The government has given a blunt ‘no’ to proposals to soften the classification of LSD under our drug laws.
The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs had been looking at the move to reclassify LSD as a Class B or Class C substance. Official documents show the committee felt LSD was inappropriately classified, based on evidence of risk of harm.
But Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne says he has met with the committee and made it clear the government has absolutely no interest in pursuing the matter. He says the arguments for change were theoretical and were not agreed on by the full committee.
Govt says no’ to LSD law change, Newstalk ZB, 16 March, 2010
In the Christchurch District Court yesterday, Cody Derek Martin, 23, a labourer, of Mairehau, faced 18 charges after an alleged domestic-violence incident on Saturday night.
Police allege a car driven by Martin crashed into an ambulance in Hills Rd, Mairehau, as a woman was being treated in it. They say a police car that chased the car was rammed several times.
The charges include five of assault with a vehicle, two of assaulting police officers with a baseball bat, two of threatening to kill, and one each of resisting arrest, failing to stop, driving recklessly and drink-driving.
Man charged after alleged domestic incident, The Press. 16 March, 2010
Lucky he wasn’t sitting at home staring at patterns in his wallpaper. Somebody could have been hurt.
“He says the arguments for change were theoretical”
damn those expert committees.
Comment by Neil — March 16, 2010 @ 9:17 am
Ya gotta wonder why they ask experts for their opinion. At least the committee has arguments. Dunne’s got sticking his fingers in his ears and singing “Lalalalalalala I can’t heeear you.”
Comment by Psycho Milt — March 16, 2010 @ 9:30 am
Isn’t it curious that the biggest cheerleaders for economic freedom, personal responsibility, and cold cost-benefit analysis are also the biggest advocates of drug prohibition.
Comment by Stephen — March 16, 2010 @ 9:40 am
A rational response to drugs, god forbid, then we might need to question why some of the most dangerous drugs are legal (alcohol, tobacco) where as lesser dangerous drugs like MDMA, LCD illegal.
Heaven forbid!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6899534.ece
Comment by Jeff Rosie — March 16, 2010 @ 9:44 am
Good work Dunne, keeping it class ‘A’ will stamp out its use. I got a good idea, why not have a war on ‘P’…
Comment by andy (the other one) — March 16, 2010 @ 9:50 am
LCD illegal.
Races off home to put a rug over new telly so the feds can’t see it!
Comment by andy (the other one) — March 16, 2010 @ 9:53 am
“He says the arguments for change were theoretical” while the arguments for the status quo were… what precisely?
Comment by garethw — March 16, 2010 @ 9:54 am
Isn’t it curious that the biggest cheerleaders for economic freedom, personal responsibility, and cold cost-benefit analysis are also the biggest advocates of drug prohibition.
You’d call Dunne one of those people?!
Comment by StephenR — March 16, 2010 @ 10:11 am
Dunhill Dunne strikes a blow for commonsense!
Comment by Chris — March 16, 2010 @ 10:15 am
“Isn’t it curious that the biggest cheerleaders for economic freedom, personal responsibility, and cold cost-benefit analysis are also the biggest advocates of drug prohibition”
Just as interesting that the Greens and their fellow travellers who spend most of their time wanting to ban things and actions are in favour of decrimilisation of drugs
Comment by rayinnz — March 16, 2010 @ 10:41 am
It’s times like this I wish I lived in France. Pont-Saint-Esprit to be precise:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7415082/French-bread-spiked-with-LSD-in-CIA-experiment.html
Meantime we’re stuck with just folic acid. Sigh.
Comment by Will de Cleene — March 16, 2010 @ 10:54 am
“Isn’t it curious that the biggest cheerleaders for economic freedom, personal responsibility”
Well, they got you fooled.
Comment by Clunking Fist — March 16, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
Danyl, you don’t understand. Alcohol must be INcluded in calculations of the harm caused by drugs, but EXcluded from proposals to deal with the harm caused by drugs. It makes perfect sense if you follow this simple rule.
Comment by kahikatea — March 16, 2010 @ 3:36 pm