CANNABIS: ABUSE, NOT USE, IS THE ISSUE

If New Zealand is to change the laws on the use of cannabis, it could
do worse than base them on the principles adopted in the case of
alcohol, writes FRED FASTIER, former professor of pharmacology at the
University of Otago. There are better options, he writes, "than
prohibition and open slather".

SEVERAL school principals have recently expressed their opposition to
any relaxation of legal restrictions on possession and use of cannabis
on the grounds that many of their pupils are already experimenting
with cannabis and heavy use is associated with poor academic progress.

They may well be right in believing that there is a close relationship
between the availability of a drug and the amount of trouble it causes.

However, it does not follow that availability is determined by legal
measures. Taking cannabis for other than medical or research purposes
is illegal and, if the laws were effective, cannabis use would be rare.

The situation is similar to that encountered by the Liquor Review
Advisory Committee when it advocated reducing the minimum drinking
age. As the committee pointed out, it is naive to suppose that fixing
that age at 18 or 20 will deter many younger people from drinking.
"Some submissions before us did not seem to appreciate this situation
and tended to regard liquor legislation as a panacea for correcting
all liquor abuse".

A common argument against easing restrictions on cannabis is expressed
in such ways as, "We've trouble enough with booze and tobacco.
Allowing pot would make things so much worse". I myself argued this
while the number of New Zealanders using cannabis was still small.
Though not optimistic, I hoped it might be possible to nip the habit
in the bud, because I realised that effective control would be
impossible if there were a substantial increase in demand.

My chief consolation for the failure of prohibition is that cannabis now
appears to be less harmful than had been feared. To quote the health
committee of our last Parliament: "Evidence received in the course of this
inquiry has raised serious doubts about commonly-held beliefs about
cannabis. Moderate use of the drug does not seem to harm the majority of
people, though we do not deny the serious impact cannabis use may have on
certain individuals". This is in line with conclusions reached elsewhere.

Unfortunately, public opinion often reflects little more than the
propaganda thrust upon it. As Senator Hiram Johnson stated in 1917,
"The first casualty when war comes is truth". However, propaganda
sometimes misfires. Gross exaggeration of the harmfulness of cannabis
has made many youngsters distrustful of all drug education.

People who oppose relaxing our drug laws on the grounds "it would give
the wrong message" should consider whether they have been giving the
right message. For instance, have they been right in maintaining that
cannabis is far worse than alcohol or tobacco? This flouts expert opinion.

I have two objections to the frequently aired slogan, "Let's get tough
on drugs!". The first is to its selective application. An existing
"wrong message" is the reluctance of society to get tough on the abuse
of alcohol.

The second is to the implication that the non-medical use of drugs is
necessarily harmful. Consider alcohol: most of those who take it harm
neither themselves nor anyone else. We have gradually realised the
need to concentrate attention on measures to minimise the abuse of
alcohol.

Contrary to fears, liberalising our drinking laws has gradually
reduced the amount of alcohol consumed annually and of gross
drunkenness.

For legal restrictions on cannabis, we could do worse than base them
on the principles which, after trial and error, we have come to adopt
for alcohol. There are far better options than prohibition and open
slather.