As an American physician who has lived and worked in Wellington for
three years, I have come to appreciate the common sense and maturity of
New Zealand society. The United States often falls short in comparison,
I'm afraid.

A striking example of this disparity is that Kiwis are permitted to buy
codeine-containing medicines without a doctor's prescription, even
though codeine is a narcotic--chemically related to heroin and carrying
similar risks, including the possibility of addiction. These risks are
communicated to adult users, who are credited with sufficient good
judgement to use the drug safely. The fact that a few people purposely
abuse codeine (as by making 91homebake') is not considered sufficient
reason to keep this useful drug away from the rest of us.

Such a policy would not be acceptable in the United States, where
codeine is available only on prescription. Indeed, anyone suggesting
codeine be sold over the counter would be labeled 91soft on drugs'. I
can hear it now: "What?! Make codeine more available?! But that would
send the wrong message to America's youth--that it's all right to take
drugs. We can't have that!"

Fortunately, New Zealanders are far too sensible for such foolishness.

But now we are faced with a riddle. Why would a society mature enough
to buy and sell codeine over the counter embrace American-style
prohibition policies towards cannabis?

Consider the following facts:

1. According to a recent University of Otago study, more than half of
all 21-year-olds use cannabis, exposing at a glance the futility and
hypocrisy of prohibition.

2. Based on an extensive medical literature (and on my own experience as an
emergency room physician), cannabis is far less hazardous than alcohol or
tobacco--or codeine. True, a small proportion of users will experience
problems, including psychological dependence, but often these are the same
people who have trouble with alcohol and with self-control in general.

3. The lucrative black market created by prohibition guarantees that
cannabis will be more available to school children than even alcohol or
tobacco. Prohibition abdicates control of supply and distribution to
criminals, gangs--and teenagers.

4. By transforming drug-taking into criminal behaviour, prohibition
discourages personal responsibility and impedes the prevention and
treatment of drug-related problems.

5. Police search-and-destroy operations cannot substantially affect
cannabis supplies, as acknowledged by police commissioner Peter Doone
shortly after the recent big bust near Wanganui.

6. Cannabis law enforcement has been responsible for hundreds of cases
of police perjury since 1976 (Dominion 31.5.96), staining an otherwise
remarkably pristine force.

In view of these facts, why would a pragmatic and sensible society cling
to such a counterproductive policy?

Part of the explanation lies, I believe, in New Zealand's geographical
isolation, which makes it vulnerable to parochialism when international
events are not fully reported by news media.

For example, most Kiwis are probably unfamiliar with the following
recent events:

* Luxembourg's parliament adopted a motion urging the Government to open
talks with Belgium and the Netherlands on a three-nation Benelux zone
where cannabis can be smoked freely.

* In Spain, where adults are already permitted to smoke cannabis, a
high-level court ruled they may also cultivate cannabis for personal
use.

* California and Arizona legalised cannabis for medical purposes, and
South Australia is actively considering such a move (Advertiser
15.3.97).

* The Victorian Premier's Drug Advisory Council recommended that adults
be permitted to cultivate up to five cannabis plants (to order to
reduce or eliminate the black market).

* The new police commissioner of New South Wales, Peter Ryan,
recommended legalising cannabis (Daily Telegraph 22.2.97). The NSW
director of public prosecution, Nicholas Cowdrey QC, supported Ryan's
call, saying, "I think that when a regime is shown not to be working we
should examine it very carefully and work out whether or not there is a
better regime that should be in place."

These items (and others like them) have not been widely reported in New
Zealand. As a result, Kiwis are largely unaware of the world-wide trend
toward smarter cannabis policies--including regulation and taxation.

International experience also serves to allay two widely held fears
concerning liberalisation of cannabis policy. First, evidence from
Australia, Europe, and the U.S. has shown that making cannabis more
available does not necessarily result in increased use. Indeed, teenage
use tends to decline when cannabis loses its `forbidden fruit' or
`rebel' status.

Second, use of cannabis does not lead to hard drugs. In fact, when
access to cannabis is relaxed, use of hard drugs is reduced. This has
been shown most clearly in Holland, where cannabis is available to
anyone aged 16 and older. Use of hard drugs in Holland is among the
lowest in Europe (much lower than in zero-tolerance France).

A second explanation for New Zealand's counterproductive cannabis policy
is that the issue has been captured by self-styled (but often
unqualified) 91experts', who are quick to disparage those who would
promote debate. Too often, anyone brave (or foolish) enough to suggest a
re-think on cannabis policy is condemned--even branded a drug user.

For this reason, most scientists and (real) experts have excused
themselves from the debate, ensuring perpetuation of policies based
solely on emotionalism and rhetoric. As such, New Zealand's cannabis
policy stands as a major exception to the widely accepted principle of
evidence-based policy making.

Albert Einstein once observed that insanity consists of doing the same
thing over and over and expecting a different result. It's time to
abandon failed prohibition policies and adopt something sensible that
can actually work.
A society that can handle codeine over the counter can learn to live with
cannabis.

David Hadorn, MD is a physician and health researcher. He is director
of the Drug Policy Forum Trust, a group of scientists and professionals
dedicated to elevating the level of debate on drug policy in New
Zealand.