Time to rethink cannabis laws

[Leader next to photo of cannabis field]

New Zealand has been left in the backwater on cannabis policy, says David
Hadorn, director of the Drug Policy Forum Trust.

[Body of article]

Around the world, there is a distinct movement away from total prohibition
and toward alternative policies. It is widely accepted that black markets
in drugs actually increase drug use, especially among children, yet very
little serious discussion has taken place on this topic in New Zealand since
the law was last changed in 1975.

The Drug Policy Forum Trust, a group of scientists and professionals, hopes
to change that. Today the Forum released a discussion paper, *Alternative
Systems of Cannabis Control in New Zealand*, which summarises the pros and
cons of alternative systems. The report also reviews several issues that
need to be addressed in designing a new cannabis policy, including the
impact of international treaties.

Early next year the forum will recommend an alternative system for use in
New Zealand.

The forum is calling for changes to the present cannabis law to coincide
with changes to the alcohol law due next year following the recent liquor
review advisory committee report. The committee advocates liberalisation of
the law concerning where and when alcohol can be sold, and to whom. The
same arguments advanced for relaxing alcohol laws that society has
matured sufficiently, that harm is reduced when use is normalised, that
respect for the law is diminished when it is widely flouted¾apply equally
well to cannabis.

This is a rare opportunity to place cannabis law on a solid scientific
foundation. Politicians are not likely to want to confront this issue
outside the context of changing the alcohol laws, which only occurs every
few years.

Currently, possession of any amount of cannabis even a single seed is
considered a criminal offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. In its
discussion paper, the forum describe four alternatives to total cannabis
prohibition:

· Prohibition with an ‘administrative expediency principle’, as practised in
Holland since 1976, in which the Government agrees not to enforce the
prohibition law under defined circumstances.

· Prohibition with civil fines rather than criminal penalties (sometimes
called "decriminalisation"), as used in some states in Australia and the
United States.

· Partial prohibition, in which adults are permitted to cultivate a limited
number of cannabis plants for personal use, as practised in Alaska, Spain,
and Italy.

· Regulation, in which cannabis commerce is treated much like alcohol or
tobacco. There is no country that regulates cannabis in this manner.

Another trustee, Fred Fastier, emeritus professor of pharmacology at Otago
University, was a member of the BlakePalmer Committee, the last
professional body in New Zealand to examine the cannabis question. In its
final report, in 1973, the Committee recommended continuation of a
prohibition policy "so long as this can be shown to be largely effective."

Prof Fastier states that "At that time, it was uncertain whether the use of
cannabis had become so widespread as to be ineradicable. I have since
become convinced that cannabis is here to stay. The time has come to accept
that fact and to change the law accordingly. The law should deal primarily
with druginduced misbehaviour such as impaired driving and disorderly
conduct as distinct from the nonmedical use of drugs without clear harm to
others."

In its discussion paper, the Forum says cannabis prohibition:

· Creates a lucrative and often violent black market which preys on young people
· Impedes effective education and treatment programmes
· Increases the appeal of cannabis to rebellious young people
· Creates disrespect for the law
· Breeds police corruption
· Marginalises and oppresses young people and racial minorities, including
Maori.

The Forum lists the arguments commonly advanced in support of total cannabis
prohibition:

· Cannabis is a dangerous drug, therefore it must be totally prohibited
· Removing total prohibition would lead to increased use of cannabis and
hard drugs
· Removing total cannabis prohibition would send the wrong message
· We already have enough trouble with alcohol and tobacco, therefore we must
keep cannabis totally prohibited.

The report concludes that "none of these arguments can withstand scientific
or logical scrutiny" and [they] are "little more than slogans."

The forum expects criticism for raising the controversial issue of cannabis
policy again. But it views it as one of the most significant remediable
sources of harm to the public health and wellbeing of New Zealanders.

The forum is calling for widespread review and comment on its discussion
paper, within New Zealand and internationally, and will take submissions
into account before its final report. The paper will be available from next
week [sic; it’s available from today] on the Internet
(http://www.nzdf.org.nz) or a copy can be ordered for $10.00 from the Drug
Policy Forum Trust, PO Box 12199, Wellington.

David Hadorn is a physician and is active in health research.