No army for Cape Town

President Jacob Zuma will not deploy soldiers to areas affected by gang violence in the Western Cape, the presidency said on Wednesday.

"The president... has opted for more intensive action by the police and long-term interventions by social and economic clusters of government," his spokesperson Mac Maharaj said.

(As per usual the President is too busy and can't speak for himself. Unfortunately this mean this blog now carries words spoken by South Africa's number one sycophant. For this I do apologise)

In July, Western Cape Premier Helen Zille asked Zuma to send troops to curtail gang violence. At the time, at least 23 people had been killed in the Western Cape in six weeks.

Seventeen of them were killed in Cape Town's Lavender Hill and Hanover Park areas. 

Maharaj said the ministers of police and defence had briefed Zuma on the situation. A team comprising staff from both departments went to the two suburbs to make an assessment.

The briefing from the two ministers indicated that a long term and multi-disciplinary approach was needed. (which essentially means that nothing will ever happen. This is government speak for entropy.)

"The SA Police Service has the necessary capacity to deal with the situation in these areas. The situation does not require the deployment of members of the SA National Defence Force," Maharaj said.

He said there were socio-economic conditions that needed to be addressed.  

(Mr Maharaj acting like he doesn't live in the country. Has the man looked around the country recently? The entire place is a socio-economic disaster and here is the President's spokesperson sycophant/troll telling us that Hanover Park and Lavender Hill have "socio-economic conditions" which needed to be addressed. Socio economic conditions? You don't say.. I thought Lavender Hill was like Constantia and Hanover Park like Bishopscourt. Always looks like it when I drive through there.)

Police would improve their intelligence-gathering and visibility in the areas, and form partnerships with government departments and non-government bodies.

Maharaj said the government's response would extend to Mannenberg, Elsies River and Nyanga.

"President Zuma has directed ministers in the social and economic sectors to study the situation and look for long-term solutions that promote sustainable development and stable communities." (from News24)

Ultimately this is good news, however to have Mac Maharaj fob off the problem to be solved by now starting to look for solutions is rather disheartening. Helen Zille will have to find another way to get the police to answer to her.

US DEA getting involved in Western Cape drug war

The UN has given Cape Town the thumbs-up for its proposal for inflicting a body blow to the tik scourge in Western Cape.

The city's safety and security directorate has drafted regulations that will make it tough for drug manufacturers to get hold of the ingredients they need.

The directorate's Anton Visser is confident that all the bases have been covered and he is ready to meet Western Cape Premier Helen Zille today to discuss the directorate's plan.

"At the moment we are concentrating on arresting people for dealing in drugs or possession of drugs. But the back door is wide open. Anyone can get the chemicals," said Visser. The man is at the top of the pile and he HASN'T HEARD OF PRE CURSOR CONTROL. It has been illegal to own the pre cursors for tik for since 1994. I wonder if Mr Visser has even heard of the SAPS? It is of some concern that such a fucking idiot could actually be in charge!

The diversion of chemicals from legitimate use in industry to the manufacturing of illegal drugs "is a significant contributor to the drug problem experienced in the city", according to the safety and security directorate.

Chemicals such as ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine - which are used in cough-and-cold medications but are also ingredients of the illicit drug methamphetamine, or tik - are easily available.

The regulations, said Visser, are aimed at manufacturers, importers and exporters.

 

Anyone manufacturing, preparing, transforming, storing, importing, exporting, marketing or researching certain chemicals - including those used to make tik will have to register. (and could everyone who is making tik also please register - since we're living in lala land.)

Chemists will have to participate in a "methamphetamine monitoring programme" which will require "electronic recording of transactions involving the sale and distribution of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine products by pharmacists". Agg man.. by this stage the chemist should probably just take over the whole thing and start selling it legally to the users. Mr Visser needs to find his first clue, as till now he's just proved clueless.

Before taking delivery of these chemicals, a buyer will have to produce an identity document, residential or business address and a signature, along with a witness.

Visser said the US Drug Enforcement Administration helped the directorate to draft the proposal. (from Timeslive)

 

There you have the answer to what the US DEA is doing in South Africa: Getting involved in drafting legislation and bringing their mentality of the "war on drugs". This philosophy has been exported the world over and the body count continues to mount. That the city's safety and security directorate chief knows so little about pre cursors is a sad indictment of the total lack of knowledge of the powers that be. If there are any two organisations which not to take drug advice from they are the UN and the US DEA. The UN has been the nexus of the international war on drugs. Thousands of people killed for what? Based on what?  The US DEA is involved with this war on drugs nonsense all around the world.... and now here in the Western Cape - helping out a clueless Mr Visser.

Constitutional Court says no to tobacco

The Constitutional Court has turned down a legal challenge against a ban on smoking advertisements, the National Council Against Smoking (NCAS) said on Tuesday.

The court declined a request by British American Tobacco SA (Batsa) to hear an appeal of a judgment upholding the ban by the Supreme Court of Appeal in June of this year, NCAS said in a statement.

"After examining the cigarette company's application for leave to appeal the judgment it 'concluded that the application should be dismissed with costs, as there are no prospects of success'," the council said. (from Fin24)

The Constitutional Court has given short shrift to the tobacco companies. This is bad news for the alcohol industry which will be wanting to challenge the pending laws restricting alcohol advertising as the precedent has been set. The CC is not interested in hearing you.

Should Cannabis be banned in sport? Of course not!

The expulsion of an American judo player from the  London 2012 Olympic Games after he tested positive for cannabis prompted scientists to question the sense behind the drug's inclusion on the World Anti Doping Agency's (WADA) banned list.

Few experts think cannabis can do much to enhance the kind of speed, strength, power or precision that Olympic athletes strive for. And many wonder whether the expensive time and effort of sporting drug testers might be better spent catching serious cheats who top up their blood with EPO or pop anabolic steroids to boost testosterone levels and muscle growth.

"There's no evidence cannabis is ever performance enhancing in sport, and since its use is legal in a number of countries, there's no reason for it to be banned by WADA," said David Nutt, a professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London.

Cannabis isn't performance-enhancing

"I can't think of any sport in which it would be an advantage. And it seems ludicrous that someone could quite legally smoke cannabis in Amsterdam in the morning and then come over to London in the afternoon and be banned from competing."

The heart of the problem is where to draw the line between performance enhancing drugs - which many experts agree should be prohibited in sports because they make the contest unfair - and recreational drugs, which have little bearing on performance but could give sport a bad image.

Scientific or political?

Since marijuana is a forbidden drug on WADA's current list, athletes face a two-year ban if it is found in their system while they are in competition.

But the anti-doping body does not sanction athletes who test positive for marijuana outside of competition times, while they are in training camps or during rest periods.

Scientists say this smacks of double standards and suggests WADA bans cannabis for political rather than scientific reasons.

"The problem is the elite athletes should be seen as role models for young kids, and so they ban cannabis because they don't want to have the image of gold medalists smoking joints," said one British-based sports scientist who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue. 

A photo of the American swimming champion Michael Phelps smoking marijuana through a glass pipe "bong" in 2009 sparked criticism from the US Olympic Committee.

In a statement released shortly after the picture was published by a British tabloid newspaper, Phelps admitted to smoking pot and apologised for what he described as "bad judgement". But he faced no sporting sanction for his behaviour because it was not "in competition".

Experts say that row, as well as the ruling on American judoka Nick Delpopolo - who said he inadvertently ate the drug in a marijuana brownie - is far more to do with the image of sport than any form of cheating.

"It's hard to imagine how smoking a joint or eating marijuana brownies is going to help somebody in judo," said Michael Joyner, a member of the Physiological Society and a researcher at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota in the United States.

"My advice to WADA is that they should focus on drugs that are clearly performance enhancing in the sports where they are clearly performance enhancing."

Sensitive issue

Some national sporting bodies are also kicking back against WADA's stance.

Australia's Coalition of Major Professional and Participation Sports called in May for marijuana to be removed from the list saying it was wrong to group it with performance enhancing drugs like human growth hormone and steroids.

Substances on WADA's banned list should meet two of the following criteria: they are proven to be performance enhancing, they are dangerous to the health of athletes, or they are contrary to the spirit of sport.

While there are few signs that marijuana can enhance sporting performance, there is evidence to suggest it could have a negative impact.

Studies have shown that THC - the ingredient in cannabis that induces the "high" - increases blood pressure and heart rate while also decreasing cardiac stroke volume, leading to diminished peak performance.

It can also slow reaction times, cause problems with coordination, reduce hand-eye coordination, and interfere with visual perception.

Anti-doping authorities were not keen to discuss the issue. Officials at UK Anti-Doping declined to comment, and an email sent to WADA's media relations office asking for a statement on why cannabis is banned got no response. (from Health24)

No need to listen to those who know about the benefits of taking cannabis. Better to listen to those who "think" they know.

Reduction in drink driving limit slammed

The government’s plan to cut legal alcohol limits for drivers has been slammed by the Western Cape’s No.1 anti-drink driving crusader, transport MEC Robin Carlisle.

The national transport department gazetted draft amendments to the National Road Traffic Amendment Bill on July 18, and chief among its provisions are for the maximum blood-alcohol levels to drop from 0.05g/100ml to 0.02g/100ml.

For professional drivers, the current limit drops to zero - in other words a complete ban on booze.

Carlisle said: “I have no scientific evidence - and to my knowledge there is none, anywhere in the world - that if you reduce the existing levels the number of accidents will decline.

“We have gone to great lengths - with great help from the media - to try to get people to change their behaviour.

“It’s my view that a very large number of people have done just that - they have changed the way they go out to restaurants, to parties, etc."

“I’m therefore reluctant to go back to them and say thank you for trying very hard for not exceeding your two drinks but now, however, I have a nasty surprise for you,” Carlisle said, referring to the proposed legislation.

In addition to Carlisle’s contention about a lack of scientific evidence in support of the cut, no experts or other industry sources could provide any proof that drivers who drank liquor up to the 0.05g level were more dangerous on the roads than those with up to 0.02g.

On the national government’s own official “Arrive Alive” website, both “social drinkers” and “habitual drinkers” are clearly described as “sober” up to the 0.05g level.

On this scale, only “social drinkers” who have upwards of 0.06g are described as “light(ly) (intoxicated)”.

“Habitual drinkers” require a little more alcohol to be as intoxicated as their “social” drinking counterparts.

But up to 0.09g they are still described as “sober” – in apparent contrast to the proposed legislation. (from IOL)

Drink driving limit to be lowered

Proposed amendments to the National Road Traffic Amendment Bill could see the blood alcohol level of a driver drop from 0.05g/100ml to 0.02g/100ml, it was reported on Saturday.

This would mean that a person may not even have a full 340ml beer before driving, the Beeld reported.

Gary Ronald from the Automobile Association (AA) told the newspaper that 0.02g / 100ml was equivalent to 25ml of vodka or brandy or 75ml of wine.

"Drunk driving is one of the main causes on accidents on our roads. Never mind pedestrians who drink and then try to cross the road," Ronald was quoted as saying. (from News24)