Drugs Ban Aiding Dealers: Greens

The National Party and anti-cannabis groups are unwittingly helping drug dealers, a health select committee on cannabis was told in Hamilton.

Waikato Green Party executive Gary Clarkson said: "Whether they realise it or not they're actually working in their interests.

"Prohibition always favours an unregulated black market."

If he were a dealer, Mr Clarkson said, he would want dope banned.

"If anything, I suggest going harder. It's all good for business. It will ensure we've got a healthy profit for a long time," he told the committee, which sat in Hamilton last week and included Green MP Nandor Tanczos, who uses cannabis.

Mr Tanczos said a disproportionate number of Maori were convicted of cannabis crimes.

In 1980, 1997 European and 517 Maori people were convicted, in 2000, 1350 Europeans and 1106 Maori people were convicted. But this was not because of more Maori using dope. "I think it's obvious that's to do with the way the law is applied," Mr Tanczos said.

Bay of Plenty public health officials from Toi Te Ora said personal dope use should be decriminalised, but only with better health promotion so "smokefree means smokefree".

Spokesman Michael Lane said counter culture "makes it a glamour drug for some people and some people just like to be staunch".

Mental Health Collective spokesperson Sarah Porter said prohibition prevented sensible treatment. "The issue of the law means some people are living in constant fear because of the illegality of cannabis."

Te Ruunanga A Iwi O Ngati Tamatera spokesman Roy Piahana opposed any relaxation on cannabis because it harmed the health of young people.

Article on MAP

--

Cannabis Inquiry hearings: Friday 14 September in Hamilton

Judy Keale attended as Chair along with Paul Hutchison and Tony Steele of National, Green MP Nandor Tanczos, Steve Chadwick, Damien O'Connor from Labour and Phillida Bunkle from the Alliance.

Judy read the terms of reference: "to inquire into the most effective public health and health promotion strategies to reduce the use and harm associated with cannabis and therefore it's most appropriate legal status"

Gary Clarkson started. Gary is a long standing NORML member who went on the first NORML Bus Tour to Invercargil in the early 90s. He was excellent, animated and compelling. He made good points on the Maori aspects on the rates of arrests, compared to the rates of use. That the law was originally grounded on racist principles.

It was his role play at the end of his submission though, that held the committee's interest. (See the Waikato Times article above.)

The MPs lamented that no growers or dealers had made oral submissions ( I wonder why?) and were keen to know what the cat would do for a living if cannabis was legalised.

Next, Sarah Porter presented the submission from the Mental Health Collective. At this point, Chris Fowlie the President of Norml NZ and his entourage arrived. Sarah made a very good impression. She was very well presented and knew what she was talking about, She was well spoken and made excellent points as to the impact of cannabis prohibition on the delivery of mental health services and was able to articulate clearly for the committee the additional fears worries and harms caused by the law which could be solved by reform.

The mental health collective is comprised of people who work in or use mental health services. MHC goal is to identify and promote best practice and policy to create the optimum conditions for mental health and well-being. MHC believe in the principles of recovery and personal responsibility.

The key points that the Mental Health Collective seek to present to the health select committee are:-

Best practice is impeded by the illegal status of cannabis. It is incongruous to have a culture in our health system that says, "whatever your problem is we can fix it will a pill - but its wrong to take a substance to make yourself feel better.

Prohibition prevents sensible treatment for people with a dual diagnosis. The law as it stands requires that health professionals must prevent or punish use. Under such conditions clinicians are unable to advocate reduction of use.

We note that the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists recommended legalisation of cannabis for this reason.

There have been instances documented of people who were suffering from serious mental illness have been refused treatment as some clinicians mistakenly assume that they are causing their own difficulties and give them low priority and little or no service.

Many Mental Health housing providers, community day services and treatment providers exclude people for cannabis use. This inevitably exacerbates the problems faced by the individual and can spell disaster.

When Sarah suggested that there should be a paradigm shift with cannabis being viewed as part of the solution in some treatments, the MP's seemed to give this idea serious consideration.

Damien O'Connor, MP, appeared to be most affected by this submission, and commented to the same at the lunch break. Hopefully this will mean he will support regulation when the submission findings are prepared.

Te Ruunanga a Iwi o Ngati Tamatera Inc. Roy who was speaking for this group strongly opposed cannabis being given a legal status. The Committee asked if the group were aware of cannabis being illegal at the moment, so how would keeping it illegal solve these problems?

Then following was two groups from Opotiki. They were Toi Te Ora Public Health, and the Opotiki Safer Communities Council - Te Kaunihera Whakaruruhau o Opotiki. They had both done extensive studies in their community and were keen to work on local solutions to local problems. As the name suggests, there was a strong focus on things Maori. They had done work with growers and dealers and agreed that there needs to be change, but they were careful to say that they couldn't recommend how, as they would need more hui to reach consensus.

The Opotiki Safer Community Council had been working also in a national program called CAYAD, which was Community Action on Youth and Drugs. These initiatives apparently have been getting good information and ideas, but funding had been stopped and they were looking to have it re-instated this year under a different name.

Joe Citizens' submission was about that use didn't necessarily mean harm, and that he had worked in creative communities where almost everyone smoked cannabis, which operated successfully. He had worked with patients who couldn't tolerate any cannabis at all, whereas others actually had their conditions improved by judicious use of cannabis with their treatment.

Next were three lovely, sweet, seriously old ladies (80's) from the Growth Through Moderation Society. They had walking sticks and crutches. They are an organisation dedicated to preventing, by Education and Promotion, the misuse of legal and illegal mind changing, health damaging drugs, and to eliminating the harm such abuse and misuse causes to the community, and are opposed to the decriminalisation of Cannabis.

Nelly's son had been a police officer for thirty years, many in the drug squad, and said he had never met a decent cannabis user. They did accept some medical use though, and that is something.

Dr David Gilgen is a doctor who's usually seen when he is a really anti doctor when he appears on Assignment, or such shows. All his stories are on prohibition ie. a woman's son had just come out of prison. His mates had set up a tinny house at her place. She went to the Police and they burned her house down. He knew another patient who was a heavy cannabis smoker, who developed a rare throat cancer, which he attributed to cannabis. The Committee didn't seem to warm too much to him. Only the National Fop giving him any positive attention. Steve C's question, "How do we break the cycle?", said it all. To which Dr Gilgen answered "I don't know. There are lots of addicted processes in society, this is just another one. The Courts needed more judicial discretion."

Keith Hull was more of the same. More police, harsher penalties. No law change.

The Family Care Support Inc. 110 families are members and they run support groups around the country. Members were polled and 80% of the families have an issue with cannabis but the real problem is with alcohol. Their examples though were all about the effects of prohibition.

The bright light of the afternoon session was Caleb Armstrong. An intern at the Waikato Hospital who was the only submitter to date to be allowed to use his whole time giving evidence. His presentation was powerful, and a lot of it was new to them. He did a bit of work on the origins of prohibition, and the issues of the prohibitionist doctors' role. He illuminated the difference between those doctors who could see cannabis use in context, and doctors who still support criminalising cannabis users.

Caleb has a fresh no nonsense approach to the issues and clearly is committed to reducing the harms associated with cannabis and he sees prohibition as a 'public health hazard'.

Unfortunately the elation of Caleb's 'lesson on law reform' was followed but deep sorrow of the persecution of Bruce from Thames. This man has been an invalid since a spinal injury in 1985. He was put on medication, morphine and other analgesics, for a number of years. This caused him to be difficult to live with and he found it very distressing to be addicted to morphine, with the effects on his personality. He had been an occasional smoker so he tried cannabis as an alternative to prescribed drugs. Bruce found it took the edge off the pain, but also helped him to feel happy and relaxed. He seemed a nice gentle guy, 5 kids doing well by all accounts, wife of 19 years, you would think model citizen but for prohibition. If he was white he may very well be just another happy toker, but being Maori in NZ means you are at least 7 times more likely to face prosecution. In 1990 Bruce was busted with seedlings in his garden, a small amount of oil and got 12 months for cultivation and18 months for manufacture, with no evidence of any supply. 1994 police busted again and found 2 plants in the veggie garden 2 1/2 years for possession and cultivation for supply. During this incarceration he was doubly imprisoned because of the Identified User structure meanings regular drug testing with positive tests meaning months of special attention and loss of all privileges ie. TV, radio, early look up , restricted visits and more, all doubling each failed drug test. 1998 3 years for 7 plants with still no evidence of supply. Over half a million dollars of special treatment and Bruce still makes his own choices.

Well that's a thumbnail sketch of the day, if you want more details on anything then let me know.

Regards Dave Moore, dave@alcp.org.nz