Submission to the Health Committee Cannabis Inquiry

National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, New Zealand Inc.


CONTENTS


1 Executive Summary

2 Key Recommendations

3 About NORML

4 The Use And Harms Associated With Cannabis:

4.1 Public Health And Health Promotion Strategies

4.2 The Context Of Cannabis Use And Policy

4.3 A Discussion Of The Harms Potentially Caused By Cannabis Use

4.4 Cannabis Harm Reduction And Education Programmes

5 The Legal Status Of Cannabis:

5.1 Options For The Most Appropriate Legal Status Of Cannabis

5.2 International Law

5.3 International Trends In Drug Policy

5.4 Policy Options, Cannabis Use And Associated Harms

5.5 Policy Principles

5.6 Public Support For Cannabis Law Reform

5.7 Evaluating The Options For The Legal Status Of Cannabis

5.8 Conclusion

6 References

7 Appendices:

7.1 Cannabis Regulation Bibliography

7.2 Extracts From The Major Drug Policy Reports

7.3 Dutch Have Fewer Drug Users Than Thought - Study

7.4 Dutch & US Drug Policy And Crime Statistics

7.5 Cannabis Retail Markets In Amsterdam

7.6 NORML's Principles Of Responsible Cannabis Use

7.7 Common Concerns About Cannabis Law Reform



1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



Cannabis is by far the most widely used illicit drug in New Zealand. It is therefore of considerable interest to public health to examine the patterns of association between cannabis use, cannabis policy, and harms faced by cannabis users and those around them that result both from their use and from the law itself.

Substantial consumption is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. The influence of drug education on demand or law enforcement on supply of cannabis has been marginal at best. The belief that increased drug education or law enforcement efforts will achieve lower levels of cannabis use represents a triumph of hope over experience. It ignores the lessons of several decades of repeated but unsuccessful attempts to reduce cannabis consumption.

Most cannabis users do responsible and in moderation. The harms posed by cannabis use have been exaggerated, and the scientific evidence demonstrates that cannabis is actually a remarkable safe substance, with many beneficial uses. Harms from using cannabis are less than the harms from using other commonly used drugs such as alcohol, tobacco or caffeine, and also less that the harms from many ordinary substances such as dairy products, sugary foods or red meat.

Cannabis prohibition creates far more harm than marijuana use itself, and has failed in all it's stated goals. The problems of cannabis prohibition are significant and include: lack of any control over juvenile use; combination of markets for cannabis with other more dangerous illicit drugs; high social costs to apprehended cannabis user without evidence of reduced cannabis use; and high economic cost to the taxpayer. Prohibiting a legal source for cannabis while demand remains high guarantees a lucrative income for criminals and risks increased police corruption.

Cannabis prohibition was adopted with little thought and even less knowledge at a time when the drug was virtually unknown in New Zealand. However once entrenched in legislation, a socially-destructive war on cannabis users has been waged on the flimsiest of foundations. Although much is said these days regarding the need for prudent government expenditure and fiscal restraint, the cost to the taxpayer of cannabis prohibition is unknown while any benefits have been difficult to identify let alone quantify. There are few areas of government today where legislators are prepared to support unknown but considerable expenditure for a policy of uncertain benefit.

Current policy places almost all emphasis on law enforcement. Millions of dollars are spent arresting and punishing cannabis users, but few resources are put into drug education and treatment. Despite having one of the highest rates of cannabis arrests in the world, more New Zealanders use cannabis now than ever before. On average, twenty New Zealanders are given criminal records every day for breaking the prohibition on cannabis. Arresting these otherwise law-abiding citizens serves no legitimate purpose, extends government into inappropriate areas of our lives, and causes enormous harm to the lives, careers and families of the thousands of people every year.

The last local inquiry into the legal status of cannabis was the 1972-3 Blake-Palmer Report that led to the introduction of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. That report recommended prohibition be continued "only so long as it was seen to be largely effective" (p89). The 1998 Health Select Committee Inquiry into the Mental Health Effects of Cannabis unanimously recommended "the Government review the appropriateness of existing policy on cannabis and its use and reconsider the legal status of cannabis". Every other government-level inquiry into cannabis around the world has recommended policies other than total prohibition.

Ending cannabis prohibition in much of Europe, Australia and the United States has not caused increases in cannabis use, and has achieved dramatic savings in law enforcement as well as improving the effectiveness of drug education and treatment services. After twenty years of regulated supply, teenage cannabis use in the Netherlands is dropping - a result of normalising cannabis use and limiting sales to adults. Hard drug use in the Netherlands has also dropped since they broke the black-market connection between cannabis buyers and hard drug sellers. Prohibition has failed and will continue to fail. It is time for a new approach.





2. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS



Treat cannabis use as a health and social issue, not a law enforcement problem. Public health strategies should recognise that the vast majority of cannabis users face little or no harm directly resulting from their use.

The most appropriate public health and health promotion strategy is harm minimisation, and health promotion strategies should only focus on use that is problematic (i.e., abuse).

Well funded, research based, effective, drug education for the community and schools should be developed by education and health professionals to allow the public to make informed choices.

Treatment opportunities should be available for all who need it by increasing funding for this sector. A wide range of treatment options should be trialed and rigorously evaluated.

We need more compassionate drug policies that help people rather than punish them. An enlightened society does not punish dissent or different lifestyles - it should celebrate diversity. It would be unthinkable to have laws criminalising other minority groups.

All penalties for the use, possession and cultivation of cannabis by adults for personal use and the non-profit transfer of small amounts should be immediately removed. Criminal records for non-violent cannabis offences should be wiped.

The regulation of cannabis cultivation and sale is the most appropriate legal status for cannabis, offering some control over juvenile use and some separation of markets, and is consistent with New Zealand's international treaty obligations.

A commercial market for marijuana will always exist, and it is better to regulate and control that market than to hand it over to organised crime. NORML supports the introduction of Dutch-style cannabis cafes. Political factors are the major obstacle to cannabis regulation, which would most effectively control access by minors, minimise harms to cannabis users, and impose the least costs on society. Taxation of cannabis would provide an income stream for government capable of funding alcohol and drug prevention and treatment on a scale required to make a difference.



3. ABOUT THE NATIONAL ORGANISATION FOR THE REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS, NEW ZEALAND INC.


NORML NZ was formed in 1979 and is an independent non-profit incorporated society that campaigns for an end to marijuana prohibition.

NORML NZ is a user representative group that supports the right of all adults to use, possess and grow their own cannabis. We recognise that some commercial market for marijuana will always exist, and we therefore call for ways to best to control that market.

Our aims are:
To reform New Zealand's marijuana laws
To provide neutral, unbiased information about cannabis and its effects
To engage in political action appropriate to our aims
To inform people of their rights
To give advice and support to victims of prohibition

NORML NZ is in effect a de facto union that represents the interests of New Zealand's half-million cannabis users, and the million adults who have tried cannabis despite what the law says.

NORML NZ has campaigned for sensible cannabis laws for over twenty years, and we have enormous public support for our cause. NORML's membership is large, and because of the criminal status of cannabis it is strictly confidential.


A note on cannabis prohibition and the freedom of speech:

The current policy serves to suppress debate and the free exchange of ideas, because those who publicly oppose prohibition are assumed to be cannabis users, and they therefore fear arrest, persecution or loss of employment merely for exercising their democratic right to freedom of speech. Professionals and academics, who could contribute much to the understanding of drug policy issues, have largely excluded themselves from the debate.

There has been minimal effort to publicise this Inquiry and invite public participation, and no assurance that advocates of cannabis law reform will not be arrested or persecuted. This will no doubt have effected the number of submissions received by this inquiry in support of law reform.

During our efforts to publicise this Inquiry we noticed a widespread unwillingness to be involved, mostly because (a) people feared being revealed as a cannabis user, and (b) many supporters of law reform feel disenfranchised and cynical of the political process. Therefore the number of submissions received in support of cannabis law reform will be but a fraction of the true level of support held by members of the community.






4. PUBLIC HEALTH AND HEALTH PROMOTION STRATEGIES


INTRODUCTION


Public health is suffering because cannabis is illegal. Public health strategies to minimise the use and harm associated with cannabis are failing, and will continue to fail as long as cannabis is illegal. Cannabis abuse should be treated as a health and social problem, not a law enforcement problem.

The law should exist to protect the public from harm, not merely to punish those who share a differing viewpoint. Cannabis policy should distinguish between non-problematic use, and harmful abuse. Public health strategies should recognise that the vast majority of cannabis users face little or no harm directly resulting from their use.

Thousands of research studies have been undertaken in an effort to prove the worst about cannabis, yet they have actually proven that cannabis is "the safest therapeutically active substance known" (ruling of Francis Young, DEA Administrative Law Judge, 1988)

Cannabis prohibition is not based on scientific evidence or reasoned analysis, but on morals. As the current strategy has no firm foundation, and has failed in all its stated goals, it should be replaced with a new strategy.

The most effective public health strategy is one where the public is empowered to make fully informed decisions about the consequences of cannabis use and feel able to utilise public health agencies. Those that need help should be able to get it without fear of arrest or punishment, and those who do not require help should not be forced or coerced to undergo unnecessary treatment.

Public health strategies for cannabis can only be effectively implemented if the use and possession of cannabis are made legal again, and the commercial cultivation and sale of cannabis products is regulated and controlled by law.

This document offers evidence and strategies to implement these strategies.



THE CONTEXT OF CANNABIS USE AND POLICY


Cannabis has a long history of widespread and safe use in many societies around the world. Prohibition has a short but spectacular history of causing widespread harm and misery wherever it has been enacted.

Cannabis was referred to as a "superior" herb in the world's first pharmacopoeia, Shen Nung's Pen Ts'ao, in China over 5000 years ago. Around 1500BC the cannabis-smoking Scythians swept through Europe and Asia, settling and inventing the scythe. Later the Zoroastrians, Therapeutia, Copts, Essenes and other African and Asian religions would adopt cannabis. Buddha was said to have survived for 500 days during his enlightenment by eating hempseed. Around 800AD Mohammed proclaimed that Muslims could use cannabis but the use of alcohol was forbidden.

In 450BC Herodotus recorded Scythians and Thracians consuming cannabis and making fine linens of hemp. Shortly after Carthage and Rome struggled for political and commercial power over hemp and spice trade routes in the Mediterranean. Roman Emperor Nero's surgeon, Dioscorides, praised cannabis for making the stoutest cords and for its medicinal properties and named the plant Cannabis Sativa (sativa meaning 'useful'). Cannabis cultivated for the first time in the UK at Old Buckenham Mere around 400AD and quickly became a staple agricultural commodity. The Germans, Celts, Franks and Vikings all used hemp fibre.

Cannabis has continued to play substantial a role in the development of human civilisation. During the era of colonial expansion by the European powers, such was the importance of cannabis hemp fibre and seed that exploration and settlement were directed wherever hemp could be found or grown. In the 1500's the English Queen Elizabeth I decreed that land owners with more than 60 acres must grow hemp or be fined 5 pounds, and King Philip of Spain ordered hemp grown throughout his empire from modern Argentina to Oregon. Dutch explorers achieved the "Golden Age" through hemp commerce, and found "wilde hempe" in North America. By the 1600's the British had taken cannabis to Canada for maritime uses, and began to grow cannabis in Virginia. Soon the Virginia colony made hemp cultivation mandatory, followed by most other North American colonies, who had begun to use hemp as money. The US Declaration of Independence was drafted on hemp paper, as were most Bibles and other books intended to last the passage of time. Hemp was so important to the economies of the time that US President George Washington set duties to encourage hemp cultivation, and proclaimed "Make the most of the Indian Hemp seed ... sew it everywhere."

Cannabis was introduced into Western science in 1841 by Dr. W. B. O'Shaughnessy in his tome "On the Preparation of the Indian Hemp or Ganja". Cannabis patent medicines were soon commonplace, and cannabis was listed in US Pharmacopoeia as a medicine in 1870 and served at the Amercan Centennial Exposition in Chicago in 1876. The first recorded instance of domestic cannabis cultivation was by Sister Mary Aubert, a catholic nun who ran a missionary outpost at Jerusalem on the Whanganui River, who grew cannabis to treat menstrual pains.

In 1894 the first major governmental investigation into cannabis, the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, studied the social use of cannabis and came out firmly against its prohibition. Every other major investigation held since then has come to a similar conclusion. Despite being the basis for many of the world's most effective medicines, the temperance movement was building to a peak, and soon cannabis came under attack. Negroes were reported to be using cannabis in jazz clubs and influencing white women, and Mexican immigrants were reported to become violent and crazy when under it's effects. A campaign to demonise cannabis and cannabis users was initiated with little regard to the facts. In 1911 the Harrisson Act, the world's first drug control law, was passed by the US Congress and quickly created addiction and misery among those who has previously used opium products without any apparent harms. The United States lobbied at the First International Opium Conference in 1912 that cannabis should also be banned. However, most nations objected to this suggestion as absurd and wholly lacking in supporting evidence. Not one to be deterred, the United States kept trying to ban cannabis at most international conferences, and finally got their wish by slipping the prohibition into the appendix of the Treaty of Versailles.

New Zealand became one of the first countries in the world to officially ban cannabis with the passing of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1927. This Act did not distinguish between different drugs or relative harms, and in fact did not outlaw the use of cannabis. In 1960, much to the consternation of the local constabulary, a Wellington truck driver was acquitted of charges of unlawful cannabis use. The Government of the day remedied the loophole by passing the Narcotics Act 1961. This new law also did not distinguish between different drugs or relative harms, and some particularly unjust sentences were handed out. The rise of the counterculture movement and marijuana as a symbol for rebellion saw many cannabis users sentenced to imprisonment of several years to life, while others were let off through new legal loopholes.

By the early 1970's cannabis had become part of New Zealand society, and the cannabis industry was starting to become self-sufficient, utilising smuggled sativa seeds from Thailand and Hawaii as the genetic basis for "New Zealand Green".

In 1972 the New Zealand Board of Health reviewed drug legislation, and recommended cannabis prohibition be continued "only so long as it is seen to be largely effective." The Government of the day responded by passing the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. This Inquiry is the first review of cannabis prohibition since that time. Far from being largely effective, cannabis prohibition has been not at all effective, unless the goal has been to increase cannabis use and related harms.

During the late 1970's police efforts to eradicate cannabis were intensified. Although entirely unsuccessful at achieving this result, the increased emphasis on law enforcement made the marijuana industry more violent and more dominated by organised crime. The ordinary blokes gave way to the professional criminals who would later open the local equivalent of the crack house - the "tinnie shop".

NORML New Zealand was incorporated in 1979 and soon established widespread support. In 1984 the Great Marijuana Debate was held in a packed Auckland Town Hall. That year, the then-Minister of Police Anne Hercus asked the police to stop arresting so many cannabis users, to no avail. In 1996 Whangarei psychologist Les Gray was arrested after stating on the Holmes programme that he enjoyed cannabis. This single action probably did more to stifle debate than any other prohibitionist tactic. No other professional with a career to lose would want to stick their neck out and advocate alternative policies. Les became a martyr to the cause (and went on to become the president of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party), and his arrest ensured other professionals and academics would exclude themselves from the debate.

Despite the best efforts of law enforcement personnel, cannabis use continued to rise. A 1990 study by Black and Casswell of the Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit found 43 percent of respondents reported having tried cannabis at least once. and 16% described themselves as current users. Regular use was highest amongst young men aged 20-24 (65 percent of whom had tried cannabis) and Maori. The study showed that the majority of those who have tried cannabis do not use it regularly and only a small proportion use it frequently. (Black and Casswell 1993). The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit (DMHDRU) longitudinal study of 1000 people born in Dunedin in 1972 and 1973 found that 61.9 percent of the 21 year olds surveyed had smoked cannabis on at least one occasion. In 1998 Black and Casswell repeated their survey, and found that the number of people who had ever tried cannabis had grown to 52%, and the number of self-described current users was now 16%. These figures represent an increase of over twenty per cent during a period of increased expenditure on law enforcement, increased arrests, and more draconian laws.

A DISCUSSION OF THE HARMS POTENTIALLY CAUSED BY CANNABIS USE AND WAYS TO REDUCE THEM


Every major investigation held about cannabis has found that the harms presented by cannabis use have been exaggerated, and that prohibition creates more harm than it prevents.

The claim that the medical and psychological effects of Cannabis are so "dangerous and harmful" that we must not change the cannabis laws, has increasingly been seen to be unsupportable, particularly in light of the known effects of tobacco and alcohol. As the 1979 Sackville Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in South Australia found:

"... even a cursory glance at the modern history of Cannabis shows a repeated pattern of widely believed myths which often fly in the face of the available evidence. It seems as discredited beliefs (such as Cannabis being an addictive narcotic causing violent crime and insanity) are rejected, they are replaced by new myths (for example, that even casual use carries serious health risks to the user)... It is apparent that the debate has been more concerned with values and community attitudes than with the objective ascertainment of facts"

The World Health Organisation in 1998 released a report that agreed with the New Zealand Ministry of Health's report Cannabis: the public health issues 1995-1996 in acknowledging that the consumption of alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than the use of cannabis.

The United States Institute Of Medicine in March 1999 released a report rejecting the 'gateway' theory that says cannabis leads to the use of harder drugs, recognised that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, and acknowledged that cannabis can be a useful medicine for many people.

"We.. say that on the medical evidence available, moderate indulgence in cannabis has little ill-effect on health, and that decisions to ban or legalise cannabis should be based on other considerations."
- The Lancet, vol 352, number 9140, November 14 1998

"Relatively few adverse clinical effects from the chronic use of marijuana have been documented in humans. However, the criminalization of marijuana use may itself be a health hazard, since it may expose the users to violence and criminal activity."
- The Kaiser Permanente study - "Marijuana Use and Mortality" April 1997 American Journal of Public Health".

"There are no long lasting ill-effects from the acute use of marijuana and no fatalities have ever been recorded ... there seems to be growing agreement within the medical community, at least, that marijuana does not directly cause criminal behaviour, juvenile delinquency, sexual excitement, or addiction."
Dr J. H. Jaffe, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. L.Goodman and A Gillman, eds. 3rd edn. 1965.

"Cannabis is remarkably safe. Although not harmless, it is surely less toxic than most of the conventional medicines it could replace if it were legally available. Despite its use by millions of people over thousands of years, cannabis has never caused an overdose death."
Professor Lester Grinspoon, M.D., Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, before the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., October 1, 1997



Toxicity

In over 10,000 years of documented and widespread use, there has never been a documented proven death resulting from cannabis use. Hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders use cannabis regularly, and if it were as toxic as some prohibitionists purport, our hospitals would be full of cannabis patients. Instead, considering the prevalence of use, they are conspicuous by their absence.

THC is non-toxic because it precisely fits into a specific neurotransmitter system rather than interrupting or interfering with chemical reactions in the nervous system. This is not to say that THC does not effect parts of the body, but that it does not damage the brain or body.

THC plugs into 'anandamide' receptors, which have only recently been discovered and located in areas of the brain that cannabis has long been known to effect - the higher thinking processes, emotions, perceptions, motor coordination, short term memory, plus the CB1 receptors of the immune system, the reproductive organs, and the lungs.

Cannabis has long been used by creative people as a source of inspiration and to enhance sensory experiences. It has long been a useful and effective medicine, and we are only now discovering why. Cannabis is helpful to people with neurological disorders such as Multiple Sclerosis because anandamide affects motor coordination. It is useful for people suffering AIDS wasting syndrome and nausea associated with cancer treatments because anandamide stimulates the feeding response and suppresses nausea. Cannabis is useful for glaucoma because anandamide regulates eye pressure. Cannabis is useful for asthmatics because anandamide triggers a coughing response in the lungs. Cannabis can help some people with immune disorders such as AIDS by stimulating certain parts of the immune system mediated by the newly-discovered CB1 receptors.

The ruling by US Drug Enforcement Administration Judge Francis Young, in response to a petition by NORML in the USA to reschedule marijuana from Schedule 1 to 2 (to allow marijuana to be prescribed as a medicine) was the largest and most comprehensive study yet undertaken into marijuana's toxicity and medical efficacy. He found:

"4. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.
"5. This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.
"6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.
"7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.
"8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.
"9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity."
"Opinion and recommended ruling, findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision of DEA administrative law judge", Sept 6 1988

"Marijuana is one of the least toxic substances in the whole pharmacopoeia"
Professor Lester Grinspoon, Harvard Medical School, USA

In the journal Fundamental And Applied Toxicology, Dr. William Slikker, director of the Neurotoxicology Division of the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR), described the health of monkeys exposed to very high levels of cannabis for an extended period: "The general health of the monkeys was not compromised by a year of marijuana exposure as indicated by weight gain, carboxyhemoglobin and clinical chemistry/hematology values." Dr. Merle Paule of NCTR added "There's just nothing there. They were all fine." - "No Increase in Carcinogen-DNA Adducts in the Lungs of Monkeys Exposed Chronically to Marijuana Smoke", 1992, Fundamental And Applied Toxicology, Dec 63 (3): 321-32.

The USA Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy (1987) after reviewing an extensive body of research, concluded that "the chief opposition to the drug rests on a moral and political, and not toxicologic, foundation."


The Lungs

The vast majority of cannabis smokers do so moderately, responsibly and infrequently. The main harm facing moderate cannabis users results from the delivery mechanism. Smoking is likely to be harmful to the lungs, although cannabis itself is non-toxic and does not damage the lungs like tobacco does.

Smoking enough of any plant matter is likely to be harmful to the lungs. Burning plant cellulose produces tars that include some carcinogenic substances, carbon monoxide, hot gases, and ash and solid particulates.

Cannabis smoke is not the same as the smoke produced from other plants such as tobacco.
Cannabis smokers consume far less smoke than tobacco users. Each joint is on average half the weight of a tobacco cigarette, and marijuana smokers rarely smoke as much as a tobacco user. Thus, the amount of irritant material inhaled almost never approaches that of tobacco users.

"Users in our matched-pair sample smoked marijuana in addition to as many tobacco cigarettes as did their matched non-using pairs. Yet their small airways were, if anything, a bit healthier than their matches. We must tentatively conclude either that marijuana has no harmful effect on such passages or that it actually offers some slight protection against harmful effects of tobacco smoke"
- Cannabis in Costa Rica: A Study of Chronic Marijuana Use; Institute of Human Issues.

Researchers at the University of California (UCLA) School of Medicine conducted an 8-year study into the effects of long-term cannabis smoking on the lungs. Dr. D.P. Tashkin reported

"Findings from the present long-term, follow-up study of heavy, habitual marijuana smokers argue against the concept that continuing heavy use of marijuana is a significant risk factor for the development of [chronic lung disease... Neither the continuing nor the intermittent marijuana smokers exhibited any significantly different rates of decline in [lung function]" as compared with those individuals who never smoked marijuana... No differences were noted between even quite heavy marijuana smoking and non-smoking of marijuana."
- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Volume 155

Some critics exaggerate the dangers of marijuana smoking by fallaciously citing a study by Dr. Tashkin which found that daily pot smokers experienced a "mild but significant" increase in airflow resistance in the large airways greater than that seen in persons smoking 16 cigarettes per day. What they ignore is that the same study examined other, more important aspects of lung health, in which marijuana smokers did much better than tobacco smokers. Dr. Tashkin himself disavows the notion that one joint equals 16 cigarettes.

A more widely accepted estimate is that marijuana smokers consume four times as much carcinogenic tar as cigarettes smokers per weight smoked. This does not necessarily mean that one joint equals four cigarettes, since joints usually weigh less. In fact, the average joint has been estimated to contain around half a gram of cannabis, or around half the weight of a cigarette, making one joint equal to two cigarettes.

It should be noted that there is no exact equivalency between tobacco and marijuana smoking, because they affect different parts of the respiratory tract differently: whereas tobacco tends to penetrate to the smaller, peripheral passageways of the lungs, cannabis tends to concentrate on the larger, central passageways. One consequence of this is that cannabis, unlike tobacco, does not appear to cause emphysema.

Whatever the risks of cannabis smoking, the current laws make matters worse in several ways: (1) Recently enacted paraphernalia laws prevent the development and marketing of water pipes and other, more advanced technology that could significantly reduce the harmfulness of marijuana smoke; (2) prohibition encourages the sale of cannabis that has been contaminated or adulterated by insecticides, Paraquat, etc., or mixed with other drugs such as PCP, crack, heroin and even fly spray; (3) by raising the price of marijuana, prohibition makes it uneconomical to consume marijuana orally, the best way to avoid smoke exposure altogether; this is because eating typically requires two or three times as much marijuana as smoking. While many smokers would prefer to eat or drink cannabis preparations rather than smoke them, current laws state that any "cannabis preparation" is a Class B prohibited substance that carries a more severe punishment. The high price of cannabis also means there is usually no filter included in a joint, and smokers tend to inhale deeply and hold the breath in to get the maximum effect. If cannabis was sold at it's true worth - for example, tobacco retails for less than $30 per ounce, including a two-thirds tax to the Government - smokers would not be forced to smoke in such a harmful way.

Recommendation:

Health promotion strategies to cannabis users should encourage eating or drinking cannabis preparations, and the use of harm minimisation equipment such as vapourisers and waterpipes. Cannabis paraphernalia designed to minimise the harmful effects of smoking should be re-legalised by repealing the Misuse of Drugs (Prohibition of Cannabis Utensils) Notice 1999.


Addiction and Dependence

Cannabis is not addictive. Most people who smoke cannabis do so only occasionally. A small minority of New Zealanders - less than 1 percent - smoke cannabis on a daily or near daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a psychological dependence on marijuana. Most people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty. Some seek help from drug treatment agencies. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence, and if people experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild.

There are many commonly used medicines that are very addictive, and the two legal drugs alcohol and tobacco are both addictive substances that together kill thousands of people every year. A June 1999 report by the Ministry of Health to the Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy stated that 224,000 New Zealanders are dependent on alcohol, and between 13,500 and 26,000 people are dependent on drugs such as heroin, morphine and homebake (opioids) in any six-month period.

A small minority of cannabis users can become dependent on cannabis. They need help in the form of treatment and counselling, rather than punishment. It makes no sense to punish other responsible cannabis users who are not dependent, merely to "send a message" to the few that have become dependent that they should stop being so.

There is a huge amount of research that proves the myth that cannabis is addictive to be at best a mistaken belief, or at worst an outright lie used to justify current policies:

"Cannabis can be used on an episodic but continual basis without evidence of social or psychic dysfunction. In many users the term dependence with its obvious connotations, probably is mis-applied... "
- The USA Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy (1987)

"cannabinoid dependence and withdrawal phenomena are minimal."
- "Chronic cannabinoid administration alters cannabinoid receptor binding in rat brain: a quantitative autoradiographic study", 1993, Brain Research Journal, 616:293-302. p300.

"There is no evidence that Marihuana as grown and used [in the Canal Zone] is a 'habit-forming' drug."
- The Panama Canal Zone Military Investigations (US Military, 1929)

"Marijuana does not lead to physical dependency, although some evidence indicates that the heavy, long-term users may develop a psychological dependence on the drug"
- The Shafer Commission (USA) of 1970

"research shows cannabis has limited potential for development of...psychological dependence"
- "Neurobiology of Marijuana Abuse", 1992, Trends In Pharmacological Sciences, 13:201-206, p203

"Given the large population of marijuana users and the infrequent reports of medical problems from stopping use, tolerance and dependence are not major issue at present."
- Drug Abuse and Drug Abuse Research, US Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD, (1991) pC3

"Cannabis is not an addictive substance."
- R. v Clay ruling of Ontario Justice John McCart, 1997.

While it is true that THC and other cannabinoids are fat-soluble and linger in the body for prolonged periods, they do not normally affect behaviour beyond a few hours except in chronic users, and this lingering effect is why cannabis has no noticeable withdrawal symptoms. Upon stopping, cannabis users are 'weaned' off THC, whereas an opiate or nicotine addict suffers an abrupt and intense physical withdrawal.

Most impairment studies have found that the adverse effects of acute marijuana use wear off in 2-6 hours, commonly faster than alcohol. The one notable exception was a pair of flight simulator studies by Leirer, Yesavage, and Morrow, which reported effects on flight simulator performance up to 24 hours later. The differences, described by Leirer as "very subtle" and "very marginal," were less than those due to pilot age. Another flight simulator study by the same group failed to find any effects beyond 4 hours. Similar "hangover" effects have been noted for alcohol. Chronic users may experience more prolonged effects due to a build-up of cannabinoids in the tissues. Some heavy users have reported feeling effects weeks or even months after stopping. However, there is no evidence that these are detrimental to safety.


Cognitive Function

This issue has been thoroughly investigated by the Health Committee for its 1998 report "Mental Health Effects of Cannabis". The report concluded:

"The weight of available evidence suggests that long-term heavy use of cannabis does not produce severe or gross impairment of cognitive function."

This finding is consistent with the findings of other major investigations into cannabis:

"There were no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and non-users of cannabis. There were also no male-female differences in cognitive decline in relation to cannabis use. The authors conclude that over long time periods, in persons under age 65 years, cognitive decline occurs in all age groups. This decline is closely associated with ageing and educational level but does not appear to be associated [with cannabis use]"
- Lyketsos et al, "Cannabis Use and Cognitive Decline in Persons under 65 Years of Age", Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, American Journal of Epidemiology, May 1999, 149:794-800

"Some participants had smoked at least two to four large cigarettes (each containing 1/4 to 1/2 ounce of cannabis) over 16 hours a day for periods of up to 50 years ... the most impressive thing... is the true paucity of neurological abnormalities."
- Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church Study, 1980

"Heavy cannabis consumers suffered no apparent psychological or physical harm... IQ's of Zion Coptics increased after they began to use ganga"
- Schaeffer: A Neuropsychological Evaluation; A Case History

"There were no indications of organic brain damage or chromosome damage among smokers and no significant clinical psychiatric, psychological or medical differences between smokers and controls."
US Jamaican Study 1970

"No impairment of physiological, sensory and perceptual performance, tests of concept formation, abstracting ability, and cognitive style, and tests of memory"
- US Jamaican Study 1974


Mental Illness

Although cannabis may exacerbate existing conditions in pre-disposed individuals, it is not itself a cause of mental illness. The incidence of schizophrenia has declined during a period in which cannabis use has increased among young adults.

This issue has been thoroughly investigated by the Health Committee for it's 1998 report "Mental Health Effects of Cannabis". The report concluded:

"Based on the evidence we have heard in the course of this inquiry, the negative mental health impact of cannabis appears to have been overstated, particularly in relation to occasional adult users of the drug."

This is line with the findings of other major investigations into cannabis. The LaGuardia Commission Report of 1944 concluded: "Cannabis smoking] does not lead directly to mental or physical deterioration... Those who have consumed marijuana for a period of years showed no mental or physical deterioration which may be attributed to the drug"

The impact of cannabis prohibition on mental health: Under the current policy, cannabis is readily accessible to those with a mental illness. Schizophrenia is associated with lower levels of anandamide, and many patients are able to self-medicate with cannabis to in effect boost their levels of THC/anandamide. The mental health of all cannabis users are threatened more by the current law than by the use of cannabis itself. The criminal law generates paranoia, suspicion, alienation and anxiety.


Development

Cannabis use is a symptom of 'deviant' behaviour, not a cause. Cannabis use at school is likely to impact on learning abilities. However while some are quick to point the blame at cannabis itself, it should be noted that the free availability of cannabis to adolescents is occurring now under a system of total prohibition. Despite - or because of - the law, cannabis is just as available as pizza, and more available to minors than alcohol.

Recommendation:

The use of cannabis by young people should be minimised by regulating the availability of cannabis with a minimum purchase age of 18 years.


Motivation

The concept of a marijuana amotivational syndrome first appeared in the late 1960s, as marijuana use was increasing among youth. Large-scale studies of high school students have generally found no difference in grade-point averages between marijuana users and non-users. Field studies in Jamaica, Costa Rica and Greece also found no evidence of an amotivational syndrome marijuana-using populations. The weight of scientific evidence suggests that there is nothing in the pharmacological properties of cannabis that alter people's attitudes, values, or abilities regarding work.

"No scientific evidence has been gathered to demonstrate ... the development of an amotivational syndrome amongst users."
- Health Committee, Mental Heath Effects of Cannabis 1998 p43

"a-motivation [is] a cause of heavy marijuana smoking rather than the reverse"
- Dr. Andrew Weil, cited in Rubin & Comitas, Ganja in Jamaica, 1975

"Cannabis ... does not cause a motivational syndrome."
- R. v Clay, Ontario Justice John McCart (Canada), 1997.


Suicide

Cannabis is associated with suicide and other 'deviant' behaviours only through correlation, not causation. People who attempt or commit suicide have a higher rate of using cannabis, but that does not mean cannabis has caused their distressed state. Rather, cannabis may be a therapeutic tool that offers some escape. The Health Committee's 1998 report Mental Health Effects of Cannabis concluded:

"Data collected by the Canterbury Suicide Project found that rates of cannabis abuse were higher amongst those making serious suicide attempts. However, further analysis suggested that again the involvement of cannabis was by association, as opposed to causation. Individuals who were predisposed towards a suicide attempt through a disadvantaged socio-demographic background or mental illness were also more likely to use cannabis. Evidence suggests that cannabis use is not a causal factor in suicide."


Blood Pressure and the Heart

According to the US National Academy of Sciences, the effects of marijuana on blood pressure are complex, depending on dose, administration, and posture. Marijuana often produces a temporary, "moderate" increase in blood pressure immediately after ingestion; however, heavy chronic doses may slightly depress blood pressure instead. One common reaction is to cause decreased blood pressure while standing and increased blood pressure while lying down, causing people to faint if they stand up too quickly. There is no evidence that pot use causes persisting hypertension or heart disease; some users even claim that it helps them control hypertension by reducing stress. One thing THC does do is to increase pulse rates for about an hour, a condition known as tachycardia. This is not generally harmful and may even be beneficial since exercise does the same thing.


Tissue Damage

THC is actually chemoprotective and neuroprotective. THC may even be a cure for cancer. Last February researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain cancer tumours in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis. Most people don't know anything about the discovery, since virtually no newspapers carried the story, but this isn't the first time scientists have discovered that THC shrinks tumours. In 1974, researchers at the Medical College of Virginia had been funded by the US National Institutes of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system. Instead, they found that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice--lung and breast cancer and a virus-induced leukaemia. The US Government quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumour research.

"Not only is the evidence linking cannabis smoking to cancer negative, but the largest human studies cited indicated that cannabis users had lower rates of cancer than non-users. What's more, those who smoked both cannabis and tobacco had lower rates of lung cancer than those who smoked only tobacco-a strong indication of chemoprevention."
"Marijuana Use and Mortality" American Journal Of Public Health, April 1997


The Immune System

It has been claimed that marijuana increases users' risk of contracting infectious diseases. First emerging in the 1970s, this claim took on new significance following reports of medical marijuana use by people suffering from AIDS.

There have been no clinical or epidemiological studies showing an increase in bacterial, viral, or parasitic infection among human marijuana users. In three large field studies conducted in the 1970s, in Jamaica, Costa Rica and Greece, researchers found no differences in disease susceptibility between marijuana users and matched controls.

At the 1981 conference on marijuana sponsored by the World Health Organisation and Canada's Addiction Research Foundation, reviewers of the research literature on immunity reported "There is no conclusive evidence that cannabis predisposes man to immune dysfunction". A few years later, in approving THC (Marinol) for use as a medicine, the FDA found no convincing evidence that THC caused immune impairment. In 1992, the FDA approved Marinol as an appetite stimulant specifically for AIDS patients, who have serious immunosuppression.





Pregnancy

Anti-drug campaigners often claim that children are permanently harmed by their mothers' use of cannabis during pregnancy. It is claimed that cannabis is a cause of birth defects and development deficits. A number of studies have claimed reported low birth weight and physical abnormalities among babies exposed to marijuana in utero. However, when other factors known to affect pregnancy outcomes were controlled for - for example, maternal age, socioeconomic class, and alcohol and tobacco use - the association between marijuana use and adverse foetal effects disappeared.

Other studies have failed to find negative impacts from marijuana exposure. However, when negative outcomes are found, they tend to be widely publicised, regardless of the quality of the study. The Health Committee's 1998 report Mental Health Effects of Cannabis found:

"No conclusive evidence exists to demonstrate deleterious effects of cannabis use upon foetal mental development... The most recent review of literature on the effects of cannabis use on the foetus found that cannabis has no reliable impact on birth size, length of gestation, neurological development, or the occurrence of physical abnormalities. [cited: Zimmer & Morgan 1997]"

The report also noted the research of Professor Richard Faull of the Anatomy Department of the University of Auckland, who informed the Committee of the results of his recent studies of cannabinoid receptors in the human brain. Cannabis, or more specifically THC, does have the potential to have a greater effect on the brain of the foetus than the adult. This does not mean damage. THC safely plugs into anandamide receptors in the brain. These are located in areas of the brain that among other things influence emotions, perceptions, and the feeding response. All mammals have anandamide receptors. It may be no evolutionary accident that the foetus has a higher proportion of anandamide receptors than adults. It may be that the presence of additional anandamide receptors helps the foetus cope with the traumatic experience of being born.

Although we believe it is sensible to advise pregnant women to abstain from using drugs - including cannabis - without their doctor's supervision, the weight of scientific evidence indicates that cannabis has few adverse consequences for the developing human foetus.


Fertility

There have been no epidemiological studies which have shown increased infertility in marijuana-using humans, and studies of overall reproductive rates have found no reduction in reproductive rates in countries where a higher rate of marijuana use is found.

"Studies of men in the general population have also failed to find differences in the testosterone levels of marijuana users and non-users... There is no convincing evidence of infertility related to marijuana consumption in humans... There are no epidemiological studies showing that men who use marijuana have higher rates of infertility than men who do not. Nor is there evidence of diminished reproductive capacity among men in countries where marijuana use is common."
"Exposing Marijuana Myths", The Lindesmith Center, p93


Driving

The adverse effects of alcohol on driving performance are well documented, and opponents of cannabis use often claim that cannabis produced similar impairment.

Research into impairment and traffic accident data from several countries by the University of Toronto indicates marijuana, when consumed alone, "does not significantly increase a driver's risk of causing an accident - unlike alcohol." Both alcohol and cannabis affect driving performance but those who smoke marijuana tended to be much more cautious behind the wheel due to the heightened awareness of their impairment. By comparison, "subjects who received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner."

A 1998 study by the University of Adelaide and the South Australian Transport Board found that "there is no evidence of any increase in the likelihood of being culpable for crashes amongst those injured drivers in whom cannabinoids were detected."

In most cases where cannabis has been detected in the bloodstream of drivers involved in crashes, alcohol has also been present.

Professor Olaf Drummer, a forensic scientist the Royal College of Surgeons in Melbourne said in 1996 "Compared to alcohol, which makers people take more risks on the road, marijuana made drivers slow down and drive more carefully.... Cannabis is good for driving skills, as people tend to overcompensate for a perceived impairment."

"Simulated driving scores for subjects experiencing a normal social 'high' and the same subjects under control conditions are not significantly different. However, there are significantly more errors for alcohol intoxicated than for control subjects"
- Crancer Study, Washington Department of Motor Vehicles:

"THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small"
- U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (DOT HS 808 078), Final Report, November 1993

"There is no controlled epidemiological evidence that cannabis users are at increased risk of being involved in motor vehicle or other accidents.
- Australian Institute of Criminology Report, 1996, page 6


Safety

There has never been a single, controlled scientific study showing drug urinalysis improves workplace safety. Claims that drug testing works are based on dubious anecdotal reports or the mere observation of a declining rate of drug positives in the working population, which has nothing to do with job performance. The few scientific studies that have been conducted have found little difference between the performance of drug-urine-positive workers and others. The largest survey to date, covering 4,396 postal workers nationwide, found no difference in accident records between workers who tested positive on pre-employment drug screens and those who did not. The American Management Association recently surveyed the scientific evidence related to workplace drug testing, and found no significant benefit from the practise.

There is no evidence that cannabis prohibition reduces the risk of accidents. On the contrary, recent studies suggest that marijuana may actually be beneficial in that it substitutes for alcohol and other, more dangerous drugs. Research by Karyn Model found that US states with decriminalisation had lower overall drug abuse rates than others; another study by Frank Chaloupka found decriminalised states have lower accident rates. In Alaska, accident rates held constant or declined following the legalisation of personal use of marijuana.


Crime and Violence

Cannabis use is not a cause of crime, other than use itself has been deemed a crime. Far from making cannabis users violent or inclined to commit crimes, cannabis tends to make its users passive and want to stay at home. The only link between cannabis and criminal activity is the criminal law.

Prohibition puts otherwise law-abiding citizens in contact with the criminal underworld with whom they must interact in order to purchase cannabis.

Prohibition also makes it more likely that a cannabis user may break other laws, because it brings the entire criminal justice system into disrepute, and alienates cannabis users from the rule of law. Once they have broken one law, which is blatantly unjust and unfair, they may become more likely to break other laws. Once cannabis users have a criminal record for cannabis use, the deterrent to not commit other crimes may not be so strong.

The Health Committee's 1998 report Mental Health Effects of Cannabis commented:

"Research, including that conducted by the 1972 Shafer Commission in the United States, has shown that cannabis itself does not induce violent behaviour. Recent studies using experimental controls to exclude pre-existing social factors have confirmed that cannabis does not stimulate violence. Instead cannabis was found to induce a sedative effect during the period of intoxication."

Every major study of cannabis has found no link between cannabis and crime or violent behaviour, including the Jamaican Study of 1970:

"This study indicates that there is little correlation between the use of ganga and crime, except insofar as the possession and cultivation of ganga are technically crimes"

The LaGardia sub-committee of New York 1944 said:

"Marijuana is not the determining factor in the commission of major crime....The publicity concerning the catastrophic effect of marijuana smoking in New York City, is unfounded"


Potency

The claim that there has been a 10-, 20- or 30-fold increase in marijuana potency since the 1970s is often used to discredit previous studies that showed minimal harm caused by the drug and convince users from earlier eras that today's marijuana is much more dangerous. It is a myth based on biased government data. Samples of cannabis from the early '70s came from low-potency Mexican "kilobricks" whose potency had deteriorated to non-psychoactive levels of less than 0.5%. These were then compared to more recent samples of decent-quality cannabis, making it appear that potency had skyrocketed. The US Government's own data show that average marijuana potency increased modestly by a factor of two or so during the seventies, and has been more or less constant ever since.


Mean Percentage THC of Seized Marijuana, USA, 1981-1993
Mississippi Potency Monitoring Project
19812.28
19823.05
19833.23
19842.39
19852.82
19862.30
19872.93
19883.29
19893.06
19903.36
19913.36
19923.00
19933.32

The Health Committee's 1998 report Mental Health Effects of Cannabis commented:

"The DPFT, the Police and the Ministry stated that the potency of cannabis had not increased significantly over time... The Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) provided information showing that the THC levels in New Zealand grown cannabis are not high by international standards."

In fact, there is nothing new about high-potency pot. During the sixties, it was available in premium varieties such as buddha sticks, as well as hashish and hash oil, which were just as strong as today's seedless heads, but were ignored in government statistics. While the average potency of domestic pot did increase with the development of sinsemilla in the seventies, the range of potencies available has remained virtually unchanged since the last century, when extremely potent tonics were sold over the counter in pharmacies. In Holland, high-powered hashish and sinsemilla are currently sold in coffee shops with no evident problems.

Contrary to popular myth, greater potency is not necessarily more dangerous, due to the fact that users tend to adjust (or "self-titrate") their dose according to potency. Even if potency had increased slightly since the 1970s, it would not mean that smoking marijuana had become more dangerous. In fact, since the primary health risk of marijuana comes from smoking, and because THC itself is non-toxic, higher potency products are less harmful because they allow people to achieve the desired effect by inhaling less smoke.


The 'Gateway' or 'Stepping Stone' Hypothesis

Cannabis does not cause people to use hard drugs. Cannabis is the most popular illegal drug in New Zealand, so people who have used less popular drugs, such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD, are likely to have also used marijuana, just as they are also likely to have used alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and watched television. Correlation does not imply causation. Most marijuana users never use any other illegal drug. For the vast majority of people, marijuana is a terminus rather than a gateway drug.

The assumption that cannabis consumers run a higher risk of switching to hard drugs, especially heroin, is known as 'the stepping-stone hypothesis'. This idea was first put forward in the forties in the USA and has since greatly influenced public opinion and drug policies. There is no inevitable relationship between the use of marijuana and other drugs. In the Netherlands, for example, although marijuana use among young people rose in the early 1990's, cocaine use decreased. The Dutch policy of allowing marijuana to be purchased openly in government-regulated "coffee shops" was designed specifically to separate young marijuana users from illegal markets where heroin and cocaine are sold.

There is no physically determined tendency towards switching from soft to harder substances. Drug policy, however, appears to play a role. The more users become integrated in a subculture where hard drugs as well as cannabis can also be obtained, the greater the chance that they may switch to hard drugs.

"The use of marijuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction and no effort is made to create a market for these narcotics by stimulating the practice of marijuana smoking"
- The LaGardia sub-committee of New York 1944

"Most marijuana users do not go on to use other drugs."
"Marijuana: Facts for Teens." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, D.C. 1995, p.10.

Recommendation: Separation of the drug markets is essential and therefore should form the basis of the current cannabis policy.


CANNABIS HARM REDUCTION AND EDUCATION PROGRAMMES


Most current school-based drug education programmes are centered on advocating an abstinence approach. These "Just Say No" programmes may be effective only for those students who had not already tried drugs, and there is no conclusive evidence to show even that outcome. The Health Committee's 1998 report Mental Health Effects of Cannabis commented:

"For pupils already involved in experimentation, these programmes tended to increase their sense of alienation by labelling them as deviant ... that alienation could increase the likelihood of negative outcomes such as dropping out of school or suicide."

Evaluations of drug education programmes in the United States have found a raising of awareness of drug issues, and an increased likelihood that adolescents will describe illicit drug use as harmful, but little evidence that drug use rates were reduced. In some areas, drug use has actually increased following drug education programmes, and as a result many local education bodies have moved to ban the DARE programme in particular.

Evaluations of school-based drug education programmes in New Zealand are almost non-existent, and recent guidelines developed by the Ministry of Education have yet to be adopted by many providers. For some schools, it often seems the outcome they want is that something is taught, rather than the ensuring that programmes actually influence behaviour. For many schools it is easier and tempting to simply rid themselves of the problem by suspending or expelling pupils caught using cannabis. The Health Committee's 1998 report Mental Health Effects of Cannabis recognised that this response is no solution:

"There is a need to ensure that chronic users of drugs remained within a supportive matrix of school and family. The tendency of schools to sanction students caught using cannabis through suspensions and expulsions may be counterproductive in this respect."

NORML agrees with the findings of this report that school-based cannabis education programmes "should adopt a holistic approach, educating students on cannabis in combination with alcohol and tobacco education." NORML endorses the Ministry of Education's guidelines for effective drug education in New Zealand:

legal and illegal drugs should be scrutinised equally;
the target audience may determine whether the approach favours abstinence or responsible use;
supply reduction efforts should be combined with demand reduction efforts;
drug education should target adults as well as children;
all drug harm minimisation programmes should support, and be consistent with, the curriculum being taught in the school;
educational programmes targeting Maori are more effective if conducted by Maori, using their own networks and communication systems; and
a holistic, community-based strategy utilising iwi, education, health and justice linkages to confront cannabis use at every level in the community will encourage Maori people to make informed choices.

The Health Committee noted in it's 1998 report that "Drug education programmes should be designed to meet the needs of all pupils. This involves providing appropriate education, advice and support to non-users, occasional users and heavy users of cannabis. It is important that people are assisted to make informed choices about the use of drugs."

School-based drug education programmes are but part of a holistic approach to reducing problematic drug use. Prevention efforts must involve educating the wider community about risks faced by decisions to use all drugs, and ways to mitigate these risks.

A harm minimisation approach is advocated by the National Drug Policy. For cannabis users, this could involve:
advising people who consume cannabis to do so only in moderation. Use of any drug every day is more likely to be harmful than more moderate and occasional use.
people who develop physical or psychological problems from recreational use of cannabis should be offered medical help. Treatment should be evidence based. Behaviour change is more likely (and less expensive) following treatment than coercion.
harm reduction information for cannabis smokers should provide ways to reduce the harmful effects of inhaling cannabis smoke
people with a history of mental illness should be advised to avoid cannabis or minimise use.
people who consume cannabis should be advised to avoid driving for several hours. If alcohol and cannabis have been consumed together, this period should be extended.






5. THE MOST APPROPRIATE LEGAL STATUS OF CANNABIS


While there are practically an infinite number of options for the legal status of cannabis, they can be arranged along a continuum running from authoritarian and punitive approaches to a laizze-faire free market policy. The detail and implementation of each can be modified according to local prioritites and values, and policy models can in general be classified under one of the following headings identified by the 1978 South Australian Royal Commission into Recreational Drugs (the Sackville Report) and further evaluated by the landmark 1996 Australian Institute of Criminology report "Legislative Options For Cannabis Use In Australia". We have added two recently proposed variations on the current policy, that of "depenalisation" and "medicalisation", and we will discuss the possible increased use of the police diversion scheme and the introduction of specialised drug courts. These classifications are preferred to the terms "decriminalisation" and "legalisation" as those words have become emotionally loaded, poorly understood, and mean different things to different people.



TOTAL PROHIBITION


The prohibition of cannabis creates far more harm than that which results from cannabis use itself.

Prohibition is a complete failure, resulting in increased use and uncontrolled supply. Despite over half a century of trying this punitive approach, we have seen huge increases in cannabis use as supply is controlled by gangsters and demand is fuelled by the outlaw status. Very few New Zealanders had even heard about cannabis when it was first prohibited in 1927. Today, over half of all people aged 15-45 will admit to having tried it, and the perceived availability of cannabis is increasing, while the average street price is dropping.

Prohibition creates little or no positive public health influence on cannabis use or harms, while it does exacerbate harms to cannabis users and their communities, including increased corruption, crime, disease and death, and ensures cannabis use rates are maximised.

American President Jimmy Carter said more than twenty years ago that "penalties against the use of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of a drug itself; and where they are they should be changed." It is clear that the penalties against the use of cannabis are far more damaging to individuals than the use of the drug itself:

Cannabis prohibition arbitrarily criminalises thousands of New Zealanders every year
Cannabis prohibition is a racist law that is particularly hard on Maori
Cannabis prohibition an expensive policy for very little return
Cannabis prohibition makes cannabis use more harmful
Cannabis prohibition is an abdication of control
Cannabis prohibition creates a mixed market for drugs and encourages the use of hard drugs
Cannabis prohibition encourages young people to begin using cannabis
Cannabis prohibition impedes effective drug education and harm reduction efforts
Cannabis prohibition impedes effective treatment services
'Zero tolerance' approaches harm adolescents caught experimenting with cannabis more than the cannabis use itself
Cannabis prohibition endangers communities
Cannabis prohibition contravenes basic Human Rights
Cannabis prohibition contravenes the principles of natural justice
Cannabis prohibition encourages corruption among law enforcement personnel
Cannabis prohibition has ruined the careers of many suspected cannabis users
Cannabis prohibition has seen family land stolen by the Crown
Prohibition alienates cannabis users from the rule of law, and erodes respect for the entire criminal justice system
Cannabis prohibition sends the wrong message
Cannabis prohibition breaks both market forces and human nature
Cannabis prohibition must be rejected



Prohibition Criminalises Thousands Of New Zealanders Every Year

Thousands of New Zealanders are criminalised every year, for choosing to consume a relatively harmless substance. Many of today's politicians have also admitted to using cannabis yet they remain unpunished.

It is often claimed that most cannabis smokers go unpunished and sentences are not harsh. New Zealand actually has dubious honour of the highest marijuana arrest rate in the world, and we have the second highest rate of imprisonment in the Western world after the United States. We are criminalising far too many of our young people.

Expenditure on arrests marijuana smokers doubled between 1991 and 1995. In 1999, more than 12,000 people were arrested for marijuana offences and over 6000 were given criminal convictions. Since the Misuse of Drugs Act took effect in 1977, there have been 212596 convictions for cannabis offences, affecting over 133000 people.

Almost ninety percent of cannabis arrests are for marijuana possession or use. The vast majority of arrested cannabis users are young, male and/or Maori. Hundreds of people are now in prison for marijuana offences. An even greater number are punished with periodic detention, fines, and other punitive sanctions including having their property seized, and their employment terminated.

Despite these civil and criminal sanctions, marijuana continues to be readily available and widely used. Marijuana use increased by over twenty percent in the 90's alone, a period of increased arrests and tougher drug laws.

The enforcement of cannabis prohibition among New Zealand's half a million cannabis smokers is relatively arbitrary, in that each smoker has about a 1% chance of being apprehended in any given year. However, most arrests tend to occur within certain subgroups - namely, young males and Maori. Young males and Maori fit the cannabis smoker stereotype, and so they come to the attention of the police more. The businessman having a joint at lunchtime is rarely looked at, let alone arrested.

Police have recently been in the habit of raiding tinnie shops and then operating them themselves in an effort to arrest more cannabis users. A tinnie shop in Kingsland Auckland was thus raided and operated by the police last year, and in the space of about 3 hours they arrested over forty young people and charged them with "attempting to procure cannabis". Some of these teenagers were arrested sitting in their cars doing nothing. Many complained to NORML seeking help. None to our knowledge stopped using cannabis as a result, but all developed a hatred of the police. The police's misguided efforts are creating harm among young cannabis users, who can purchase cannabis whenever they choose.

The high costs of cannabis prohibition are often justified on the basis that punitive sanctions force cannabis users to undergo treatment. Indeed, this argument was advanced by the NZ Police in their submission to the petition calling for cannabis decriminalisation (1996/686) submitted to the Health Committee in 1998. However this argument is flawed for several reasons.

Firstly, most cannabis users do not require treatment. According to the University of Auckland's Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit recently published Te Ao Taru Kino - a survey of drug use among Maori: "Of note was the proportion of marijuana users who reported not experiencing any problems associated with marijuana use: 69%. When people who used marijuana were asked whether they needed help to reduce their level of marijuana use, the majority (82%) stated that they didn't need any help at all."

Secondly, this argument assumes that threatening cannabis users with punitive sanctions is the best way to get them into treatment programmes.

Thirdly, this argument assumes that police are the health professionals most able to make decisions about the treatment options for someone suffering a health problem. There is no evidence to suggest that police seek out only those cannabis users who require some form of treatment and then systematically drop the charges in return for a completed stay at a rehabilitation clinic. In fact, the available evidence would suggest that the reverse is the case; that the police randomly arrest any cannabis users they stumble across, and do very little in the interests of that person's welfare. The enforcement of the criminal law is intended to punish, not to help.

"We're making our children criminals because they prefer a safer euphoriant substance to that chosen by middle-aged men. People with criminal records find it much more difficult to get jobs, and unemployment is closely linked to ill health and early death. Why should we impair people's ability to have a decent income and decent health?"
- Dr George Venters, chairman of the BMA's Scottish public health committee.

"I got tired of seeing otherwise innocent young kids from all walks of life getting criminal records for, in effect, doing nothing more than millions of other people in society were doing with alcohol"
- Detective Chief Inspector Ron Clarke, former member of Greater Manchester Police Drugs Squad.

Recommendations:

The use, possession, personal cultivation and licensed supply of cannabis no longer be a criminal offence.

Punitive sanctions should not be used as an inducement to seek treatment for cannabis use.


Prohibition Is A Racist Law That Is Particularly Hard On Maori

Maori make up a disproportionate number of cannabis-related arrests and convictions, and they are more likely to be imprisoned for cannabis offences than non-Maori.

Maori make up over 40% of cannabis arrests and convictions, despite being only about 14% of the New Zealand population and having only a slightly higher rate of cannabis use than non-Maori.

According to the University of Auckland's Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit recently published "Te Ao Taru Kino - a survey of drug use among Maori", 60% of Maori have tried cannabis at least once (compared to 52% of the whole national survey) and 18% describe themselves as current users (compared to 16% of the national survey).

The high rate of imprisoning Maori men is having a devastating effect on Maori communities and whanau. Maori also make up a disproportionate number of cannabis-related expulsions and suspensions from schools - far in excess of their cannabis use rate.

Cannabis is often blamed for causing many of the social ills afflicting Maori. Cannabis use is a symptom, not a cause, of social dislocation, poverty and unemployment. Furthermore, the problems caused by cannabis prohibition are often blamed on cannabis use itself.

NORML recognises that some rural communities and many Maori have become dependent on cannabis incomes. We do not believe this is enough justification for all the social ills created by cannabis prohibition, but we do recommend a model of cannabis law reform that takes account of this unforeseen economic benefit of the current policy. Regulating the cannabis industry along the lines of the Dutch approach would allow those who currently derive their income from illicit cannabis crops to apply for a licence and continue to do so, with the provision that they pay tax like everyone else, they follow the rules set down for the cannabis industry, and they not engage in violent or threatening actions. Reforming New Zealand's cannabis laws would also allow Iwi to utilise Maori land to grow hemp, a valuable commodity that will thrive on marginal lands and requires a relatively high labour input.

Recommendation:

Cannabis prohibition be replaced with a regulatory model that allows for the licensed cultivation of cannabis, that encourages the cultivation of hemp in rural areas instead of illicit cannabis crops, and is within a holistic framework recognising the high rate of Maori cannabis use and involvement within the cannabis industry as a symptom of poverty, unemployment and social dislocation.



Prohibition A Very Expensive Policy For Very Little Return

Prohibition is very expensive to enforce compared to current policies for other goods, for legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, and compared to alternative policy options. While getting a consistent figure has so far proven elusive, the police variously admit to spending at least $20-odd million per year enforcing cannabis prohibition. The police estimate they spend around 300,000 hours per year enforcing the current law, which amounts to about 150 full-time officers. These officers are arresting mostly cannabis users and small-scale dealers at the expense of catching serious criminals and solving crimes that have a victim.

These police costs do not include the Aerial Recovery Programme, undercover operations, funding for the Army and for ESR, prohibition related violence and murders, and the decreased effectiveness of the police as a whole as a result of alienating significant sectors of the community. An additional $10-$15 million is spent by the Ministry of Justice and Department for Courts in sentencing those caught. Corrections costs are additional to this. This significant monetary outlay comes without any evidence that prohibition actually works. No other policy area would be so blindly pursued without at least an evaluation of whether it is achieving its goals and whether the taxpayer is getting value for their money.

According to the University of Auckland's Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit recently published Te Ao Taru Kino - a survey of drug use among Maori, of the 40% who had never used marijuana, 47% said they just don't like it, 27% gave health reasons for abstaining, the risk of being caught put off 11%, and 10% said it was not in their social scene. In effect, cannabis prohibition works for 11% of the 40% who say no - a total 4.4%. Among Maori who said they had stopped using marijuana or reduced their consumption, 10% said they didn't like it, 10% gave health reasons, 9% cited family responsibilities and children, and 8% said it was too expensive. Only 2% said it was fear of law or police that caused the reduction in their cannabis use.

The current policy places by far the most emphasis on law enforcement and apprehending cannabis "offenders". Scarce funds are directed at law enforcement rather than education and treatment, even though drug education has been shown to be seven times more cost effective than law enforcement at reducing demand for drugs (Rand Corporation, Interpol). Only $2.1 million is spent on school-based drug education, and no money at all is spent on community or peer group education. Treatment services are underfunded by at least $29.4 million (Ministry of Health, 1999) - about the same amount that police spend arresting cannabis users.

Recommendation:

Funds currently allocated to apprehending cannabis users should instead be directed towards fully funding cannabis prevention, treatment and harm reduction programmes.

Prohibition Makes Cannabis Use More Harmful

Prohibition encourages the use of adulterants, contaminants, impurities and inconsistent drug type or dose (resulting from unregulated production) causing health damage among users. Cannabis purchased through criminal markets is not subject to the same quality control standards as are legal consumer goods. Illicit cannabis is sometimes adulterated with much more damaging substances; contaminated with pesticides, herbicides, or fertilisers; and/or infected with moulds, fungi, or bacteria.

While some dealers have been known to lace cannabis with fly spray to give it that extra hit, the policy are now spraying cannabis with a toxic herbicide based on carcinogenic glyphosate despite knowing this poisoned cannabis is still finding its way to the market. NORML has received numerous reports since this spraying program began of mostly young and inexperienced smokers consuming tainted cannabis and coughing up blood and suffering from intense pain and nausea, and some requiring hospital treatment. We doubt this Inquiry will hear from these people, as for them to come forward would be to risk arrest. We have informed both the Minister of Police and Detective Harry Quinn of the National Drug Intelligence Bureau of our concerns but have yet to see any action taken. Detective Quinn has informed NORML that the police's own "scientific evidence" was that ingesting "even large amounts of sprayed cannabis would not be harmful." If this it true, we must question how the police can also claim that cannabis is inherently harmful to health, if their sprayed cannabis is not harmful?

Furthermore, prohibition forces users to pay exorbitant black market prices for cannabis rather than the true market cost, which in many cases has lead to increased malnutrition and other health deficits related to poverty. Sentences for any form of cultivation handed out by the Courts tend to involve prison terms, which makes many parents reluctant to grow their own cannabis. Their only alternative is to purchase their herb at hugely inflated prices within their limited incomes.

Blindly pursuing the current policy has recently led to a ban being implemented on the importation and supply of cannabis paraphernalia. This ban was then justified on harm reduction grounds using the flimsiest of evidence that selectively drew from contradicting studies and ignored the weight of scientific evidence that shows cannabis waterpipes are harm reduction devices. Far from intending to protect cannabis users from harm, the ban was actually about "sending a message about the appropriateness and safety of cannabis use" (press releases by former the Minister of Health and Ministry of Health). The real message this ban sent was that the Government is more interested in pandering to the hysterical demands of prohibitionists than in protecting the health of cannabis smokers. Because many of the same devices have continued to be sold under other guises, this 'ban' sends the message that the prohibition can be easily subverted.

Recommendations:

The sale of cannabis be regulated and subject to health regulations and packaging requirements similar to food products.

The police be directed to stop spraying cannabis crops with herbicide.

The Misuse of Drugs (Prohibition of Cannabis Utensils) Notice 1999 be repealed.


Prohibition Encourages Young People To Begin Using Cannabis

Prohibition encourages young people to begin smoking cannabis by creating a daring and glamorous image of rebellious cannabis use. The normalisation of cannabis use would minimise this. Just as parents are allowed to take their children to the pub to introduce them to alcohol in a controlled way, parents should also feel open to talking with their children about appropriate and sensible cannabis use.

The current policy leaves the supply of cannabis in the hands of criminals. There are no age limits. Not only do organised crime syndicates peddle cannabis to children, they often involve minors in their cultivation and distribution operations as minors cannot be arrested for summary offences. The regulation of the supply of cannabis would eliminate this problem, as there would be a legal age limit for customers and workers.

Recommendation:

The supply of cannabis should be licensed and regulated by law, with a minimum age limit of 18 years.


Prohibition Impedes Effective Drug Education And Harm Reduction Efforts

Prohibition denies cannabis users access to information and equipment to use cannabis in the least harmful ways, and restricts access to equipment or paraphernalia that may make drug use safer. While the Government spends millions of dollars arbitrarily arresting thousands of cannabis smokers every year, there is no public money at all for educating cannabis users about safer cannabis use. Harm reduction does not exist for cannabis users, other than that provided by non-governmental organisations such as NORML.

Cannabis pipes and bongs have been recently outlawed, despite considerable evidence they reduce smoking-related harms. One of the more well-established hazards of marijuana consumption is the fact that the inhalation of burning vegetable matter is bad for the respiratory system. Laws that prohibit the sale or possession of paraphernalia reduce the likelihood that individuals will smoke through devices which cool and filter the smoke

The hypocrisy of cannabis prohibition undermines the effectiveness of drug education programs. Adolescents are not fooled by exaggerated statements about cannabis intended to scare them off, and they see their parents, police and policymakers openly use other more harmful drugs, or indeed admit to previous cannabis use with a smirk. Cannabis prohibition sends a message that society is hypocritical, does not base drug policy on scientific evidence or reasoned analysis, and does not value the opinions or experiences of its young people.

"We view the double standard which sometimes surround the cannabis issue as an
impediment to effective anti-drug education. Attempts by users of legal drugs
to deter the use of illegal drugs often affects the credibility of the message.
The younger generation perceive a double standard in the social acceptance of
alcohol and tobacco despite their obvious negative health and social
repercussions, while cannabis is clearly prohibited and its harms are less
apparent."
Health Committee, Mental Health Effects of Cannabis, 1998

"Several generations of high school students have grown up ignoring and disbelieving everything they've heard from government and police about drugs, including information that was factual and valid, because they discovered for themselves that most of what has been taught to them was simply not true."
Ann Shulgin, PhD, Therapist and Author, Lafayette, CA, at the DPF Conference, November 1996.

Recommendation: Cannabis policy be developed using principles consistent with the two other commonly used recreational drugs alcohol and tobacco.

Recommendation: Cannabis harm reduction information be developed and provided to cannabis users.


Prohibition Is A Barrier To Effective Treatment Services

Prohibition creates a barrier to adequate health treatment for those who need it, by pushing cannabis use underground and threatening cannabis users with arrest and imprisonment.

According to the Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit's Te Ao Taru Kino - a survey of drug use among Maori:

"When people who used marijuana were asked whether they needed help to reduce their level of marijuana use ... 8% said that, at some time in their life, they had wanted help to reduce their level of marijuana use but had not got it. Their reasons for not being able to get help were: fear of the law (35%), fear of losing friends (23%), no local services (21%), not knowing where to go (19%)"

Prohibition drives cannabis users from their social support networks, making it hard to reach them with education messages about protecting themselves.

The marginalisation of cannabis users leads to lower self-esteem and decreases motivation for self-care, and means many other New Zealanders care little about what happens to them. The criminal status of cannabis and cannabis users also creates an additional barrier for those being treated for mental illnesses.

Zero-tolerance approaches to addiction discourage addicts from seeking help. Drug users are reluctant to call for help for fear of being charged with a crime. Drug problems are compounded by the very laws meant to address them.

Recommendation: Treatment opportunities should be available for all those who need them. Cannabis policy should not discourage users from seeking help.


'Zero Tolerance' Approaches Harm Adolescents Caught Experimenting With Cannabis More Than The Cannabis Use Itself

Prohibition has seen the curtailing of education for thousands of children every year who are caught experimenting with cannabis, while their peers who are caught using alcohol or tobacco, which are just as illegal as cannabis for a minor, and given a second chance or less severe punishments. The use of expulsion and suspension by schools as a primary punishment provides a useful illustration of how prohibition in general works: those caught are punished far more severely than their "crime" warrants; the punishment creates more harm than the cannabis use itself; those caught are predominantly Maori, despite Maori having only a slightly higher use rate; the motive underlying the use of punitive sanctions is not to help the person caught, but to "send a message" to others not yet caught that they had better watch out.

Recommendation: Schools should be encouraged to solve problems with adolescent cannabis use rather than exacerbate them. School policy should aim to help rather than punish. Suspension and expulsion should only ever be used as a last resort and after all other options have been tried.


Cannabis Prohibition Endangers Communities

Prohibition endangers entire communities by fuelling a lucrative black market that is ruled not by law, but by violence and intimidation. Because vigorous enforcement of the marijuana laws forces the roughest, toughest criminals to take over marijuana trafficking, prohibition causes violence and increases predatory crime. Rip-offs are common place, and are settled not by the Disputes Tribunal, but by the end of a shot-gun. Hundreds of local growers spend the summer guarding their plants with guns, knives, sticks and traps, making the New Zealand bush a dangerous place to be. Several people are killed every year in New Zealand over cannabis deals gone wrong, and many more are threatened, beaten, or abducted. No one is killed over a cup of coffee or a cigarette.

"Cannabis never killed anybody and it's use is widespread. You can't stop it. The law defeats itself because all the efforts to stop drugs coming in only drives up the prices and then gangsters move in to push the drugs. If they legalised there wouldn't be gangsters and huge profits."
- Judge James Pickles, UK

Prohibition encourages property crime to pay the vastly inflated prices set by the underground drug market. The situation is exacerbated by the police placing a priority on arresting cannabis users and therefore not having the resources to sufficiently investigate property crimes.

Prohibition dividing communities into those that do and don't smoke cannabis, and thereby creates widespread fear, suspicion and alienation

Recommendation: in the interests of healing our communities, cannabis prohibition be repealed and replace by the lawful regulation of the cannabis industry

Recommendation: that a cannabis 'truth and reconciliation' commission be instigated to restore a sense of justice and heal the harms that have been caused by blindly pursuing cannabis prohibition


Prohibition Is An Abdication Of Control

Far from controlling the market for drugs or reducing the supply of drugs, prohibition is an abdication of control. With such a highly demanded substance society is faced not with a choice of "can we ban it?" but "how best do we control it?" Completely prohibiting cannabis is impossible, but it is possible to effectively regulate the way it is sold and used and minimise the harms are associated with it.

Recommendation:

Regulating the cannabis industry would best restore control and most restrict juvenile access to cannabis.


Prohibition Fuels The Growth Of Organised Crime

The current policy means handing over control of the billion-dollar market for cannabis to whoever is prepared to break the law. The difference between the true cost of producing and distributing cannabis and the inflated black market sale price is essentially a tax to support criminals. The chances of being caught are small compared to the profits to be made. Alcohol prohibition in the 1920s fuelled the growth of gangsters such as Al Capone and the Mafia, and this experience is being mirrored in New Zealand with the increasing dominance in of organised crime in the distribution and retailing of cannabis.

Contrary to popular media reports, organised crime involved in the supply of cannabis are not only limited to patched 'gangs'. Gangs in themselves are not problematic but the way they behave often is. Accompianying the growth in organised crime has been a huge increase in violence as home invasions, beatings and even murders are used to settle contractual disputes or protect market share.

A new form of drug dealing modelled on the American "crack house" - the tinnie shop - has emerged in the 1990s. These outlets exist in every town and suburb of New Zealand, and many trade 24 hours a day. There are no age limits or other controls on supply. Many tinnie shops are staffed by teenagers. Most of their customers are teenagers.

It is sometimes claimed that cannabis should remain prohibited so that organised criminals do not move onto distributing other harder drugs. This argument - which implicitly acknowledges the relative safety of cannabis - is flawed for several reasons:

Cannabis distribution networks are already moving on to selling other drugs, largely caused by increased police efforts aimed at apprehending cannabis growers and dealers coupled with an increased demand for stimulants. It is quicker to manufacture amphetamines than it is to grow cannabis, and it is easier to distribute concentrated powders and pills than bulky plant matter.

The vast majority of cannabis arrests are for the use and possession of cannabis, rather than for cultivation or supply. The police annually allocate over 300,000 hours to enforcing cannabis prohibition, equating to about 150 full-time police officers. These officers could be better used combating organised crime.

Regulating the supply of cannabis will break the link between cannabis users and hard drug sellers. Licensed cannabis outlets would not be able to sell other drugs.

Overall government policy should examine why gangs exist in the first place. Society would be better served by policies that reduce the desire of young people to become involved in organised crime in the first place, than placating criminal groups by giving them a drug to distribute to young people at inflated prices.

Recommendation:

The cannabis market be regulated in a way that limits the involvement of organised crime and protects public safety.


Cannabis Prohibition Encourages Corruption Amongst Law Enforcement Personnel

Prohibition invites corruption within the criminal justice system by giving officials easy, tempting opportunities to accept bribes, steal and sell marijuana, and plant evidence on innocent people. Alcohol prohibition in the 1920's fostered corruption on an epidemic scale, while the NSW Wood Commission noted that drug prohibition was the cause and source of that State's institutionalised corruption. This is increasingly being discovered in New Zealand amongst our prison guards and police officers. W can expect corruption to continue to escalate as long as the billion dollar cannabis black market exists.

The undercover police programme is at particular risk of institutionalising corruption in New Zealand. This work usually involves a police officer trying to infiltrate a given social group in order to gather evidence. It usually involves the police officer using, selling and giving away drugs. Some have begun live-in relationships with women. One undercover officer in Auckland was the get-away driver for an armed robbery. Entrapment is legal in New Zealand and this technique is commonly used by the police who implore a person to commit a crime and then arresting them for it. Such crimes may not have occurred had the police not taken part.

It has long been reported to NORML - and acknowledged by former police undercover officers - that many police officers routinely take seized cannabis for their own use, for the use of undercover agents, to sell, or to pay informants. Over the years, we have been contacted by many people who have ended up being charged with a fraction of the cannabis that had been confiscated from them. Most have not spoken out as being charged for a lesser amount may make the difference between a prison term and a non-custodial sentence. Although it may or may not be officially sanctioned, we can state that the theft of cannabis is routine and rife amongst the police force.

Recommendations:

An independent investigation be held into instances of police corruption relating to cannabis law enforcement and the undercover programme.

Legislation be passed to prohibit entrapment by police officers.


Prohibition Creates A Mixed Market For Drugs And Encourages The Use Of Hard Drugs

Marijuana prohibition creates a mixed drug market, which puts marijuana consumers in contact with hard-drug dealers. Regulating marijuana - e.g., allowing adults to grow their own - would separate marijuana from dealers who also sell cocaine, heroin, and other hard drugs.

Just over a quarter of current cannabis users reported in the "Drugs in New Zealand National Survey 1988" (Field & Casswell 1999) that their dealers sold other drugs, and of these people, 39% reported that their dealers had encouraged them to buy other drugs.

According to the Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit's Te Ao Taru Kino - a survey of drug use among Maori: "Those with one or more suppliers were asked whether their supplier(s) sold other drugs, and about one in five (22%) reported this to be the case. Of these people, over a third (38%) said that their supplier(s) had also encouraged them to buy other types of drugs."

Separating the markets for marijuana and hard drugs is one of the main aims of Dutch drug policy. The Dutch were even prepared to accept a higher rate of cannabis use if that meant hard drug use rates would drop. In fact, rates of use for both cannabis and hard drugs have dropped since the Netherlands introduced de facto legalisation in 1976.

The double standard of cannabis prohibition also makes it less likely that adolescents will heed warnings about the dangers of hard drugs. Exaggerations and scare tactics designed to make young people afraid of the "demon weed" only serve to entice them, while diluting more important messages about addictive and harmful drugs such as heroin.

Recommendation:

In order to separate the markets for cannabis and more harmful drugs, the sale of cannabis be regulated by law.


Cannabis Prohibition Contravenes Basic Human And Civil Rights

Prohibition restricts the rights and freedoms of all New Zealanders, whether or not they choose to consume cannabis. Because marijuana is typically used in private, trampling the Bill of Rights is a routine part of marijuana-law enforcement, e.g., drug dogs, urine tests, phone taps, government informants, garbage searches, military helicopters, infrared heat detectors, and so on.

Prohibition contravenes several fundamental right guaranteed by both the Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act including:
the right to freedom of expression
the right to freedom of religion
the right not to be arbitrarily detained or searched

Prohibitionists often justify their stance by stating cannabis use effect the rights of other people, or that the state knows best and has a valid role protecting people from themselves and therefore rights can be subsumed in the interest of the greater good. Both these arguments are fallicious. It is difficult to accept that an adult's choice to consume cannabis in the privacy of their own home, or out in the fresh air, effects anyone else. It is also patently obvious that cannabis prohibition creates far more harm than the use of cannabis itself, both to cannabis users and also those around them.

"Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control man's appetite through legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not even crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our Government was founded"
- Abraham Lincoln, December 1840

Recommendation:

In the interests of restoring the basic civil liberties and human rights of all New Zealanders, cannabis prohibition be abolished.


Cannabis Prohibition Contravenes The Principles Of Natural Justice

One of the most basic rules of natural justice that is fundamental to our criminal justice system is that the accused is held to be "innocent before proven guilty". This principle does not apply to those caught with drugs or even suspected of using drugs. Instead of the burden of proof being on the prosecution to prove the charge, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove they are innocent.

The Misuse of Drugs Act specifies that anyone who grows more that 10 plants is presumed to be cultivating for the purpose of supply. Anyone who is in possession of more than 28 grams of cannabis (1 ounce) is presumed to be guilty of supply. According to the law, there need not be any evidence of any commercial activity, but the defendant must somehow prove that they did not intend to supply anyone, which is obviously a difficult thing to do.

A fundamental principle of natural justice is that there should be a victim for any crime, and that the accused has the right to face the accuser.

Recommendation: The burden of proof for Misuse of Drugs Act offences be returned to the prosecution. If any arbitrary limits remain, they should be scaled upwards to ensure users of cannabis are not tried as suppliers.


Cannabis Prohibition Has Ruined The Careers Of Many Suspected Cannabis Users

Workplace drug testing has seen the careers of many cannabis smokers ruined, while those who choose to consume alcohol, amphetamines or opiates are undetected and therefore unpunished. Workplace drug testing is a punitive measure that has been shown to be unreliable, discriminatory and ineffective.

Few companies with drug testing programs have ever conducted a cost-benefit analysis. The US National Academy of Sciences studied drug testing in 1994 and concluded there was no clear evidence of any negative effects of drugs - other than alcohol - on safety and or job performance.

A recent paper prepared by Labour Department senior medical practitioner Chris Walls has questioned the usefulness of workplace drug testing. Dr Walls says there are "no useful analytical measures to accurately indicate the level of acute impairment" caused by cannabis use on or off the job, and that urine testing "has no practical use in assessing impairment caused by marijuana use."

Recommendation: Workplace drug testing be banned as unreliable, discriminatory, and encouraging poor workplace relations.


Cannabis Prohibition Sanctions Land Theft By The Crown

Asset forfeiture under the Proceeds of Crimes Act allows police to seize the money and property of convicted cannabis offenders. To seize the property, the police need only show that the property has been "tainted" - they don't need to show it was paid for using drug incomes - and they only need show a civil burden of proof, ie a "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt". Since 1993 over $11 million worth of property has been seized, almost all of which involved cannabis offenders. There have been several reports of police impropriety in attempting to seize property including planting evidence and lying under oath.

In one of the biggest sums awarded against police, in August 1999 Judge Michael Lance awarded Great Barrier Island man Colin Moore $54,000 towards the $100,000 he spent defending charges of cultivating cannabis and fighting to keep the family farm. Police did not photograph the evidence or give Moore the chance to look at the plants. They also left out evidence during the trial. The Police helicopter was allegedly spotted delivering a load of cannabis to Mr Moore's farm. The farm had been in the family for generations and could not have been paid for with drug money. The Judge was scathing of the Proceeds of Crime Act. "It's an invasion of personal privacy when a person is presumed innocent," said Lance. "The legislation needs some careful attention."

Maori are at particular risk of having their ancestral lands taken by the Crown again. Many Iwi and Hapu have only marginal lands left. Faced with little prospect of farming this land, little hope of legitimate employment and ongoing land rates to pay, some have chosen to use the opportunity cannabis prohibition has presented them with. Money may not grow on trees, but it does grow on cannabis plants that are almost worth their weight in gold. If they are caught Maori face not only a harsher average sentence but may have their ancestral lands confiscated under the Proceeds of Crimes Act, despite the obvious fact that the land could not have been paid for using illicit drug money.

Recommendation: The Proceeds of Crimes Act should be amended to provide for a criminal burden of proof, and properties that cannot be proven to have been paid for through illegal means should not be subject to the Act.


Prohibition Alienates Cannabis Users From The Rule Of Law, And Erodes Respect For The Entire Criminal Justice System

When a law is openly broken by large sectors of the population on a regular basis and only a small fraction are apprehended each year, the rule of law becomes weaker. Most people recognise cannabis prohibition as unjust and unworkable. To continue trying to enforce this law puts the police in an unenviable position and erodes community respect for them. Huge numbers of people now regard police not as their friends, but their enemies. This impacts on the police's ability to solve all crimes.

New Zealand communities are now divided into those that do and don't smoke cannabis. Those that do not consume cannabis enjoy all the rights and privileges of citizens in a civilised democracy. Those that do choose to consume cannabis have only half the rights of the others, and none of the protection offered by the police. Cannabis smokers cannot report crimes for fear of being arrested for a plant in their back garden or the bong in their bedroom. They cannot step forward as a witness to other crimes for fear that they will be searched. Over the years we have received numerous reports on our helpline of the victims of real crimes being arrested instead of helped, simply because they choose a different social drug. Oftentimes a police officer will stop investigating a burglary or assault once they see evidence of cannabis use, and will instead turn their attention to arresting the robbed or beaten person. This will continue to happen as long as cannabis users are called criminals.

Complaints about police behaviour and processes are handled by the Police Complaints Authority, who have no budget or paid staff so they must rely on police officers to carry out the investigation - usually a colleague of the officer under investigation. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of complaints have not been upheld.

"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced."
- Albert Eistein, "My First Impression of the USA" 1921

Recommendations:

To restore respect for the police and the criminal justice system, cannabis prohibition should be repealed.

The Police Complaints Authority be made a truly independent organisation with it's own budget and staff.


Cannabis Prohibition Sends The Wrong Message

Supporters of cannabis prohibition often say that strong laws are needed in order to send clear and consistent messages to young people, but they ignore the fact that cannabis prohibition does not send a clear and consistent message. The real message it sends is that society is hypocritical, condones the use of more harmful drugs, is more interested in morals than evidence, and is incapable of making sound judgements based on scientific evidence and reasoned analysis.

The message prohibition sends to young people is that smoking cannabis will make them appear cool and rebellious, they can send society a message of non-conformity, and for many they can make more money leaving school and becoming a dealer or grower than they could hope to earn lawfully.

Cannabis prohibition sends a wrong message that the lucrative profits of powerful drug traffickers will be protected by parliaments. Conversely, regulation of cannabis sends a powerful message to the community that legislators are finally 'getting real' about cannabis, and admitting that prohibition has been the expensive and resounding failure now widely recognised in the community. More realism and less rhetoric is required in policy responses to illicit drugs.

Introducing a legal age of 18 for the use of cannabis would send a clear message to youth that cannabis is an adult activity. It should not require arresting thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens for cannabis use to "send a message" to someone else's child to abstain from using cannabis. If parents or policymakers can think of no better way to communicate with young people about drug use, perhaps they should take a course in basic communication.

Some argue that cannabis law reform would "send a wrong message", but no evidence has ever been produced that young people actually interpret realistic policy as condoning illicit drug use. From California comes evidence that young people are more intelligent than supporters of prohibition often give them credit for. A survey of 16-year-olds in California, in the year following passage of the state's landmark medical marijuana initiative in 1996, showed their use of marijuana declined slightly, after having increased for several years previously. The results of the survey were suppressed by the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, which provided funds for the study then decided it didn't like the results.


Cannabis Prohibition Breaks Powerful Market Forces

While there has been no local research on the size of the cannabis industry, the UN has estimated the global drug trade to be the second biggest industry after weapon sales and ahead of petroleum. It is a folly on the part of law makers to think that they are more powerful than these market forces.

Australian research provides some indication of the scale of the illicit cannabis market. A 1999 study by the University of Western Australia's Economic Research Centre found Australians spend an estimated A$5 billion per year on cannabis, or A$351 per person. This amounts to 1 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product - double the expenditure on wine and three-quarters of the money spent on beer. The study also found a direct link between marijuana consumption and drinking habits - when cannabis use goes up, alcohol consumption goes down. Experience in other countries has shown similar trends.

"Alcohol and marijuana seem to be substitutes, with cross-price elasticities" the survey said. "In most cases, (liberalised) legislation lowers drinking. Spirits consumption falls the most, then wine and then beer." The researchers said they hoped to gain a better understanding of the economics of a drug which they estimate "is used by something like one-third of the entire adult population" but which generates no tax revenue.

Surveys have shown higher rates of cannabis smoking among New Zealanders, but if they spent the same amount per person it would make the New Zealand cannabis market worth around $1.4 billion. GST alone on this would be $177 million.

It is ludicrous to imagine that an industry of this size will be significantly altered by law enforcement when the police budget is a fraction of the resources available to drug dealers. Furthermore, forcing such a large part of our overall economy underground subverts the entire taxation system and affects market signals for other goods and services. Excise taxes and benefits will have unintended consequences because forecasting models cannot take into account the underground economy. Taxpayers pay an overall higher rate of tax than they should because illicit incomes are not declared.

Following the collapse of communism, there has been a greater recognition of the high costs of ignoring powerful market forces. If the billion dollar demand for cannabis is not supplied by legal sources, it will be supplied by illegal sources. More attention should be given to the high social costs that result from encouraging such a large and lucrative area for organised crime and the black market. The community pays a high price when legislators try to break the law of supply and demand.

When policymakers choose laws that determine that the cannabis market will only be supplied from illegal sources, they ensure that it is as easy for children to obtain cannabis as adults; the purchase of cannabis will often bring otherwise law abiding citizens into contact with suppliers also selling heroin, cocaine or amphetamines; and police are provided with a strong financial incentive to become corrupt.

Recommendation: Achievable and important objectives of cannabis policy should include restricting availability for children, separating very different kinds of markets and maintaining the integrity of the police force.


Cannabis prohibition must be rejected

For all these reasons, we submit that the current policy of prohibition is utterly untenable. It is unjust, unworkable, and achieves the opposite of what it is intended to achieve. Prohibition is a policy of harm maximisation and has caused a huge increase in cannabis use.

Recommendation: Cannabis prohibition must be rejected.




PROHIBITION WITH ADMINISTRATIVE EXPEDIENCY PRINCIPLE


Depenalisation

Depenalisation is the most moderate amount of reform, and simply involves removing jail terms from the punishment options available for small cannabis possession charges. Prohibition would still be in effect, and cannabis users would still be arrested, but the possibility of going to jail for smoking a joint would be removed Trading cannabis would still be illegal, and the black market and hypocrisy would continue to thrive. It has been reported that this is the favoured option of the Leader of the Opposition. NORML rejects this option as a poorly-thought out compromise put forward by those who recognise the failure and futility of cannabis prohibition yet do not have the sense or courage to propose a real solution.

Recommendation:

Depenalisation should be rejected as nothing more than minor tinkering with the penalties, whereas we need to fundamentally change the principles of current drug policy.


Cautioning, Police Diversion, Drug Courts And Compulsory Treatment

Cautioning has been recently introduced in New South Wales and involves issuing a formal caution, rather than arrest, for those caught for the first time on a minor drug offences. This scheme is intended to save scarce police resources and not over-penalise first time cannabis offenders. While this approach is somewhat better than total prohibition, it only addresses the problem of prohibition being expensive to enforce and unfair on those already without criminal records. It leaves intact all the other problems associated with prohibiting a popular and relatively safe substance, namely the inherent double standard and hypocrisy of cannabis prohibition, the violent black market, the uncontrolled supply of cannabis, and the mixed market for drugs. Cautioning represents the "least possible" amount of reform, will do nothing to halt rising cannabis use rates, will still create more harm than cannabis use itself, and should be rejected.

The Police Diversion scheme has been increasingly used in recent years to divert first-time cannabis offenders from the criminal justice system and thereby avoid the unnecessary burden of a life-long criminal conviction. This is an admirable goal, but there are several problems with this approach. The Diversion scheme is administered by the Police, not the Courts. It is up to the individual officer whether the Police choose to drop the charges or not, and this has lead to widespread disparities in the application of the diversion programme. Cannabis users facing charges are left at the mercy of the police officer as to whether diversion is even offered, and then what the fitting punishment should be. Some punishments handed out under the diversion scheme have been more severe than the Courts would have given had the cannabis user been tried and found guilty. We have had several cannabis users recently contact us after being made to "donate" $1000 to a charity and perform up to 100 hours of community service. Needless to say, they still smoke cannabis.

Recommendation:

Increased use of the police diversion scheme is not a solution to the problems caused by the enforcement of cannabis prohibition and is not acceptable from a public health perspective.

Drug Courts have recently been trailed in the United States, Australia and some European jurisdictions in an attempt to curtail the chronic overloading that drug prohibition has created. In some cases offenders may agree to undergo medical rehabilitation in exchange for a reduction or even elimination of their prison sentence. These measures can be seen as valuable to the addicted user who needs active intervention and assistance in weaning himself from drugs. Unfortunately, this approach does not necessarily apply to cannabis users, who in most cases only use the substance recreationally without becoming dependent. This presents the courts with a problem. To deny cannabis offenders the option of treatment may force the court to impose harsh jail sentences resulting in more harm than the drug itself. On the other hand, to compel cannabis users to enter therapy in lieu of jail time squanders the resources allotted for serious addicts in need of medical treatment. Essentially, both the law and its practitioners lose credibility in the eyes of the users, who are well aware that the treatment is unnecessary.


Prohibition With Commercial Sale Tolerated

This approach, first introduced by the Dutch Government, has become increasingly common around the world as Governments or Courts recognise the failure of cannabis prohibition, but do not formally change their laws. The commercial sale of cannabis is now tolerated not only in the Netherlands, but also in Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, some parts of Canada, and now even in Sydney where there are several Dutch-style coffeeshops in the King's Cross area.

The benefits of this approach are: The costs and risks associated with this approach are:
inconsistent degree of tolerance between local areas and law enforcement
potential for corruption amongst law enforcement officials
statute law is seen to be not enforced, therefore bringing other laws into question
allows organised crime to still dominate supply and sale of cannabis
does not allow taxation to be collected as cannabis businesses are still technically illegal

"The decriminalisation of the possession of soft drugs in 1976 did not result in increased use. The level of consumption stabilised in the first few years after the Opium Act was amended. According to national figures, use again increased somewhat between 1984 and 1994, a trend which has also been observed elsewhere. Indeed, the United States has experienced a considerable increase in recent years... Both as regards the extent of cannabis use and trends in use, the Netherlands differs very little from other countries." - Drugs Policy in the Netherlands (1995): Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport

NORML does not advocate this option, but we do recognise that there are certain political advantages to it. In the end, it is not the law that matters so much, but the outcomes of the policy. Tolerating commercial sale will allow many of the benefits of regulation, but will retain many of the costs of prohibition.





MEDICALISATION


Medicalisation would mean allowing doctors to prescribe cannabis or cannabis derivatives to patients, but otherwise leaving prohibition unchanged. It is a similar system to the way morphine is allowed on prescription but prohibited for recreational users. Cannabis is clearly an effective medicine for a variety of ailments, including nausea (especially in the setting of cancer chemotherapy), anorexia (especially in patients with AIDS), muscle spasms, glaucoma, and neuropsychiatric conditions.

The medicalisation model is not appropriate for New Zealand. As the New Zealand Drug Policy Forum noted in it's 1998 report, "A prescription-only policy would probably not be welcomed by doctors and would do little to reduce the black market. Medicalisation will do nothing to end the violent black market and will still see thousands of people arrested every year for using cannabis. This latter drawback alone is fatal to the prescription approach -- and to the other non-regulation models we considered as well. A codeine-style over-the counter approach, while potentially able to substantially reduce the black market, would put pharmacists in the no-doubt unwanted position of serving as the source of cannabis supply. Moreover, cannabis is much more similar to alcohol and tobacco than to codeine with respect to use rates and, especially, the social context of usage."




PROHIBITION WITH CIVIL PENALTIES (INSTANT FINES)


Prohibition with civil penalties involves the removal of criminal penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use. Small fines may be issued (similar to traffic tickets) but there is no arrest, incarceration, or criminal record.

Marijuana is presently decriminalised in US nine states -- California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oregon -- and several Australian states including the ACT, South Australia and the Northern Territories.

Fines save a tremendous amount in enforcement costs - California saves $100 million per year (Aldrich & Mikuriya, 1988; pp. 75-81). South Australian is said to earn an overall profit from it's Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme. There have been shown to be significant social benefits from not giving people criminal records, for instance loss of employment, accommodation, travel and subsequent involvement with the criminal justice system.

Instant fines have not resulted in an increased cannabis use rate where they have been implemented:

"Although the NCADA survey data indicate that there were increases in cannabis use in South Australia in 1985-1993, they cannot be attributed to the effects of partial decriminalisation, because similar increases occurred in other states"
- "The effects of partial decriminalisation on cannabis use in South Australia, 1985 to 1993" National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney Aust J Public Health, 19: 3, 1995 Jun, 281-7

A US government-sponsored study comparing marijuana consumption rates in states where cannabis has been decriminalised to rates in states where marijuana possession rema