 | Research: NORML's submission to the National Drug Policy consultation |
 Submission on the proposed National Drug Policy 2006-2011
By the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML NZ Inc.)
9 June 2006
Submission completed by Chris Fowlie and Phil Saxby, board members of NORML.
About NORML NZ Inc.
NORML New Zealand was founded in 1979 as an independent non-profit incorporated society that campaigns for an end to marijuana prohibition.
NORML supports the right of all adults to use, possess and grow their own cannabis. We recognise that some commercial market for marijuana will always exist, and we therefore call for ways to best to control that market. Our aims are:
 To reform New Zealand’s marijuana laws
To provide neutral, unbiased information about cannabis and its effects
To engage in political action appropriate to our aims
To inform people of their rights
To give advice and support to victims of prohibition
1. Do we support the overarching goal?
NORML is committed to reducing harms from drug use. NORML submits that current measures ostensibly taken to "prevent" harms related to drug use are in reality designed to reduce use, whether harmful, non-harmful or even beneficial. Such an approach is inherently unjust (being an attack on those who use drugs responsibly) and risks inflicting greater harms on those punished by the preventive measures than would be caused by the drugs themselves.
Attempts by governments around the world to "prevent harms", most notably through prohibitionist policies, have mostly been abject failures which have caused far more harm than good.
The policy should aim only at reducing harm and the government should review the effectiveness and just-ness of any so-called preventive measures. Any "prevention" goal should be limited, so that the goal is to reduce harms without infringing the right of adults to safely and responsibly use psychoactive substances of their choice.
The previous National Drug Policy identified the importance of "upholding individual rights where these do not impinge on the rights of others" and said that "individual choices [will be] respected where the costs of the choices are not borne by others … this principle would give preference to the strategy which would least interfere with the rights of the individual". We are concerned that the new policy does not make mention of people's rights nor seem to respect individual choices.
The policy does not recognise that laws can and do create harms, and often these outweigh the harms of the drug use itself. This is especially so when - as is the case with cannabis - almost all effort is put into punitive sanctions rather than education or treatment.
NORML believes drug policy should:
have realistic goals;
be regularly evaluated, be shown to be effective or be changed;
take account of the different patterns and types of harms caused by specific drugs;
separate arguments about the consequences of drug use from arguments about morals;
be developed in the light of the costs of control as well as the benefits;
ensure that the harms caused by the control regimes themselves do not outweigh the harms prevented by them;
provide the greatest level of harm reduction for drug users, their families and their communities;
minimise the number of drug users who experience problems resulting from their drug use;
be evidence based, as well as having the support of the community.
2. and 3. Do we agree with the proposed objectives of the policy? If not, what other objectives should be included?
No, not in the form given.
a) delaying the uptake of tobacco, etc by young people (under 18) is supported, but the present prohibition measures applying to illicit drugs undermine this objective by abdicating the control of drug supplies to the illegal market. Prohibition thus makes the drug scene more dangerous and harmful, not less.
b) reducing the risky consumption of alcohol is supported.
c) reducing the risky consumption of illicit drugs and of other drugs would be supported, but not the unjust and counterproductive aim of reducing "the use of illicit drugs and other harmful drug use". NORML submits that this objective, as stated, defines mere use in itself as "harmful drug use", and objects to the intellectual dishonesty involved in this formulation (that is, which defines "use" as "harmful use").
d) NORML does not support the objective of reducing the availability of illicit drugs if this means the continuation of measures which drive drug problems underground and facilitate the growth of a huge and lucrative illicit market, as well as indirectly funding the distribution channels for new and dangerous substances alongside relatively harmless substances such as cannabis. NORML supports a regulated and controlled market in place of the present criminal marketing of drugs, and notes that the long-standing cannabis policy of the Netherlands has gained support across the political spectrum because it is successful in reducing teenage cannabis use, reducing harmful use, and separating the cannabis market from other drug markets. NORML calls on government agencies to explore the experience of other jurisdictions for successful initiatives, to replace prohibition which has demonstrably failed all its stated objectives.
e) NORML urges that reliance on policing and prohibition to "suppress the involvement ... of criminal groups" will be no more successful in future than it has in the past, and at an ever increasing cost to the public. Therefore, NORML urges that resources should instead be put into a thorough and immediate re-evaluation of the effectiveness of present policies and alternative drug-control policies, especially policies involving regulated and controlled access to drugs presently proscribed under the Misuse of Drugs Act, with a view to trailing alternative policies with proven success elsewhere and ultimately the replacement of the Act with a non-prohibitionist alternative.
f) NORML notes that the biggest barrier against drug users seeking treatment is their fear of the harmful consequences of the law, combined with a shortage of available treatment options due to the financial emphasis placed on law enforcement and supply-control "prevention" efforts. If cannabis were regulated, access to treatment facilities would improve.
4. Do we agree with the harm minimisation approach (on page 3)?
Yes, providing that the stated goals of preventing or reducing harms do not infringe the right of adults to safely and responsibly use psychoactive substances of their choice.
NORML submits that the harm minimisation approach is constrained and undermined by present prohibition policies that inhibit effective drug education and create the conditions in which a lucrative and uncontrolled illegal market flourishes. The proposed policy fails to recognise that punitive laws and policies create harms of their own and that these need to be measured against any harms from the drug itself.
To be fully effective, harm-minimisation requires a total reversal of the prohibitionist mindset. Access to cannabis and many other presently-illicit substances should be controlled. Models for regulating access to risky substances already exist, including licensed sellers, access via medical prescription, and so on.
5. Do we agree that the NDP should cover both the prevention and reduction of harm from drugs?
No, NORML submits that, in general, prevention is a codeword for prohibition and that prohibition inherently causes harms far greater than the harms that it is intended to prevent. The harms created by cannabis prohibition are significant and include:
lack of any control over juvenile use;
combination of markets for cannabis with other more dangerous illicit drugs;
high social costs to apprehended cannabis users without any evidence of reduced cannabis use;
high economic cost to the taxpayer;
a lucrative income for criminals and the risk of increased police corruption.
increased crime (theft, home invasions, murder) in the community
disrespect for the law and its enforcers when the law is unjust, and
damage to careers and families arising from convictions or the fear of convictions.
The influence of law enforcement on supply of cannabis has been marginal at best. The belief that continued law enforcement efforts will achieve lower levels of cannabis use ignores the lessons of several decades of repeated but unsuccessful attempts to reduce cannabis consumption.
6. Do we support a companion document on patterns of drug use and harms?
NORML has no confidence that any such companion document will address the real need of drug policy, which is to assess the 30-year failure of the Misuse of Drugs Act to achieve its stated goals, and to find workable alternatives.
7. Do we support a broader focus on social and economic harms?
Yes, NORML supports a broader focus on harms caused by drugs providing that the harms caused by present prohibitionist policies are also clearly identified.
The National Drug Policy should include a full cost-benefit analysis of the current policy, compared to alternative policies, as was first proposed in early drafts of the original NDP.
We are concerned that a focus on "social and economic harms" will be used to blame drug users for the harms that are in fact created by the law. For example, prohibition raises the price of addictive drugs and forces users to commit property crime which would not be necessary if drugs were legally available.
8. Do we support the broad strategies as described on page 7?
NORML submits that these strategies have achieved significant successes when applied to legal drugs. Regulated sales, combined with drug education and restrictions on use, have halved tobacco consumption. Regulated sales, restrictions on use (especially in relation to drink-drive behaviour) and drink-drive education have dramatically reduced the road toll even though consumption of alcohol itself is rising.
On the other hand, these strategies have been highly ineffective (as well as highly expensive) in the ways they have been used to control illicit drugs. Only wishful thinking can account for proposals to "prevent" harms by continuing present strategies within a prohibition framework.
9. Action points on Supply control (page 8)
Regulation works. Prohibition (the absence of regulation) does not.
NORML supports the (reasonable) enforcement of regulated access to drugs, and cautions against reliance of prohibition to control supply. Ironically, prohibition of cannabis is only tolerable in NZ society because it is impossible to enforce and so is not enforced, except on an unlucky few whose subsequent resentment is well justified. Even though it is not widely enforced, NZ still has for cannabis the highest arrest rate per capita in the world.
We are concerned that the policy proposes different approaches to drugs, based on legal status rather than potential for harm. The only "regulation" proposed for illicit drugs is prohibition, and this policy has demonstrably failed to achieve the aims outlined in the policy (preventing illicit drugs from reaching users and deterring individuals from choosing to use illicit drugs). The policy also claims that enforcement of illicit drug regulations "often involves" initiatives against organised crime and distribution networks, but the reality is that the vast majority of drug arrests are merely for the use or possession of cannabis.
10. Action points on Demand reduction
NORML supports the goal of health promotion, and promotes safe and responsible use of cannabis through a checklist printed in every issue of NORML News (see appendix). NORML supports measures which aim to reduce drug harm, rather than drug use in itself. Health awareness campaigns need to be honest about drugs rather than biased towards drug harms. Non-judgemental treatments may be more effective in reducing harm than, for example, abstinence campaigns.
"Just Say No" approaches may be effective only for those students who had not already tried drugs, and there is no conclusive evidence to show even that outcome. The Health Committee’s 1998 report Mental Health Effects of Cannabis commented:
"For pupils already involved in experimentation, these programmes tended to increase their sense of alienation by labelling them as deviant ... that alienation could increase the likelihood of negative outcomes such as dropping out of school or suicide."
Evaluations of drug education programmes in the United States have found little evidence that drug use rates were reduced. In some areas, drug use has actually increased following drug education programmes, and as a result many local education bodies have moved to ban the DARE programme in particular.
Care also needs to be taken with any mass-media campaigns to not unintentionally stimulate interest in emerging drugs.
11. Action points on Problem Limitation
The law should exist to protect the public from harm, not merely to punish those who share a differing viewpoint. Cannabis policy should distinguish between use and abuse.
Treatment opportunities should be available for all who need it by increasing funding for this sector. Treatment should be evidence based. A wide range of treatment options should be trialed and evaluated. People who develop problems from the use of cannabis should be offered medical help, without fear of arrest or punishment. Those who do not require help should not be forced or coerced to undergo unnecessary treatment.
A harm reduction initiative for cannabis users could involve the following information, published regularly in our magazine Norml News:
people who consume cannabis should do so in moderation. Use of any drug every day is more likely to be harmful than more moderate and occasional use.
regular cannabis smokers should try to reduce the harmful effects of inhaling cannabis smoke, such as eating or drinking cannabis preparations, and using harm minimisation equipment such as vaporisers and waterpipes. Cannabis paraphernalia designed to minimise the harmful effects of smoking should be legalised.
people with a history of mental illness should be advised to avoid cannabis or minimise use.
people who consume cannabis should be advised to avoid driving for several hours. If alcohol and cannabis have been consumed together, this period should be extended.
It could also involve educating cannabis users about responsible and irresponsible use, which NORML has attempted to do in adopting our "Principles for Responsible Marijuana Use":
Adults Only.
Cannabis consumption is for adults only. It is irresponsible to provide cannabis to children. Many things and activities are suitable for young people, but others absolutely are not. Children do not drive cars, enter into contracts, or marry, and they must not use drugs. As it is unrealistic to demand lifetime abstinence from cars, contracts and marriage, however, it is unrealistic to expect lifetime abstinence from all intoxicants, including alcohol. Rather, our expectation and hope for young people is that they grow up to be responsible adults. Our obligation to them is to demonstrate what that means.
No Driving.
The responsible cannabis consumer does not operate a motor vehicle or other dangerous machinery impaired by cannabis, nor (like other responsible citizens) impaired by any other substance or condition, including some medicines and fatigue. Although cannabis is said by most experts to be safer than alcohol and many prescription drugs with motorists, responsible cannabis consumers never operate motor vehicles in an impaired condition. Public safety demands not only that impaired drivers be taken off the road, but that objective measures of impairment be developed and used, rather than chemical testing.
Set and Setting.
The responsible cannabis user will carefully consider his/her set and setting, regulating use accordingly. ‘Set’ refers to the consumer's values, attitudes, experience and personality, and ‘setting’ means the consumer's physical and social circumstances. The responsible cannabis consumer will be vigilant as to conditions -- time, place, mood, etc. --and does not hesitate to say ‘no’ when those conditions are not conducive to a safe, pleasant and/or productive experience.
Resist Abuse.
Use of cannabis, to the extent that it impairs health, personal development or achievement, is abuse, to be resisted by responsible cannabis users. Abuse means harm. Some cannabis use is harmful; most is not. That which is harmful should be discouraged; that which is not need not be. Wars have been waged in the name of eradicating "drug abuse", but instead of focusing on abuse, enforcement measures have been diluted by targeting all drug use, whether abusive or not. If marijuana abuse is to be targeted, it is essential that clear standards be developed to identify it.
Respect Rights of Others.
The responsible cannabis user does not violate the rights of others, observes accepted standards of courtesy and public propriety, and respects the preferences of those who wish to avoid cannabis entirely. No one may violate the rights of others, and no substance use excuses any such violation. Regardless of the legal status of cannabis, responsible users will adhere to emerging tobacco smoking protocols in public and private places.
However, given that most harms relating to cannabis are caused by the law itself, the greatest way to limit the problems is to change the law.
A 1999 study released by Curtin University’s National Centre for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse (NCRPDA) compared the impact of a criminal conviction for a minor cannabis offence in West Australia, with the impacts of a South Australian infringement notice. The study found that "neither a criminal conviction nor an infringement notice had much impact on subsequent cannabis use, with about 90% of each group saying it had not reduced their use of the drug. However, more of the WA group experienced significant social costs as a result of their minor cannabis offence."
Harmful effects of the law included loss of employment, accommodation, relationship problems and subsequent involvement with the police. Compared to the total prohibition model in WA, people in SA were less likely to have been offered Cannabis, less likely to have tried it, less likely to have used in the last twelve months and less likely to use in a vehicle (Makkai & McAllister, 1997, pp50-55).
12. Action points for Information Collection, Research, Evaluation and Monitoring
As above, NORML submits that the real need of drug policy is to assess the 30-year failure of the Misuse of Drugs Act to achieve its stated goals, and to find workable alternatives. Monitoring programmes within the prohibition framework, while commendable on one level, is not necessarily of assistance in evaluating prohibition itself.
13. Method for Monitoring Progress
NORML is concerned that the agenda when it comes to drug issues continues to be set by politicians (the MCDP) who have long shown a willingness to let political concerns override the evidence.
NORML believes that the National Drug Policy should be properly resourced with it's own budget. One of the problems with the current approach is that the National Drug Policy itself has no funding or budget. Resources are channelled through various departments and agencies, who interpret the policy in their own way and more or less continue with their own strategies and plans using their interpretation to support what they are doing.
14. Features of New Zealand Approach
Far from being "balanced", current policy places almost all emphasis on law enforcement. Tens of millions of dollars are spent arresting and punishing cannabis users, but comparatively few resources are put into drug education and treatment services.
We need more compassionate drug policies that help people rather than punish them. An enlightened society does not punish dissent or different lifestyles - it should celebrate diversity. It would be unthinkable to have laws criminalising other minority groups.
NORML welcomes the statement that the policy and action plans will be "evidence-informed" as we believe the evidence is clear that cannabis prohibition creates more harm than it prevents.
The consultation document referred to international treaties and cooperation. International treaties do not prevent New Zealand from reforming our cannabis laws.
The fundamental principle of the Conventions is that the signatories are obliged to keep "controls" on the availability of and trade in controlled drugs. This obligation can be interpreted reasonably broadly. The treaties leave open the questions of (a) whether personal cannabis use and possession is included in the punitive requirements and provisions, (b) whether the controls need to be "criminal" in nature, and (c) how exceptions to these requirements can be made, eg, in response to national constitutional principles, or for special forms of cannabis, including use for medicinal purposes.
The Single Convention (1961) states that: "2.5.b. A Party shall, if in its opinion the prevailing conditions in its country render it the most appropriate means of protecting the public health and welfare, prohibit..." etc (italics added). Any signatory nation can opt out of this clause if they so choose.
15. Drug Use in New Zealand section
Cannabis is by far the most widely used illicit drug in New Zealand and substantial consumption is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Yet most cannabis users do so responsibly and in moderation and risk little in the way of health effects. The policy should more explicitly recognise that use does not necessarily equate to harm.
Whatever the risks of cannabis use, prohibition makes matters worse in several ways:
1) paraphernalia laws prevent the development and marketing of water pipes and other, more advanced technology that could significantly reduce the harmfulness of marijuana smoke;
2) prohibition encourages the sale of cannabis that has been contaminated or adulterated by insecticides, Paraquat, etc., or mixed with other drugs such as P, crack, heroin and even fly spray;
3) by raising the price of marijuana, prohibition makes it uneconomical to consume marijuana orally, which is the best way to avoid smoke exposure altogether. This is because eating typically requires two or three times as much marijuana as smoking. The inflated price of black-market marijuana also means users take (more harmful) deeper and longer breaths so as to maximise the effect.
4) prohibition creates additional harms in the community that are entirely avoidable: for instance illicit growers and dealers sometimes protect their incomes through threats, coercion and violence; there are substantial environmental harms from illicit cultivation and clandestine drug labs; and by creating a mixed market for illicit drugs, prohibition inadvertently increases the use of other illicit drugs.
5) by exaggerating harms, prohibition makes drug education efforts less believable. By using threats and coercion to attempt to reduce drug use, prohibition makes drug treatment less accessible.
6) prohibition is a racist law, the burden of which is felt disproportionately by Maori who are more likely to be arrested than non-Maori even after adjusting for use rates and other confounders. The effect of this is to divide communities, create disrespect for the law and further alienate users from the rest of society.
16. Other Comments
The 1972-3 Blake-Palmer Report that led to the introduction of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 recommended prohibition be continued "only so long as it was seen to be largely effective" (p89).
The 1998 Health Select Committee Inquiry into the Mental Health Effects of Cannabis unanimously recommended "the Government review the appropriateness of existing policy on cannabis and its use and reconsider the legal status of cannabis".
The Health Select Committee's 2003 Cannabis Inquiry investigated the current policy and concluded that:
"the current high levels of use, and the level of black economy activity indicate that the current prohibition regime is not effective in limiting cannabis use. Prohibition results in high conviction rates for a relatively minor offence, which inhibits people's education, travel and employment opportunities. Prohibition makes targeting education, prevention, harm minimisation and treatment measures difficult because users fear prosecution. It also facilitates the black market, and potentially exposes cannabis users to harder drugs."
Every other government-level inquiry into cannabis around the world has recommended policies other than total prohibition (a list is available at http://www.norml.org.nz/Events/Inquiry/HSC_sub).
The prohibition of Cannabis hasn't prevented people from using cannabis. Ending cannabis prohibition in much of Europe, Australia and the United States has not caused increases in cannabis use, but has achieved dramatic savings in law enforcement as well as improving the effectiveness of drug education and treatment services.
After twenty years of regulated supply, teenage cannabis use in the Netherlands is dropping - a result of normalising cannabis use and limiting sales to adults. Other illicit drug use in the Netherlands has also dropped as they broke the black-market connection between cannabis buyers and other drug sellers.
A dilemma therefore exists for those advocating more of the same policy. Cannabis usage rates do not correlate well with intensity of enforcement or legal sanction. The evidence shows "liberal" models of controlling drug use don't increase rates of experimentation, whilst repressive models don't deter or prevent use - but they do create all sorts of other harms.
The minimisation of drug-related harms is therefore best achieved through regulations, education and treatment, while an emphasis on punitive sanctions will continue to increase harms to drug users, their families and communities.
|
|
|
|
| |
| Login |
|
You can register for some special extra features. | |
| Article Rating |
Average Score: 5
Votes: 4
| |
|
