SOLUTION TO MISUSE OF DRUGS ANOMALIES

YOUR REPORT ABOUT the dangers of datura ( ODT , 29.11.00) reminded me of
being called as an expert witness in three cases in which persons were
charged with taking LSD. In two of these cases the accused was in a grossly
disturbed mental state at the time of his arrest. That was not denied. What
was claimed (and supported by other evidence) was that he had become
intoxicated through taking datura. Each was found not guilty because datura
was not a scheduled drug. Had the accused taken LSD, he could have been
gaoled for several years. Now, why should his behaviour be treated as
heinous if caused by a scheduled drug but be exonerated if caused by some
other agent?

The Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2000 is a clumsy attempt to prevent such
anomalies. As I have contended in my Drugs and the Law in New Zealand and
elsewhere, there is a better solution. It amounts to creating the crime of
"culpable acute intoxication". The agents liable to produce this state
would not have to be specified in some schedule. There are precedents for
this policy, as in the Transport Act 1962. You can be found guilty of
driving, or attempting to drive, under the influence of a drug even if the
drug that grossly impaired your driving ability happened to be one which
was unknown when the Act was created. This policy would get over such
additional difficulties as those arising from the taking of drug mixtures
or of useful chemicals (such as those employed as intoxicants by drug
"sniffers").

We already employ this policy in dealing with alcohol. Its consumption by
adults is not illegal so long as the user does not harm or threaten to harm
others, for example through his being drunk and disorderly or drunk in
charge of a motor vehicle. We would do well to employ it in dealing with
cannabis.

F.N. Fastier, Roslyn