Dear Jacinda: Use Trudeau As Your Model, Campaign On Cannabis Law Reform

Dear Jacinda – there isn’t the time to go into much detail, so I’ll be brief. If you want to win next month you will have to copy Justin Trudeau and how he won in Canada. If you want to copy Justin Trudeau you’ll have to demonstrate that you’re listening where the other politicians have not been – and that means that you ought to campaign on comprehensive cannabis law reform in New Zealand.

Trudeau campaigned on several major policy planks, but one of them was that cannabis prohibition was a demonstrated failure and the law prohibiting it needed repealing as soon as possible. This was not a shock to the Canadian electorate in 2016 because there had already been four years to observe the effects of legalisation in Colorado and in other places. It will not be a shock here either.

By now even the South African High Court has ruled that cannabis use is a human right, as they did earlier this year. It’s fair to say that if a Third World country like South Africa has an intellectual tradition deep enough to understand the need for cannabis law reform, then New Zealand ought to be able to claim the same.

So with this issue you could demonstrate a clear point of difference with not only Andrew Little, but also with Bill English and Winston Peters. You can also prevent the Greens and the Opportunities Party from outflanking you.

One of the reasons Little was not successful as Labour Leader was his refusal to listen to the people. Cannabis users, all 400,000 of us, tried to tell him that we were tired of being told that our issue wasn’t important and that we’d have to keep waiting. We’ve been waiting since 1996.

All we got was talk about how cannabis users would have to keep going to prison because cannabis causes brain damage, despite us providing ample evidence that prohibition caused far more harm than cannabis itself ever could.

What is sitting before you is the easiest open goal ever offered to a Labour Party leader. Kick it in!

Introducing cannabis law reform to an electorate where up to a third of them are directly criminalised by prohibition, and over two-thirds of them support a change to the current law, will be much easier than introducing civil unions was to an electorate where barely one in a hundred people were affected.

The cannabis issue is unique in that it cuts across a wide range of demographics. The correlation between being Maori and voting for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party in 2014 was a whopping 0.89 – strong enough that it can fairly be said the vast majority of Maoris have an interest in cannabis law reform.

Considering that there is also a strong correlation between being Maori and not voting, it’s clear that there’s a large block of cannabis-friendly Maoris who have been, up until now, reluctant to vote at all. Although the primary reason for this is general disenfranchisement and not cannabis specifically, the refusal of our political class to listen to Kiwis on cannabis law reform is a major contributor to that disenfranchisement.

This column has previously argued that cannabis prohibition is itself a racist law because of its disproportionate effect on Maoris. It has long been noted that the major losers from cannabis prohibition are the same demographics that vote Labour, so why not give your constituency a break by legalising the recreational drug that most of them prefer to alcohol?

The correlation between voting Labour in 2014 and median age was -0.70, and with voting Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party in 2014 and median age it was -0.55, so it’s apparent that there are broad overlaps between Labour voters, cannabis users, and the disenfranchised young and Maori who don’t see enough representation in the system for it to be worth voting.

Change Labour’s stance on the cannabis issue, and you can bring enough non-voters to the polls to change the outcome of this election.

Labour Has Ignored Cannabis Law Reform At Its Own Cost

“Little isn’t listening.” That’s been the despairing conclusion drawn by the majority of the nation’s cannabis users over the past couple of years, as the total refusal of the Labour Party to take the issue seriously has caused many to switch off from politics entirely. Sentiments like these go some way to explaining why Labour is polling at their lowest level in over 20 years.

A change of Government at this stage of the electoral cycle is usually a procession for the opposition. After nine years of conservatism, which has left us with the world’s highest teen suicide rate, a completely dysfunctional mental health system and never-seen-before levels of homelessness, simply appearing competent ought to be good enough for Labour to win this year.

It’s likely that this has been Andrew Little’s strategy – appear as competent and steady as possible, and wait for the public to naturally swing to you as they start to desire an alternative.

The trouble is – and this is where Little is losing – is that his Labour Party doesn’t actually look like an alternative.

California legalised medicinal cannabis in 1996, meaning that New Zealand is already 21 years out of date on the issue, but the Labour Party website doesn’t even mention it.

The angry geriatric brigade might continue to dismiss the importance of the issue, but for the nation’s under-40s the cannabis law reform question is talismanic of the Establishment’s refusal to take their concerns seriously.

So when Andrew Little goes on television to say that cannabis causes brain damage, young Kiwis all around the nation drop their heads into their hands.

And then switch their vote to the Green Party. If one looks at the demographics of cannabis law reform voters in the 2014 General Election, it’s apparent that the bulk of them are young, poor, Maori and disenfranchised – precisely the sort of person the Greens had, until recently, neglected in their drive to the centre.

Last year’s policy change towards once again putting a high priority on the cannabis issue has attracted huge numbers of these otherwise disenfranchised demographics to the Green Party cause, and possibly even attracted some from Labour.

Young people are sick of having no recreational alternative to socialising with pissheads, and now that there’s clear evidence that cannabis can effectively serve as an alternative to alcohol there’s no reason to keep denying it to a New Zealand public that clearly understands the need for it.

And so, the Green Party has shot up to 15%, their highest ever poll result.

The hordes of morons living 20 years in the past will chalk this up to a coincidence, but the fact is this: cannabis law reform is a major issue for the under-40s, and by taking an intelligent and humane stance on it the Greens have rightfully gained some great electoral rewards.

For years, the issue has been sitting there as a soccerball before an open goal, with none of the cowards in Parliament willing to take up the issue.

The ridiculous Stephen Berry, mocked by our propaganda department for saying that ACT only cares about “the issues that matter to New Zealanders,” now finds himself a member of a party that is polling at 0.3% – lower than the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party at the last General Election.

This is the truth: no-one cares about gay rights any more. That issue is settled; it’s the politics of our grandparents. There are far greater grievances and injustices in New Zealand society, and it’s time to sort those out.

As long as the National Party refuses to consider granting respite to the nation’s 400,000 cannabis users, they will keep crying out for an alternative to the Fifth National Government.

And as long as the Labour Party refuses to listen to those crying out – and refuses to consider being that alternative – they will continue to fall in the polls.

The Labour Party ignores the need for cannabis law reform at its own cost, a cost that escalates the longer they do so.

Cannabis Prohibition is a Pakeha Law With No Place in Aotearoa

The Maoris’ lack of historical exposure to alcohol meant that, for British settlers, the drug had a similar effect to a targeted bioweapon

Maoris are severely disadvantaged by the laws around recreational drugs for biological reasons. The Pakeha that introduced these laws knew about these biological reasons, and so they created a set of drug laws specifically designed to keep Maoris down. This essay looks at how.

Human use of alcohol dates back into prehistory. It is believed that civilisations in the Fertile Crescent were brewing a simple form of mead as far back as 8,000 B.C., and we’ve never stopped brewing it. After all, the effects of alcohol make some of the unpleasant aspects of life much easier to deal with.

Not every culture adopted alcohol at the same time, however. Use of it spread from the Fertile Crescent to nearby cultures, and then further afield, until it was introduced to Maoris in the late 18th century.

Alcohol is everywhere now, but, as any cosmopolitan worthy of the name could tell you, the various people of the world behave in different ways to the drug.

The basic rule is this: the greater the length of time that an individual’s ancestors have been exposed to alcohol, the greater the opportunity there has been for genes that lead to poor outcomes from alcohol use (in particular, violence and/or physically reckless behaviour, and alcoholism) to have been eliminated from that individual’s gene pool.

Middle Easterners tend to behave the best on alcohol, for the reason that they have been exposed to it for maybe 10,000 years. This means that, for a hundred centuries, anyone carrying genes that led them to go crazy on alcohol would have died at a significantly higher rate than their fellows.

Southern Europeans and Northern Africans are the next best behaved, because they were next to be introduced to the drug, and Northern Europeans, especially the British from which the majority of Kiwis descend, have themselves had between 2,500 and 5,000 years of exposure.

The Maoris, by contrast, have had 200 years of exposure to alcohol. Although trading rum for various goods and services was basically how interracial relations began in New Zealand, two centuries is not very long in evolutionary terms.

What that means, in practice, is that Maoris carrying genes that lead them to go crazy on alcohol, although they certainly die at a significantly higher rate than their fellows, have not done so for long enough for Maoris as a whole to have built up the genetic resistance to the drug that Kiwis of British ancestry have.

This explains why, if you put half a dozen standard drinks into 100 Maoris and 100 Pakeha, the Maoris would have significantly worse outcomes. It’s not a question of willpower or lack of mental discipline or fortitude, any more than the higher rate of skin cancer among Pakeha is a question of those things. Both are matters of explicable biology.

The fact is that alcohol has literally been used as a bioweapon against Maoris.

The logic about genetic resistance was understood by British colonialists well before anyone was aware of such things as genes. By the time the Empire had made it as far as New Zealand, it had had two hundred years of observing the effects of the drug on the natives of Africa, the Americas and Australia, and it had noted that in almost every case the social structure of those natives was obliterated by exposure to it.

They therefore knew full well what was going to happen when they introduced the Maoris to rum, and outcomes like Kororareka – “The Hellhole of the South Pacific” – were inevitable.

It was known that exposure to alcohol was going to cause the Maoris to fight each other and kill themselves, because there had been ample opportunity to see that happen elsewhere.

This genetic vulnerability to alcohol explains why Maori culture has taken so eagerly to cannabis. The majority of Maoris have tried cannabis at some point in their lives, and many of those prefer it to alcohol, for the straightforward biological reasons explained above.

For many Maoris, smoking cannabis is a way of getting the benefits of easy sociability and euphoria that one would get from alcohol, but without the drastically negative consequences that naturally befall anyone without an ancestral exposure to the drug. So cannabis prohibition has a massively disproportionate effect on Maoris.

Understood like this, it appears almost sadistic that a Parliament full of people of European descent would forbid, on pain of time spent locked in a prison cage, a recreational alternative to a drug that only they can safely use.

This could fairly said to be terrorism in the form of bioweapons.

*

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis).

Should Kiwis With Historical Cannabis Convictions Be Compensated?

Now that the New Zealand Parliament has officially apologised to Kiwis convicted of historic homosexuality offences, the day when they apologise to medicinal cannabis users draws ever closer. So in much the same way that there are calls for gay men convicted for homosexuality offences to be compensated, there will also be calls for people convicted of medicinal cannabis offences to be compensated.

This isn’t necessarily a brand new idea – Article D of the twenty-six point plan in the Cannabis Activist’s Handbook calls for compensation on the grounds that a criminal record for a medicinal cannabis offence severely impacts the sufferer’s social and financial standing.

It’s easy for most to agree that a person’s rights to cultivate a herbal medicine are in the same category as their rights to have sex with another man. There is no good reason to sic the Police on people who do either, because neither action causes harm to anyone else.

And so it’s straightforward to accept that there is a genuine case for compensation for harm done to the victims of the Police and Justice systems. After all, putting someone in a cage for an action that harms no-one is itself a crime.

There are life-long consequences to getting a criminal conviction, such as extreme difficulty in finding a job, getting a loan or being accepted to an academic course. The financial losses to these three consequences alone might add up to half a million dollars or more over the course of a lifetime.

So most of us can accept that it’s fair that the Government pays money to put right the damage that it caused to its own people by effectively conducting a war on them without their consent.

If a person wants to make the argument that compensation should be denied because the offences were technically crimes at the time they were committed, they ought to ask themselves if they would be happy with a criminal conviction for reading this VJM Publishing article in a dystopic future where websites without state approval were considered pirate media.

Because it’s very easy to dismiss the psychological damage caused by arbitrary misapplications of judicial power when it doesn’t happen to oneself.

What ought to happen is, first, that it be written into the New Zealand Bill of Rights that actions that do not have victims cannot be crimes. This will not only entrench the legality of both homosexual activity and medicinal cannabis use, but it will also make it impossible for any future offence in this category (i.e. victimless ones) to be pushed into law.

What needs to happen, second, is that a commission is put together to calculate – using the same evidence-based methodology that is being pushed by some with regards to cannabis law reform – an accurate dollar figure corresponding to the amount of suffering caused by being persecuted by this law.

Possibly the fairest way would be to declare a set sum of compensation per conviction and per day in jail if there was a custodial sentence.

For example, we might say that the amount of personal damage inflicted on a person by giving them a criminal conviction was equal to $25,000, with a further $250 for each day spent in prison.

And third we need to decide if we’re actually going to pay this compensation or if we’re going to just say “Fuck ’em”.

Spirituality Is The Ultimate Threat To The Government

The quintessential psychedelic experience is to gradually but irreversibly become aware of any of a range of truths about reality, such as that there is no such thing as death, or that life is only a dream, or that on the other side of the illusion is bliss. Few understand that it is becoming aware of these spiritual truths that has given the control freaks cause to make psychedelics illegal.

There’s nothing more illegal than true spirituality. There will never be anything more illegal than true spirituality – by definition – because true spirituality is the antidote to all forms of slavery, whether by iron, silver or gold.

In order to enslave someone, it is necessary to first cause them suffering, so that an alleviation of that suffering can be offered in exchange for acquiescence. This is true of every level of primate hierarchies from monkeys to humans, and is even true of some mammals and reptiles.

The suffering can either be physical in the form of pain or psychological in the form of fear (or, most commonly, both). If either of those is present in a target it is possible to enslave them by granting them alleviation.

However, there is a trick, not known to everyone: that all suffering is an illusion borne of an incorrect (if tempting) over-identification with one of the temporal forms of the material world.

In other words, if you refrain from identifying excessively with one of the ever-changing patterns that present themselves to your consciousness, you can exist in the full knowledge that you are that eternal, indivisible consciousness.

An excessive identification with the phenomena of “your body” is the most common of these.

The more strongly a person identifies with their body, the more sharply they will feel the pain of that body, and consequently the more passionately they will resist being put in situations that cause them pain – even if their escape from them comes through causing others to suffer even more.

This excessive identification with one’s body is fundamentally an error caused by a lack of spiritual knowledge. Therefore, anyone aiming to enslave anyone else must begin with the spiritual enslavement of his enemy, for without this no other form is possible.

And so, slavery begins by separating people from their birthright – which is to know the spiritual truths.

After all, how can a person be controlled when that person is no longer in fear of death?

The whole point of Government is that, if there was ever a war, you’d be the one fighting it and the people who currently make up the Government would be giving you orders from a safe distance.

How they get you to be the sharp end of the spear and not themselves (or their offspring, or their political donors or their offspring) is the result of the successful application of a set of mass psychology tricks that have been refined ever since Babylon.

The main objective of this set of tricks is to separate people from their birthright to know spiritual truths by instead filling their heads with lies, violence, deception, hatred, rape and destruction.

The more a person’s head is filled with such, the more easily they can be enslaved.

Ironically, the more afraid of death a person is, the more powerfully they attract it – a fact understood by men of gold since Egypt. The more powerfully they attract death the more fear they suffer, and the more fear they suffer the more easily they can be enslaved.

Or more to the point, the more easily they can be persuaded to submit to slavery in exchange for amelioration of the suffering caused by the fear.

Hence it has been said, by men of gold in all times and places, that “The truth will set you free.”

Anyone truly spiritual is invincible; this is true of all levels of the Great Fractal, from individuals all the way back to complete unity of consciousness.

For the sort of person that seeks to enslave rather than to co-operate on even terms, spirituality is effectively their ideological enemy.

And so, it is possible to get life imprisonment for giving a person some LSD – even with their informed consent – even while people are given much more lenient sentences for physically or psychologically brutalising their fellows.

You Can Never Win Freedoms Back; You Can Only Trade Them

Although the accepted narrative is that we are moving into a time of greater freedom, in many ways we are in fact becoming less free – and these losses are not necessarily easy to notice

Many young Kiwis have felt a sense of relief after Julie Anne Genter and The Opportunities Party decided to champion cannabis law reform. Finally it seemed like the political class were going to grant the New Zealand people some of their rights back. But, as this essay will examine, dealing with politicians is never that simple.

Both Genter and TOP broke with the New Zealand political convention of treating cannabis law reform as a taboo subject earlier this year as the foreshadow of the General Election loomed, incentivising new policy directions that attracted media attention.

Both of them also broke with convention by bringing logic and evidence to this discussion, instead of the usual fear-mongering and hysteria. As has long been argued by this company (most notably in the Cannabis Activist’s Handbook), once the narrative on cannabis shifted from lies to truth, the days of prohibition were numbered.

Once the sheeple of New Zealand came to realise that cannabis was a medicine and not really the devil’s lettuce, it didn’t seem right to put people in cages for it anymore, and that led directly to the need for law reform being taken seriously by everyone today.

So does this mean that New Zealand is moving out of the Puritanical mindset when it comes to psychoactive substances and will now be discussing the issue sensibly?

Of course not! Morgan wants to put the drinking age back up to 20.

Even though his entire message is that prohibition of cannabis isn’t working, and even though it’s widely understood that prohibition of alcohol didn’t work, voting for cannabis law reform through TOP is also going to be a vote for some Kiwis to lose the freedom to consume alcohol.

Some people might not think too much of this, but Morgan’s actions here reveal the strategy that politicians have used to seize control of the plebs throughout all times and places.

Politicians do this by offering you some of your freedoms back at the cost of others. Their trick is to always take away more freedoms than they offer, but to present it in a way that tricks the plebs into thinking that it’s the other way around.

Another example of it also pertains to cannabis: the fact that almost every cannabis user in the country who has a driver’s licence is also a criminal, because it is a crime to drive with any amount of THC in the system, and anyone who has smoked cannabis within the last six weeks will have THC in their system – even if they are not at all impaired.

If the politicians decided to legalise cannabis tomorrow they could simply bring in more punitive consequences for driving a motor vehicle, such as regular checkpoints with saliva swabs to detect for THC in the system.

Enough checkpoints and saliva swabs and it simply wouldn’t matter that cannabis was technically fully legal – the degree of damage done to the population by the state would remain the same. It could potentially even be increased.

And then we’d end up like the states of Australia and America that have “decriminalised cannabis” but made it criminal to drive with THC in the system, impaired or otherwise.

Either that, or we’ll lose our rights to speak freely on the Internet. It’s possible that the wholesale criminalisation of the young that came about as a consequence of the cannabis laws will be replicated with criminal trials for “hate speech” and “harmful digital communication”.

In any case, we can guarantee that the freedom of politicians to lie to the nation – and to cause them great suffering as a consequence of the despair and confusion – will not be impeded by anything.

Trip Report: 100mg Methoxetamine

2100: I take a gelcap with 50mg methoxetamine. I am at home with only my mother and two cats for company. I have just had an excellent week on holiday with some good friends and so my mindset is optimal.

+0.30: I take a second gelcap with 50mg methoxetamine. This makes it a total of 100mg, which is a very heavy dose. The reader ought to note that I weigh 115kg, and so the vast majority of people would not need as strong a dose as 100mg to have a similar experience.

+1.00: It’s starting to come on for real. I turn my head to the side and it seems to take a while for my perception to catch up.

It’s not like how it usually is, where the turn of the head seems to take place at the same time as the change in focus. Somehow there is a sense of viewing everything though a camera.

It’s as if there is some kind of perceptual space in between the sensory action that is detecting the physical world and my consciousness that observes it.

As if my eyes have been removed and replaced with cameras, and these cameras feed input directly to my consciousness somehow.

+1.30: I’m enjoying watching myself do things. There is a strong sense of comedy, as my body appears to be doing things without an exercise of will on my part.

For example, I just went out of my house to go up the stairs to another house, and it’s more like watching an extremely boring movie (although the novelty of one’s life being observed second-hand like a movie makes it interesting).

I realise that I am in a state of dissociation, and there is a mild sense of alarm at the possibility that I might do something without being in control of myself, and come to regret it.

This alarm never becomes anything major, as my body fortunately rolls along without doing anything stupid.

+2.45: It’s interesting to pat a cat in this state because of the dissociation. The cat seemed to me as it usually does, except for one distinction.

I was happy for the cat because I knew the person patting it was a good person who meant no harm. Because this person was going to bring happiness to the cat, I was happy for the cat’s sake.

That it was my cat and that it was me patting it didn’t come into the picture, despite that this is the usual course of events.

I knew it was my cat and I knew that the cat being happy made me happy, it’s just that I was unable to comprehend that it was me making the cat happy. It was as if my consciousness just hung in physical space, a short distance from the man I was watching, and followed him around like a will-o-the-wisp.

+3.30: The dissociation has helped me to realise something. That the person I’m observing in this highly dissociated state is actually a decent fellow.

It’s an interesting state because I don’t usually feel this way about myself, a feature of having clinical depression. But the dissociation has allowed me to view myself as if through the eyes of another. It seems natural to assume that this is a more objective state, having been stripped of all the psychic flotsam that otherwise occupies the mind.

I realise that everyone’s opinion of themselves is, to a large extent, conditioned and therefore has been arrived at by involuntary means.

That I appear to be watching myself, and that this self that I am watching is a decent fellow who I don’t need to be afraid of, doesn’t seem particularly strange in this moment.

+4.00: It has occurred to me that methoxetamine is an excellent anti-depressant. I have not taken my anti-depressants for a week before this trip so as to avoid serotonin syndrome (methoxetamine, like my prescribed sertraline, is a serotonin reuptake inhibitor).

I am feeling pretty happy, but not in a high way. Methoxetamine doesn’t appear to be an especially giggly drug like the classical psychedelics.

The sense of joy rather comes from a removal of the cloud of ignorance that I had about myself. It’s as if I dared to peek behind a perceptual curtain and was rewarded by feeling better about myself.

+5.00: The trip is starting to wind down. One pleasant thing about dissociatives is that the comedown tends to return the user to their familiar, everyday state of doing things in a way that is a relief.

This contrasts with the feeling I get on psychedelics, in which the comedown to familiarity often comes with a sense of disappointment, of being stuck here again.

All in all, I’d highly recommend a solid dose of methoxetamine, however I would only do so under certain caveats.

In particular, this drug is probably a terrible choice for going out partying or in public, on account of that the dissociation makes normal human communication a bit of a crapshoot.

On the flipside, it seemed like an excellent choice for hanging out at home and getting to know yourself better. Thus I would suggest that using it more or less like psilocybin should work out okay.

Also, I get the feeling that methoxetamine should probably be avoided if a person has low self-esteem or hates themselves. This is because the dissociative effect might bring this lack of self-regard starkly to the fore.