On Peter Dunne’s speech to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs

Ross Bell (of the Drug Foundation) posted this comment at Public Address – “Brilliant stuff”:

Wow, just wow. Peter Dunne has just released the speech he’ll soon give at the Commission on Narcotic Drugs in a couple of hours. Brilliant stuff (except the medical cannabis stuff – some work still to be done).

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1503/S00099/58th-session-un-comm-on-narcotic-drugs-vienna-austria.htm

And Russell Brown follows up:

To wit:

For those suffering from such ailments I have enormous sympathy and I have asked my officials in New Zealand’s Ministry of Health to look into the evidence and efficacy for cannabis as a medicinal or therapeutic relief.

The evidence, however, has been underwhelming.

As a global community, I believe it is essential that we address the issue of medicinal cannabis on its merits. Based on the evidence provided to me, I have grave reservations about the efficacy of cannabis for the vast majority of indications that it is being put forward for.

These concerns do not stem from a personal antipathy towards the drug, rather, they stem from the very real likelihood that many sufferers – and in many cases they are children, are being given false hope that cannabis use will significantly ameliorate their symptoms, their pain and their reduced quality of life.

I can sympathise to an extent, in that the medical benefits of cannabis are routinely wildly oversold. What he’s missing (or, rather, his officials are) is that, especially where pain is concerned, subjective benefit is benefit. If cannabis helps someone get off major painkillers, that’s a big win. When the only treatment for chronic pain is something like morphine – and going on the nod and always being constipated and all the other things people find unpleasant – it’s actually wrong to criminalise people for using something that works for them.

The reference to children is presumably in the case of conditions like childhood epilepsy, where there seems to be a reluctance to accept that high-CBD (and hence, much less psychoactive) strains are providing benefit. Yes, there isn’t enough research on CBD, but other epilepsy drugs are vile and disabling. Really, they’re awful.

I think this is kind of a flashpoint: held to a conventional standard of pharmaceutical drug approval, we shouldn’t use cannabis as a medicine. But until we get grown-up enough to do the research, it actually seems cruel to deny these children access.

Ross Bell:

Plus there’s been a ridiculous Catch 22 with med cannabis: we don’t have evidence about possible effectiveness because research funding has been withheld (US have only recently overturned its ban on federal money for med pot research). It’s telling that many more pharmaceutical companies are moving into medical cannabis research… that should tell the minister something.

At Scoop: Peter Dunne’s Speech

58th Session UN Comm. on Narcotic Drugs, Vienna, Austria

Hon Peter Dunne
Associate Minister of Health
9 March 2015 Speech

NZ Statement to 58th Session of United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Vienna, Austria

It is a pleasure to be back in Vienna this year for what is a particularly important stage in the build up to the UN General Assembly Special Session in 2016.

This is my 5th Visit to participate in the CND, signifying the importance to which New Zealand attributes to these sessions, and the global issue of narcotic drugs.

Compassion. Innovation. Proportion.

Three words I believe are of the utmost importance and which should be front of mind when drug policy is being considered and developed. They are of particular relevance given the status of 2016’s discussions and the increasingly fluid and sophisticated nature of the drug industry.

Next year’s Special Session comes at an important time. The last decade has seen an ever increasing prevalence of synthetic compounds entering the market. New Zealand, despite its geographical relative isolation, has not been immune to this trend.

The ongoing presence of insidious synthetic psychoactive products necessitated dedicated legislation in New Zealand to address their widespread availability and constantly changing compositions. This legislation, the Psychoactive Substances Act was passed in 2013, and subsequently amended in 2014 to remove all products that had been granted interim approval, and also to ban the use of animal testing data for any manufacturer seeking approval to sell products in the future.

There was strong public sentiment that animals should not suffer for the sake of people’s recreational drug-taking. Aside from the two amendments, the Act remains intact and New Zealand continues to allow for the possibility that low risk psychoactive products may be developed in the future, and such products should, after due regulatory consideration, be permitted for sale.

New Zealand’s approach, I believe, has been innovative in its response to a seemingly intractable problem, and it is innovation that I believe will hold the key to addressing future drug issues faced by jurisdictions around the world. Global one-size-fits-all approaches are no longer the responses they once were, with jurisdictions each facing their own unique set of issues to resolve.

Because the world has changed and continues to change at an increasingly rapid pace, law makers must be equally adept at responding and adapting to new challenges or risk being left behind. In addressing drug-related challenges it is important that a focus on addressing supply issues does not come at the cost of reducing the harm experienced, from either the personal misuse of drugs, or by being around those who misuse drugs.

Responses must be proportionate to the offence/problem, and recognise that overly punitive responses do nothing to address the underlying health, and often social, issues that go hand in hand with drug use. Put simply, the ‘big stick’ is not proving the deterrent long desired, and I believe a more compassionate approach to dealing with drug-related issues will generate a more tangible, positive outcome for all parties.

We, as a global community, must continue to move away from rigid law and order responses, and apply a health lens when dealing with those adversely affected by drug use. I was heartened, at last year’s CND meeting, by a perceptible shift to stronger health-based approaches to minimising harm.

While much of the focus over the last three to four years has been on the rise of synthetic psychoactive substances and products, the last 18 months have seen a resurgence in the visibility of cannabis. Media reports of legislative changes to the status of cannabis around the world, at both federal and state levels, seem to be an almost weekly occurrence.

My office receives regular correspondence seeking legislative change – from comprehensive legalisation to more narrowly-focussed medicinal-cannabis regimes. Cannabis, I am told is apparently the panacea for a plethora of ailments, some of which, sadly, are painfully debilitating.

For those suffering from such ailments I have enormous sympathy and I have asked my officials in New Zealand’s Ministry of Health to look into the evidence and efficacy for cannabis as a medicinal or therapeutic relief.

The evidence, however, has been underwhelming.

As a global community, I believe it is essential that we address the issue of medicinal cannabis on its merits. Based on the evidence provided to me, I have grave reservations about the efficacy of cannabis for the vast majority of indications that it is being put forward for.

These concerns do not stem from a personal antipathy towards the drug, rather, they stem from the very real likelihood that many sufferers – and in many cases they are children, are being given false hope that cannabis use will significantly ameliorate their symptoms, their pain and their reduced quality of life.

Such a situation is unethical, irresponsible and highly undesirable. We can, and must, do better.

In closing, I reiterate that compassion, innovation and proportion are key elements in our collective, ongoing work in the drug policy field.

A robust, evidence-based approach is the only responsible path forward, and one which I hope will form the foundation for our discussions at 2016’s Special Session.

Thank you.

Leave a comment

11 Comments

  1. What a load of inane, pointless drivel from Dunne !

    He might as well just admit this Govt. has no intention to allow medicinal cannabis, even though many other countries (Canada, USA, Aust. & many in EU) are doing so & many studies are finding it DOES have genuine therapeutic value.

    Again I ask.. “who is pulling his strings ?”

    Reply
  2. SumoBaby

     /  9th March 2015

    Looks like the same old bollocks to me

    Reply
  3. PHIL ABONG

     /  9th March 2015

    I bet it’s a a pleasure to be back in Vienna Peter Dunne,it’s also noted that you intend to be back to talk about what you haven’t dunne in 2016.
    What you have missed, is that the proof of Cannabis’ safety compared to all other drugs be them legal, prescription or illegal,this indeed makes for the relative safety for patients while discovering whether Cannabis could be the right fit for them, at no great risk.
    I would like to challenge Mr Dunne to research some of the side effects of Drugs that are on the market and used to manage long suffering pain, like Amitriptyline, though with him being a layman, he may not feel qualified to make suck a comparison, yet he feels such a unqualified moral duty to not study the facts,the facts that are behind so many finding relief from this ancient herb.
    To add insult to injury if he has afforded the same approach to Cannabis as he did for synthetics which he desperately seeks recognition for, we may have been moving into an era of Cannabis regulation and reform.

    Reply
  4. Reblogged this on modelmiss's Blog.

    Reply
  5. Its the underwhelming evidence part I disagree with on medicinal Cananbis….

    Reply
  6. The real concern to me, being that Dunne (& this Govt.) seem to be saying ‘most NZ people support the status quo’ when in fact many recent polls show the majority do NOT support prohibition/war on drugs & ARE calling for law reform..

    Dunne & his cronies have their own agenda & it is not what the majority are saying !!

    Reply
  7. NZ’s signatory status that gives succour to those who would shoot druggies…. gets a wide berth at CND / UNGASS. Oops, so much for harm reduction! in a human rights centric organisation.

    The balance is ill-informed piffle conflating synthetics, voiding any potential epidemiology research benefits, voiding any cost benefit analysis of prohibitory paradigms and pandering to fears where there should be none.

    Dunne’s remains a stooge for pro-alcohol and pro-prohibitory morality wowsers.

    Reply
    • Dunne replied to my correspondence on med-use, by saying the UN conventions do not allow it !
      Methinks he has NO IDEA what hes talking about.. the opening preamble clearly gives exemption to ‘Medical & Scientific use’ & does not demand zero-tolerance & prohibition for other personal uses.
      He even said that ‘natural cannabis’ would likely not pass his ‘low risk’ requirement under the psychoactive substance act.. that regulated synthetics (until a public outcry stopped it), inferring synthetic are safer.

      Maybe someone should ask him “What are you smoking.. MAN ?”

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  11th March 2015

        He is the epitome of a self-centred, unprincipled, lying politician, Zedd.

        Reply
  1. Drug Foundation responds to MOH “underwhelming” evidence on medical cannabis | Your NZ

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s