What about the evidence?

No Right Turn blogs:

Today is a Member’s Day, and the big debate today is likely to be on Metiria Turei’s Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill. The goal of the bill is to allow people with severe medical conditions to use cannabis for pain and nausea relief – something which ought to be a straight medical question of whether it is safe and effective. But the bill muddies the waters by letting those sick people get a license to grow their own or buy it from a designated agent – something which significantly reduces the cost, but which is bound to inflame the anti-drug wingnuts.

The Health Committee recently considered this issue in response to a petition from NORML [PDF]. Despite being told by the Ministry of Health that cannabis was a safe and effective medicine for some conditions with fewer and less dangerous side-effects than medicines currently in use, the furtherest it would go was recommending that one (prohibitively expensive) cannabis-based medicine be made easier to prescribe. Based on that, I think there’s no enthusiasm to pass this bill in this Parliament. Which means that people who find cannabis effective in treating their ailments will just have to keep breaking the law.

I might be pleasantly surprised, but I suspect No Right Turn is correct – that this very sensible Bill will be voted down, despite the evidence showing that cannabis is an extremely effective analgesic in these circumstances and has far less adverse side effects and is far cheaper (free if you grow it yourself) than alternatives.

Why can’t the other parties emulate the Greens by basing their policies on evidence, rather than pandering to often bigoted and uninformed public opinion?

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “What about the evidence?

  1. (free if you grow it yourself)

    And there’s your problem – people won’t be able to get rich off of other peoples medical problems if those people can grow their own.

    Really, capitalism is about restricting access to everything so that a few can benefit for an output of nothing.

  2. Green policy would see you “free” to grow your own medicine, but not “free” to bring up your kids in a manner that follows your own beliefs.

    Selective socialism?

  3. Draco – capitalism does restrict access – but only when you are talking about crony capitalism, which is closer to what we have now with a National govt.

    Our welfare state does not allow unrestricted access to the health, education, etc resources people need or want – it is a system of rationing.

    So socialist or communist system isn’t the answer to the problem of restricted access.

    there are different political models of socialism, and capitalism – can you make more specific the type of capitalism you dislike – do you make a distinction?

  4. Green policy would see you “free” to grow your own medicine, but not “free” to bring up your kids in a manner that follows your own beliefs.

    Selective socialism?

    You’re free to bring up your kids however you like under the current law. I would’ve though even a libertarian would support the ability of the state to intervene in cases of assault.

    So socialist or communist system isn’t the answer to the problem of restricted access.

    I’ve always viewed communism as a post-scarcity system of government due to its inherent political instability and vulnerability to revolutionary transitions being hijacked by dictators.

    Of course, as a Green, looking at a statement like “post-scarcity” kinda makes me laugh. We’ve got a long way to go on that front.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s