CANNABIS REFORM LOSES PUFF

Don't hold your breath for a speedy rewrite of the cannabis
laws.

The odds are stacked against that happening before the next
election.

The puff has gone out of parliamentary momentum to amend the legal
status of cannabis and decriminalise possession of small amounts of
the drug.

In the first flush of excitement of a new Government, the Prime
Minister and others made bold statements about decriminalising.

A straw poll of MPs by TVNZ's One News in March revealed that a narrow
majority favoured such a change.

Most agree there is a big problem with a law that makes a large chunk
of the population guilty of a victimless crime. But the debate has
shifted to the health impact of cannabis smoking, particularly on
young minds.

The politics are getting correspondingly murkier as politicians
position themselves to avoid or exploit any public backlash against
changing the law.

National is already on the front foot, this week launching a
nationwide anti-decriminalisation petition with the School Trustees
Association.

This unusual coalition will disturb Labour. School principals are in
the vanguard of opposition to liberalisation, arguing that their
students are getting the message that cannabis is okay.

The teaching profession is not only a core constituency for Labour.
Many party activists are teachers.

The most telling sign of a more-reticent Labour is Health Minister
Annette King. She now stresses that Labour promised only to "review"
the legal status of cannabis during this parliamentary term. She
refuses to give an undertaking to promote reform legislation.

Another indication of the mood shift was a hush-hush meeting of
pro-reform lobby groups and sympathetic MPs at Parliament last month.

No one will say what was discussed at this informal gathering, which
appears to be the precursor to a new umbrella group to coordinate
lobbying. But the Sunday afternoon meeting was recognition that those
wanting a law change are now in for a real fight.

Coincidentally, Jim Anderton went public the same day with his
opposition to liberalisation. He has personal reasons for concern
about youth mental illness - his daughter's 1993 suicide.

But he is also seen as speaking on behalf of lower-ranked MPs afraid
of alienating the youth vote gravitating towards the Greens' Nandor
Tanczos.

Even though any law change would be enacted by conscience vote,
Anderton's power as Deputy Prime Minister gives him a pivotal role in
influencing reform legislation - or blocking it before it gets to Parliament.

He is less inclined to let a bill go forward simply to buy off the
hated Greens. Labour wants to keep the Greens sweet. But it has not
gone unnoticed that the Greens are hardly rushing to put up a private
member's bill, presumably because they do not want to be typecast.

Tanczos says the Greens reserve that right. He is disappointed things
are moving more slowly than he would have liked. But he believes MPs
will respond to the logic of liberalisation.

That view is backed up by those who sat on Parliament's health
committee during its 1998 inquiry into the mental health effects of
cannabis.

They say the committee's recommendation that the Government reconsider
the drug's legal status was not one they initially expected to make.

Now, the same committee is being asked by Annette King to hold a far
more wide-ranging inquiry.

That choice - rather than the justice committee - is another sign the
reform agenda is losing traction because it could get bogged down in
the complexities of the health argument rather than focusing solely on
legal questions.

Neither will an inquiry get high priority from a committee jam-packed
with important legislation - including the weighty bill establishing
new district health boards.

The committee is unlikely to hear submissions until early next year.
Its report will not be completed until late next year, leaving MPs
with the galling prospect of debating any law change in election year.

"It's stone-cold dead," declares Act's Richard Prebble, whose caucus
favours decriminalisation in principle.

Optimists note Parliament passed contentious drinking laws shortly
before the last election. But alcohol-related measures have always
been free from party-politicking. The reverse is happening with the
cannabis debate.

Prebble argues the Government would not have shunted the issue into a
backwater if it was serious about reform.

National complains that King's attempt to get a multiparty inquiry
conveniently takes a tricky problem off her hands. "We are not going
to play that game," warns Wyatt Creech, National's health spokesman.

He argues - with justification - that it is not a select committee's
job to write Government policy or get the Government out of a hole.
Neither should the committee be used as a sop to the Greens.

King argues that it is better get to "buy-in" from MPs at an early
stage, given they will vote according to conscience.

National cannot block a select committee inquiry - it is outvoted by
five to three on the health committee. Instead, the party sees
cannabis law reform as an opportunity to create brand difference and
erode support for the Government.

Two months ago, Jenny Shipley revealed she was open-minded about
police using court-ordered diversion as an alternative to prosecution
of first-time offenders - as long as they sought treatment.

This subtle, but shrewd positioning blunts accusations that National
is inflexible, while appeasing liberals in her caucus. It also allows
her to remain staunch against decriminalisation, which would see
offenders hit with instant fines.

National is twinning cannabis law reform with other Government
measures, such as the reform of matrimonial property law, to paint the
Labour-Alliance Coalition as too liberal.

There is nervousness in Government ranks about such a perception. "The
danger is in the accumulation of such issues.

After a while, the public starts thinking, 'Is this what I voted for?'
"After a while, you start to burn people off," says a Government source.

On cannabis, Labour must weigh up the longer-term gains from appealing
to young voters against the risk of upsetting middle-aged and older
voters who swung back to the party at the last election.

Waning enthusiasm in the risk-averse Beehive suggests judgment has
already been passed.