I’m
giving ten Scout points to Minister McClay for answering to my last email
(wherein I posted him this blog entry): copy of the Minister’s correspondence
following. Then taking nine points back for not actually answering to the
questions I asked.
The
day job for me begins to get serious now, even moving into my nights, and so I
have to start – as with this time every year – devoting less time to blogging, meaning
I will be penning my reply to the Minister over this weekend, and putting it
online then. However, after reading the below response, read carefully the blog entry to which he was responding, and how he has missed, totally, answering to
the corpus of it, deflecting his reply to the orbiter dicta only. Indeed, I’ve
been needling every MP with whatever social media reach I can muster on this
issue, and I can say from that there appears to be a blanket ban on any MP from
any political party in parliament, to scope this debate around
decriminalisation of cannabis: I can’t even get a MP to repeat either of those
words. To my central point that the internal logic of the Psychoactive
Substances Act would be fulfilled by decriminalising cannabis, with no animals
harmed, nothing from the Minister; it doesn’t even rate a mention in the reply
below. The unfortunate effect of this is to frame the issues in such a childish
fashion, it’s not possible to have an adult debate here.
[Aside, regarding that term, adult, and the first paragraph from Mr McClay,
sigh: sorry, let me clarify; eighteen hear old humans are children. That was
all I was meaning with my wording.]
Finally,
before copying Minister McClay, a further note: there were two harms enacted
with this legislation: the real possibility of animal testing – which will be
the case, the experts have already spoken – and the dreadful principle created that animal welfare comes in below
human recreation – party drugs. That’s what really is worrying me into the
future. While the overseas community has been moving away from animal testing, our
MP’s, across all parties, have brought animal testing back into the labs merely
so individual humans can ‘make the choice’ to get stoned in the weekend: that
is, this is NOT a public health issue,
and the international community, the caring, compassionate, informed one, was
never confused on this point:
So,
below is Minister McClay’s initial reply. My further response will be posted
over the weekend (if not sooner). Can I urge all reading this in agreement with
my position, and intractability on animal testing in these nonsense
circumstances, to keep the pressure on: write, write, write to all 119 MP’s,
starting with the Minister, and don’t stop writing until the Green amendment is
added taking out animal testing, including the possibility of it, from this
insane Act (which is also prohibition by stealth; I’m not confused on that
point either). Don’t let the 119 forget the cruelty they have enacted, in
practice and principle; let’s stop it before one animal is harmed.
|
Dear Mr Hubbard,
Thank you for your emails regarding the Psychoactive Substances Bill.
You have said that this legislation is being passed so “children can get high”. This could not be further from the truth. Parliament has been emphatic that no such products should be used by minors, and upon taking over responsibility for this Bill I quickly moved to clarify that supply to a minor under 18 in any circumstance is an offence, regardless of where it takes place. The high degree of accessibility via dairies that has existed to date is also removed from the point of enactment, so children will not continue to see such products in these environments, removing the ‘normalising’ context.
While your position on animal testing is clear and I appreciate the concerns you have raised, I believe that the issue of human health needs to be carefully and continuously considered. As Associate Minister of Health I have a duty to consider all aspects of human health and have sought expert medical and scientific advice.
The issue of animal testing has had a high profile, and appropriately so. I am not a supporter of animal testing, nor are any of my colleagues. Any testing regime will be determined by an expert advisory group, tasked with identifying all possible alternatives to animal testing, and will be required to review these tests frequently and at least on an annual basis. It is my hope that a testing regime can be established, if not now, then in the near future, that will not involve any animal testing. During consideration of the Select Committee I proposed an amendment that where a test that does not require animals is available then it must be used. This amendment was adopted unanimously by the Committee and means that where the outcome of an alternative test offers the same certainty then tests on animals cannot be used. The law as adopted by parliament means that manufacturers will not have a choice to use animals in place of another test agreed by the Expert Committee.
I am not aware of any previous process that has so explicitly set out a requirement for alternatives to animal testing to be identified and for this process to be an ongoing requirement. I proposed this amendment in good faith and as a compromise so that Parliament's desire for alternatives to be found and used would be clear.
You note in your blog that prohibition doesn’t work. In the case of so called 'legal highs' this seems to be the experience of almost every country that has tried to restrict these products. The Psychoactive Substances Act means that manufacturers and developers of psychoactive substances are being given the opportunity to develop low-risk products, rather than have a blanket ban applied outright. To enable this regime, products must be thoroughly tested so that we can be sure that they pose only a low level of harm. Exactly what tests will be required now, and in the future, will be a decision for the experts on the Expert Advisory Committee.
Todd McClay MP
No comments:
Post a Comment