MPS CAPTURED BY THE PRO-CANNABIS LOBBY

The pro-marijuana lobby notched up a significant victory before Christmas
when the parliamentary select committee on health recommended that the
Government reconsider the illegality of the drug. Though not required to
consider the legal status of cannabis - the committee was supposed to
concern itself with the mental health effects of the drug - the MPs said
traditional crime control methods had not been successful in reducing the
apparent number of cannabis users.

The effectiveness of current policies on cannabis required examination,
given the "high level of use" in New Zealand.

Turning to the mental health issues, the committee concluded that the
negative mental health effects of cannabis appeared to have been overstated.
"Moderate use of the drug does not seem to harm the majority of people
though we do not deny the serious impact cannabis may have on certain
individuals, particularly those with schizophrenia or those with a
vulnerability to psychotic illness."

What the committee appears to be saying is that because the cannabis laws
appear not to deter users of the drug, the Government should consider
relaxing them. Decriminalisation of the drug is one obvious option.

The committee appears to have also concluded that because most users are not
adversely affected by cannabis, there's no harm in easing prohibitions
against its use. But the committee's reasoning is flawed and sloppy.

It is saying that because the laws are too hard to enforce, the police
should give up - a view with which the police, regrettably, appear to
concur. Taking that logic to extremes, it could be argued that rape and
murder might as well be decriminalised too; after all, people continue to
commit those crimes despite laws against them. And what about speed limits?

Should they too he discarded because most people flout them? If the select
committee's reasoning on cannabis is valid, why not?

The reality, of course, is that laws exist for reasons other than simply to
be enforced. A law, even when not rigidly policed, sets a community standard
and transmits a message about what is and what isn't acceptable, according
to the prevailing standards of society.

The mere fact that a law is widely disregarded is not sufficient reason for
it to be stricken from the statute books, no matter how much the
cannabis-user lobby and its respectable-sounding proxies might argue for it.

As for the health argument, it is lazy and complacent for the committee to
argue that because the majority of cannabis users are moderate users of the
drug and not deleteriously affected by it, the Government should review its
legal status. There is overwhelming evidence that the potent cannabis in
circulation today has a tragic and devastating effect on some vulnerable
users, particularly - but by no means only - adolescents. Moreover many
users are unable to restrict their consumption to moderate levels, with
devastating consequences for their relationships and employment prospects.

If the MPs on the select committee are not aware of these cannabis victims,
they have not done their homework adequately. If they are aware of them and
have chosen to ignore them, then they don't deserve to be in Parliament.

We have said before that two damaging legal drugs - tobacco and alcohol -
are quite enough already.

New Zealand does not need a third.

The select committee on health has done itself and the public a disservice
by allowing itself to be captured by pro-cannabis rhetoric.