KNOWLEDGE CRUCIAL TO REDUCING DRUG ABUSE

Decriminalisation of cannabis appears a sure thing and the debate now needs
to be about what form it will take, writes Caleb Armstrong.

Martin Elliott's recent article on cannabis states that "Education
programmes alone will not solve the (drug) problem".

I am saddened that a school principal has so little faith in education as a
tool to help reduce drug abuse. His pessimism is unfounded - in fact, all
the evidence points towards knowledge as being crucial to all areas of
health. Sceptics only have to consider tobacco use. During the past 20
years, tobacco use in this country has declined steadily, while the use of
cannabis remains pretty static.

The decline in smoking can be attributed in no small part to effective
public education measures, as well as organisations such as Quitline
(0800-778-778) which offer support to those trying to quit.

The article promotes "tougher measures" as the solution to drug problems.
Presumably its author thinks that "tougher measures" ought to be used to
combat the problems caused by alcohol and tobacco?

I have to deal with devastating medical conditions caused by alcohol and
smoking every day. Far from believing that these substances should be
banned, my training is to educate people about the cause of these problems
and support their efforts to moderate their substance use while respecting
patient choice. These principles are at the core of health promotion;
prohibition is not.

Trends internationally are towards decriminalisation (witness Britain,
Holland, Germany, Spain and most states of Australia) and the figures show
that it works to reduce the rates of drug use. Trends within New Zealand
point towards growing tolerance for cannabis - witness the recent decision
of Christchurch police not to charge an off-duty policewoman with possession
when cannabis was found in the car that she had crashed.

Mr Elliott says that he supports prohibition, and yet describes some
problems that are the direct consequence of prohibition. For instance, his
description of 9 and 10-year-old children buying cannabis is a terrible
indictment of the way the Government has defaulted control over cannabis to
the gangs: while alcohol and tobacco require that purchasers produce proof
of age, some people who sell cannabis don't care about that.

There is only one way around this problem and that is to decriminalise
sales. The same goes for the argument that cannabis causes violence: the
black market makes it worthwhile for criminals to rob people for cannabis.
One of the saddest instances of this is when medical users of cannabis are
robbed of their medicine.

The Health Select Committee has finished hearing submissions on the most
appropriate legal status of cannabis. While Mr Elliott says that he has long
spoken out against decriminalisation, he did not make a submission to the
committee. Reports from the committee hint that most submissioners were in
favour of decriminalisation, while prohibition-minded members of the
committee such as MP Roger Sowry failed to attend most sessions.

Decriminalisation appears to be a sure thing. The debate now needs to be
about which form of decriminalisation we will have. Will it be expensive and
resource hungry (instant fines) or cheap to run (the Dutch model)?

I issue a challenge to those who profess to be interested in the health and
education of our young people to support a rational form of
decriminalisation. Every dollar spent on prohibition cannot be spent on
health care or education. This is where people like Mr Elliott can make a
real difference - by being real advocates for rational use of taxpayers'
money.