I have submitted on bills that concern me and will continue to do so.

I think Swarbrick should be our next PM. She is bright and well spoken and very smart, I dont think age should have anything to do with it. She is leaps and bounds ahead of Jacinda who got the job by pure chance.

I think Swarbrick saying that we dont need to reinvent the wheel for harm reduction and general policy, look at California, Colarado and Canada for best practise.

The canadians make it common sense.  The sooner the drug is no longer an illegal drug the sooner you will know what you are smoking and the less harm there will be for all due to being able to grow your own. NZ would need to look at obtaining a seed bank from California so patients and recreational alike can choose strains that may best suit them, ie northern lights for pain, insomnia, cramps or a sativa dominant strain for those wanting a strong uplifting cerebral recreational experience.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/cannabis/

All prohibition does is make the drug more dangerous, it doesnt reduce it or eradicate it in any way. Not to mention the synthetic cluster F that occured.

I trust Helen Clarke and Peter Williams and expect more respectable NZ celebrities/politicians to get behind the movement as it grows in a snowball effect.

And instead of debating common sense which Swarbrick just simply shows by using effective policy elsewhere

We could be making money off Canabis like the 20 odd Aussie companies. NZ always slow to arrive, Lamb chops and Milk will carry this country into the future, not.

https://thegreenfund.com/australian-cannabis-stocks-set-to-burn-brightly-in-2019

Rikkitic:

 

TeaLeaf:

 

pain grinds you down.

 

 

This! It gets ignored and overlooked in all the other discussion and theorising and conservative bla bla but it hits the nail right on the head. Fortunately I don't suffer from chronic pain but I certainly know what acute pain feels like. Even a toothache. It gets exhausting. Self-righteous dumbbells like Paula Bennet or her backward-looking mates ought to try it some time.

 

 

 

@Rikkitic Yes.

I would add that chronic severe pain rips at your very soul and drain your tears, I know this all too well. The daily fight with it is exhausting and frightening. There are many days when just waking up is like walking through the gates of hell. There has been and are days when thoughts of ending it flood into my mind and when just another minute of pain is ten minutes too much. To hear Bennet depresses me and I have turned away from even following politics. Cannabis is not a cure and a fix all but it can't be worse that what I have now. If it takes away the days with dark thoughts then that alone is a moutain climbed. 

This is a very positive and encouraging development. I wish this same lady had not assaulted an MP with rat poison, but that is a separate issue. Hopefully the country is moving towards a saner drug policy, that will not be undermined by prejudice-driven political blowhards. Looking at you, Paula Bennet. Maybe you should smoke another joint and go back to sleep.

@Fred99 @HcoNmeM

Coil:

 

@Fred99 @HcoNmeM

 

 

Not really I'd hope.

If anybody else thinks that a husband prescribing "a cone a day" of cannabis to his pregnant wife is a good "cure" for severe morning sickness and "worth a try" despite evidence of possible harm yet only anecdotes of benefit, speak now or forever hold your peace.

Hold on.. if you're going to say that.. at least be fair..

There's evidence both for and against.. it's not a wholly except for me debate..

Your view is there's no evidence.. and my view is there is..

Your view is trust in doctors totally.. and mine is trust your body and your own intuition and if you think it's wrong then don't take it.. 

Fred99:

 

If anybody else thinks that a husband prescribing "a cone a day" of cannabis to his pregnant wife is a good "cure" for severe morning sickness and "worth a try" despite evidence of possible harm yet only anecdotes of benefit, speak now or forever hold your peace.

 

For the record, that is not something I would support. Who wants a kid who just eats and sleeps all the time? Oh, wait...

HcoNmeM:

 

Your view is trust in doctors totally.. and mine is trust your body and your own intuition and if you think it's wrong then don't take it.. 

 

Oh no it's not my view at all.

I won't take any drug without being as fully informed as I can be about risks and benefit - based on science rather than anecdote. 

Rikkitic:

 

Fred99:

 

If anybody else thinks that a husband prescribing "a cone a day" of cannabis to his pregnant wife is a good "cure" for severe morning sickness and "worth a try" despite evidence of possible harm yet only anecdotes of benefit, speak now or forever hold your peace.

 

 

For the record, that is not something I would support. Who wants a kid who just eats and sleeps all the time? Oh, wait...

 

 

 

Aaahhh.  Memories of being a child in the '60s, when valium was thought to be "harmless" and "mother's little helper".

Fred99:

 

HcoNmeM:

 

Your view is trust in doctors totally.. and mine is trust your body and your own intuition and if you think it's wrong then don't take it.. 

 

 

Oh no it's not my view at all.

 

I won't take any drug without being as fully informed as I can be about risks and benefit - based on science rather than anecdote. 

 

Science you've done or science a big pharma has done?

HcoNmeM:

 

Fred99:

 

HcoNmeM:

 

Your view is trust in doctors totally.. and mine is trust your body and your own intuition and if you think it's wrong then don't take it.. 

 

 

Oh no it's not my view at all.

 

I won't take any drug without being as fully informed as I can be about risks and benefit - based on science rather than anecdote. 

 

 

 

 

Science you've done or science a big pharma has done?

 

100 years ago anyone could do a test and report on their findings and it would be a genuine scientific experiment.

Today you need paper in your hand, work for an organisation along with many other prerequisites to be even considered to take part in a study. Most of the time the ones funding the study have a commercial interest in the results. 

I have done a bit of science with pot, No one will take me seriously though will they? Cause the big boys have already done their study and reported on what they wanted.

How is this different from taking a feather and hammer and dropping it on the moon?
I took sea legs for years without luck and pot fixed it first time. Results don't exactly lie.
Doctors trial some patients across the board with heaps of drugs in some cases. Find the one that works and stick with it.

HcoNmeM:

 

Fred99:

 

HcoNmeM:

 

Your view is trust in doctors totally.. and mine is trust your body and your own intuition and if you think it's wrong then don't take it.. 

 

 

Oh no it's not my view at all.

 

I won't take any drug without being as fully informed as I can be about risks and benefit - based on science rather than anecdote. 

 

 

 

 

Science you've done or science a big pharma has done?

 

Peer reviewed science by scientists.

I did for a few years work for a global "big pharma" corporation, but not directly with retail drugs.  I'm less cynical about their technical ethical standards than most people, yet probably more critical of the entire marketing model and funding of research.  In the end it's always going to be "sell sell sell".

FWIW, my mother died young almost certainly from the (at the time) unknown side effect of long term medication she'd been taking.  No conspiracy by the drug companies (it was off-patent anyway), and no "proof" that was her cause of death.  By the time the side effect was known, she'd been dead for quite a few years.  The symptoms of the side effect were noted by a cardiologist - but before the link to the drug were known. The drug is still prescribed (specialist only - and as a last resort - despite the significant side effect of occasional instant death, in some rare cases the benefits outweigh the risk).

Sh*t happens - and sometimes nobody is to blame.

The passing of the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Act means some products containing cannabidiol (CBD) are now prescription medicines only.

Key points

Products that meet the definition of a CBD product (see below) are prescription medicines

Ministry of Health approval is not required to prescribe, supply or administer products for medical purposes if they meet the definition of a CBD product

Authorised prescribers and pharmacies are allowed to import CBD products, as are persons or companies holding a licence to sell medicines by wholesale See Importing of CBD Products into New Zealand for more information.

Individual patients may import CBD products provided they meet the requirements for importing prescription medicines (but not any other cannabis based products

A maximum of three months’ supply is allowed on a prescription for CBD products.[/ul]