the issue on a drug by drug basis. (Inconsistent with National Drug Policy or its formulation documents, where cost/benefit was removed for its 'legislative implications' only discovered under OIA)

My third is the lack of transparency, my fourth, the functionally corrupt practice of not consulting with, nor weighting, the consumer – for if this ‘vexing matter’ is, and surely it is agreed, ‘a health issue’ then why is policy inconsistent with our disability law. ie: “no decision about us, without us”.

We need consumer representation. Now.

A good government would ensure any EACD function was tested at the table….. A bad government would structure it to serve the government view.

Now let’s not start on the Interagency Cmte or the Ministerial Cmte, or even the role State Services and Ministry of Internal Affairs play in ensuring the Law Commission’s brief was constrained to ’being informed by the International Obligations” rather than evidence informing our membership/signatory status to those conventions.

Your mileage may vary…..