CASE FOR DRUG LAW REFORM IS SERIOUS

The Government's quick dismissal of the bulk of the Law Commission's
work on drug use in New Zealand is regrettable.

Its unpalatability for the Government - and, no doubt, for many others
- - comes in its recommendation for flexibility when dealing with
small-scale dealing and personal possession for use, and for less
emphasis on conviction and punishment. The flip side of that is a
recommendation for a greater focus on treatment, prevention and education.

It is easy to understand why Justice Minister Simon Power shied away
from that. The issue is a political minefield, one Mr Power
sidestepped by advising the commission "that I have other things on my
work agenda".

However, it is also clear that the current drug laws are failing. No
more evidence of that is needed than the survey suggesting 15 per cent
of New Zealanders broke the law and used cannabis in the last year -
higher than the numbers for the United States, Australia or any
European country.

The report has been a long time in the making, and is comprehensive.
It was started in 2007 when the Labour government invited the
commission to review the Misuse of Drugs Act. As the commission points
out, the drug environment now is very different from when the act was
passed in the 1970s "when the hippie counterculture was at its height
and the illegal drugs of choice were cannabis, cocaine, opiates and
psychedelics like LSD".

Now party pills such as BZP and more harmful drugs such as
metamphetamine have been added to the mix.

The cost to New Zealand is high. A Berl study issued last year put the
cost of the use of harmful drugs - other than alcohol - at $1.58 billion.

That included an attempt to count the cost of intangibles, such as
pain and suffering, but there are limits to how successful that can
be. How, for example, can the destructive effect that drugs have on
relationships and families be costed?

On top of that, there is the conundrum over how much of the damage and
cost caused by illegal drugs is the result of their being illegal,
rather than their inherent dangers.

And then there is the comparison with what the commission describes as
the "typically understated and misunderstood" harms and costs
associated with alcohol. By comparison, it says the harms and costs
"associated with illegal drugs are often generalised and overblown".

The commission has not skated lightly over the dangers of currently
illegal drugs. It points to evidence of a connection between cannabis
and mental illnesses including schizophrenia, and of the risks of
metamphetamine use.

It has stressed that there must be a vigorous law enforcement focus on
large-scale commercial dealing in drugs covered by international
conventions. It deserves to be taken seriously.

Mr Power may well be right to reject the commission's approach.
However, the onus is now on him to come up with a more plausible
alternative. What New Zealand now has is clearly not working.