Why cannabis laws should be relaxed: More liberal liquor laws a good example

The Liquor Review Advisory Committee recently recommended relaxing the rules
on when and where alcoholic beverages can be sold, and to whom. These
recommendations have been generally embraced by MPs and are likely to be
implemented next year.

Although few commentators have been indelicate enough to say so, the central
arguments advanced for relaxing restrictions on alcohol apply equally well
to cannabis.

For example, one common argument is that increased availability does not
generally lead to increased consumption. In the case of alcohol, the marked
liberalisation of availability entailed by the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 has
been followed by a decline in total alcohol consumption.

Similarly, when cannabis laws have been relaxed in the United States,
Holland, and Australia, consumption has remained steady--or, in the case of
teenage use, declined.

It is argued that harm is minimised when adult use is treated as normal. As
stated by Hamish Riach, chief of the Beer, Wine and Spirits Council, the
"mature attitude" toward alcohol use entails "treating alcohol as normal and
not trying to create a mystique and specialness . . . Rather than preach
'though shalt not', the harm minimisation approach focuses on reducing the
harms that may result from drinking, not on whether drinking is right or
wrong." Clearly the same message can be applied to cannabis.

A further argument is that widespread disobedience of the law creates
disrespect for all laws. The near ubiquity and general acceptance of
18-year-olds drinking alcohol mocks the current law. Similarly, a recent
University of Otago survey found that more than half of 21-year-olds use
cannabis. Clearly the cannabis law is also widely flouted.

We are told that we should concentrate on the abuser of alcohol, not the
user. Rather than making life difficult for the majority of consumers who
use alcohol responsibly, we should focus our attention on those who endanger
society as a result of misuse. Again, the same reasoning can be applied to
cannabis.

Shouldn't what's sauce for the goose be sauce for the gander?

It might be argued that alcohol is too much a part of our culture to
prohibit, whereas cannabis is not. But the personal and social use of
cannabis has been ingrained in New Zealand society since at least the
1960's. We must accept this is not going to change.

Alternatively, one could deny a link between alcohol and cannabis policy by
claiming "we already have enough trouble with alcohol; we mustn't legalise
cannabis". But legal or not, cannabis is already here.

Moreover, and as with alcohol, most people who want to use cannabis are
likely already doing so, including teenagers. The prohibition law doesn't
deter use--it just gets in the way of educational and public health attempts
to reduce harm.

Finally, it is sometimes claimed that legalising cannabis would "send the
wrong message--that cannabis is OK". But society doesn't endorse alcohol or
tobacco by declining to prohibit their use. Rather, we recognise that the
harm caused by black markets and by driving use underground would exceed the
harm produced by the substances themselves.

And we accept that public attitudes, education and public health measures
are more effective than the criminal justice system in dealing with harmful
drug use. This is why cigarette smoking has declined. Thus, the message
conveyed by normalising cannabis would simply be that we value consistent
and pragmatic policies, and reject those that have proved futile and
counterproductive.

Note that none of the arguments for liberalising cannabis policy depend on
the extent of any damaging health effects produced by cannabis. Indeed, the
more damaging we judge cannabis to be, the more important it is to control
and regulate the stuff--rather than abdicating its control to criminals and
gangs, as we have done.

In view of the above considerations, the Government should be prodded into
changing the cannabis law next year at the same time it modifies the alcohol
law. This is a splendid opportunity for MPs to exercise consistency and
rationality--and a little courage.
The fact that next year is the middle year of Parliament's three-year term
helps; politicians are braver when not facing first-year scrutiny or
re-election.

What should a new cannabis law look like? Several alternative models of
regulation and control have been developed around the world. In Holland,
cannabis has been sold through a licensed 'coffee shops' since 1976.
Regulated systems of cultivation and distribution are emerging in California
following that State's legalisation of cannabis as medicine last November.

The Victorian Premier's Drug Advisory Council recommended in March 1996 that
adult households be permitted to grow a few cannabis plants for personal
use. Critically, each of these approaches substantially reduces or
eliminates the black market in cannabis, unlike simple 'decriminalisation'
approaches (such as instant fines).

A workable system of cannabis regulation and control can surely be
identified for New Zealand. Such a system would need to take into account
the likely effects of law changes on Maori communities, the ease with which
cannabis can be grown almost anywhere in the country, and other New
Zealand-specific considerations. In addition, programmes to reduce the
harmful use and to evaluate the impact of the law change should be built
into the system.

Over the next several months the Drug Policy Forum will consult a wide range
of individuals and organisations in an attempt to design a rational and
evidence-based system of cannabis regulation and control that makes sense
for New Zealand.

We will work with both national and international experts, and submit our
initial findings to peer review and public scrutiny before submitting a
final report early next year.

David Hadorn, MD is director of the Drug Policy Forum Trust, a group of
scientists and professionals.