First review of cannabis laws

Getting your shit together enough to participate in the democratic process beyond a three-yearly vote takes some effort. That's especially so when submissions are due in early February and there are better ways to spend your summer.

Despite the odds, about 500 hundred people and organisations have contributed written submissions to the Health Select Committee Inquiry into the legal status of cannabis. For people interested in cannabis law reform, and for the crew that that has been working hard to educate MPs, organise events like J Day and stimulate media interest, this Inquiry is an important opportunity. This is the first time the legal status of cannabis has been reviewed since the Misuse of Drugs Act was passed in 1975. And it's about time.

Last week the Health Select Committee started hearing oral submissions from people on both sides of the debate.

The Pharmaceutical Society was first up and they spoke of extensive international research to back up the medical benefits of cannabis and they also referred to the need for better drug education delivery. It' s no surprise that the Green Party submission made a sound case for law reform and MP Nandor Tanzcos did a great job of illustrating that NZ's high arrest rate does nothing to reduce cannabis use.

On the other side, Lower Hutt Mayor John Terris argued that we need more police and more prisons (yawn!). MPs reminded the Mayor that about 50% of the population has smoked at one stage or other and asked him whether half of the people sat there listening to submissions should be arrested. He said, "Yes."

Clearly there's a way to go before these sorts of attitudes will disappear entirely but it's good to see that more and more people understand that this approach has failed.

Over the next few weeks there will be lots more people taking a seat in front of the MPs to make their own case for law reform, while others argue for the status quo. It's a huge political issue and one that has been badly caught up in emotion. I think it's time to change the law and I'll be watching this Inquiry closely. If you want some entertainment, I reckon you should too.

----

CANNABIS AND THE LAW: WILL IT BE CHANGED

Wellington, June 3 - It's quite good entertainment, and it's free. Come to committee room G005 in Parliament, and before your eyes will unfold the inquiry into the use of cannabis. This is being conducted by the multi-party health committee, and its brief is to develop "strategies relating to cannabis use".

It was obvious from day one last week that the focus was going to be on whether or not adults using cannabis, or possessing it or growing it for their own use, should continue to be convicted of a criminal offence or convicted of any offence.

The committee has hundreds of submissions in front of it and expects hearings to last for at least two months. It plans to report to Parliament by the end of the year.

And then what? Very likely, not much. It is a polarising issue and the Government would be reluctant to allow it to go to a vote before the next election. Even if it did, it would be a conscience issue in which all MPs would be able to vote any way they wanted. It would be a distraction from the usual election year hype which governments indulge in as they promote their own policies and seek to retain power.

The inquiry should really be handled by the justice committee, but after considerable dispute among the various parties represented in Parliament the Government got its way and put it in front of the health committee.

The aim was to take the heat out of the issue, hence the "strategies relating to cannabis" brief.

The Green Party has driven the need for an inquiry and the Government agreed to it, because it needs the Green vote in Parliament. The Greens were quick off the blocks, coming up early on the first day of the inquiry with their submission fronted by Rastafarian MP Nandor Tanzcos.

Tanzcos has said he sometimes smokes cannabis for religious reasons, although he has never explained exactly what those reasons are.

The Greens believe people over 18 should be allowed personal use of cannabis, and to possess and grow small amounts for their own use without criminal penalty.

The party put in an impressive 19-page written submission, packed with statistics designed to show that current law (prohibition) was not working so something should be done about it.

The Greens, and other submissioners, threw figures around without much concern about proving how valid they were.

Some were valid, like figures showing police spending on cannabis law enforcement doubled from $12.6 million in 1992 to $21.1 million in 1997.

But the submission also said that during that period cannabis use increased. The point they try to make is that spending more and more money on policing the law is ineffective.

One of the problems in dealing with this issue is this: how does anyone really know how many people use cannabis?

The Greens, for example, said in their submission that the use of cannabis in New Zealand was twice as high as in Jamaica.

How on earth does anyone know how many Jamaicans use cannabis? For that matter, how on earth does anyone know how many New Zealanders use cannabis?

Perhaps there could be a question added to the next census. Are you using any illegal drug and/or supplying it, an offence which could lead to prosecution and a jail sentence. Tick YES or NO.

The Greens were strongly supported, not surprisingly, by the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party.

Its leader is 54-year-old lawyer Michael Appleby, (BA LLB LLM Hons), barrister and solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand, to quote from the submission. This point is made because it is unusual to find such a person in the position he holds.

Appleby, highly articulate, had a lot to say for himself and his party. "Everywhere I go, average Kiwis tell me to persist in the political campaign and agree that mere decriminalisation, (with attendant fines and subsequent convictions for those who can't pay the fines), does not go far enough," he said in his submission.

"It is the poorer members of society who will suffer if cannabis is merely decriminalised, instead of being legalised for personal use for those over 18."

He also said he had conducted surveys and believed at least 50 percent of lawyers had smoked cannabis at some time.

The education sector is going to have a lot to say as the inquiry proceeds.

So far only the Association of Proprietors of Integrated Schools has presented a submission, saying classroom experience was that cannabis use among students had a devastating effect on learning abilities.

"Cannabis is the third most widely used drug in New Zealand. The two most commonly used drugs are alcohol and tobacco, both of which are legal," the association said.

"Given the harm they do to many individuals, together with the financial costs and the indirect damage to our society, it seems most unlikely they would be made legal if they were discovered today.

"Why add a third harmful legal drug to the two we are already burdened with."

Community organisation WellTrust, which works with schools, delivered a similar message and warned of a growing problem among students.

The main problem the promoters of decriminalisation seem to have, after one day of hearings, is that they agree young people should not smoke cannabis.

This led National MP Roger Sowry, a member of the committee, to say that he did not see how allowing adults to use it would discourage people under 18. Watch for more to come.

- NZPA

----

Cannabis Law Inquiry Starts

Decriminalisation of cannabis has become a mainstream issue because people are finally acknowledging how widespread its use is, says the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party.

ALCP president and Wellington lawyer Michael Appleby is one of a number of people who will give evidence to Parliament's health select committee inquiry into the health effects of cannabis, starting today. ...

Full Article

----

Cannabis Use 'Higher Here Than In Jamaica'

CANNABIS use was higher in New Zealand than in Jamaica, the world's "cannabis capital", a parliamentary inquiry into control of the drug heard yesterday.

Arguments for and against decriminalisation dominated submissions to the multi-party health committee on the first day of hearings. ...

Full Article

----

Kevin O'Connell's notes from select committee hearings last week

INQUIRY INTO HEALTH STRATEGIES RELATING TO CANNABIS, * and consequently the most appropriate legal status

Parliamentary Hearing, 30th May 2001 - 5 & 1/2 hours total

This report documents the historic first public hearing of New Zealand's long awaited cannabis law review: It does not presume to be a 100% accurate word for word account of proceedings...

1/ Pharmaceutical Society
2/ Green Party
3/ Nairi Pride (a grandmother)
4/ Pauline Gardiner (former M.P., + life education trustee)
5/ Well Trust
6/ David Currie
7/ Society of proprietors of integrated schools
8/ John Cresa
9/ Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party
A/ Valarie Morse
B/ Mayors of NZ Cities
C/ Hamish McKeown

M.P.s present on Health Select Committee: Judy Keall, Steve Chadwick, Damien O'Connor, Dianne Yates (Labour); Phillida Bunkle (Alliance); Sue Kedgely / Nandor Tanczos (Greens); Roger Sowry / Georgina te Heuheu, Dr Paul Hutchison (National).

Casual attendance of M.P.s Rod Donald (Greens), Arthur Anai (National). Despite obvious public interest, no elected representatives from ACT, United, or NZ First parties participated. About 30 members of public and 10 journalists squeezed into the committee room.

Chairperson Judy Keall opened the forum, reading in full the terms of reference. "To inquire into the most effective public health and health promotion strategies to minimise the use and harm associated with cannabis, and consequently the most appropriate legal status."

1/ Pharmaceutical Society -

Concern re Mental Health conditions, mixing of drugs (central nervous system with sedatives), effects on infant. Society has produced booklet "Straight answers to curly questions" available from community pharmacies. Intention to see it developed further, funding needed for this.

Dr Nerida Smith described researched therapeutic benefits of marijuana coming to light - and well documented. Anti-emitic (nausea) effects, cancer therapies, glaucoma (research under way at Otago University); anti-spasmodic effects (Multiple sclerosis), anti-convulsive. Also the opening up of airways, as in the old days of asthma cigarettes.

Smoking not the best delivery method, because of harms associated with smoking. But certainly potential in more purified modes. "Would like to see therapeutic area progressed a lot further".

Qns: Steve Chadwick - With contradictions in legal status, what guarantee is there of honesty with pharmacist- clients able to truly share information - given fear of trouble with law may impede disclosure?

Nerida Smith: In practice there is a good personal relationship, non-judgemental. Eg. Confidential basis with needle exchange clients. Believes current environment open enough - but need more openly available information.

Roger Sowry - For therapeutic supply, Current legal status inhibits pharmicists. Is there really enough medical evidence to say cannabis will help?

NS: Yes. And synthetic analogues of delta-9 THC are now able to be produced without the psycho-tropic effects, (without getting stoned) - thus balancing adverse effects.

Sue Kedgely: In present climate, pharmacists can tell client about marijuana, but can't recommend or supply? ("Yes".) Regarding inhibition of clients, how do you know - given familiarity with needle exchange clients, isn't it quite a leap to say open situation applies too with cannabis?

NS: If promoted to the public, can then assure confidentiality.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Do you know if cannabinoids are clearly superior? NS: Shown to be superior to older type pharmeceutical drugs, but with newer developments in terms of efficacy there has not been any clear cut evidence.

PH: Britain and Ireland have Navalone - would you like to see this here - and what's holding this up?

NS: This is where we need advisory committee application.

PH: Should NZ take part in multi-country trials?

NS: We don't see why not. In fact NZ has a very good population for this - closed - and there are further opportunities with ethnic groups.

Steve Chadwick: the "friendly community pharmacist" - how many actually practice this as opposed to the much less personal 24 hour service frequently used? - "Around eight hundred."

Damien O'Connor: Obviously it would be a business opportunity for pharmicists to dispense... Would you see widespread use as beneficial, or dispense carefully?

NS: Would be treated like any other medicine - "not willy nilly". Targeted where appropriate - could be harmful to some. There are guidelines as with any other medicine, although money is needed to develop these.

DOC: what about information on other illegal drugs with possible therapeutic benfits, LSD, Estasy maybe?

NS: Information should be available on beneficial self-care provisions for these.

Nandor Tanzcos: With needle exchanging applying harm reduction etc, how do you feel about the use of paraphrenalia for use of cannabis minimising burning, tars, particulates. Should this harm minimisation be allowed?

NS: with syringes already allowed, there is a good case made which could be extended. I personally would not have a problem with cannabis harm reduction paraphernalia.

Judy Keall: Of course we note that smoking is not the safest delivery mechanism as part of the law change that you're promoting.

2/ Green Party of Aotearoa (#145)

Chair: Your submission is a very full one and in some respects very good if read out from start to finish - thank you for going to the trouble.

Nandor Tanzcos: This is an emotional debate, however there is widespread agreement on the main issue - we don't like to see young people using, and there is a general perception that this problem is getting worse, and at a younger age. And there is agreement too that the answer lies in education, not in invading adult's private activity, but focusing on reducing use amongst young people.

It is clear that prohibition is not working (we've all heard the horror stories about kids on drugs), but I want to emphasise that this is happening now, under prohibition. We therefore have an argument for change, and coming up with something better.

New Zealand's rates of use are amongst the highest in the world, with arrest rates too, exceptionally high in New Zealand. Last year 2000 children were suspended from school because of cannabis, up 200 from the previous year.

Trevor Grice from the Life Education Trust indicated in 1997 that up to 150,000 school age New Zealanders were at risk of serious drug problems - so this is not a problem which has sprung up "since Nandor entered Parliament". It is blatently clear that with increased arrest rates and use up 20% during the last decade, that prohibition is a failure in terms of policy.

Turning to the area of road accidents often quoted as an argument not to liberalise, reputable studies show that while marijuana does impair motor ability, this doesn't seem to lead to accidents. That is not to say that people should drive under the influence, and Green Policy opposes that activity.

In any case this is not a debate about whether people should or should not use cannabis, but what we do about the use already occurring, to minimise related harms. How do we delay uptake amongst young people, and how do we generally reduce use and abuse? It trivialises the issue to say we don't like it therefore it should be banned. Our progress needs to be solutions focussed, and should be consistent with other public health measures - but prohibition fails on all counts. How do we take control? Sweden has "coercive care", but there is evidence and increasing concern at its failure.

We must focus on what the goals are - they must be realistic, costs must measured against benefits to ensure that harms of policy do not outweigh harms from use. Other related goals are to reduce the profits made because of the black market, to enable harm reduction of existing use, and to minimise the incidence and severity of drug abuse. And we must recognise that not all drug use is abuse, or even problematic. Most people do not misuse cannabis.

I would like to see the 3 policy options extended to 4. Between the extremes of total prohibition and total legalisation there is a better option than instant fines, as implemented in South Australia. This system has created the concept of "net widening" - who's getting targeted - the poor and the young.

Judy Keall: "and police involvement is just as great."

Nandor: in terms of freeing up marijuana, the Green party is not supportive at this time of the regulated market model (commonly referred to as legalisation). We support a very moderate step: Personal use without penalty. and inclusion of marijuana within the smokefree standards as being developed with tobacco. where supply to minors remains illegal, for example.

Law reform must go hand in hand with comprehensive education - there has been a program called "community action on youth and drugs", but funding for this has dried up.

And then there is the issue of so many New Zealanders with criminal convictions, perhaps the greatest threat to their wellbeing.

Damien O'Connor: but your clean slate bill (expunging records after 7 years with no repeat offending) removes this argument, does it not?

Nandor: well no, because for example conviction of young people sets them on the wrong track, so that bill does not detract from the general argument for reform.

Steve Chadwick: Well thank you for a terrific submission - very infomative. Can you expand upon the issue of young male Maori gaining the most convictions?

Nandor: The national survey shows that 60% of Maori admit to having tried cannabis to a stranger on the telephone - so this figure is quite likely to be an underestimate. And yet Maori (14% of population) comprise 37% of convictions for cannabis, so while reported Maori use is a bit higher than the general population rate, their rate of becoming convicted is greatly disproprotionate. This appears to be because the law is being applied in a highly discriminatory way, something our country should look at very seriously.

Paul Hutchison: The survey also indicates that although 9% in general are dependent, the figure is 15% for Maori.

SC: Your figures for the police enforcement costs - where have these come from exactly?

Nandor: it depends who you ask, and what is included in the costings and what is not. Either way it is a huge amount wasted. I receive letters all the time saying so.

PH: Have you any evidence of a health policy which is clearly effective in reducing inappropriate use long term ? In my electorate of Port Waikato we have primary school children of 8 or 9 arriving every day stoned because of the parents habituation. Your solution is to have not penalties, and smoke-free etc, whereas stopping parents smoking in company of children seems almost impossible. Have you any clear evidence?

Nandor: we have to look seriously at NZ's culture of drug abuse - including problems with alcohol moderation.

PH: So how will your policy overcome this serious problem?

Nandor: the national survey shows a key reason that people don't seek help with their problems is the law. With alcohol and kids it is bad enough, but with cannabis it is even more difficult because they don't go to their parents. We have to broaden out the discussion to other social problems - often attributed to single parent families, but no one suggests criminalising solo-mothers would be an appropriate solution.

Roger Sowry: Your solution of the best way to minimise harms is to legalise. I can't see how the hell this is supposed to reduce use...

Judy Keall: point of order Mr Sowry, we've just been told the Green party policy is specifically not to legalise...

RS: Everyone knows that this inquiry is about Labour and the Greens carving up a deal to legalise cannabis...

JK: We heard a minute ago about a fourth way, personal use without a penalty RS: which is at the very least decriminalisation, if not legalisation.

Roland Sapsford: The irony is that by changing the law we can remove the glamour surrounding cannabis for youth and remove the associated contempt for authority and education...end some to the confusion between health and justice. Tobacco and alcohol policies are converging for effective health promotion in a range of areas - having an age limit for cannabis is part of the same thing... In the concept of therapy and rehabilitation with cannabis or alcohol problems we are often talking about a symptom of underlying problems anyway.

Steve Chadwick: I want to say that I take it very seriously, the opposition's accusation of a deal being struck...

Roger Sowry: of course it is Judy Keall: "oh, don't be so childish"

Nandor: Aside from this there is the issue of the National Advisory Committee which has just been set up [Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs convened 29/5/01 - the previous day] to help sort out these problems. One major issue is that drug education programmes have not been evaluated, and funding has been ad hoc and transitory. Some programmes may be very good while others are rubbish.

Damien O'Connor: given the harm minimisation focus, experience with the police taking a more liberal approach to enforcement of cannabis over the last decade appears to be leading to far more widespread use. If the police expenditure has doubled it is because they are coming across it more because it's used by so many people they can't avoid it. So much for the very liberal approach it seems...?

Roland: I would find it very difficult to describe the current approach as very liberal. There have actually been more stringent procedures in seeking out cannabis. Yet our usage figures are double that of Jamaica - (a country heavily associated with marijuana). We have to consider the serious constitutional issues of the level of discretion applied in Courts - we do not have this in New Zealand. We need policy to separate out abuse from non-problematic use, instead of an illegal prohibition regime. The current regime is not the best way to minimise misuse.

Damien O'Connor: your submission states that "cannabis does not appear to be physically addictive - doesn't that sound like the sort of thing we are used to hearing from tobacco companies?

Nandor: We mean that while there is no conclusive evidence that smoking cannabis is particularly bad, that doesn't mean that it is necessarily very good.

Judy Keall: and I see that you recommend that women should not use while pregnant, and young people not to use at all...

Nandor: ...whether alcohol or tobacco, or marijuana. Our point is that the current law is creating victims and failing to address the actual usage which is going on. Our party philosophy is that a drug-free lifestyle is the healthiest.

Sue Kedgely: The Ministry of Health in their breifing (immediately prior to the public hearing) confirmed that the liberalisation in Netherlands resulted in an increase in use for a few years then tapering down.

Roland: You have to consider too that there has been much better usage data available since coffee-shops opened. There are a whole lot of cultural factors involved. And while cannabis use is reducing, Netherlands has been successful too in reducing hard drug use.

3/ Ngaire Pride

"Some societies are accepting of alcohol, some of cannabis. Tobacco, alcohol and cannabis are all drugs - all have some toxicity and damage potential."

"Hypocrisy is very hard for young people to accept" The man on the television takes a toke and exclaims "how sweet this is" ("dope behind the smoke" documentary, 2000)- the sort of comment which excites adolescents about cannabis, but this is the reality of the way our society has become - and I feel quite anxious about this...

I recall a comment heard from Judge Erber in Christchurch while helping a client on driving charges, saying "this sort of prohibition gave him endless clients" (and the same can be said of cannabis prohibition)

In general people who misuse drugs are inadequate in some way. There are two ways to approach the problem. Education versus legislation. Millions could well be spent on education. "Drug use like other activities is largely learned by observing others" - a cartoon.

Damien O'Connor: appreciate your concern, but not sure as to the thrust. Are you suggesting a way forward?

Ngaire: Encouraged by statement by Minister of Corrections, re early intervention, and parent education before people have children. Education is vital. Our society accepts and allows taking of drugs - we'll never get away from this. Tests in school are draconian. Society's tolerance of alcohol. Can't prohibit because haven't had success.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Have you any models which demonstrate long-term effectiveness in terms of substance education.

The rights of New Zealands 800000 smokers need to be protected

-- Deciphered painstakingly from seemingly endless pages of hastily scribbled notes by yours truly, Kevin P. O'Connell.