POT: HOW FAR TO GO?

Supporters of cannabis decriminalisation claim that it would free the
police to spend more time on more pertinent issues, but the police see big
problems with harder drugs if too many changes are made. GLEN SCANLON reports.

'If there is indeed a war on drugs, it is not being won. Drugs are
demonstrably cheaper and more easily available than ever before.

"If a sufficiently large, and apparently growing, part of the population
chooses to ignore the law for whatever reason, then that law becomes
unenforceable."

If you think these are the words of a Left-wing liberal pot-smoking
politician, you could not be more wrong.

Britain's Cleveland police force made the comments in a report it compiled
on drug use last year.

The report finds there is no apparent logic in making tobacco and alcohol
available when cannabis is seen as less harmful by many scientists. It says
the police may find themselves powerless to prevent illegal activity under
present laws.

Our own police recommended to the Government last year that priority be
given to considering the use of infringement notices for offences such as
cannabis possession to save money and time.

The police spent more than 300,000 hours and $22 million on enforcing
cannabis laws last year. That was 120,000 hours more and nearly double what
they spent in 1992-1993.

Nearly 8000 people were prosecuted for cannabis possession. Another 3000
were given warnings or diversion, or handled by the youth justice system.

Under the present law a person can be arrested for possessing the tiniest
amount of cannabis. Users and the odd dealer clog the court system, many
returning over and over again.

Punishments range from small fines to three months in prison for
possession. Dealing in the drug attracts a much higher punishment.

Supporters of decriminalisation claim, rather simplistically, that the
police are wasting a lot of time which could be spent on more pertinent
problems such as burglary and serious crime.

They often point the finger, accusing the police of using cannabis to hold
or harass individuals who use it for medicinal or recreational purposes.

The police reject the claims, saying that only those suspected of
committing crimes can be arrested, and that harassing offenders is illegal.

Assistant police commissioner Paul Fitzharris says the police typically
"fall over" cannabis offences in the course of other work. He repeats the
police line on cannabis: "The policy at the moment is that the use and
possession of cannabis is prohibited by the law, and it is our job to
enforce the law."

Individual constables, however, use their discretion when dealing with
cannabis users, says Mr Fitzharris.

University of Canterbury criminologist Dr Greg Newbold says some officers
have told him that they already ignore more than 50 per cent of use.

Mr Fitzharris says the police are trying to get away from individual
opinions, and form a policy on possible changes to the cannabis law.

He believes that no-one is advocating complete legalisation, which could
result in cannabis being available over the counter, and large-scale
production allowed.

The police are considering several options, he says, including
"depenalisation" for small possession offences.

This could include a system of warnings and diversion, which would not
require a law change.

Infringement notices are another option, but they would need a law change,
which would bring its own problems.

Infringement notices would require enforcement, which would cost money and
throw people back into the court system. This is not the goal desired, as
South Australia recently discovered.

A review of its 13-year-old system of issuing infringement notices found
that a lot of young and poor people ended up with convictions because they
were unable to pay fines.

Moreover, it is almost impossible to calculate what the effect on price and
supply will be of the above options, says Mr Fitzharris. The police
approach now is to target dealers, but changes may mean more time and money
are available to attack them and big growers.

Police Association president Greg O'Connor, who has no problem with
recreational use by adults, sees greater problems if too many changes are made.

He believes too much change will cause the price of cannabis to drop, while
also increasing the market, because a lot more people will grow their own.

"Gangs in New Zealand are a little like the mafia in the United States,
which grew up on alcohol prohibition.

"When it was legalised, they didn't go away. They just moved on to other
forms of illicit income," he says.

Mr O'Connor believes the gangs will shift production to more profitable
drugs such as methamphetamines, which are the drug of choice overseas.

Plenty of information is available on the Internet detailing how $1000 of
chemicals can be turned into $10,000 of drugs.

Dr Newbold, who wants some liberalisation, agrees with Mr O'Connor.

He believes, depending how far the changes go, that the price of cannabis
will drop, and the supply will increase because the police will be spending
less time spraying and destroying plants.

If the price does not hold, the gangs will probably move to other drugs
such as Ecstasy, methamphetamines, and LSD, says Dr Newbold.

Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party spokesman and lawyer Michael Appleby
disagrees. He believes cannabis prices will remain high because a lot of
people will not grow their own. The price can vary from $250 an ounce to
$600 an ounce depending on the time of year.

Experiences overseas are probably the best source of information, but it is
often conflicting and contradictory.

Countries such as Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands have depenalised the
use of cannabis, with the Dutch example the most researched.

The Dutch have allowed the personal use of cannabis since 1976, but still
aggressively target large-scale growers and dealers, which keeps the price
high.

Small amounts of cannabis can be bought from up to 1500 coffee shops across
the Netherlands.

The Dutch experience is often trumpeted by pro-cannabis groups as a
success, but some studies have discovered problems in Nirvana.

One found that from 1984 to 1996 the prevalence of cannabis use climbed
sharply. In 1984, 15 per cent of people aged 18 to 20 had used the drug.
This rose to 44 per cent by 1996.

The biggest users were young people from wide backgrounds, including
tourists, a point of contention in relations with France, Germany, and
Belgium, which have complained that they are being flooded with drugs from
the Netherlands.

No link between cannabis and the use of harder drugs was found.

In 1995 the Dutch dropped the amount that people were allowed to possess
from 30g to 5g because of domestic and international pressure.

Figures from the British Medical Journal, however, say that the monthly
prevalence of cannabis use among Dutch students is 5.4 per cent, compared
with 29 per cent in the United States.

Mr Fitzharris says the effect any changes will have on the level of use and
risk to the community, particularly young people, is one of the biggest
concerns.

Mr O'Connor says he does not want teenagers gaining easier access, or
cannabis becoming so acceptable that it is smoked outside offices.

Mr Appleby does not believe depenalisation will increase use dramatically.

Mr Fitzharris expects the police will finish their research and form a view
in a couple of months.

Whatever happens, the one guarantee is that a high level of cannabis use
will continue. As Mr O'Connor says, cannabis used recreationally is a good
mood-enhancing drug. "We've got to start by acknowledging that people enjoy it."