Submission to the Health Committee Cannabis InquiryNational Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, New Zealand Inc.
CONTENTS
1 Executive Summary
2 Key Recommendations
3 About NORML
4 The Use And Harms Associated With Cannabis:
4.1 Public Health And Health Promotion Strategies
4.2 The Context Of Cannabis Use And Policy
4.3 A Discussion Of The Harms Potentially Caused By Cannabis Use
4.4 Cannabis Harm Reduction And Education Programmes
5 The Legal Status Of Cannabis:
5.1 Options For The Most Appropriate Legal Status Of Cannabis
5.2 International Law
5.3 International Trends In Drug Policy
5.4 Policy Options, Cannabis Use And Associated Harms
5.5 Policy Principles
5.6 Public Support For Cannabis Law Reform
5.7 Evaluating The Options For The Legal Status Of Cannabis
5.8 Conclusion
6 References
7 Appendices:
7.1 Cannabis Regulation Bibliography
7.2 Extracts From The Major Drug Policy Reports
7.3 Dutch Have Fewer Drug Users Than Thought - Study
7.4 Dutch & US Drug Policy And Crime Statistics
7.5 Cannabis Retail Markets In Amsterdam
7.6 NORML's Principles Of Responsible Cannabis Use
7.7 Common Concerns About Cannabis Law Reform
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Cannabis is by far the most widely used illicit drug in New Zealand. It is therefore of considerable interest to public health to examine the patterns of association between cannabis use, cannabis policy, and harms faced by cannabis users and those around them that result both from their use and from the law itself.
Substantial consumption is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. The influence of drug education on demand or law enforcement on supply of cannabis has been marginal at best. The belief that increased drug education or law enforcement efforts will achieve lower levels of cannabis use represents a triumph of hope over experience. It ignores the lessons of several decades of repeated but unsuccessful attempts to reduce cannabis consumption.
Most cannabis users do responsible and in moderation. The harms posed by cannabis use have been exaggerated, and the scientific evidence demonstrates that cannabis is actually a remarkable safe substance, with many beneficial uses. Harms from using cannabis are less than the harms from using other commonly used drugs such as alcohol, tobacco or caffeine, and also less that the harms from many ordinary substances such as dairy products, sugary foods or red meat.
Cannabis prohibition creates far more harm than marijuana use itself, and has failed in all it's stated goals. The problems of 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 user without evidence of reduced cannabis use; and high economic cost to the taxpayer. Prohibiting a legal source for cannabis while demand remains high guarantees a lucrative income for criminals and risks increased police corruption.
Cannabis prohibition was adopted with little thought and even less knowledge at a time when the drug was virtually unknown in New Zealand. However once entrenched in legislation, a socially-destructive war on cannabis users has been waged on the flimsiest of foundations. Although much is said these days regarding the need for prudent government expenditure and fiscal restraint, the cost to the taxpayer of cannabis prohibition is unknown while any benefits have been difficult to identify let alone quantify. There are few areas of government today where legislators are prepared to support unknown but considerable expenditure for a policy of uncertain benefit.
Current policy places almost all emphasis on law enforcement. Millions of dollars are spent arresting and punishing cannabis users, but few resources are put into drug education and treatment. Despite having one of the highest rates of cannabis arrests in the world, more New Zealanders use cannabis now than ever before. On average, twenty New Zealanders are given criminal records every day for breaking the prohibition on cannabis. Arresting these otherwise law-abiding citizens serves no legitimate purpose, extends government into inappropriate areas of our lives, and causes enormous harm to the lives, careers and families of the thousands of people every year.
The last local inquiry into the legal status of cannabis was the 1972-3 Blake-Palmer Report that led to the introduction of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. That report 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". Every other government-level inquiry into cannabis around the world has recommended policies other than total prohibition.
Ending cannabis prohibition in much of Europe, Australia and the United States has not caused increases in cannabis use, and 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. Hard drug use in the Netherlands has also dropped since they broke the black-market connection between cannabis buyers and hard drug sellers. Prohibition has failed and will continue to fail. It is time for a new approach.
2. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
Treat cannabis use as a health and social issue, not a law enforcement problem. Public health strategies should recognise that the vast majority of cannabis users face little or no harm directly resulting from their use.
The most appropriate public health and health promotion strategy is harm minimisation, and health promotion strategies should only focus on use that is problematic (i.e., abuse).
Well funded, research based, effective, drug education for the community and schools should be developed by education and health professionals to allow the public to make informed choices.
Treatment opportunities should be available for all who need it by increasing funding for this sector. A wide range of treatment options should be trialed and rigorously evaluated.
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.
All penalties for the use, possession and cultivation of cannabis by adults for personal use and the non-profit transfer of small amounts should be immediately removed. Criminal records for non-violent cannabis offences should be wiped.
The regulation of cannabis cultivation and sale is the most appropriate legal status for cannabis, offering some control over juvenile use and some separation of markets, and is consistent with New Zealand's international treaty obligations.
A commercial market for marijuana will always exist, and it is better to regulate and control that market than to hand it over to organised crime. NORML supports the introduction of Dutch-style cannabis cafes. Political factors are the major obstacle to cannabis regulation, which would most effectively control access by minors, minimise harms to cannabis users, and impose the least costs on society. Taxation of cannabis would provide an income stream for government capable of funding alcohol and drug prevention and treatment on a scale required to make a difference.
3. ABOUT THE NATIONAL ORGANISATION FOR THE REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS, NEW ZEALAND INC.
NORML NZ was formed in 1979 and is an independent non-profit incorporated society that campaigns for an end to marijuana prohibition.
NORML NZ is a user representative group that 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
NORML NZ is in effect a de facto union that represents the interests of New Zealand's half-million cannabis users, and the million adults who have tried cannabis despite what the law says.
NORML NZ has campaigned for sensible cannabis laws for over twenty years, and we have enormous public support for our cause. NORML's membership is large, and because of the criminal status of cannabis it is strictly confidential.
A note on cannabis prohibition and the freedom of speech:
The current policy serves to suppress debate and the free exchange of ideas, because those who publicly oppose prohibition are assumed to be cannabis users, and they therefore fear arrest, persecution or loss of employment merely for exercising their democratic right to freedom of speech. Professionals and academics, who could contribute much to the understanding of drug policy issues, have largely excluded themselves from the debate.
There has been minimal effort to publicise this Inquiry and invite public participation, and no assurance that advocates of cannabis law reform will not be arrested or persecuted. This will no doubt have effected the number of submissions received by this inquiry in support of law reform.
During our efforts to publicise this Inquiry we noticed a widespread unwillingness to be involved, mostly because (a) people feared being revealed as a cannabis user, and (b) many supporters of law reform feel disenfranchised and cynical of the political process. Therefore the number of submissions received in support of cannabis law reform will be but a fraction of the true level of support held by members of the community.
4. PUBLIC HEALTH AND HEALTH PROMOTION STRATEGIES
INTRODUCTION
Public health is suffering because cannabis is illegal. Public health strategies to minimise the use and harm associated with cannabis are failing, and will continue to fail as long as cannabis is illegal. Cannabis abuse should be treated as a health and social problem, not a law enforcement problem.
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 non-problematic use, and harmful abuse. Public health strategies should recognise that the vast majority of cannabis users face little or no harm directly resulting from their use.
Thousands of research studies have been undertaken in an effort to prove the worst about cannabis, yet they have actually proven that cannabis is "the safest therapeutically active substance known" (ruling of Francis Young, DEA Administrative Law Judge, 1988)
Cannabis prohibition is not based on scientific evidence or reasoned analysis, but on morals. As the current strategy has no firm foundation, and has failed in all its stated goals, it should be replaced with a new strategy.
The most effective public health strategy is one where the public is empowered to make fully informed decisions about the consequences of cannabis use and feel able to utilise public health agencies. Those that need help should be able to get it without fear of arrest or punishment, and those who do not require help should not be forced or coerced to undergo unnecessary treatment.
Public health strategies for cannabis can only be effectively implemented if the use and possession of cannabis are made legal again, and the commercial cultivation and sale of cannabis products is regulated and controlled by law.
This document offers evidence and strategies to implement these strategies.
THE CONTEXT OF CANNABIS USE AND POLICY
Cannabis has a long history of widespread and safe use in many societies around the world. Prohibition has a short but spectacular history of causing widespread harm and misery wherever it has been enacted.
Cannabis was referred to as a "superior" herb in the world's first pharmacopoeia, Shen Nung's Pen Ts'ao, in China over 5000 years ago. Around 1500BC the cannabis-smoking Scythians swept through Europe and Asia, settling and inventing the scythe. Later the Zoroastrians, Therapeutia, Copts, Essenes and other African and Asian religions would adopt cannabis. Buddha was said to have survived for 500 days during his enlightenment by eating hempseed. Around 800AD Mohammed proclaimed that Muslims could use cannabis but the use of alcohol was forbidden.
In 450BC Herodotus recorded Scythians and Thracians consuming cannabis and making fine linens of hemp. Shortly after Carthage and Rome struggled for political and commercial power over hemp and spice trade routes in the Mediterranean. Roman Emperor Nero's surgeon, Dioscorides, praised cannabis for making the stoutest cords and for its medicinal properties and named the plant Cannabis Sativa (sativa meaning 'useful'). Cannabis cultivated for the first time in the UK at Old Buckenham Mere around 400AD and quickly became a staple agricultural commodity. The Germans, Celts, Franks and Vikings all used hemp fibre.
Cannabis has continued to play substantial a role in the development of human civilisation. During the era of colonial expansion by the European powers, such was the importance of cannabis hemp fibre and seed that exploration and settlement were directed wherever hemp could be found or grown. In the 1500's the English Queen Elizabeth I decreed that land owners with more than 60 acres must grow hemp or be fined 5 pounds, and King Philip of Spain ordered hemp grown throughout his empire from modern Argentina to Oregon. Dutch explorers achieved the "Golden Age" through hemp commerce, and found "wilde hempe" in North America. By the 1600's the British had taken cannabis to Canada for maritime uses, and began to grow cannabis in Virginia. Soon the Virginia colony made hemp cultivation mandatory, followed by most other North American colonies, who had begun to use hemp as money. The US Declaration of Independence was drafted on hemp paper, as were most Bibles and other books intended to last the passage of time. Hemp was so important to the economies of the time that US President George Washington set duties to encourage hemp cultivation, and proclaimed "Make the most of the Indian Hemp seed ... sew it everywhere."
Cannabis was introduced into Western science in 1841 by Dr. W. B. O'Shaughnessy in his tome "On the Preparation of the Indian Hemp or Ganja". Cannabis patent medicines were soon commonplace, and cannabis was listed in US Pharmacopoeia as a medicine in 1870 and served at the Amercan Centennial Exposition in Chicago in 1876. The first recorded instance of domestic cannabis cultivation was by Sister Mary Aubert, a catholic nun who ran a missionary outpost at Jerusalem on the Whanganui River, who grew cannabis to treat menstrual pains.
In 1894 the first major governmental investigation into cannabis, the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, studied the social use of cannabis and came out firmly against its prohibition. Every other major investigation held since then has come to a similar conclusion. Despite being the basis for many of the world's most effective medicines, the temperance movement was building to a peak, and soon cannabis came under attack. Negroes were reported to be using cannabis in jazz clubs and influencing white women, and Mexican immigrants were reported to become violent and crazy when under it's effects. A campaign to demonise cannabis and cannabis users was initiated with little regard to the facts. In 1911 the Harrisson Act, the world's first drug control law, was passed by the US Congress and quickly created addiction and misery among those who has previously used opium products without any apparent harms. The United States lobbied at the First International Opium Conference in 1912 that cannabis should also be banned. However, most nations objected to this suggestion as absurd and wholly lacking in supporting evidence. Not one to be deterred, the United States kept trying to ban cannabis at most international conferences, and finally got their wish by slipping the prohibition into the appendix of the Treaty of Versailles.
New Zealand became one of the first countries in the world to officially ban cannabis with the passing of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1927. This Act did not distinguish between different drugs or relative harms, and in fact did not outlaw the use of cannabis. In 1960, much to the consternation of the local constabulary, a Wellington truck driver was acquitted of charges of unlawful cannabis use. The Government of the day remedied the loophole by passing the Narcotics Act 1961. This new law also did not distinguish between different drugs or relative harms, and some particularly unjust sentences were handed out. The rise of the counterculture movement and marijuana as a symbol for rebellion saw many cannabis users sentenced to imprisonment of several years to life, while others were let off through new legal loopholes.
By the early 1970's cannabis had become part of New Zealand society, and the cannabis industry was starting to become self-sufficient, utilising smuggled sativa seeds from Thailand and Hawaii as the genetic basis for "New Zealand Green".
In 1972 the New Zealand Board of Health reviewed drug legislation, and recommended cannabis prohibition be continued "only so long as it is seen to be largely effective." The Government of the day responded by passing the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. This Inquiry is the first review of cannabis prohibition since that time. Far from being largely effective, cannabis prohibition has been not at all effective, unless the goal has been to increase cannabis use and related harms.
During the late 1970's police efforts to eradicate cannabis were intensified. Although entirely unsuccessful at achieving this result, the increased emphasis on law enforcement made the marijuana industry more violent and more dominated by organised crime. The ordinary blokes gave way to the professional criminals who would later open the local equivalent of the crack house - the "tinnie shop".
NORML New Zealand was incorporated in 1979 and soon established widespread support. In 1984 the Great Marijuana Debate was held in a packed Auckland Town Hall. That year, the then-Minister of Police Anne Hercus asked the police to stop arresting so many cannabis users, to no avail. In 1996 Whangarei psychologist Les Gray was arrested after stating on the Holmes programme that he enjoyed cannabis. This single action probably did more to stifle debate than any other prohibitionist tactic. No other professional with a career to lose would want to stick their neck out and advocate alternative policies. Les became a martyr to the cause (and went on to become the president of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party), and his arrest ensured other professionals and academics would exclude themselves from the debate.
Despite the best efforts of law enforcement personnel, cannabis use continued to rise. A 1990 study by Black and Casswell of the Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit found 43 percent of respondents reported having tried cannabis at least once. and 16% described themselves as current users. Regular use was highest amongst young men aged 20-24 (65 percent of whom had tried cannabis) and Maori. The study showed that the majority of those who have tried cannabis do not use it regularly and only a small proportion use it frequently. (Black and Casswell 1993). The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit (DMHDRU) longitudinal study of 1000 people born in Dunedin in 1972 and 1973 found that 61.9 percent of the 21 year olds surveyed had smoked cannabis on at least one occasion. In 1998 Black and Casswell repeated their survey, and found that the number of people who had ever tried cannabis had grown to 52%, and the number of self-described current users was now 16%. These figures represent an increase of over twenty per cent during a period of increased expenditure on law enforcement, increased arrests, and more draconian laws.
A DISCUSSION OF THE HARMS POTENTIALLY CAUSED BY CANNABIS USE AND WAYS TO REDUCE THEM
Every major investigation held about cannabis has found that the harms presented by cannabis use have been exaggerated, and that prohibition creates more harm than it prevents.
The claim that the medical and psychological effects of Cannabis are so "dangerous and harmful" that we must not change the cannabis laws, has increasingly been seen to be unsupportable, particularly in light of the known effects of tobacco and alcohol. As the 1979 Sackville Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in South Australia found:
"... even a cursory glance at the modern history of Cannabis shows a repeated pattern of widely believed myths which often fly in the face of the available evidence. It seems as discredited beliefs (such as Cannabis being an addictive narcotic causing violent crime and insanity) are rejected, they are replaced by new myths (for example, that even casual use carries serious health risks to the user)... It is apparent that the debate has been more concerned with values and community attitudes than with the objective ascertainment of facts"
The World Health Organisation in 1998 released a report that agreed with the New Zealand Ministry of Health's report Cannabis: the public health issues 1995-1996 in acknowledging that the consumption of alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than the use of cannabis.
The United States Institute Of Medicine in March 1999 released a report rejecting the 'gateway' theory that says cannabis leads to the use of harder drugs, recognised that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, and acknowledged that cannabis can be a useful medicine for many people.
"We.. say that on the medical evidence available, moderate indulgence in cannabis has little ill-effect on health, and that decisions to ban or legalise cannabis should be based on other considerations."
- The Lancet, vol 352, number 9140, November 14 1998
"Relatively few adverse clinical effects from the chronic use of marijuana have been documented in humans. However, the criminalization of marijuana use may itself be a health hazard, since it may expose the users to violence and criminal activity."
- The Kaiser Permanente study - "Marijuana Use and Mortality" April 1997 American Journal of Public Health".
"There are no long lasting ill-effects from the acute use of marijuana and no fatalities have ever been recorded ... there seems to be growing agreement within the medical community, at least, that marijuana does not directly cause criminal behaviour, juvenile delinquency, sexual excitement, or addiction."
Dr J. H. Jaffe, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. L.Goodman and A Gillman, eds. 3rd edn. 1965.
"Cannabis is remarkably safe. Although not harmless, it is surely less toxic than most of the conventional medicines it could replace if it were legally available. Despite its use by millions of people over thousands of years, cannabis has never caused an overdose death."
Professor Lester Grinspoon, M.D., Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, before the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., October 1, 1997
Toxicity
In over 10,000 years of documented and widespread use, there has never been a documented proven death resulting from cannabis use. Hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders use cannabis regularly, and if it were as toxic as some prohibitionists purport, our hospitals would be full of cannabis patients. Instead, considering the prevalence of use, they are conspicuous by their absence.
THC is non-toxic because it precisely fits into a specific neurotransmitter system rather than interrupting or interfering with chemical reactions in the nervous system. This is not to say that THC does not effect parts of the body, but that it does not damage the brain or body.
THC plugs into 'anandamide' receptors, which have only recently been discovered and located in areas of the brain that cannabis has long been known to effect - the higher thinking processes, emotions, perceptions, motor coordination, short term memory, plus the CB1 receptors of the immune system, the reproductive organs, and the lungs.
Cannabis has long been used by creative people as a source of inspiration and to enhance sensory experiences. It has long been a useful and effective medicine, and we are only now discovering why. Cannabis is helpful to people with neurological disorders such as Multiple Sclerosis because anandamide affects motor coordination. It is useful for people suffering AIDS wasting syndrome and nausea associated with cancer treatments because anandamide stimulates the feeding response and suppresses nausea. Cannabis is useful for glaucoma because anandamide regulates eye pressure. Cannabis is useful for asthmatics because anandamide triggers a coughing response in the lungs. Cannabis can help some people with immune disorders such as AIDS by stimulating certain parts of the immune system mediated by the newly-discovered CB1 receptors.
The ruling by US Drug Enforcement Administration Judge Francis Young, in response to a petition by NORML in the USA to reschedule marijuana from Schedule 1 to 2 (to allow marijuana to be prescribed as a medicine) was the largest and most comprehensive study yet undertaken into marijuana's toxicity and medical efficacy. He found:
"4. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.
"5. This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.
"6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.
"7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.
"8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.
"9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity."
"Opinion and recommended ruling, findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision of DEA administrative law judge", Sept 6 1988
"Marijuana is one of the least toxic substances in the whole pharmacopoeia"
Professor Lester Grinspoon, Harvard Medical School, USA
In the journal Fundamental And Applied Toxicology, Dr. William Slikker, director of the Neurotoxicology Division of the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR), described the health of monkeys exposed to very high levels of cannabis for an extended period: "The general health of the monkeys was not compromised by a year of marijuana exposure as indicated by weight gain, carboxyhemoglobin and clinical chemistry/hematology values." Dr. Merle Paule of NCTR added "There's just nothing there. They were all fine." - "No Increase in Carcinogen-DNA Adducts in the Lungs of Monkeys Exposed Chronically to Marijuana Smoke", 1992, Fundamental And Applied Toxicology, Dec 63 (3): 321-32.
The USA Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy (1987) after reviewing an extensive body of research, concluded that "the chief opposition to the drug rests on a moral and political, and not toxicologic, foundation."
The Lungs
The vast majority of cannabis smokers do so moderately, responsibly and infrequently. The main harm facing moderate cannabis users results from the delivery mechanism. Smoking is likely to be harmful to the lungs, although cannabis itself is non-toxic and does not damage the lungs like tobacco does.
Smoking enough of any plant matter is likely to be harmful to the lungs. Burning plant cellulose produces tars that include some carcinogenic substances, carbon monoxide, hot gases, and ash and solid particulates.
Cannabis smoke is not the same as the smoke produced from other plants such as tobacco.
Cannabis smokers consume far less smoke than tobacco users. Each joint is on average half the weight of a tobacco cigarette, and marijuana smokers rarely smoke as much as a tobacco user. Thus, the amount of irritant material inhaled almost never approaches that of tobacco users.
"Users in our matched-pair sample smoked marijuana in addition to as many tobacco cigarettes as did their matched non-using pairs. Yet their small airways were, if anything, a bit healthier than their matches. We must tentatively conclude either that marijuana has no harmful effect on such passages or that it actually offers some slight protection against harmful effects of tobacco smoke"
- Cannabis in Costa Rica: A Study of Chronic Marijuana Use; Institute of Human Issues.
Researchers at the University of California (UCLA) School of Medicine conducted an 8-year study into the effects of long-term cannabis smoking on the lungs. Dr. D.P. Tashkin reported
"Findings from the present long-term, follow-up study of heavy, habitual marijuana smokers argue against the concept that continuing heavy use of marijuana is a significant risk factor for the development of [chronic lung disease... Neither the continuing nor the intermittent marijuana smokers exhibited any significantly different rates of decline in [lung function]" as compared with those individuals who never smoked marijuana... No differences were noted between even quite heavy marijuana smoking and non-smoking of marijuana."
- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Volume 155
Some critics exaggerate the dangers of marijuana smoking by fallaciously citing a study by Dr. Tashkin which found that daily pot smokers experienced a "mild but significant" increase in airflow resistance in the large airways greater than that seen in persons smoking 16 cigarettes per day. What they ignore is that the same study examined other, more important aspects of lung health, in which marijuana smokers did much better than tobacco smokers. Dr. Tashkin himself disavows the notion that one joint equals 16 cigarettes.
A more widely accepted estimate is that marijuana smokers consume four times as much carcinogenic tar as cigarettes smokers per weight smoked. This does not necessarily mean that one joint equals four cigarettes, since joints usually weigh less. In fact, the average joint has been estimated to contain around half a gram of cannabis, or around half the weight of a cigarette, making one joint equal to two cigarettes.
It should be noted that there is no exact equivalency between tobacco and marijuana smoking, because they affect different parts of the respiratory tract differently: whereas tobacco tends to penetrate to the smaller, peripheral passageways of the lungs, cannabis tends to concentrate on the larger, central passageways. One consequence of this is that cannabis, unlike tobacco, does not appear to cause emphysema.
Whatever the risks of cannabis smoking, the current laws make matters worse in several ways: (1) Recently enacted 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 PCP, crack, heroin and even fly spray; (3) by raising the price of marijuana, prohibition makes it uneconomical to consume marijuana orally, the best way to avoid smoke exposure altogether; this is because eating typically requires two or three times as much marijuana as smoking. While many smokers would prefer to eat or drink cannabis preparations rather than smoke them, current laws state that any "cannabis preparation" is a Class B prohibited substance that carries a more severe punishment. The high price of cannabis also means there is usually no filter included in a joint, and smokers tend to inhale deeply and hold the breath in to get the maximum effect. If cannabis was sold at it's true worth - for example, tobacco retails for less than $30 per ounce, including a two-thirds tax to the Government - smokers would not be forced to smoke in such a harmful way.
Recommendation:
Health promotion strategies to cannabis users should encourage eating or drinking cannabis preparations, and the use of harm minimisation equipment such as vapourisers and waterpipes. Cannabis paraphernalia designed to minimise the harmful effects of smoking should be re-legalised by repealing the Misuse of Drugs (Prohibition of Cannabis Utensils) Notice 1999.
Addiction and Dependence
Cannabis is not addictive. Most people who smoke cannabis do so only occasionally. A small minority of New Zealanders - less than 1 percent - smoke cannabis on a daily or near daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a psychological dependence on marijuana. Most people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty. Some seek help from drug treatment agencies. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence, and if people experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild.
There are many commonly used medicines that are very addictive, and the two legal drugs alcohol and tobacco are both addictive substances that together kill thousands of people every year. A June 1999 report by the Ministry of Health to the Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy stated that 224,000 New Zealanders are dependent on alcohol, and between 13,500 and 26,000 people are dependent on drugs such as heroin, morphine and homebake (opioids) in any six-month period.
A small minority of cannabis users can become dependent on cannabis. They need help in the form of treatment and counselling, rather than punishment. It makes no sense to punish other responsible cannabis users who are not dependent, merely to "send a message" to the few that have become dependent that they should stop being so.
There is a huge amount of research that proves the myth that cannabis is addictive to be at best a mistaken belief, or at worst an outright lie used to justify current policies:
"Cannabis can be used on an episodic but continual basis without evidence of social or psychic dysfunction. In many users the term dependence with its obvious connotations, probably is mis-applied... "
- The USA Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy (1987)
"cannabinoid dependence and withdrawal phenomena are minimal."
- "Chronic cannabinoid administration alters cannabinoid receptor binding in rat brain: a quantitative autoradiographic study", 1993, Brain Research Journal, 616:293-302. p300.
"There is no evidence that Marihuana as grown and used [in the Canal Zone] is a 'habit-forming' drug."
- The Panama Canal Zone Military Investigations (US Military, 1929)
"Marijuana does not lead to physical dependency, although some evidence indicates that the heavy, long-term users may develop a psychological dependence on the drug"
- The Shafer Commission (USA) of 1970
"research shows cannabis has limited potential for development of...psychological dependence"
- "Neurobiology of Marijuana Abuse", 1992, Trends In Pharmacological Sciences, 13:201-206, p203
"Given the large population of marijuana users and the infrequent reports of medical problems from stopping use, tolerance and dependence are not major issue at present."
- Drug Abuse and Drug Abuse Research, US Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD, (1991) pC3
"Cannabis is not an addictive substance."
- R. v Clay ruling of Ontario Justice John McCart, 1997.
While it is true that THC and other cannabinoids are fat-soluble and linger in the body for prolonged periods, they do not normally affect behaviour beyond a few hours except in chronic users, and this lingering effect is why cannabis has no noticeable withdrawal symptoms. Upon stopping, cannabis users are 'weaned' off THC, whereas an opiate or nicotine addict suffers an abrupt and intense physical withdrawal.
Most impairment studies have found that the adverse effects of acute marijuana use wear off in 2-6 hours, commonly faster than alcohol. The one notable exception was a pair of flight simulator studies by Leirer, Yesavage, and Morrow, which reported effects on flight simulator performance up to 24 hours later. The differences, described by Leirer as "very subtle" and "very marginal," were less than those due to pilot age. Another flight simulator study by the same group failed to find any effects beyond 4 hours. Similar "hangover" effects have been noted for alcohol. Chronic users may experience more prolonged effects due to a build-up of cannabinoids in the tissues. Some heavy users have reported feeling effects weeks or even months after stopping. However, there is no evidence that these are detrimental to safety.
Cognitive Function
This issue has been thoroughly investigated by the Health Committee for its 1998 report "Mental Health Effects of Cannabis". The report concluded:
"The weight of available evidence suggests that long-term heavy use of cannabis does not produce severe or gross impairment of cognitive function."
This finding is consistent with the findings of other major investigations into cannabis:
"There were no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and non-users of cannabis. There were also no male-female differences in cognitive decline in relation to cannabis use. The authors conclude that over long time periods, in persons under age 65 years, cognitive decline occurs in all age groups. This decline is closely associated with ageing and educational level but does not appear to be associated [with cannabis use]"
- Lyketsos et al, "Cannabis Use and Cognitive Decline in Persons under 65 Years of Age", Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, American Journal of Epidemiology, May 1999, 149:794-800
"Some participants had smoked at least two to four large cigarettes (each containing 1/4 to 1/2 ounce of cannabis) over 16 hours a day for periods of up to 50 years ... the most impressive thing... is the true paucity of neurological abnormalities."
- Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church Study, 1980
"Heavy cannabis consumers suffered no apparent psychological or physical harm... IQ's of Zion Coptics increased after they began to use ganga"
- Schaeffer: A Neuropsychological Evaluation; A Case History
"There were no indications of organic brain damage or chromosome damage among smokers and no significant clinical psychiatric, psychological or medical differences between smokers and controls."
US Jamaican Study 1970
"No impairment of physiological, sensory and perceptual performance, tests of concept formation, abstracting ability, and cognitive style, and tests of memory"
- US Jamaican Study 1974
Mental Illness
Although cannabis may exacerbate existing conditions in pre-disposed individuals, it is not itself a cause of mental illness. The incidence of schizophrenia has declined during a period in which cannabis use has increased among young adults.
This issue has been thoroughly investigated by the Health Committee for it's 1998 report "Mental Health Effects of Cannabis". The report concluded:
"Based on the evidence we have heard in the course of this inquiry, the negative mental health impact of cannabis appears to have been overstated, particularly in relation to occasional adult users of the drug."
This is line with the findings of other major investigations into cannabis. The LaGuardia Commission Report of 1944 concluded: "Cannabis smoking] does not lead directly to mental or physical deterioration... Those who have consumed marijuana for a period of years showed no mental or physical deterioration which may be attributed to the drug"
The impact of cannabis prohibition on mental health: Under the current policy, cannabis is readily accessible to those with a mental illness. Schizophrenia is associated with lower levels of anandamide, and many patients are able to self-medicate with cannabis to in effect boost their levels of THC/anandamide. The mental health of all cannabis users are threatened more by the current law than by the use of cannabis itself. The criminal law generates paranoia, suspicion, alienation and anxiety.
Development
Cannabis use is a symptom of 'deviant' behaviour, not a cause. Cannabis use at school is likely to impact on learning abilities. However while some are quick to point the blame at cannabis itself, it should be noted that the free availability of cannabis to adolescents is occurring now under a system of total prohibition. Despite - or because of - the law, cannabis is just as available as pizza, and more available to minors than alcohol.
Recommendation:
The use of cannabis by young people should be minimised by regulating the availability of cannabis with a minimum purchase age of 18 years.
Motivation
The concept of a marijuana amotivational syndrome first appeared in the late 1960s, as marijuana use was increasing among youth. Large-scale studies of high school students have generally found no difference in grade-point averages between marijuana users and non-users. Field studies in Jamaica, Costa Rica and Greece also found no evidence of an amotivational syndrome marijuana-using populations. The weight of scientific evidence suggests that there is nothing in the pharmacological properties of cannabis that alter people's attitudes, values, or abilities regarding work.
"No scientific evidence has been gathered to demonstrate ... the development of an amotivational syndrome amongst users."
- Health Committee, Mental Heath Effects of Cannabis 1998 p43
"a-motivation [is] a cause of heavy marijuana smoking rather than the reverse"
- Dr. Andrew Weil, cited in Rubin & Comitas, Ganja in Jamaica, 1975
"Cannabis ... does not cause a motivational syndrome."
- R. v Clay, Ontario Justice John McCart (Canada), 1997.
Suicide
Cannabis is associated with suicide and other 'deviant' behaviours only through correlation, not causation. People who attempt or commit suicide have a higher rate of using cannabis, but that does not mean cannabis has caused their distressed state. Rather, cannabis may be a therapeutic tool that offers some escape. The Health Committee's 1998 report Mental Health Effects of Cannabis concluded:
"Data collected by the Canterbury Suicide Project found that rates of cannabis abuse were higher amongst those making serious suicide attempts. However, further analysis suggested that again the involvement of cannabis was by association, as opposed to causation. Individuals who were predisposed towards a suicide attempt through a disadvantaged socio-demographic background or mental illness were also more likely to use cannabis. Evidence suggests that cannabis use is not a causal factor in suicide."
Blood Pressure and the Heart
According to the US National Academy of Sciences, the effects of marijuana on blood pressure are complex, depending on dose, administration, and posture. Marijuana often produces a temporary, "moderate" increase in blood pressure immediately after ingestion; however, heavy chronic doses may slightly depress blood pressure instead. One common reaction is to cause decreased blood pressure while standing and increased blood pressure while lying down, causing people to faint if they stand up too quickly. There is no evidence that pot use causes persisting hypertension or heart disease; some users even claim that it helps them control hypertension by reducing stress. One thing THC does do is to increase pulse rates for about an hour, a condition known as tachycardia. This is not generally harmful and may even be beneficial since exercise does the same thing.
Tissue Damage
THC is actually chemoprotective and neuroprotective. THC may even be a cure for cancer. Last February researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain cancer tumours in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis. Most people don't know anything about the discovery, since virtually no newspapers carried the story, but this isn't the first time scientists have discovered that THC shrinks tumours. In 1974, researchers at the Medical College of Virginia had been funded by the US National Institutes of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system. Instead, they found that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice--lung and breast cancer and a virus-induced leukaemia. The US Government quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumour research.
"Not only is the evidence linking cannabis smoking to cancer negative, but the largest human studies cited indicated that cannabis users had lower rates of cancer than non-users. What's more, those who smoked both cannabis and tobacco had lower rates of lung cancer than those who smoked only tobacco-a strong indication of chemoprevention."
"Marijuana Use and Mortality" American Journal Of Public Health, April 1997
The Immune System
It has been claimed that marijuana increases users' risk of contracting infectious diseases. First emerging in the 1970s, this claim took on new significance following reports of medical marijuana use by people suffering from AIDS.
There have been no clinical or epidemiological studies showing an increase in bacterial, viral, or parasitic infection among human marijuana users. In three large field studies conducted in the 1970s, in Jamaica, Costa Rica and Greece, researchers found no differences in disease susceptibility between marijuana users and matched controls.
At the 1981 conference on marijuana sponsored by the World Health Organisation and Canada's Addiction Research Foundation, reviewers of the research literature on immunity reported "There is no conclusive evidence that cannabis predisposes man to immune dysfunction". A few years later, in approving THC (Marinol) for use as a medicine, the FDA found no convincing evidence that THC caused immune impairment. In 1992, the FDA approved Marinol as an appetite stimulant specifically for AIDS patients, who have serious immunosuppression.
Pregnancy
Anti-drug campaigners often claim that children are permanently harmed by their mothers' use of cannabis during pregnancy. It is claimed that cannabis is a cause of birth defects and development deficits. A number of studies have claimed reported low birth weight and physical abnormalities among babies exposed to marijuana in utero. However, when other factors known to affect pregnancy outcomes were controlled for - for example, maternal age, socioeconomic class, and alcohol and tobacco use - the association between marijuana use and adverse foetal effects disappeared.
Other studies have failed to find negative impacts from marijuana exposure. However, when negative outcomes are found, they tend to be widely publicised, regardless of the quality of the study. The Health Committee's 1998 report Mental Health Effects of Cannabis found:
"No conclusive evidence exists to demonstrate deleterious effects of cannabis use upon foetal mental development... The most recent review of literature on the effects of cannabis use on the foetus found that cannabis has no reliable impact on birth size, length of gestation, neurological development, or the occurrence of physical abnormalities. [cited: Zimmer & Morgan 1997]"
The report also noted the research of Professor Richard Faull of the Anatomy Department of the University of Auckland, who informed the Committee of the results of his recent studies of cannabinoid receptors in the human brain. Cannabis, or more specifically THC, does have the potential to have a greater effect on the brain of the foetus than the adult. This does not mean damage. THC safely plugs into anandamide receptors in the brain. These are located in areas of the brain that among other things influence emotions, perceptions, and the feeding response. All mammals have anandamide receptors. It may be no evolutionary accident that the foetus has a higher proportion of anandamide receptors than adults. It may be that the presence of additional anandamide receptors helps the foetus cope with the traumatic experience of being born.
Although we believe it is sensible to advise pregnant women to abstain from using drugs - including cannabis - without their doctor's supervision, the weight of scientific evidence indicates that cannabis has few adverse consequences for the developing human foetus.
Fertility
There have been no epidemiological studies which have shown increased infertility in marijuana-using humans, and studies of overall reproductive rates have found no reduction in reproductive rates in countries where a higher rate of marijuana use is found.
"Studies of men in the general population have also failed to find differences in the testosterone levels of marijuana users and non-users... There is no convincing evidence of infertility related to marijuana consumption in humans... There are no epidemiological studies showing that men who use marijuana have higher rates of infertility than men who do not. Nor is there evidence of diminished reproductive capacity among men in countries where marijuana use is common."
"Exposing Marijuana Myths", The Lindesmith Center, p93
Driving
The adverse effects of alcohol on driving performance are well documented, and opponents of cannabis use often claim that cannabis produced similar impairment.
Research into impairment and traffic accident data from several countries by the University of Toronto indicates marijuana, when consumed alone, "does not significantly increase a driver's risk of causing an accident - unlike alcohol." Both alcohol and cannabis affect driving performance but those who smoke marijuana tended to be much more cautious behind the wheel due to the heightened awareness of their impairment. By comparison, "subjects who received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner."
A 1998 study by the University of Adelaide and the South Australian Transport Board found that "there is no evidence of any increase in the likelihood of being culpable for crashes amongst those injured drivers in whom cannabinoids were detected."
In most cases where cannabis has been detected in the bloodstream of drivers involved in crashes, alcohol has also been present.
Professor Olaf Drummer, a forensic scientist the Royal College of Surgeons in Melbourne said in 1996 "Compared to alcohol, which makers people take more risks on the road, marijuana made drivers slow down and drive more carefully.... Cannabis is good for driving skills, as people tend to overcompensate for a perceived impairment."
"Simulated driving scores for subjects experiencing a normal social 'high' and the same subjects under control conditions are not significantly different. However, there are significantly more errors for alcohol intoxicated than for control subjects"
- Crancer Study, Washington Department of Motor Vehicles:
"THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small"
- U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (DOT HS 808 078), Final Report, November 1993
"There is no controlled epidemiological evidence that cannabis users are at increased risk of being involved in motor vehicle or other accidents.
- Australian Institute of Criminology Report, 1996, page 6
Safety
There has never been a single, controlled scientific study showing drug urinalysis improves workplace safety. Claims that drug testing works are based on dubious anecdotal reports or the mere observation of a declining rate of drug positives in the working population, which has nothing to do with job performance. The few scientific studies that have been conducted have found little difference between the performance of drug-urine-positive workers and others. The largest survey to date, covering 4,396 postal workers nationwide, found no difference in accident records between workers who tested positive on pre-employment drug screens and those who did not. The American Management Association recently surveyed the scientific evidence related to workplace drug testing, and found no significant benefit from the practise.
There is no evidence that cannabis prohibition reduces the risk of accidents. On the contrary, recent studies suggest that marijuana may actually be beneficial in that it substitutes for alcohol and other, more dangerous drugs. Research by Karyn Model found that US states with decriminalisation had lower overall drug abuse rates than others; another study by Frank Chaloupka found decriminalised states have lower accident rates. In Alaska, accident rates held constant or declined following the legalisation of personal use of marijuana.
Crime and Violence
Cannabis use is not a cause of crime, other than use itself has been deemed a crime. Far from making cannabis users violent or inclined to commit crimes, cannabis tends to make its users passive and want to stay at home. The only link between cannabis and criminal activity is the criminal law.
Prohibition puts otherwise law-abiding citizens in contact with the criminal underworld with whom they must interact in order to purchase cannabis.
Prohibition also makes it more likely that a cannabis user may break other laws, because it brings the entire criminal justice system into disrepute, and alienates cannabis users from the rule of law. Once they have broken one law, which is blatantly unjust and unfair, they may become more likely to break other laws. Once cannabis users have a criminal record for cannabis use, the deterrent to not commit other crimes may not be so strong.
The Health Committee's 1998 report Mental Health Effects of Cannabis commented:
"Research, including that conducted by the 1972 Shafer Commission in the United States, has shown that cannabis itself does not induce violent behaviour. Recent studies using experimental controls to exclude pre-existing social factors have confirmed that cannabis does not stimulate violence. Instead cannabis was found to induce a sedative effect during the period of intoxication."
Every major study of cannabis has found no link between cannabis and crime or violent behaviour, including the Jamaican Study of 1970:
"This study indicates that there is little correlation between the use of ganga and crime, except insofar as the possession and cultivation of ganga are technically crimes"
The LaGardia sub-committee of New York 1944 said:
"Marijuana is not the determining factor in the commission of major crime....The publicity concerning the catastrophic effect of marijuana smoking in New York City, is unfounded"
Potency
The claim that there has been a 10-, 20- or 30-fold increase in marijuana potency since the 1970s is often used to discredit previous studies that showed minimal harm caused by the drug and convince users from earlier eras that today's marijuana is much more dangerous. It is a myth based on biased government data. Samples of cannabis from the early '70s came from low-potency Mexican "kilobricks" whose potency had deteriorated to non-psychoactive levels of less than 0.5%. These were then compared to more recent samples of decent-quality cannabis, making it appear that potency had skyrocketed. The US Government's own data show that average marijuana potency increased modestly by a factor of two or so during the seventies, and has been more or less constant ever since.
Mean Percentage THC of Seized Marijuana, USA, 1981-1993
Mississippi Potency Monitoring Project
| 1981 | 2.28 |
| 1982 | 3.05 |
| 1983 | 3.23 |
| 1984 | 2.39 |
| 1985 | 2.82 |
| 1986 | 2.30 |
| 1987 | 2.93 |
| 1988 | 3.29 |
| 1989 | 3.06 |
| 1990 | 3.36 |
| 1991 | 3.36 |
| 1992 | 3.00 |
| 1993 | 3.32 |
The Health Committee's 1998 report Mental Health Effects of Cannabis commented:
"The DPFT, the Police and the Ministry stated that the potency of cannabis had not increased significantly over time... The Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) provided information showing that the THC levels in New Zealand grown cannabis are not high by international standards."
In fact, there is nothing new about high-potency pot. During the sixties, it was available in premium varieties such as buddha sticks, as well as hashish and hash oil, which were just as strong as today's seedless heads, but were ignored in government statistics. While the average potency of domestic pot did increase with the development of sinsemilla in the seventies, the range of potencies available has remained virtually unchanged since the last century, when extremely potent tonics were sold over the counter in pharmacies. In Holland, high-powered hashish and sinsemilla are currently sold in coffee shops with no evident problems.
Contrary to popular myth, greater potency is not necessarily more dangerous, due to the fact that users tend to adjust (or "self-titrate") their dose according to potency. Even if potency had increased slightly since the 1970s, it would not mean that smoking marijuana had become more dangerous. In fact, since the primary health risk of marijuana comes from smoking, and because THC itself is non-toxic, higher potency products are less harmful because they allow people to achieve the desired effect by inhaling less smoke.
The 'Gateway' or 'Stepping Stone' Hypothesis
Cannabis does not cause people to use hard drugs. Cannabis is the most popular illegal drug in New Zealand, so people who have used less popular drugs, such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD, are likely to have also used marijuana, just as they are also likely to have used alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and watched television. Correlation does not imply causation. Most marijuana users never use any other illegal drug. For the vast majority of people, marijuana is a terminus rather than a gateway drug.
The assumption that cannabis consumers run a higher risk of switching to hard drugs, especially heroin, is known as 'the stepping-stone hypothesis'. This idea was first put forward in the forties in the USA and has since greatly influenced public opinion and drug policies. There is no inevitable relationship between the use of marijuana and other drugs. In the Netherlands, for example, although marijuana use among young people rose in the early 1990's, cocaine use decreased. The Dutch policy of allowing marijuana to be purchased openly in government-regulated "coffee shops" was designed specifically to separate young marijuana users from illegal markets where heroin and cocaine are sold.
There is no physically determined tendency towards switching from soft to harder substances. Drug policy, however, appears to play a role. The more users become integrated in a subculture where hard drugs as well as cannabis can also be obtained, the greater the chance that they may switch to hard drugs.
"The use of marijuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction and no effort is made to create a market for these narcotics by stimulating the practice of marijuana smoking"
- The LaGardia sub-committee of New York 1944
"Most marijuana users do not go on to use other drugs."
"Marijuana: Facts for Teens." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, D.C. 1995, p.10.
Recommendation: Separation of the drug markets is essential and therefore should form the basis of the current cannabis policy.
CANNABIS HARM REDUCTION AND EDUCATION PROGRAMMES
Most current school-based drug education programmes are centered on advocating an abstinence approach. These "Just Say No" programmes 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 a raising of awareness of drug issues, and an increased likelihood that adolescents will describe illicit drug use as harmful, but 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.
Evaluations of school-based drug education programmes in New Zealand are almost non-existent, and recent guidelines developed by the Ministry of Education have yet to be adopted by many providers. For some schools, it often seems the outcome they want is that something is taught, rather than the ensuring that programmes actually influence behaviour. For many schools it is easier and tempting to simply rid themselves of the problem by suspend
Unless stated otherwise, copyright © 1998-2005 by NORML New Zealand, working for marijuana law reform Published on: 2003-03-02 (4903 reads) [ Go Back ] |
