1-0「〈大麻等の薬物対策のあり方検討会〉の読み方」と「潮流」について　まえがきという名のまとめ

「〈大麻等の薬物対策のあり方検討会〉の読み方」と「潮流」について

これらの記事は、「こんな検討会で法律変わったら恥ずかしい」「法改正は既定路線なんだからスムーズに進むように意見いれときゃいい」「10年、20年後、カッコ悪い」「変な検討会」「なんの検討会だかよくわからない」といった委員たちの非公式な裏話に準拠しません。公式な議事録、公開された資料、メディア掲載記事をベースに「潮流」と題したルポ形式、僕の感じたちょっとした疑問をコラム形式にした「〈大麻等の薬物対策のあり方検討会〉の読み方」のツーラインで進めていきます。ご了承ください。

How to read the "Study Group on Measures to Prevent Marijuana and Other Drugs" and "Trends

These articles do not conform to the unofficial back stories of the committee members, such as "It would be a shame if the law is changed by such a study group", "The law is already going to be revised, so we should just give our opinions to make it go smoothly", "It won't be cool in 10 or 20 years", "It's a strange study group", "I don't know what the study group is about". This article will be based on the official minutes, published documents, and articles in the media, in the form of a report titled "Trends", and in the form of a column titled "How to read the study group on marijuana and other drugs". Thank you for your understanding.

「〈大麻等の薬物対策のあり方検討会〉の読み方」

タイトル（仮題）
1-0「〈大麻等の薬物対策のあり方検討会〉の読み方」と「潮流」について

1-1日本語が読めればわかる検討会の「とりまとめ」で決まったこと
検討会で話し合いたかったこと、決めたかったこと
1-3鎌田局長が見せた最終挨拶での軽さと思い込みと本音
◯委員も指摘する根拠となる資料への疑問不解決（揺らぐエビデンス）
◯「反対の反対は賛成なのだ！」〜「使用罪」賛成反対の明確な決議無し〜
◯「検討会への感想」という名の委員の検討会への疑問&問題提起
◯「開催根拠」は根拠たり得るか
◯委員も指摘した開催目的と開催内容のズレ
◯委員選出に根拠はあるか
◯薬品名まででているのに当事者の薬品メーカーは出席なし
◯治験にOKした官僚の出席なし
◯厚労省検討会担当官僚も理解する検討会と大麻取締法の矛盾とズレ
◯儀式でも出来レースでも茶番でもない真摯な検討会
◯抽選のはずが記者クラブ優先
◯一般非公開
◯非公開非一般傍聴者の存在
◯匿名委員の存在
◯匿名でない参加者の存在
◯掲示名称の秘匿および別名掲載？
◯「大麻でまちおこし」の削除への疑問
◯ オブザーバーの偏り　研究者免許と栽培免許
◯検討会と協議会と審議会
◯法改正の段取り
◯松浦からの提言〜検討会について〜
◯松浦からの提言〜大麻取締法について〜
◯補足　「使用罪」反対の方々へ
◯補足　立法府の方々へ
◯まとめ

How to read the "Study Group on Measures to Prevent Marijuana and Other Drugs".

Title (tentative)
What was decided in the "summary" of the study group that you can understand if you can read Japanese
What we wanted to discuss and decide at the study meeting

 lightness, assumption, and true intention in his final speech
Some of the committee members pointed out that there was no solution to the questions about the evidence (wavering evidence).
The opposition of the opposition is for! 〜There was no clear resolution in favor of the "crime of use".
Committee members raised questions and problems in the name of "Comments on the review meeting".
Can the "basis for holding the meeting" be a basis?
Discrepancy between the purpose of the meeting and the content of the meeting as pointed out by the committee members
Is there any basis for the selection of committee members?
The drug manufacturers concerned did not attend the meeting even though the names of the drugs were mentioned
No attendance by the bureaucrats who approved the clinical trials
The bureaucrats in charge of the MHLW study group understand the contradiction and discrepancy between the study group and the Marijuana Control Law.
It's not a ritual, a race, or a farce, but a sincere study meeting
There was supposed to be a lottery, but the press club got priority.
Closed to the public
The existence of non-public observers
The existence of anonymous committee members
The existence of non-anonymous participants
Secrecy of the name on the notice board and publication of aliases?
Question about the deletion of "community revitalization through marijuana
Bias of observers: Researcher's license and cultivation license
Study groups, councils, and councils
Arrangements for legal revision
Proposal from Matsuura - Regarding the study group
Proposal from Matsuura - Marijuana Control Law
To those who are against the "crime of use
To the legislators
Summary