 | Not Cool in School: Does Cannabis Prohibition Really Work for Schools? |
 NORML News Summer 2003
Youth drug use has become the excuse for delaying any change to the cannabis laws, but as Phil Saxby reports, there is some hope.
Only a few years ago, cannabis law reform was perceived in Aotearoa New Zealand as a human rights issue. Politicians, lawyers, journalists - even most police - were finding it hard to justify the persecution of adults who happened to enjoy using cannabis, when other adults were free to use and enjoy other drugs such as alcohol.
It was understood that cannabis users, if they were no danger to others, were exercising a personal choice. Polls showed a high level of public acceptance of cannabis use by adults. So what went wrong? Why do we seem to be further away from reform now?
Part of the answer can be found in the education sector. Instead of looking at the issue in terms of an adult's right to make such personal choices, the education lobbyists have taken a side issue (access to cannabis by children and young people) and put it centre stage. The School Trustees Association (NZSTA), for example, representing 90% of primary and secondary school boards of trustees in the state sector, urged the Health Select Committee to "reject any proposition to decriminalise the use of cannabis" because of the "adverse effects" of cannabis on the educational achievement of children and adolescents.
Education Groups Assume Prohibition Works
There is a general assumption among the education groups that prohibition policies work, or at least that they work better than any possible alternative. Some of the groups, such as NZSTA, seem never to have contemplated the possibility that regulating cannabis within a legal framework might be more effective in reducing both its access and attractiveness to those under-age than leaving the supply of cannabis to the illegal market.
Only the Post Primary Teachers Association seems to be interested in looking at different policy options on cannabis and other drugs to see what might really work. Accepting that cannabis use by young people can be harmful, the PPTA refused at its recent conference to adopt the knee-jerk reaction of keeping the legal ban on cannabis.
News media reports of the PPTA conference followed the usual pattern. "Teachers can't cope with stoned pupils" said the headline in the Dominion Post (26/9/2002) and the rest of the story featured mainly problems rather than solutions. Yet the PPTA does have ideas about what the solutions are, as its report demonstrates.
Strikingly, the report states "PPTA should play its part in developing a national strategy to address a problem that will only become worse if we continue on the current path." Other educational groups, resolutely committed to the present laws, should take note!
Avoid Early Use
The PPTA discussion paper, The Cannabis Problem and Secondary Schools, proposes that the fundamental aim of policy should by to avoid early onset of regular use. It's a goal shared by parents, teachers and law reformers, but unlike some groups, the PPTA recognises that cannabis use in society is a complex issue. It cautions against "quick-fix" solutions and punitive actions.
Reformers still need to convince many parents (and teachers) that simple law-enforcement is not going to be effective in reducing cannabis use. We need to work with groups like the PPTA who have at least begun asking the right questions.
Cannabis a Community Issue
Schools are feeling the pressure to adopt a punitive approach, and the PPTA paper notes that drug-related suspensions have reached one-third of all suspensions. But the PPTA paper questions whether the hard line often advocated (by some boards of trustees and principals, for example) is really the best policy. Cannabis use is a community issue, the paper says, and schools cannot solve cannabis problems on their own.
"If a significant proportion of a school's parents are growing cannabis, using it themselves, and dealing in it, it is obvious that the school faces an uphill struggle in dealing with the issue."
Realistically, schools cannot afford to be seen as "soft on drugs", the paper says, but points out that punitive actions (such as suspensions) focus on effects not causes. Searches, and the use of drug dogs, may not be effective and may even be counter-productive by glamorising drug use.
The message for the education lobby is clear enough - the real cause of drug use by young people lies in the wider community and cannabis policy should be driven by the real needs of the whole community, not by the supposed needs of those under 18.
Different approaches
The PPTA paper does not make a case against the present legal status of cannabis. It is clearly committed to harm-minimisation, pointing out this is national drug policy. It points out:
- parents expectations of "drug-free" schools are unrealistic
- a drug policy needs to take account of community attitudes but also the curriculum on Health and Physical Education
- Schools don't have the resourcing to fully implement effective drug education or harm-minimisation measures
- Different approaches may suit different areas: some schools are having some success with contracting schemes to eliminate individual drug use
- Drug education programmes need to be evaluated for effectiveness
- Schools need access to drug treatment and support programmes
Reformers, especially parents, need to work with those in the education sector (such as the PPTA) who take a wider view of cannabis policy than mere law enforcement. Others in the sector need to be challenged on whether nothing works better than prohibition, as they claim!
|
|
|
|
| |
| Login |
|
You can register for some special extra features. | |
| Article Rating |
Average Score: 4.71
Votes: 7
| |
|
