CANNABIS

THE CANNABIS prohibition paradox continues. During the sentencing in
Christchurch of two university students found guilty of cultivating
cannabis and drug dealing ( ODT , 13.6.03), Justice Hansen commented that
"while some people advocated changes in cannabis laws, perhaps they could
visit the courts to observe the damage the drug did". Yet no apparent
evidence of cannabis-related "damage" was presented during the trial and
Justice Hansen himself acknowledged that it was the convictions he imposed
that would damage both men's futures. Furthermore, it seems odd that he is
unaware that many of those prosecuted for cannabis offences claim its use
is beneficial. Justice Hansen also found it "impossible to understand" why
the men had become drug dealers, even though evidence was presented as to
the fortunes that could be made as a result of prohibition.

Judge McDonald did better when he found an "entrenched" cannabis user ( ODT
, 14.6.03) not guilty of commercial cultivation because he was unconvinced
by the Crown's argument based on crop size and prior drug convictions.
Instead, he sentenced the man to a "deterrent" of six more months in prison
for cultivating cannabis, in order to maintain "the integrity of the
sentencing process". Judge McDonald ruled out home detention, however, even
though Dunedin prison was overflowing into police cells ( ODT , 14.6.04)
and the accused had admitted growing his own cannabis to avoid contact with
the criminal element.

Jason Baker-Sherman

Dalmore, Dunedin