New Zealand Should Regulate and Tax Cannabis Commerce
Final Report
The Drug Policy Forum Trust
30 March 1998
PLEASE NOTE: The views expressed in this document are not necessarily those of NORML New Zealand. NORML is hosting a mirror of this report as part of its commitment to promoting discussion about options for cannabis control in New Zealand.
Laws and institutions are constantly tending to gravitate.
Like clocks, they must be occasionally cleansed, wound up, and set to true time.
Henry Ward Beecher, 1859
NZ Drug Policy Forum Trust
Scientists and professionals have been effectively excluded
from the debate on recreational drug policy
both in New Zealand and around the world.1
As a result, drug policies have been based
almost exclusively on emotion, rhetoric, and politics. Indeed, it
is not much of an exaggeration to say that if scientists had been
excluded to a similar extent from the transportation and
communication industries, we would all still be travelling by
horse and buggy and communicating with smoke signals!
The last major source of scientific input into cannabis policy
in New Zealand was the Department of Health's Blake-Palmer
Committee, which recommended in 1971 that cannabis prohibition be
continued only so long as it was clearly working. This
advice has been ignored. Moreover, since the Minister of
Health's Drugs Advisory Committee disbanded several years
ago there has existed no independent source of evidence-based
advice concerning drug policy in New Zealand. It is this gap that
the Drug Policy Forum Trust is designed to fill.
The Forum is an independent group of physicians and
professionals dedicated to ensuring that the drug policy debate
in New Zealand is based on evidence and logic, not emotion. Forum
trustees work in a variety of academic, governmental, and other
"establishment" positions, employing in our (volunteer)
work in drug policy the same principles of evidence and scholarly
analysis used in our "day jobs".
Forum Discussion Paper
In July 1997 the Forum published a discussion paper2 arguing that the present
blanket prohibition on cannabis is untenable and
counterproductive, because it
- Impedes the application of effective public health and
education measures by driving cannabis use underground.
- Creates a large and thriving black market, which preys on
young people.
- Does little to discourage drug use; indeed, the
glamorisation associated with prohibition encourages
early cannabis use by young people.
- Burdens thousands of young New Zealanders each year with
criminal records.
- Creates disrespect for the law and diverts scarce police
resources - about 250,000
police hours and $18 million each year to deal with about
20,000 cannabis offences.
These points are expanded upon in our discussion paper.
The Forum reviewed several potential alternatives to blanket
cannabis prohibition:
- prohibition with an administrative expediency principle,
in which cannabis possession and use remain illegal, but
authorities agree not to enforce the law under defined
circumstances
- prohibition with civil penalties, in which cannabis
possession and use remain illegal, but civil rather than
criminal penalties are applied under defined
circumstances
- partial prohibition, in which adults are permitted to
possess and grow cannabis but for-profit commerce is
banned
- regulation, in which cannabis is managed like alcohol and
tobacco, i.e., subjected to taxation and rules concerning
production, sale, and use
In our discussion paper, the Forum described the pros and cons
of each approach in the New Zealand context. We received several
dozen commentaries concerning this paper, both via the internet
web site hosting the paper and in writing.
In our view, the only substantive criticism of our paper
concerned the relatively short shrift we gave to a medicalisation
option, i.e., in which cannabis would be made available only for
medical purposes either via prescription or over the counter, as
occurs with codeine. We accept this criticism. Cannabis is
clearly an effective medicine for a variety of ailments,
including nausea (especially in the setting of cancer
chemotherapy), anorexia (especially in patients with AIDS),
muscle spasms, glaucoma, and neuropsychiatric conditions.3 Indeed, cannabis could well
become the (cost-effective) drug of choice for some of these
conditions for many patients.
Nevertheless, we continue to believe that the medicalisation
model is not appropriate for New Zealand. A prescription-only
policy would not be welcomed by doctors and probably would do
little to reduce the black market. This latter drawback alone is
fatal to the prescription approach - and to the other non-regulation
models we considered as well. (Clinicians would of course be free to recommend cannabis to
patients as appropriate under the regulation approach we favour.)
A codeine-style over-the counter approach, while potentially able
to substantially reduce the black market, would put pharmacists
in the no-doubt unwanted position of serving as the source of
cannabis supply. Moreover, cannabis is much more similar to
alcohol and tobacco than to codeine with respect to use rates
and, especially, the social context of usage.
Cannabis Policies Are In Transition Around the World
Since publication of our discussion paper last July, further
momentum has built around the world toward reforming cannabis
policies. Just over the past few months, several events of
importance have occurred,
- The Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence released a
report on drug policy in January 1998. As described in a story in
the 3.1.98 Financial Review, entitled "We're losing
drugs war, police admit":
Australia's police chiefs have endorsed a milestone
report which concedes that police are having almost no impact
on the trade in illegal drugs and in many cases are making
the situation worse.
The 160-page report, compiled by the Australian Bureau of
Criminal Intelligence, looks at decriminalisation and more
police tolerance of drug use. It also warns that
"policing cannabis may be pushing cannabis users towards
harder drugs".
The Sydney Morning Herald also ran a story on the
report ("It's softly, softly on cannabis law",16.1.98):
[The ABCI report] said decriminalisation of the personal
use of cannabis and cannabis production "could result in
a big reduction in the resources committed to controlling the
drug", noting that unlike other illicit drugs there was
little crime associated with cannabis use.
It rejected the view that cannabis was a
"gateway" drug which would lead to the use of
harder drugs, suggesting that a less stringent approach to
cannabis could discourage users from progressing to harder
drugs. It suggested the link between cannabis and harder
drugs was due to the increased likelihood of cannabis users
being exposed to the availability of harder drugs either
through other users or dealers.
"If this is correct, then preventing this exposure
may reduce the number of cannabis users that progress to the
more harmful drugs," the report said.
- In the United Kingdom, the House of Lords last month
decided to study cannabis policy, as described in the Guardian
("Lords defy Straw over cannabis", 11.2.98)
The House of Lords is to launch an inquiry into the case
for decriminalising cannabis, reigniting debate on the issue
in the face of pledges by the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, to
retain the ban. . .
Peers will take evidence from March until July and publish
a report on their findings in October. Lord Perry of Walton,
chairman of the sub-committee holding the inquiry, last night
said he and fellow members had an open mind on the issue. The
committee would call for factual scientific evidence and
reject 'sociological prejudice'. . . .
Peers were influenced by a combination of increasing
public debate on the matter and by the findings of a report
by the British Medical Association which last autumn
recommended the legalisation of cannabis-based drugs for
medicinal use.
A separate inquiry into cannabis policy is currently being
conducted in the UK by the respected Police Foundation under the
auspices of Prince Charles, president of the foundation. Both
studies are widely expected to arrive at conclusions aligned with
those reached by dozens of similar commissions and studies but
ignored by lawmakers, i.e., that strict cannabis prohibition
policies are misguided and unworkable.
Police attitudes in the UK have also been evolving on the
subject, as described by the Independent on Sunday (25.1.98):
Even the police have their realists. The nature of their
work means they are not the most radical of people, so we
should take note when senior officers such as Commander John
Grieve of Scotland Yard say that they recognise that the
anti-drug laws are not working, and call for change. There
are probably many who agree with him, but public debate among
officers has been discouraged.
So PC George Evans, who is serving with Greater Manchester
Police, was probably speaking for many others when he wrote
in Police Review, "We fail to understand that drug use
has been part of human culture for centuries. Relaxing of the
laws on drugs would result in large financial savings which
could be used for education and treatment.
"Criminals would be hit as selling illicit drugs
would become unprofitable. Instead we continue down the same
well-trodden path which we know does not work. We continue to
delude ourselves that this is the right thing to do. The
truth is that we are frightened and lack the political
will."
- In a story entitled "All over Europe, cannabis is now
on the agenda" (23.11. 97), the Independent on Sunday reported
that
To the surprise of campaigners, the European all-party
Civil Liberties Committee has just voted in favour of
decriminalising cannabis. . . . Ms d'Ancona, a former health
minister, said: "The consumption of cannabis must be
officially decriminalised so as to take account of the
situation in most member states." She recommends that
ministers should authorise member states or regions to
develop a system where the sale of cannabis to adults may be
regulated.
- Finally, in a series of articles published last month
(21.2.98), the New Scientist described how the World
Health Organization suppressed an analysis by international
experts showing that cannabis was less harmful to health than
alcohol or tobacco:
The analysis concludes not only that the amount of dope
smoked worldwide does less harm to public health than drink
and cigarettes, but that the same is likely to hold true even
if people consumed dope on the same scale as these legal
substances. (p.4)
In response, WHO released a press statement asserting that it
had deleted the report for scientific reasons, but a subsequent
piece by one of the report's authors, Robin Room, Chief
Scientist at the Addiction Research Foundation division of the
Addiction and Mental Health Services Corporation of Toronto,
confirmed that cannabis scored no worse or better than alcohol
and tobacco on ten major aspects of health.4
In the same series, the New Scientist evaluated the
results of Dutch cannabis policy, under which adults have been
able to purchase cannabis openly since 1976:
The percentage who regularly use either cannabis or hard
drugs is lower in the Netherlands than in many European
countries, including Britain. . . . The Netherlands has fewer
addicts per capita than Italy, Spain, Switzerland, France or
Britain, and far fewer than the U.S. . . .Cannabis addiction
and other problems are uncommon. . . .If there are serious
problems caused by legalising marijuana, then twenty-plus
years of the Dutch experiment has not revealed what they are.
(pp.30-31)
Although the Dutch policy is technically one of prohibition
with an administrative expediency principle, it is similar in
practice to the regulatory approach envisioned here, especially
with regard to reducing the black market and providing an
effectively legal outlet for responsible adult use. We believe
the lessons derived from the lengthy Dutch "experiment"
can reasonably be considered relevant to a full regulation model.
These events, combined with further international moves to
modernise cannabis policy, as described in our discussion paper,
should encourage the New Zealand public and its politicians to
accept that the time is right to revise our cannabis laws.
Considering the Options
In deliberating over the best system of cannabis control for
New Zealand, we considered the objectives of a sound cannabis
policy to be:
- Protection of public health.
- Minimisation of cannabis abuse, i.e. use of cannabis in
such a way as to interfere with personal development or
achievement (particularly among children), or to encroach
upon the rights of others.
- Elimination of the illicit market in cannabis, with its
attendant harms.
- Provision for effective cannabis education and treatment
programmes.
A corollary to curbing abuse is to allow the responsible
use of cannabis by adults, to the extent that such use does not
infringe on the rights of others. This privilege is essential to
any workable cannabis policy, and unless it is established none
of the policy goals can be achieved. At the same time,
individuals must bear full and ultimate responsibility for the
consequences of their own actions.
In view of the above considerations, and in light of the
submissions we received and the scientific literature we have
reviewed (some of which is cited in the footnote next page), the
Drug Policy Forum Trust has come to the conclusion that:
Whereas:
- The use of cannabis by adults has become thoroughly
ingrained in New Zealand culture, with approximately half of all
people aged 15-50 having tried it. A similar proportion of young
adults currently use cannabis at least intermittently. This rate
and the attending social circumstances of use are similar to
alcohol and tobacco.
- Nothing short of scorched-earth defoliation will ever rid
New Zealand of cannabis. (Even then, indoor hydroponic growing
would expand dramatically.)
- The adverse health effects of cannabis are no worse than
those associated with alcohol and tobacco (indeed they are less
severe).
- Criminal sanctions are ineffective in reducing harmful drug
use, and may even promote such use, whereas experience with
tobacco use and drink-driving rates show that social sanctions
can be effective.
- Policies other than regulation are likely to result in
perpetuation of a thriving cannabis black market, with its
attendant harms. This includes prohibition with an
administrative expediency principle, prohibition with
civil penalties, and partial prohibition, all of which
would leave the black market more or less intact.
- Detailed plans and sophisticated analyses, including draft
legislation, are available to serve as starting points for
developing a cannabis regulation policy in New Zealand.5
- Extrapolation from these analyses suggest that cannabis
taxation could provide revenue in the range of $50 million per
year in New Zealand. A portion of this money could be set aside
to fund effective education, treatment and evaluation programmes.
In addition there would be savings associated with re-direction
of police priorities.
We Therefore Conclude That:
- New Zealand must learn to live with cannabis. Like it or
not, cannabis has clearly become part of our culture. Its
responsible use by adults should therefore be normalised.
- In terms of use rates and social circumstances of use,
tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis form a natural triad of frequently
used social drugs. No other drug comes close to being included in
this small group of substances. As such it makes sense to
coordinate the regulation and control of these three agents.
Details of regulation would vary from substance to substance, but
the overarching analytic and empirical framework within which
these regulations would be developed is common to the three
substances, including a focus on harm minimisation and
evidence-based policies.
- Toward this end, a Tobacco, Alcohol, and Cannabis Authority
(TACA) should be created and charged with responsibility for
developing and enforcing regulations concerning the production,
distribution, sale, and use of these three substances. Members of
the Authority might be appointed by the Ministry of Justice in
consultation with the Ministry of Health, and would include
several full-time staff. TACA responsibilities would include
those presently carried out by the Liquor Licensing Authority.
Specifically, TACA would have regulatory jurisdiction over:
- licenses for production, possibly including limits on
hectares under cultivation
- packaging and distribution, including labeling
requirements
- quality control and potency determination
- age restrictions and limits on points of sale, places of
use, and advertising
- taxation rates
- In addition, an Advisory Committee should be constituted to
advise the Authority on the above issues. This Advisory Committee
would be analogous to other quangos, such as the Liquor Review
Advisory Committee, Toxic Substances Board, and Medicines
Assessment Advisory Committee. The TACA Advisory Committee would
consist of experts and other non-governmental employees, and
would promulgate its advice in a public manner. TACA would be
free to accept or reject this advice. The Advisory Committee
would also maintain an overview of the adequacy of funding for
drug education and treatment programmes, and for the evaluation
of policy initiatives.
- The legislation under which TACA is created would provide
legal penalties for specified forms of misbehaviour caused by the
deliberate taking of a drug. The forms of misbehaviour would be
comparable to those currently deemed criminal if caused by
alcohol, including driving while impaired.
- Stringent penalties be applied for importing, producing or
selling (for profit) alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis outside the
regulatory framework, especially with respect to sale to minors.
For consistency, home production for adult personal use and
limited non-profit distribution would be permitted for all three
substances.
- Until such a regulatory framework is in place, police
should place low priority on enforcement of cannabis laws. In
particular, young people should not be burdened with criminal
records for using or possessing cannabis.
Route to Regulation
Single Convention Treaty
As described in our discussion paper, adopting a
regulatory/taxation approach to cannabis control will require
that New Zealand take action with respect to the Single
Convention Treaty of 1961, which forbids signatory nations from
developing the sort of regulatory model for cannabis envisioned
in this report.
Probably the most straightforward approach to dealing with
this issue is to incorporate in the new legislation a clause
which simultaneously "denounces" the SCT, as permitted
under Article 46, while re-ratifying it with reservations
concerning cannabis in accordance with Article 49. Two principal
bases for this action could be articulated: (1) that New Zealand
has determined that harm from cannabis use can best be managed
using a regulation model and (2) by invoking the doctrine of
"changed circumstances" put forth in the Vienna
Convention of the Law of Treaties (Article 62). Much has changed
with respect to our knowledge about cannabis -
and, especially, the effects of cannabis prohibition - since the
SCT was promulgated in 1961.
Naturally this issue will need to be studied by relevant
government departments.
Resisting U.S. Interference
A related hurdle to reforming New Zealand's cannabis
policies will come in the form of resistance from the United
States. As described in the Sydney Morning Herald in an
article, entitled "The real drug war: Why the US won't let
Australia reform its drug laws" (19.7.97), President Clinton
has appointed a special drug enforcement official, Bob Gelbard,
whose chief responsibility is to keep other countries in line
with U.S. drug policies. The Herald described a 1996
meeting between Mr Gelbard and Professor David Pennington, who
was then investigating drug law reform for Victoria's Premier,
Jeff Kennett. Pennington described Gelbard's message in
support of continued cannabis prohibition as
"heavy-handed" and "scathing".
The Herald continues:
Gelbard's meeting with Pennington - revealed here for the
first time - is a reminder that this country is not free to
take radical action to solve its drug problems. Australians
talk most of the time as though this country - indeed, the
individual States - can decide the fate of their own
narcotics laws. This is a delusion.
As a good citizen of the world and a loyal supporter of
the United States, we have signed international treaties
which pledge Australia to stick to the prohibition strategy
that has brought us to the position in which we now find
ourselves, a sad situation nearly all local authorities -
including Pennington - acknowledge must be changed.
But Australia cannot now make any radical break with the
past or with our allies. The treaties are the work of the
United Nations - and before that, the League of Nations - but
the passion and policing are mainly American. Wherever a
nation seems about to break ranks, the US will be there,
cajoling or threatening. As a result, the UN and US between
them have achieved a remarkable international consensus, the
more astonishing for surviving the almost universal verdict
that the strategy of drug prohibition has failed. . . .
Others have drawn the conclusion - and it's virtually a
consensus now - that absolute prohibition of drugs and
alcohol cannot work. But this worldly realism is emphatically
rejected by the US and the UN, which have, between them,
persuaded the world that with greater dedication, tougher
measures and more treaties, success is still possible. So
they have held the line for nearly 90 years in what must be
seen as an absolutely successful diplomatic effort.
New Zealand politicians have in the past successfully resisted
pressure applied by the United States, for example on the nuclear
issue. Whether present-day politicians can withstand such
pressure on the issue of autonomy in cannabis control policy
remains to be seen, but by anticipating and preparing for Mr
Gelbard's visit the chances are good that we will be
'permitted' to opt out of U.S.-inspired cannabis
policies.
In arguing our case, New Zealand can point to several factors
that put us in a special position to successfully implement
cannabis regulation: New Zealand has (1) a relatively small
population, (2) no contiguous borders (e.g., low potential for
smuggling or problematic drug tourism); (3) climate and soil
conditions conducive to cannabis growing in most areas of the
country, (4) a history of social innovation, and (5) a low rate
of use of heroin and cocaine relative to other OECD countries.
Indeed, some observers attribute this low rate of hard drug use
to the ready availability of cannabis, which reduces the
incentive to use other drugs (i.e., cannabis is much preferred by
most people).
Role of the Media
The importance of the media in pursuing cannabis law reform
can hardly be overstated. A "democratic system failure"
has occurred in that scientists and scientific evidence have been
excluded from an important arena of public policy, with resulting
harm to society and, especially, young people. It is with respect
to just such failures of democracy that the Fourth Estate has its
most important role, i.e., in relentlessly exposing such failures
to the public. In this regard, the Ottawa Citizen and the
UK's Independent on Sunday both launched campaigns
last year for cannabis law reform.
In New Zealand, it is vital that the media be informed of the
facts concerning cannabis and cannabis policies, and that they
question assertions made by proponents of the status quo. For
example, we anticipate that release of this report will provoke
claims that cannabis law reform would (1) harm children, (2) lead
to greater drug-related problems, and (3) send the wrong message.
Such claims - all of which are false - are often supported by personal
anecdotes, but seldom or never by reference to major scientific
studies on the subject. This fact must be exposed by the media to
a greater extent than has occurred to date.
Fortunately, the New Zealand media appear to be awakening to
the situation. The most far-sighted perspective on the subject
has come from The Dominion (Wellington), in its editorial
"A deep breath on cannabis" (11.4.97), which stated
flatly: "A new approach is needed, because the law in place
now is not working".
Similarly, The Press (Christchurch) criticised the
government's avoidance policy on the subject: "However
low a priority the coalition publicly gives the debate, it will
not go away. The Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, says
cannabis legislation is not a critical issue. It should be."
(14.4.97)
With such support from an informed press, the regulation of
cannabis is a feasible goal.
Near-term Opportunities for Action
Two opportunities for advancing toward the goal of cannabis
regulation are on the near horizon. First, the government plans
to consider the recommendations of the Liquor Review Advisory
Committee, which called for further liberalisation of New
Zealand's alcohol laws (e.g., permitting sales on Sunday and
lowering the legal age to 18). As described in our discussion
paper (Appendix C), the arguments advanced in support of these
changes are essentially identical to those advanced in support of
cannabis law reform. Accordingly, the government should consider
addressing both issues at once.
The second opportunity for action will occur 8-10 June 1998
when the United Nations General Assembly meets in special session
in New York to address international drug policy. As stated by
Pino Arlacchi, Executive Director of the Office for Drug Control
and Crime Prevention, the intended purpose of this session is to
"start the real war against drugs and convince nations and
people that there could be a drug free world". Mr Arlacchi
is referring here of course to cannabis and other illegal drugs,
not socially sanctioned ones. But as it is obvious that visions
of a drug free world are simply unrealistic, and as such cannot
serve as the basis for sound drug policy.
Although the U.N. appears to envision the purpose of this
special session as simply to agree how best to pull tighter the
international noose of prohibition (around our own necks), we
urge the New Zealand delegation to this session to insist that
alternative policies be explored, especially the sort of cannabis
regulation and taxation policy recommended by the Forum.
By exercising bold and decisive leadership, New Zealand can
help lead the world out of the present horse-and-buggy era of
cannabis policy.
Summary of Recommendations
The Drug Policy Forum Trust recommends that New Zealand
politicians grasp the nettle and take control of cannabis
commerce. Abdicating such control to the black market only
magnifies the harmful health effects of cannabis. Accordingly, we
recommend that:
1. New Zealand politicians and public should accept that
cannabis has become part of our culture. Whatever harms are
associated with cannabis are magnified by driving its use
underground.
2. A Tobacco, Alcohol, and Cannabis Authority (TACA) should be
created and charged with responsibility for developing and
enforcing regulations concerning the production, distribution,
sale, and use of these three substances.
3. An Advisory Committee should be constituted to advise the
Authority, consisting of experts and other non-governmental
employees.
4. The legislation under which TACA is created should provide
legal penalties for specified forms of misbehaviour caused by the
deliberate taking of a drug.
5. Stringent penalties should be applied for importing,
producing or selling (for profit) alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis
outside the regulatory framework.
6. Until such a regulatory framework is in place, police
should place low priority on enforcement of cannabis laws. In
particular, young people should not be burdened with criminal
records for using or possessing cannabis.
Appendix: Questions and Answers
Q: Won't putting big companies in control of cannabis
commerce cause more problems?
A: First, it is by no means certain that large companies, like
Rothmans or Brierleys, would come to control the market as they
do now for tobacco or alcohol. Considerable opportunity for
entrepreneurism would exist if barriers to legitimate commerce in
cannabis were reduced. Indeed, small companies might well emerge
as the dominant influence. Alternatively, a government monopoly
on cannabis sales could be established, analogous to the
alcohol-distribution system in Sweden and several American
states.
Second, although New Zealand has done a relatively poor job in
controlling its "legal drug barons" -
in large part due to their political and financial influence -
effective enforcement of appropriate
control measures over advertising, event sponsorship, and related
activities might be facilitated through a strong TACA. Past
weaknesses in controlling alcohol and tobacco companies should
not be considered a reason to eschew a regulatory approach. This
weakness is not inevitable.
Third, and perhaps most important, regulation is an essential
step toward true control over an industry's behaviour. The
tobacco settlement currently under negotiation in the United
States is a good example, in which tobacco companies are offering
to pay $368 billion (USD) for settlement of all claims against
them, and to sharply restrict advertising. Many observers believe
the alcohol industry is next in line for such treatment. Clearly
such sanctions and controls cannot be imposed on an illegal
market.
Q: Should people with cannabis convictions be barred from
obtaining cultivation licenses under the regulated system?
A: This is something TACA would need to decide. Practically
speaking, barring people from growing cannabis on the basis of
past cannabis crimes would be unlikely to do much good, as a
"friend" could always be nominated to apply for the
license. Moreover, TACA might wish to take advantage of the
"facts on the ground" in terms of the individuals and
areas that have demonstrated the ability to grow high-quality
cannabis year after year. This consideration is particularly
relevant in the setting of rural communities in the North and
East, whose livelihood and economic well-being is often largely
dependent on cannabis commerce.
Q: If the cannabis black market were eliminated,
wouldn't gangs start selling heroin and cocaine instead? Or
turn to burglary, etc.?
A: Gangs might try (as they do now) to sell hard drugs, but
there isn't much of a market for them in New Zealand -
nor would gangs likely succeed in
creating such a market. The cannabis experience is nothing like
that associated with heroin and cocaine, and very few people
would be interesting in using these latter drugs if cannabis were
readily available. As far as gangs turning to burglary, etc. most
people - including gang members - see a distinct difference between selling
a widely available substance to willing consumers, on the one
hand, and breaking into houses, on the other. In any case, it is
obviously fallacious to argue that we must keep cannabis illegal
in order to prevent gangs from turning to worse forms of crime.
Evidence from the Netherlands does not support the concern
that making cannabis more freely available to adults might
increase hard drug use amongst young people. The following table
shows government figures for heroin addicts beginning five years
after the (effective) regulation of cannabis:6
| Year |
Average Age
(years) |
Percentage
under age 22 |
| 1981 |
26.8 |
14.4 |
| 1982 |
27.3 |
9.9 |
| 1983 |
27.8 |
9.4 |
| 1984 |
28.2 |
7.3 |
| 1985 |
28.9 |
6.2 |
| 1986 |
29.6 |
5.1 |
| 1987 |
30.1 |
4.8 |
| 1988 |
30.8 |
3.4 |
| 1989 |
31.6 |
4.8 |
| 1990 |
32.3 |
2.5 |
| 1991 |
33.1 |
2.3 |
| 1992 |
33.6 |
2.9 |
| 1993 |
34.4 |
2.6 |
| 1994 |
35.2 |
2.2 |
| 1995 |
36.2 |
1.6 |
| 1996 |
37.0 |
1.2 |
These figures show quite clearly that availability of cannabis
has coincided with a reduction of young people becoming addicted
to opiates.
Q: What age limits should be imposed on cannabis
purchase/use? And what about points of sale?
A: Again, these are issues for TACA to decide. In all
likelihood the minimum age for cannabis purchase/use would
coincide with that for alcohol. This might be reduced to 18 in
the current legislative session if the recommendations of the
Liquor Review Advisory Commission are acted upon. Regarding
points of sale, liquor stores or adults-only cafes are two
possibilities. Pubs would likely not be designated points of sale
in order to minimise the concomitant use of cannabis and alcohol.
Q: We already have enough trouble with alcohol and tobacco;
why add a third drug?
A: Cannabis is already with us. Indeed it is everywhere, and
has been for decades. This is one of the major signs that our
current approach isn't working. The question at issue is
whether the public's demand for cannabis will be satisfied
through a legal or an illegal market. Legislation cannot repeal
the law of supply and demand. Moreover, according to evidence
reviewed in our discussion paper (Appendix A), liberalising
cannabis availability to adults would not substantially increase
the use of cannabis. Rather, the pattern of distribution
and sale would change under regulation. By taxing cannabis, New
Zealand will be able to capture much of the financial windfall
currently going to the underground (criminal) economy, directing
a substantial portion of this into effective drug education and
treatment programmes.
Q: Wouldn't a move toward cannabis regulation send the
wrong message to young people?
A: First, laws and regulations are not designed to "send
messages". This is the role of parents/family/iwi, churches,
schools, and other social institutions. Second, we must recognise
that at present young people are receiving very mixed messages
with respect to social policies surrounding recreational drugs.
Young people easily see through the hypocrisy and dishonesty of
an approach that encourages the use of the most harmful drugs
(alcohol and tobacco) while dealing harshly with those who prefer
cannabis. Third, regulation does not imply endorsement; rather,
society has an obligation to regulate and control widely used
substances with significant potential for harmful use. Abdicating
this responsibility to the black market itself sends the wrong
message: that New Zealand society cannot cope with this
ubiquitous weed in a manner consistent with sound scientific
evidence and reasoned analysis. This message should be rejected.
References
1. Hadorn
D. Science and drug policy (commentary) Int J Drug Policy 1997;8:67-69.
2.
Available at http://www.nzdf.org.nz or for
$10 from DPFT, PO Box 12199, Wellington
3.
See the summary of a recent conference sponsored by the U.S
National Institutes of Health, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/MJConf/MJTitlePage.html
4.
Room R. On contrasting marijuana with tobacco and alcohol. Globe
and Mail (Canada);5.3.98. The ten aspects of health were
traffic and other accidents, violence and suicide, overdose
death, liver cirrhosis, heart disease, cancer, mental illness,
addiction, lasting effects on fetus.
5.
For example, [U.S.] National Task Force on Cannabis Regulation, The
Regulation and Taxation of Cannabis Commerce, Amherst MA,
1982.; Caputo MR, Ostrum BJ. "Potential tax revenue from a
regulated marijuana market: A meaningful revenue source". Am
J Economics and Sociology 1994; 53: 475-490; Levine HG,
Reinarman C. "From Prohibition to Regulation: Lessons from
Alcohol Policy for Drug Policy", in Bayer R, Oppenheimer GM,
eds, Confronting Drug Policy. New York: Cambridge U Press,
1993; Evans RM, "The Many Forms of Legalization: Beyond
'Whether' to 'How' ", in Trebach AS,
Zeese KB, eds. The Great Issues in Drug Policy. Washington
DC: Drug Policy Foundation, 1990; Garber AS. Potential tax
revenues from a regulatory marketing scheme for marijuana. J
Psychedelic Drugs 1978; 10: 217.
6. From
'Gemeentelijke Geneeskundige en Gezondheidsdienst
Amsterdam', 1997.
Source: NZDF http://nzdf.org.nz
Unless stated otherwise, copyright © 1998-2005 by NORML New Zealand: working for marijuana law reform Published on: 2003-03-09 (5933 reads) [ Go Back ] |
