The world is getting an ongoing lesson on exactly what is involved when an individual citizen of any nationality draws the ire of the United States of America - and one citizen in particular happens to be Australian.
Julian Assange embarrassed the United States when a serving member of that county's defence force introduced blank discs into the transmission equipment he was using and scooped up secrets that were released to the world by WikiLeaks, Assange's news service. The matter revealed was extremely embarrassing to the United States government.
Assange travelled the world as an international celebrity, ever looking over his shoulder for CIA intervention. In Sweden he was accused of possible rape by two young women of his acquaintance and the Swedish government demanded he come to Sweden to answer this charge. He ignored this demand, believing the moment he stepped on Swedish soil the US would issue a deportation arrest warrant and drag him before an American court.
In London, he was served with a deportation order by Sweden and went through all legal channels to avoid arrest. He skipped bail and was given sanctuary by the embassy of Ecuador which sheltered him under its immunity in its London embassy, where he has remained since mid 2012.
The British government has spent millions of pounds ringing that embassy with police to guard against Assange's escape. That has become an event that draws tourist crowds when Assange regularly appears on a balcony - just a metre from watching police - and makes public statements. These Swedish rape charges have been long dropped, but the Brits maintain this costly siege on the laughable grounds of that skipped bail incident.
Now the matter has notched up the diplomatic ladder with Ecuador granting Assange citizenship and proposing to install him in a diplomatic role. Embassy staff enjoy immunity from arrest and this would allow him to legally leave Britain, but the Brits have put obstacles in the way. New diplomats must first present their credentials to their host government and Assange would not be officially recognised until that happens - and he would be arrested the moment he leaves the embassy to comply.
Such is the power of the United States to force independent nations to comply with its wishes. Those women in Sweden were surprised to find that a casual enquiry morphed into an international rape charge at US instigation and Britain is pursuing a mundane bail matter with the zeal which would normally apply to the apprehension of a mass murderer.
Strangely, the military person who actually stole America's secrets has faced court, served prison time and been released - and is now pardoned and has undergone a sex change. In her new role as a civilian woman she is fast becoming a celebrity.
The US is determined to make Assange pay a price for revealing events that caused them embarrassment, and the time factor is unlimited. This harks back to the days of the cold war when a Catholic priest was given many years of sanctuary in an American embassy to prevent arrest by a vengeful soviet government.
This reads like an ongoing spy novel. The only difference is that we read the next chapter in the news sector of our daily newspaper !
Sunday, 14 January 2018
Saturday, 13 January 2018
The Opioid Crisis.
The coming removal of pain medication containing Opioids from over-the-counter sales and making it a prescription only item is a necessary step if we are to prevent addiction rates rising to the calamitous levels now prevalent in the United States.
One of the earlier hopes to thwart those who crushed the drug for the purpose of either injecting or snorting the resulting powder has made little impression on usage. The tablets had a polymer added that made them incredibly hard and plastic like. There was also an additive that made them resist being dissolved in water, resulting in an unappealing thick gel being the result.
It took a long time to sink in but the main reason we have an opioid problem is because this is a very effective method of pain control and it has been widely advertised by the pharmaceutical companies that compete for its sale. Because it is addictive, even short time users are quickly in its grip.
From February 1 - when it disappears from chemists shelves - there is the expectation that many users will visit their doctor and ask for a prescription. It is quite likely that many people are mildly addicted without their knowledge because they have used this form of pain relief intermittently over a long period of time. Some will be quite surprised when their addiction cravings start to appear.
We are assured that adequate pain relief is available from non opioid drugs and it will be very important that the medical profession stands firm and resists requests for opioids where non addictive alternatives can do an equally effective form of relief. Some patients can be very demanding and opioid refusal can lead to serious confrontations in some cases.
In the past, the belief that some people hold that antibiotics can cure the common cold resulted in many patients demanding a script for this medication. Unfortunately, some doctors caved in and simply wrote such a script - with the result that overuse has now degraded the effectiveness of most antibiotics because the bugs they treat have gained immunity.
That same sort of attitude could do irreparable harm to moving opioids from general sale to prescription only if scripts are too freely granted. Unfortunately, there always seem to be a small number of doctors who readily accede to patients wishes.
It would be a wise move to use the PBS network to keep track of the scripts for opioids handed to chemists and for any imbalance arising from any individual doctor to automatically be investigated. Without a valid explanation, the right to prescribe opioids by that doctor would be heavily restricted.
Opioids will still be trafficked by the illegal drug traders and they are unlikely to disappear from the black market, but the main aim of this move to prescription only supply is to shield the public from becoming unknowingly hooked on a substance that has hidden addictive properties.
That will only be effective if the medical profession is diligent in steering patients away from opioids and on to safer medication !
One of the earlier hopes to thwart those who crushed the drug for the purpose of either injecting or snorting the resulting powder has made little impression on usage. The tablets had a polymer added that made them incredibly hard and plastic like. There was also an additive that made them resist being dissolved in water, resulting in an unappealing thick gel being the result.
It took a long time to sink in but the main reason we have an opioid problem is because this is a very effective method of pain control and it has been widely advertised by the pharmaceutical companies that compete for its sale. Because it is addictive, even short time users are quickly in its grip.
From February 1 - when it disappears from chemists shelves - there is the expectation that many users will visit their doctor and ask for a prescription. It is quite likely that many people are mildly addicted without their knowledge because they have used this form of pain relief intermittently over a long period of time. Some will be quite surprised when their addiction cravings start to appear.
We are assured that adequate pain relief is available from non opioid drugs and it will be very important that the medical profession stands firm and resists requests for opioids where non addictive alternatives can do an equally effective form of relief. Some patients can be very demanding and opioid refusal can lead to serious confrontations in some cases.
In the past, the belief that some people hold that antibiotics can cure the common cold resulted in many patients demanding a script for this medication. Unfortunately, some doctors caved in and simply wrote such a script - with the result that overuse has now degraded the effectiveness of most antibiotics because the bugs they treat have gained immunity.
That same sort of attitude could do irreparable harm to moving opioids from general sale to prescription only if scripts are too freely granted. Unfortunately, there always seem to be a small number of doctors who readily accede to patients wishes.
It would be a wise move to use the PBS network to keep track of the scripts for opioids handed to chemists and for any imbalance arising from any individual doctor to automatically be investigated. Without a valid explanation, the right to prescribe opioids by that doctor would be heavily restricted.
Opioids will still be trafficked by the illegal drug traders and they are unlikely to disappear from the black market, but the main aim of this move to prescription only supply is to shield the public from becoming unknowingly hooked on a substance that has hidden addictive properties.
That will only be effective if the medical profession is diligent in steering patients away from opioids and on to safer medication !
Friday, 12 January 2018
When Power - is Power !
There is a very good chance that homes and businesses in northern Sydney, The Hunter, Newcastle and the Central Coast will experience power blackouts when hot weather strikes in February. The three thousand workers of Ausgrid are threatening industrial action if their pay claim is not settled before that time.
That is not an idle threat. The generation and distribution of electricity has been balanced on a knife edge when we recently had a forty-seven degree day and historically February usually delivers an end of summer burst of heat. These three thousand workers are the people who control and maintain the electricity distribution network that flows through poles and wires to our homes. Any sort of industrial action, including stoppages and call outs would be critical at times of high demand.
The unions are taking advantage of the crisis situation that delivers power to their hands and they have suffered a pay freeze for three long years. Their original work agreement expired in December, 2014, when Ausgrid was owned by the NSW State government. It has since been acquired by a consortium of Superannuation funds, IFM investors and AustralianSuper.
Negotiations have been grinding on endlessly, with the workers claiming to have delivered a productivity increase of 6.4 percent and have asked for a three percent pay rise. Ausgrid is offering 2.5 percent over the next two years and 2 percent in the third year, supported by a $ 1000 bonus payment for each employee.
The union is holding out for that full three percent over the whole period and a vote by union members resulted in 93% opting for industrial action unless this pay claim reached finality.
Of course, Ausgrid is just one of the several individual companies that control electricity distribution in New South Wales and it is virtually certain that whatever is decided in the Ausgrid case will quickly flow on across the industry.
Fortunately, the pay discrepancy is very small and this gap may be negotiated without the unions resorting to industrial action because the outcome of rolling power blackouts is just too horrible to contemplate. We are a society that has developed around a continuous electricity supply and blackouts would create the spectre of third world conditions. In some forms of continuous supply manufacturing the damage to plant and machinery could run into millions of dollars.
The inconvenience of householders sitting in the dark is nothing compared to the damage even a small power interruption would cause to small business. In the heat, most food would spoil very quickly, and the loss of refrigeration would compound that loss enormously. That income loss would spread across all sections of society.
The danger exists more widely that this pay dispute. There is a doubt that our generating capacity is up to the job in very hot weather and commercial decisions are influencing outcomes in new plant to replace old coal fired generators. It is quite possible that generation may fall short if we experience a run of unusually hot weather.
A continuous electricity supply is probably the measure of our capacity as a twenty-first century society. Its about time we got serious about making the right decisions to ensure uninterrupted supply !
That is not an idle threat. The generation and distribution of electricity has been balanced on a knife edge when we recently had a forty-seven degree day and historically February usually delivers an end of summer burst of heat. These three thousand workers are the people who control and maintain the electricity distribution network that flows through poles and wires to our homes. Any sort of industrial action, including stoppages and call outs would be critical at times of high demand.
The unions are taking advantage of the crisis situation that delivers power to their hands and they have suffered a pay freeze for three long years. Their original work agreement expired in December, 2014, when Ausgrid was owned by the NSW State government. It has since been acquired by a consortium of Superannuation funds, IFM investors and AustralianSuper.
Negotiations have been grinding on endlessly, with the workers claiming to have delivered a productivity increase of 6.4 percent and have asked for a three percent pay rise. Ausgrid is offering 2.5 percent over the next two years and 2 percent in the third year, supported by a $ 1000 bonus payment for each employee.
The union is holding out for that full three percent over the whole period and a vote by union members resulted in 93% opting for industrial action unless this pay claim reached finality.
Of course, Ausgrid is just one of the several individual companies that control electricity distribution in New South Wales and it is virtually certain that whatever is decided in the Ausgrid case will quickly flow on across the industry.
Fortunately, the pay discrepancy is very small and this gap may be negotiated without the unions resorting to industrial action because the outcome of rolling power blackouts is just too horrible to contemplate. We are a society that has developed around a continuous electricity supply and blackouts would create the spectre of third world conditions. In some forms of continuous supply manufacturing the damage to plant and machinery could run into millions of dollars.
The inconvenience of householders sitting in the dark is nothing compared to the damage even a small power interruption would cause to small business. In the heat, most food would spoil very quickly, and the loss of refrigeration would compound that loss enormously. That income loss would spread across all sections of society.
The danger exists more widely that this pay dispute. There is a doubt that our generating capacity is up to the job in very hot weather and commercial decisions are influencing outcomes in new plant to replace old coal fired generators. It is quite possible that generation may fall short if we experience a run of unusually hot weather.
A continuous electricity supply is probably the measure of our capacity as a twenty-first century society. Its about time we got serious about making the right decisions to ensure uninterrupted supply !
Thursday, 11 January 2018
But is it " Justice " ?
We have a vastly overloaded court system in New South Wales and most prisoners face endless delays before they face a judge and jury. Even when the evidence against them is overwhelming they usually plead " not guilty " in the hope that their lawyer will pull some legal rabbit out of his hat that grants them freedom.
In many cases, this before trial period is spent on remand which means they are actually behind bars in the same manner of those convicted and sentenced because bail has been refused, and in some cases the time spent on remand is greater than the usual prison term that applies to the offence with which they are charged.
The legal system is a well known lottery in which lawyers game the system to try and get their clients to appear before selected judges. The judiciary are known for their " hard "or " soft " attitude in sentencing and getting a case on an individual judges docket is all a matter of timing.
One of the peculiarities of our legal system is the custom of granting a twenty-five percent reduction in the time to be served to those who enter a " guilty " plea. This has led to an overwhelming change of plea to " guilty " at the last moment, just as the prisoner is finally having his or her case brought to trial.
Now a new approach is delivering results claimed to be " spectacular ". From March 2015 District Court judge Ian McClintock presided over a " rolling list " court where dedicated teams of prosecution and defence lawyers appeared before him alone, rather than returning to other judges after adjournments. With the inducement to try and get the case before another individual judge gone, the ratio of " guilty pleas " in this rolling list court jumped from the average of twenty-two percent in the ordinary court system to a much faster forty percent.
It seems that placing senior lawyers in both teams of defence and prosecution to negotiate the terms of the charge and sentence allowed these issues to be settled much more quickly, freeing up the entire court system. It is now proposed that cases be randomly allocated between regular lists and Judge McClintocks rolling list because his cases progress from committal hearing to trial forty percent faster.
Some may see this as a hidden threat. Don't waste the courts time with defences that must clearly fail or you will lost the discount for an early guilty plea. It is quite possible some innocent people will accept this " deal " just to end the time they are spending in a threatening environment on remand, virtually serving a sentence that has not been sanctioned by a court. Remand was supposed to contain only those deemed a threat to society but bail conditions have hardened and today many more languish on remand for other reasons.
It would be unfortunate if we lose the reason why the " innocent until proven guilty " maxim applies to our court system. Many prosecution cases fail on a technicality or the evidence submitted is not convincing, but this rolling list court seems more disposed to deliver speed by using the reduced sentence inducement to encourage a guilty plea.
The wheels of justice were said to grind slowly. Perhaps justice in overdrive - is no longer justice !
In many cases, this before trial period is spent on remand which means they are actually behind bars in the same manner of those convicted and sentenced because bail has been refused, and in some cases the time spent on remand is greater than the usual prison term that applies to the offence with which they are charged.
The legal system is a well known lottery in which lawyers game the system to try and get their clients to appear before selected judges. The judiciary are known for their " hard "or " soft " attitude in sentencing and getting a case on an individual judges docket is all a matter of timing.
One of the peculiarities of our legal system is the custom of granting a twenty-five percent reduction in the time to be served to those who enter a " guilty " plea. This has led to an overwhelming change of plea to " guilty " at the last moment, just as the prisoner is finally having his or her case brought to trial.
Now a new approach is delivering results claimed to be " spectacular ". From March 2015 District Court judge Ian McClintock presided over a " rolling list " court where dedicated teams of prosecution and defence lawyers appeared before him alone, rather than returning to other judges after adjournments. With the inducement to try and get the case before another individual judge gone, the ratio of " guilty pleas " in this rolling list court jumped from the average of twenty-two percent in the ordinary court system to a much faster forty percent.
It seems that placing senior lawyers in both teams of defence and prosecution to negotiate the terms of the charge and sentence allowed these issues to be settled much more quickly, freeing up the entire court system. It is now proposed that cases be randomly allocated between regular lists and Judge McClintocks rolling list because his cases progress from committal hearing to trial forty percent faster.
Some may see this as a hidden threat. Don't waste the courts time with defences that must clearly fail or you will lost the discount for an early guilty plea. It is quite possible some innocent people will accept this " deal " just to end the time they are spending in a threatening environment on remand, virtually serving a sentence that has not been sanctioned by a court. Remand was supposed to contain only those deemed a threat to society but bail conditions have hardened and today many more languish on remand for other reasons.
It would be unfortunate if we lose the reason why the " innocent until proven guilty " maxim applies to our court system. Many prosecution cases fail on a technicality or the evidence submitted is not convincing, but this rolling list court seems more disposed to deliver speed by using the reduced sentence inducement to encourage a guilty plea.
The wheels of justice were said to grind slowly. Perhaps justice in overdrive - is no longer justice !
Wednesday, 10 January 2018
Negative Gearing !
The ABC has used " freedom of information " laws to obtain a Treasury report on Labor's plan to drastically alter the " negative gearing " arrangement that allows investors to write off many of the costs of buying homes and putting them on the market as rental properties when these are accepted for tax purposes as a deduction against other income.
This Treasury report delivers a finding that is directly opposite to the claim the government made when Labor put negative gearing reductions as its policy at the 2016 election. The government claimed that this would put a " sledgehammer " through the housing market and bring the economy to a " shuddering halt ".
The Treasury people concluded that this plan would deliver an increase in taxation on rental property that would have a modest downturn impact on property prices. It was noted that the proposal would " grandfather " existing investments and have no impact on owner/occupier housing. Labor is now claiming that the government lied to the people because it ignored this Treasury report.
Of course this assumes that Treasury reports are always one hundred percent accurate and the people who predict how the public will react have the uncanny power to look into peoples minds. They are simply statistical researchers. Perhaps the government was closer to the minds of the very people who use negative gearing to ease their taxation load and at the same time accumulate family wealth as a retirement fund. This has been accentuated by the world wide bubble in housing prices.
Labor's policy initiative would have ceased negative gearing to all new property transactions and increased the Capital Gains Tax ( CGT ) from twenty-five percent to fifty percent on investment property sales. That would probably stop the purchase of rental properties dead in its tracks - with a consequent reduction in rental availability in the years ahead.
Buying an investment property is attractive to high income earners at present because interest rates are historically at their lowest point for years, but that will change. The interest rate cycle seems about to rise and there is uncertainty about where house prices are heading. We are seeing the first price reductions after decades of constant rises.
A lot depends on what Labor hoped to achieve. A lot has been said about first home buyers being priced out of the market, but a big drop in house prices would deliver financial annihilation to thousands struggling with big mortgages and that could throw the economy into recession. It seems to be a case of being very careful about what we wish for.
This Treasury report delivers a finding that is directly opposite to the claim the government made when Labor put negative gearing reductions as its policy at the 2016 election. The government claimed that this would put a " sledgehammer " through the housing market and bring the economy to a " shuddering halt ".
The Treasury people concluded that this plan would deliver an increase in taxation on rental property that would have a modest downturn impact on property prices. It was noted that the proposal would " grandfather " existing investments and have no impact on owner/occupier housing. Labor is now claiming that the government lied to the people because it ignored this Treasury report.
Of course this assumes that Treasury reports are always one hundred percent accurate and the people who predict how the public will react have the uncanny power to look into peoples minds. They are simply statistical researchers. Perhaps the government was closer to the minds of the very people who use negative gearing to ease their taxation load and at the same time accumulate family wealth as a retirement fund. This has been accentuated by the world wide bubble in housing prices.
Labor's policy initiative would have ceased negative gearing to all new property transactions and increased the Capital Gains Tax ( CGT ) from twenty-five percent to fifty percent on investment property sales. That would probably stop the purchase of rental properties dead in its tracks - with a consequent reduction in rental availability in the years ahead.
Buying an investment property is attractive to high income earners at present because interest rates are historically at their lowest point for years, but that will change. The interest rate cycle seems about to rise and there is uncertainty about where house prices are heading. We are seeing the first price reductions after decades of constant rises.
A lot depends on what Labor hoped to achieve. A lot has been said about first home buyers being priced out of the market, but a big drop in house prices would deliver financial annihilation to thousands struggling with big mortgages and that could throw the economy into recession. It seems to be a case of being very careful about what we wish for.
Tuesday, 9 January 2018
The " Fear Factor " !
When that Euthanasia law was voted down by a single vote in the New South Wales parliament many people with terminal diseases despaired of achieving a painless end to their lives. The lucky ones hoped that a bed might be found for them in palliative care, where the objective is to go further with pain relief than is usually provided in the general hospital system.
Much media attention was focused on a custom that has prevailed for a very long time. Some humanitarian doctors believe that pain relief is more important that a few extra hours of life and deliver an opiate dose that both eases the suffering and lets life slip away. This is illegal and the practice is tending to cease as public debate causes those with objector views to report such instances to the authorities.
Australians will be dismayed to learn that a recent report found that errors in opiate use were three times higher than in other healthcare settings. The researchers had looked at opioid errors in three inpatient palliative care services in metropolitan NSW. In forty-two percent of these cases the patient received a lesser dose than was initially ordered., with more than half of them requiring additional treatment as a direct consequence of this opioid error.
It seems that many who hoped for a pain free death are not getting their expectation and the most likely case is the " fear factor " that this euthanasia debate has generated in individual minds. Those tasked with delivering opioid doses can not be sure that a colleague may have an anti-Euthanasia mindset and question the validity of the measure delivered. They could be dragged before a coronial enquiry and stripped of their medical license if found guilty.
Significantly, the majority of patients examined had terminal cancer and were aged in their seventies. This was the very people that Euthanasia law was intended to serve, allowing them to avoid the painful end that many cancers deliver by choosing the timing of their individual deaths. Instead, they are put at the mercy of others and we now find that this same fear factor is diluting the legal dose they are entitled to receive. Some are experiencing an unnecessarily painful death in the very institution designed to prevent this happening.
Perhaps we need to review that very complex law that got voted down. It required the patient to make arrangements well in advance and be examined by a psychiatrist. There were age restrictions and to be mercifully terminated the patient had to jump through all the hoops the politicians thought necessary to placate opposing religions.
Really, this is something that very properly belongs in confidence between the patient and their attending doctor. If a terminal patient is in extreme pain and asks his or her doctor to end it - that should be where the decision is made - and exactly where it rightfully should be made.
Strangely, if those with the care of an animal allowed it to suffer the agony some patients faced before death we would prosecute them and deliver punishment in a court, and yet that is the kind of mercy we deny humankind !
Much media attention was focused on a custom that has prevailed for a very long time. Some humanitarian doctors believe that pain relief is more important that a few extra hours of life and deliver an opiate dose that both eases the suffering and lets life slip away. This is illegal and the practice is tending to cease as public debate causes those with objector views to report such instances to the authorities.
Australians will be dismayed to learn that a recent report found that errors in opiate use were three times higher than in other healthcare settings. The researchers had looked at opioid errors in three inpatient palliative care services in metropolitan NSW. In forty-two percent of these cases the patient received a lesser dose than was initially ordered., with more than half of them requiring additional treatment as a direct consequence of this opioid error.
It seems that many who hoped for a pain free death are not getting their expectation and the most likely case is the " fear factor " that this euthanasia debate has generated in individual minds. Those tasked with delivering opioid doses can not be sure that a colleague may have an anti-Euthanasia mindset and question the validity of the measure delivered. They could be dragged before a coronial enquiry and stripped of their medical license if found guilty.
Significantly, the majority of patients examined had terminal cancer and were aged in their seventies. This was the very people that Euthanasia law was intended to serve, allowing them to avoid the painful end that many cancers deliver by choosing the timing of their individual deaths. Instead, they are put at the mercy of others and we now find that this same fear factor is diluting the legal dose they are entitled to receive. Some are experiencing an unnecessarily painful death in the very institution designed to prevent this happening.
Perhaps we need to review that very complex law that got voted down. It required the patient to make arrangements well in advance and be examined by a psychiatrist. There were age restrictions and to be mercifully terminated the patient had to jump through all the hoops the politicians thought necessary to placate opposing religions.
Really, this is something that very properly belongs in confidence between the patient and their attending doctor. If a terminal patient is in extreme pain and asks his or her doctor to end it - that should be where the decision is made - and exactly where it rightfully should be made.
Strangely, if those with the care of an animal allowed it to suffer the agony some patients faced before death we would prosecute them and deliver punishment in a court, and yet that is the kind of mercy we deny humankind !
Monday, 8 January 2018
The " Cannabis Oil " Fiasco !
Our courageous politicians have decided that medicinal cannabis will now be a permitted export to cash in on growing world demand for this product. The only problem is that they have failed to make it legally available for the Australian users who are still forced to break the law and obtain their supples from criminal elements.
What many will find even more farcial. To enable competitive pricing, cannabis oil will also be a permitted import into Australia. So we expect to make money from the booming European, Canadian and US medical markets, but this same product can not be legally prescribed by doctors in this country.
Cannabis oil has been a proven relief for treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, chronic non-cancer pain and palliative care. Numerous tests have proven its worth and yet political foot dragging has prevented it emerging as a legal drug accepted by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. ( TGA).
The main problem is that the politicians are spooked by the cannabis oil link to Marijuana. For decades we have had implacable opposition to all forms of addictive drugs and there is a fear that politicians who vote for legalization will be tainted with a " soft on drugs " reason to repel voters.
Marijuana was perfectly legal in Australia until it got scooped up in a drug panic in the 1950's. Youth elements world wide started experimenting with substances that delivered a " high " and this included LSD. Heroin use became popular and suddenly we were in a drug frenzy that has outgrown law enforcements ability to control.
Marijuana is no more addictive than alcohol, and it is fast gaining legality in many parts of the world. In America there is the situation that it remains an illegal product under Federal law and has become a legal product under state law in many areas. As a result, banks are reluctant to extend banking services to Marijuana shops and proprietors need to enable their own money security. The trend to legality is spreading to a host of countries.
President Trump urgently needs a distraction to draw public attention away from the investigation into his election tactics and it seems likely he will force Federal authorities to crack down on state Marijuana sales. As a consequence, the use of medicinal cannabis in the United States may be a unforseen casualty.
The fact that medical cannabis remains in a legal vacuum here in Australia is a disgrace. Both Federal and state politicians are guilty of paying lip service to the need to confer legality - but at the same time moving at glacial speed to actually enact the laws that will make that happen.
What many will find even more farcial. To enable competitive pricing, cannabis oil will also be a permitted import into Australia. So we expect to make money from the booming European, Canadian and US medical markets, but this same product can not be legally prescribed by doctors in this country.
Cannabis oil has been a proven relief for treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, chronic non-cancer pain and palliative care. Numerous tests have proven its worth and yet political foot dragging has prevented it emerging as a legal drug accepted by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. ( TGA).
The main problem is that the politicians are spooked by the cannabis oil link to Marijuana. For decades we have had implacable opposition to all forms of addictive drugs and there is a fear that politicians who vote for legalization will be tainted with a " soft on drugs " reason to repel voters.
Marijuana was perfectly legal in Australia until it got scooped up in a drug panic in the 1950's. Youth elements world wide started experimenting with substances that delivered a " high " and this included LSD. Heroin use became popular and suddenly we were in a drug frenzy that has outgrown law enforcements ability to control.
Marijuana is no more addictive than alcohol, and it is fast gaining legality in many parts of the world. In America there is the situation that it remains an illegal product under Federal law and has become a legal product under state law in many areas. As a result, banks are reluctant to extend banking services to Marijuana shops and proprietors need to enable their own money security. The trend to legality is spreading to a host of countries.
President Trump urgently needs a distraction to draw public attention away from the investigation into his election tactics and it seems likely he will force Federal authorities to crack down on state Marijuana sales. As a consequence, the use of medicinal cannabis in the United States may be a unforseen casualty.
The fact that medical cannabis remains in a legal vacuum here in Australia is a disgrace. Both Federal and state politicians are guilty of paying lip service to the need to confer legality - but at the same time moving at glacial speed to actually enact the laws that will make that happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)