Most of the millions have come from cannabis growers, although the act was designed to snare and penalise the Mr Asias, not the small operator with a plot growing on the family farm.

It seems logical to penalise major drug dealers, whose Ferraris and penthouse apartments are so obviously procured through the selling of drugs.

But it seems many victims of the act grow marijuana and are of relatively modest means.

And, as Colin Moore's case shows, the police can get it wrong.

The Great Barrier Island resident came within a whisker of losing his home under the act and spent $100,000 successfully defending himself after police found nearly 500 plants on his property.

Someone else was growing the marijuana, but if Mr Moore had lost his case, he would also have lost his home.

The police do not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a property was used or gained in the commission of a crime. The proof required is merely the balance of probabilities. If it can be shown that on the balance of probabilities a person profited from a crime, cash or an equal amount in assets can be confiscated or sold.

If an owner grows marijuana in his house, the property can be deemed 'tainted' and automatically forfeit.

Yes, cannabis growers are breaking the law. But on the criminality scale, selling pot is not the same as importing heroin, and heroin importers seem to have made little contribution to the Government's Consolidated Fund.

Nor is growing marijuana comparable to violent offences such as rape and home invasion.

Yet these violent offenders are not punished twice, as are cannabis growers. Marijuana growers are dealt with by the courts, receiving penalties ranging from a fine to periodic detention and even imprisonment.

And after the court is finished with them, the growers can be subject to an application under the Proceeds of Crime Act, losing cash and property.

Farms that have been in a family for generations have disappeared after application to the court, punishing not only the green-fingered one, but also the grower's spouse and children.

Family members, who are sometimes not aware of the crime committed, should not be penalised. They are innocent victims of a victimless crime.

Even the Judiciary has criticised the legislation. Justice Blanchard called the act inflexible and unsatisfactory In a Court of Appeal decision ordering the Crown to pay a part-owner of a property his half share after the sale of the forfeited Christchurch home.

These home and farms are being forcibly sold because of a substance which will surely be decriminalised within our lifetimes, given the growing support, including from some parliamentarians, for such an action.

Imagine if tax evasion were included as an offence under the Proceeds of Crime Act. Wouldn't that be popular?

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing some captain of industry stripped of his BMW and home for diddling the company returns.

© Copyright 1999, NZ Herald