Australian National Council on Drugs

[Luke Skywalker]

Hey guys, was looking up some stuff on the Australian National Council on Drugs, the mob which recently put out some information regarding binge drinking in Australia by youth....

 

And I came across this....

 

Evidenced-based answers to cannabis questions

 

Cannabis is Australia’s most frequently used illicit substance. Figures from the 2001 national drug strategy Household Survey estimate that marijuana/cannabis had been used by one-third of Australians aged 14 years or older in 2001 (33.1%), and that (12.9%) had recently used in 2001 (AIHW 2001:5).

 

It is not surprising that cannabis has been the subject of significant research efforts, both within Australia and internationally. Despite these efforts, the ANCD has recognised that there is confusion about the state of our knowledge about cannabis and its effects. Issues such as the conflicting nature of some research findings, the accessibility of the information by decision makers, and the views and perceptions which are developed from experiences rather than research evidence may be contributing to this situation.

 

Accordingly, the ANCD has decided that it is important that governments have access to clear and concise answers to some of the more commonly asked questions about cannabis and that importantly, these answers are provided on the basis of findings from the highest quality research evidence. To achieve these goals, the ANCD will be producing two documents. Document 1 will be a compilation of research evidence which will be gathered around a number of key questions that have been identified by the ANCD. Document 2 will serve to provide succinct answers to each of the key questions.

 

most interesting... any thoughts? Couldn't find much else on their site, may ask them some q's when I get home and have more opportunity to think about the questions I'll ask...

[bloodshot_eyes]

Rudd is supposed to have mentioned that on health matters he supports evidenced based ploicies. Be interesting to see!!

[RobbieGanjaSeed]

Document number 2 sounds like it'll be a bruiser.

 

rob

[freddie]

Could be interesting. Good luck trying to to make sense of the minefield of politically biased reports and totally conflicting evidence that is cannabis research.

 

I wonder when it will be released and who will be the ones who research this. There are some great cannabis researchers in this country and some biased twits. Depends who they listen to.

[mullray]

Sounds to me like the ANCD is self promoting for future funding because now they're calling for more research and more money. Who was put in charge of running the cannabis education in Australia???? NDARC (National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre) - who has received massive funding already for various lame and cock eyed findings. It makes me laugh that these academics are seen to be experts when really they're just cheque book PhD's for hire and based on funding lines must maintain the party line or lose funding. That makes the whole affair open to question and the integrity of research that is done by pseudo government institutions needs to be brought into question.

 

Hopefully the Rudd Government dismantles some of the Howard Governments drug initiatives (in all likelihood he will). It was right at the end of his political career that Howard decided to throw money at drug education based on his zero tolerance leanings (presumably to win votes and show Australia what a top bloke he was when Australia wanted to see him go) - money went to police and parent groups in other words. A new government - a new focus. It will be interesting to see what Rudd's views are on matters of drugs. I believe things will become better now that Howard has gone. When Bush goes the world becomes a far far far better place in general.

[mullray]

The British Medical Journal slated John Howard for suppressing and burying research that didn't meet his approval. This was a huge step for them to openly come out and take swings at a foreign government and they must have had good cause to do this. Why not begin by using FOI to access research around mj that never saw the light of day. Find it and release it to the press. It's a step that is relatively doable. PS. Don't contact NDARC and ask them for FOI as they don't even have an FOI officer - so much for an open and accountable public sector and others who take our tax funds.

[freddie]

The British Medical Journal slated John Howard for suppressing and burying research that didn't meet his approval.

 

Any more info on this mullray? A link?

[mullray]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/apr2007/lanc-a26.shtml

 

This should get you started. There will be a lot more links to it also but actually looking up the original report may be the go. Sorry it was the 'Lancet' - a highly respected publication.

[iamnotacop]

It will be interesting to see what Rudd's views are on matters of drugs.

 

Not very interesting or encouraging, I'm afraid.

 

WILKINSON: Ok, just switching subjects for a moment. Peter Garrett said he did it years ago, Bill Clinton said he didn’t inhale, the Prime Minister said he’s never done it, have you ever smoked marijuana?

 

RUDD: I’m in John Howard’s camp on this one. We have a, we have a unity ticket.

 

WILKINSON: (laughter) Ok.

 

STEFANOVIC: Is that a no? (laughter)

 

RUDD: (laughter) That’s (inaudible).

 

STEFANOVIC: Never, never, never, never.

 

RUDD: Let me answer that directly in case you think I’m ducking, weaving, never, never, never. Not a part of my scene. I’ve always had a very tough line on this stuff, really, really hard line.

 

See, doesn't sound to encouraging, does it. There goes his "evidence based approach" bullshit, cause if that was true then he wouldn't be against it.

[mullray]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21590775-2,00.html

 

Here's a better link to the Lancet thing with: "It repeated scientist Ian Lowe's comments that the present government had “gone to extraordinary lengths to silence independent opinion within the research community”. What lengths, what research and to what degree is the question??? Therein may lie an answer.

 

Yes, Iamnotacop, I agree - doesn't look good but he is a more decent person than Howard and has a wider social conscience and that is a good place to begin where policy and statute law are concerned. That's not to say Rudd will ever contemplate legalising cannabis. Any politician that did legalise mj would be out of a job come the next election.