Law reform activists from around New Zealand were there to witness the historic moment they had been working towards for so long. Ben Knight and the team from Wellington NORML filed this report for your reading pleasure.

It was with great anticipation that we waited for the Health Select Committee to begin hearing oral submissions on the inquiry into the legal status of cannabis. It had been three months since the deadline for written submissions had passed, and with the committee having received nearly 600 written submissions, it certainly seemed a good time for them to begin the inquiry proper. The committee appeared hesitant to begin hearing evidence and it was only after sustained pressure from NORML, the CCLR and Greens that the committee agreed to set some dates to hear members of the public.

The cannabis law reform movement has had excellent representation at the hearings with a good show of strength and heaps of high quality of submissions made in support of law reform and packed turn-outs for the hearings.

The historic first hearing was held in Wellington on May 30. The Pharmaceutical Society kicked off proceedings with a convincing case for the medicinal and therapeutic use of cannabis. According to the Pharmaceutical Society, medicinal marijuana has proven therapeutic effects and in many cases is preferable to the use of other, synthetic drugs for the relief of a variety of illnesses including Multiple Sclerosis, Glaucoma and the wasting syndrome associated with AIDS.

Another encouraging aspect of their submission was the acknowledgment of the failure of prohibition to reduce the harms associated with cannabis use. They suggested pharmacies take part in a community based public health campaign to communicate safer use information to pot heads. Pharmacists would provide cannabis users with information about the health effects and safer use of cannabis, which makes a lot of sense when you consider pharmacies are involved in the needle exchange program and offer safe use information to intravenous drug users as part of their day to day practise.

So far so good - thats one to us, and zero to the prohibitionists! Next up was the Green party, with our very own dread in the house, Green MP Nandor Tanczos and Green party researcher Roland Sapsford making a strong case for a grow your own model of law reform. It was about this time health select committee and National party member Roger Sowry piped up with some rather bad taste remarks regarding an alleged deal between the greens and the Labour party.

According to Sowry (or should we say sour-y?), the Government has made a deal with the Greens to legalise and the inquiry is just a big sham. If only that were true eh! Roger’s hissy fit didn’t last long however, with committee chair Judy Keall moving quickly to silence the outburst and assure all those present that the inquiry is genuine and that the government has not made any decision on the legal status of cannabis, which is a shame.

As expected, Nandor and Roland made an excellent case for law reform. Both had to manage some tricky questions from the committee regarding increased availability and the outcomes from cannabis café style law reform in the Netherlands. One thing that really stood out in the greens submission was the fact that nobody, Nandor included, wants to see young people using cannabis and especially not while they’re at school. This is something that most submitters agree on. What adults do in their own time is up to them, its what young people do that concerns most people.

Having finished making his submission, we had the fantastic sight of Nandor getting up and rejoining the committee members at the other end of the table to hear more evidence.

Ngaire Pryde, a 72 year old grandmother and former teacher, spoke eloquently about the need for consistent messages and open discussion about cannabis between school teachers, their pupils and school principals and management. In her view, “some societies are accepting of alcohol, some of cannabis. Tobacco, alcohol and cannabis are all drugs – all have some toxicity and damage potential.”

According to Nagire, the problem lies in the “hypocrisy that is very hard for young people to accept”. Ngaire argued “education is vital. Our society accepts and allows taking of drugs – we’ll never get away from this. We need to protect the rights of cannabis users too”. She was very critical of the current climate of fear around the issue that pervades staffrooms in schools all around the country. Right on Ngaire, you rock!

Helen Shaw, former drug education advisor to the Ministry of Education, was among several people who noted this is the only part of the school curriculum where outside people come in to teach. One effect of this is to raise the ‘extra-ordinary’ status of drugs in the minds of students and thereby make them more attractive. There are also hugely varying standards between different providers and little quality control.

Pauline Gardiner then rolled up next to make her submission on behalf of drug treatment providers WellTrust. Pauline is well-known to Norml News readers as a former National MP and Life Education trustee. Her position has moderated and she now believes cannabis use in not a problematic activity for 90% of users. “It’s only the 10% of cannabis smokers with problems that we need to worry about”.

Pauline wasn’t prepared to go all the way and back legalisation, instead arguing for a ‘half-way house’ reform, dubbed depenalisation, whereby those caught using cannabis would be subject to drug treatment and education rather than imprisonment. The potential pitfalls of this approach, however, are all too obvious. For instance, how are the police going to know if the people they pick up for cannabis offences fit in the 10% of problematic users that Ms Gardiner reckons we need to be worrying about? Wouldn’t it be better for doctors to make that judgement? And what about those problematic users? It’s unlikely they will be prepared to seek treatment knowing the police and other government agencies may force them into a compulsory drug program against their will. Depenalisation is certainly a step in the right direction, but as with prohibition, it fails to distinguish between moderate and safe use and problematic abuse. If they are really only concerned about those who abuse cannabis, why waste scarce resources chasing the majority of adult tokers who don’t have any problems, and who in fact may experience considerable benefits from their use?

Other submitters at the first hearing included the Proprieters of Integrated Schools, who were concerned about ready access and said that the messages the law sends are important. They want no change and zero tolerance, even though the current policy guarantees ready access with no age limits, and sends a message of hypocrisy and intolerance.

They were followed by Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party leader Michael Appleby, Dave Currie of the Drug Policy and Education Council (DPEC), the ‘Mayors against Marijuana’, and two excellent personal submissions from Valerie Morse and John Cresser.

Lower Hutt Mayor John Terris and the Mayor of Rotorua represented the Mayors against Marijuana, a coalition of 46 mayors who are against any change.

It seemed that the Mayors may have had a few drinks with their dinner prior to appearing and made some ill advised comments under the influence of this dangerous but legal drug. The Mayor of Rotorua told the Health Select Committee that they were out of touch with their communities and did not know what was really going on with the people.

Naturally this went down like a cup of cold sick with the Committee members. The mayors also told the Committee that they knew what it was planning to do and they didn’t like it. They were rebuked and told sternly the Health Select Committee is conducting an inquiry and the findings were not a forgone conclusion. The Committee did not look impressed when the mayor of Rotorua suggested the solution is tougher enforcement – more Police and stiffer penalties - as if that’s really going to work.

Peter Dunne of United New Zealand tried to score a few points with a strongly negative submission also alluding to “the inquiry being a thin smoke screen to decriminalise cannabis”. He said there were mixed signals everywhere and that cannabis use was rife. Then he came to the bizzare conclusion that the answer is to change nothing - go figure!

Media coverage of the first hearing was excellent. ALCP leader and lawyer Michael Appleby featured on TV3 news and in the Evening Post with allegations of bias in the police diversion scheme. Those unlucky enough to be busted in Porirua are refused diversion for cannabis charges while those in Wellington or the Hutt will get a diversion automatically. The Evening Post’s store-front poster proclaimed Wellington the “safest place to smoke a joint” which made all the activist gathered there for the occasion feel right at home. TV One ran a great story too, quoting Nandor and Roland Sapsford. A good day all in all for the cannabis law reform crew!

The second day of hearings on 6 June included submissions from the Salvation Army, NSAD, the New Zealand Medical Association and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists.

The Salvation Army submission represented a real breakthrough. After campaigning against homosexual law reform, they have softened their stance on cannabis, and now want a piece of the action. Major Alastair Herring said “it is inevitable that there will be some liberalisation of the laws ... it is unlikely that a prohibition policy can be sustained.” The Sallies still want pot smokers to be arrested, and referred to agencies such as themselves for compulsory treatment. This idea seems particularly popular among those who stand to benefit financially!

Tim Harding of the National Society for Alcohol & Drug Dependance (NSAD) expressed similar views. NSAD favour drug court style compulsory treatment options. NSAD currently treat 2,200 per year for drug and alcohol “problems”.

Dr John Adams’ presented for the NZ Medical Association (NZMA), which represents doctors and medical professionals. They were fairly conservative but did acknowledge cannabis is effective in the treatment of a range of conditions including pain, glaucoma, nausea and muscle spasms.

Dr Alan Fraser and Christine Marshall of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists gave evidence in support of law changes to allow the recreational and medicinal uses of cannabis was. The submission really rocked, making a strong case for law reform and breaking plenty of new ground in the process.

The College said it is wrong to blame every problem a person may have on cannabis, particularly considering the social and economic disadvantages many people who suffer from mental illness face. They also said that patient would be better off to smoke cannabis than to drink alcohol, and said it was important the Health Select Committee understood that decriminalisation would not address the problems of the black market. Legalisation, they argued, was the only way forward. The College of Psychiatrists argued people should be able to grow their own supply of cannabis and suggested cannabis cultivation could be viewed as a meaningful interest and activity for people.

Labour MP Steve Chadwick questioned Dr Fraser about a claim from the Salvation Army that “cannabis stunts emotional development”. He said he was not aware of any evidence to support the notion that cannabis stunts emotional growth.

Perhaps the most important thing the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists said was “you can’t research a drug that’s illegal. You are limited by the reluctance of the ethics committee to grant approval to do research which makes criminals out of the subjects of the study.”

NORML activist Billy McKee made a submission supporting full legalisation of cannabis and his own case for medical marijuana for phantom limb pain. He got great coverage in The Dominion the next morning, headlined “I need marijuana for pain relief – amputee”. Billy had a motorcycle accident in which he suffered horrendous injuries, and told the Health Committee that in his experience prescription painkillers were more harmful than cannabis.

Next stop on the submission express was Dunedin on 12 and 13 July held at the Southern Cross Tavern – a well-known Dunedin drinking establishment.

Otago University Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology Frederick Fastier told the health select committee cannabis inquiry cannabis should be treated the same as alcohol and tobacco - controlled but legal.

Prof Fastier, a member of the Drug Policy Forum Trust, was on the 1973 Board of Health Committee that recommended continuing prohibition “only so long as it was seen to be largely effective”. That inquiry led to the introduction of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which he now says has “gross deficiencies”.

Prof Fastier argued prohibition did not work because cannabis was too easy to grow and intoxication by cannabis was too difficult to detect. He recommended the first line of defence against abuse of cannabis should be non-legal sanctions based on sound drug education, and legal sanctions to supplement other measures should be modelled on those for the abuse of alcohol. Prof Fastier argued such education had worked well in the case of tobacco, where there was a substantial decline due mainly to accurate information and other social sanctions.

Backing up Prof Fastier’s submission was Prof Paul Smith, of the University of Otago’s department of pharmacology and toxicology, who said cannabis use was not safe, but should be decriminalised. He said it was unlikely decriminalisation would encourage or promote cannabis use.

Invercargill Safer Community Council delivered a horrid submission. Basically a bunch of prohibitionist wowsers, they advocated a continuation of the current, failed approach. Their preoccupation with the harms potentially associated with cannabis use is disturbing and blinkers their view of the current situation in which cannabis is widely available and the supply beyond control. A lot of great personal submissions followed with loads of gutsy tokers standing up to be counted. These submitters approached the committee from a personal point of view and many discussed their own cannabis use openly with the committee. They focused on their key points without waffling and were well prepared for questions.

Back in Wellington on July 18, the inquiry heard from former Youth Affairs Minister Deborah Morris, who represented the Coalition for Cannabis Law Reform (CCLR). She told the inquiry cannabis “enhances” her life, and she resented that other MPs could get drunk at Parliament.

Greg O’Connor of the Police Foundation argued the tired line that police do not go around looking for pot smokers, although he admitted the Misuse of Drugs Act gave them the power to search people arbitrarily. They’re actually very nice people with our best interests at heart. His spin backfired however, when Nandor asked him why he had been searched so often when younger. Not wanted to say he fit the stereotype of a pot smoker, Greg answered that Nandor looked like the type of person who carried a concealed weapon!

The ‘big four’ of dodgy drug education, FADE, DARE, LIFE and PRYDE have teamed up to form the Drug Abuse Prevention Alliance (DAPA), seemingly in response to reformers forming the CCLR. They had a lot on the line after so many previous submissions had criticised their services, but they were still spouting the same old lines - even the ‘cannabis destroys DNA’ myth. They responded to criticism by denying responsibility, misquoting studies, and demanding more research.

The New Zealand Drug Foundation said it was clear that alcohol and tobacco are the most problematic substances. They were concerned about schools taking a hard line, often after pressure from parents, causing disproportionate harm and social exclusion. They expressed concern at the number of people being criminalised. Their board were unable to achieve consensus on what course of action to take, so they proposed a system where people are warned and given health information. They said cannabis should be taken out of the police framework.

The Health committee still has plenty more submissions to here and the next stop will probably be Auckland in September, followed by Christchurch in October and Hamilton in November. If you’re planning to appear before the committee or just want to find out more about the inquiry email legalise@tradeshall.org.nz or phone 025 377509. We’ll be organising submission workshops each of the cities the committee plans to visit, so get in touch if you want to get involved.