Prohibition maximises harmWhy cannabis prohibition is the worst possible policy
This is an excerpt from the NORML Submission to the Health Select Committee Inquiry, 2001.
Prohibition is a complete failure, resulting in increased use and uncontrolled supply. Despite over half a century of trying this punitive approach, we have seen huge increases in cannabis use as supply is controlled by gangsters and demand is fuelled by the outlaw status. Very few New Zealanders had even heard about cannabis when it was first prohibited in 1927. Today, over half of all people aged 15-45 will admit to having tried it, and the perceived availability of cannabis is increasing, while the average street price is dropping.
Prohibition creates little or no positive public health influence on cannabis use or harms, while it does exacerbate harms to cannabis users and their communities, including increased corruption, crime, disease and death, and ensures cannabis use rates are maximised.
American President Jimmy Carter said more than twenty years ago that "penalties against the use of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of a drug itself; and where they are they should be changed." It is clear that the penalties against the use of cannabis are far more damaging to individuals than the use of the drug itself:
Cannabis prohibition arbitrarily criminalises thousands of New Zealanders every year
Cannabis prohibition is a racist law that is particularly hard on Maori
Cannabis prohibition an expensive policy for very little return
Cannabis prohibition makes cannabis use more harmful
Cannabis prohibition encourages young people to begin using cannabis
Cannabis prohibition impedes effective drug education and harm reduction efforts
Cannabis prohibition impedes effective treatment services
'Zero tolerance' approaches harm adolescents caught experimenting with cannabis more than the cannabis use itself
Cannabis prohibition endangers communities
Cannabis prohibition is an abdication of control
Prohibition Fuels The Growth Of Organised Crime
Cannabis prohibition encourages corruption among law enforcement personnel
Cannabis prohibition creates a mixed market for drugs and encourages the use of hard drugs
Cannabis prohibition contravenes basic Human Rights
Cannabis prohibition contravenes the principles of natural justice
Cannabis prohibition has ruined the careers of many suspected cannabis users
Cannabis prohibition has seen family land stolen by the Crown
Prohibition alienates cannabis users from the rule of law, and erodes respect for the entire criminal justice system
Cannabis prohibition sends the wrong message
Cannabis prohibition breaks both market forces and human nature
Cannabis prohibition must be rejected
Prohibition Criminalises Thousands Of New Zealanders Every Year
Thousands of New Zealanders are criminalised every year, for choosing to consume a relatively harmless substance. Many of today's politicians have also admitted to using cannabis yet they remain unpunished.
It is often claimed that most cannabis smokers go unpunished and sentences are not harsh. New Zealand actually has dubious honour of the highest marijuana arrest rate in the world, and we have the second highest rate of imprisonment in the Western world after the United States. We are criminalising far too many of our young people.
Expenditure on arrests marijuana smokers doubled between 1991 and 1995. In 1999, more than 12,000 people were arrested for marijuana offences and over 6000 were given criminal convictions. Since the Misuse of Drugs Act took effect in 1977, there have been 212596 convictions for cannabis offences, affecting over 133000 people.
Almost ninety percent of cannabis arrests are for marijuana possession or use. The vast majority of arrested cannabis users are young, male and/or Maori. Hundreds of people are now in prison for marijuana offences. An even greater number are punished with periodic detention, fines, and other punitive sanctions including having their property seized, and their employment terminated.
Despite these civil and criminal sanctions, marijuana continues to be readily available and widely used. Marijuana use increased by over twenty percent in the 90's alone, a period of increased arrests and tougher drug laws.
The enforcement of cannabis prohibition among New Zealand's half a million cannabis smokers is relatively arbitrary, in that each smoker has about a 1% chance of being apprehended in any given year. However, most arrests tend to occur within certain subgroups - namely, young males and Maori. Young males and Maori fit the cannabis smoker stereotype, and so they come to the attention of the police more. The businessman having a joint at lunchtime is rarely looked at, let alone arrested.
Police have recently been in the habit of raiding tinnie shops and then operating them themselves in an effort to arrest more cannabis users. A tinnie shop in Kingsland Auckland was thus raided and operated by the police last year, and in the space of about 3 hours they arrested over forty young people and charged them with "attempting to procure cannabis". Some of these teenagers were arrested sitting in their cars doing nothing. Many complained to NORML seeking help. None to our knowledge stopped using cannabis as a result, but all developed a hatred of the police. The police's misguided efforts are creating harm among young cannabis users, who can purchase cannabis whenever they choose.
The high costs of cannabis prohibition are often justified on the basis that punitive sanctions force cannabis users to undergo treatment. Indeed, this argument was advanced by the NZ Police in their submission to the petition calling for cannabis decriminalisation (1996/686) submitted to the Health Committee in 1998. However this argument is flawed for several reasons.
Firstly, most cannabis users do not require treatment. According to the University of Auckland's Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit recently published Te Ao Taru Kino - a survey of drug use among Maori: "Of note was the proportion of marijuana users who reported not experiencing any problems associated with marijuana use: 69%. When people who used marijuana were asked whether they needed help to reduce their level of marijuana use, the majority (82%) stated that they didn't need any help at all."
Secondly, this argument assumes that threatening cannabis users with punitive sanctions is the best way to get them into treatment programmes.
Thirdly, this argument assumes that police are the health professionals most able to make decisions about the treatment options for someone suffering a health problem. There is no evidence to suggest that police seek out only those cannabis users who require some form of treatment and then systematically drop the charges in return for a completed stay at a rehabilitation clinic. In fact, the available evidence would suggest that the reverse is the case; that the police randomly arrest any cannabis users they stumble across, and do very little in the interests of that person's welfare. The enforcement of the criminal law is intended to punish, not to help.
"We're making our children criminals because they prefer a safer euphoriant substance to that chosen by middle-aged men. People with criminal records find it much more difficult to get jobs, and unemployment is closely linked to ill health and early death. Why should we impair people's ability to have a decent income and decent health?"
- Dr George Venters, chairman of the BMA's Scottish public health committee.
"I got tired of seeing otherwise innocent young kids from all walks of life getting criminal records for, in effect, doing nothing more than millions of other people in society were doing with alcohol"
- Detective Chief Inspector Ron Clarke, former member of Greater Manchester Police Drugs Squad.
Recommendations:
The use, possession, personal cultivation and licensed supply of cannabis no longer be a criminal offence.
Punitive sanctions should not be used as an inducement to seek treatment for cannabis use.
Prohibition Is A Racist Law That Is Particularly Hard On Maori
Maori make up a disproportionate number of cannabis-related arrests and convictions, and they are more likely to be imprisoned for cannabis offences than non-Maori.
Maori make up over 40% of cannabis arrests and convictions, despite being only about 14% of the New Zealand population and having only a slightly higher rate of cannabis use than non-Maori.
According to the University of Auckland's Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit recently published "Te Ao Taru Kino - a survey of drug use among Maori", 60% of Maori have tried cannabis at least once (compared to 52% of the whole national survey) and 18% describe themselves as current users (compared to 16% of the national survey).
The high rate of imprisoning Maori men is having a devastating effect on Maori communities and whanau. Maori also make up a disproportionate number of cannabis-related expulsions and suspensions from schools - far in excess of their cannabis use rate.
Cannabis is often blamed for causing many of the social ills afflicting Maori. Cannabis use is a symptom, not a cause, of social dislocation, poverty and unemployment. Furthermore, the problems caused by cannabis prohibition are often blamed on cannabis use itself.
NORML recognises that some rural communities and many Maori have become dependent on cannabis incomes. We do not believe this is enough justification for all the social ills created by cannabis prohibition, but we do recommend a model of cannabis law reform that takes account of this unforeseen economic benefit of the current policy. Regulating the cannabis industry along the lines of the Dutch approach would allow those who currently derive their income from illicit cannabis crops to apply for a licence and continue to do so, with the provision that they pay tax like everyone else, they follow the rules set down for the cannabis industry, and they not engage in violent or threatening actions. Reforming New Zealand's cannabis laws would also allow Iwi to utilise Maori land to grow hemp, a valuable commodity that will thrive on marginal lands and requires a relatively high labour input.
Recommendation:
Cannabis prohibition be replaced with a regulatory model that allows for the licensed cultivation of cannabis, that encourages the cultivation of hemp in rural areas instead of illicit cannabis crops, and is within a holistic framework recognising the high rate of Maori cannabis use and involvement within the cannabis industry as a symptom of poverty, unemployment and social dislocation.
Prohibition A Very Expensive Policy For Very Little Return
Prohibition is very expensive to enforce compared to current policies for other goods, for legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, and compared to alternative policy options. While getting a consistent figure has so far proven elusive, the police variously admit to spending at least $20-odd million per year enforcing cannabis prohibition. The police estimate they spend around 300,000 hours per year enforcing the current law, which amounts to about 150 full-time officers. These officers are arresting mostly cannabis users and small-scale dealers at the expense of catching serious criminals and solving crimes that have a victim.
These police costs do not include the Aerial Recovery Programme, undercover operations, funding for the Army and for ESR, prohibition related violence and murders, and the decreased effectiveness of the police as a whole as a result of alienating significant sectors of the community. An additional $10-$15 million is spent by the Ministry of Justice and Department for Courts in sentencing those caught. Corrections costs are additional to this. This significant monetary outlay comes without any evidence that prohibition actually works. No other policy area would be so blindly pursued without at least an evaluation of whether it is achieving its goals and whether the taxpayer is getting value for their money.
According to the University of Auckland's Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit recently published Te Ao Taru Kino - a survey of drug use among Maori, of the 40% who had never used marijuana, 47% said they just don't like it, 27% gave health reasons for abstaining, the risk of being caught put off 11%, and 10% said it was not in their social scene. In effect, cannabis prohibition works for 11% of the 40% who say no - a total 4.4%. Among Maori who said they had stopped using marijuana or reduced their consumption, 10% said they didn't like it, 10% gave health reasons, 9% cited family responsibilities and children, and 8% said it was too expensive. Only 2% said it was fear of law or police that caused the reduction in their cannabis use.
The current policy places by far the most emphasis on law enforcement and apprehending cannabis "offenders". Scarce funds are directed at law enforcement rather than education and treatment, even though drug education has been shown to be seven times more cost effective than law enforcement at reducing demand for drugs (Rand Corporation, Interpol). Only $2.1 million is spent on school-based drug education, and no money at all is spent on community or peer group education. Treatment services are underfunded by at least $29.4 million (Ministry of Health, 1999) - about the same amount that police spend arresting cannabis users.
Recommendation:
Funds currently allocated to apprehending cannabis users should instead be directed towards fully funding cannabis prevention, treatment and harm reduction programmes.
Prohibition Makes Cannabis Use More Harmful
Prohibition encourages the use of adulterants, contaminants, impurities and inconsistent drug type or dose (resulting from unregulated production) causing health damage among users. Cannabis purchased through criminal markets is not subject to the same quality control standards as are legal consumer goods. Illicit cannabis is sometimes adulterated with much more damaging substances; contaminated with pesticides, herbicides, or fertilisers; and/or infected with moulds, fungi, or bacteria.
While some dealers have been known to lace cannabis with fly spray to give it that extra hit, the policy are now spraying cannabis with a toxic herbicide based on carcinogenic glyphosate despite knowing this poisoned cannabis is still finding its way to the market. NORML has received numerous reports since this spraying program began of mostly young and inexperienced smokers consuming tainted cannabis and coughing up blood and suffering from intense pain and nausea, and some requiring hospital treatment. We doubt this Inquiry will hear from these people, as for them to come forward would be to risk arrest. We have informed both the Minister of Police and Detective Harry Quinn of the National Drug Intelligence Bureau of our concerns but have yet to see any action taken. Detective Quinn has informed NORML that the police's own "scientific evidence" was that ingesting "even large amounts of sprayed cannabis would not be harmful." If this it true, we must question how the police can also claim that cannabis is inherently harmful to health, if their sprayed cannabis is not harmful?
Furthermore, prohibition forces users to pay exorbitant black market prices for cannabis rather than the true market cost, which in many cases has lead to increased malnutrition and other health deficits related to poverty. Sentences for any form of cultivation handed out by the Courts tend to involve prison terms, which makes many parents reluctant to grow their own cannabis. Their only alternative is to purchase their herb at hugely inflated prices within their limited incomes.
Blindly pursuing the current policy has recently led to a ban being implemented on the importation and supply of cannabis paraphernalia. This ban was then justified on harm reduction grounds using the flimsiest of evidence that selectively drew from contradicting studies and ignored the weight of scientific evidence that shows cannabis waterpipes are harm reduction devices. Far from intending to protect cannabis users from harm, the ban was actually about "sending a message about the appropriateness and safety of cannabis use" (press releases by former the Minister of Health and Ministry of Health). The real message this ban sent was that the Government is more interested in pandering to the hysterical demands of prohibitionists than in protecting the health of cannabis smokers. Because many of the same devices have continued to be sold under other guises, this 'ban' sends the message that the prohibition can be easily subverted.
Recommendations:
The sale of cannabis be regulated and subject to health regulations and packaging requirements similar to food products.
The police be directed to stop spraying cannabis crops with herbicide.
The Misuse of Drugs (Prohibition of Cannabis Utensils) Notice 1999 be repealed.
Prohibition Encourages Young People To Begin Using Cannabis
Prohibition encourages young people to begin smoking cannabis by creating a daring and glamorous image of rebellious cannabis use. The normalisation of cannabis use would minimise this. Just as parents are allowed to take their children to the pub to introduce them to alcohol in a controlled way, parents should also feel open to talking with their children about appropriate and sensible cannabis use.
The current policy leaves the supply of cannabis in the hands of criminals. There are no age limits. Not only do organised crime syndicates peddle cannabis to children, they often involve minors in their cultivation and distribution operations as minors cannot be arrested for summary offences. The regulation of the supply of cannabis would eliminate this problem, as there would be a legal age limit for customers and workers.
Recommendation:
The supply of cannabis should be licensed and regulated by law, with a minimum age limit of 18 years.
Prohibition Impedes Effective Drug Education And Harm Reduction Efforts
Prohibition denies cannabis users access to information and equipment to use cannabis in the least harmful ways, and restricts access to equipment or paraphernalia that may make drug use safer. While the Government spends millions of dollars arbitrarily arresting thousands of cannabis smokers every year, there is no public money at all for educating cannabis users about safer cannabis use. Harm reduction does not exist for cannabis users, other than that provided by non-governmental organisations such as NORML.
Cannabis pipes and bongs have been recently outlawed, despite considerable evidence they reduce smoking-related harms. One of the more well-established hazards of marijuana consumption is the fact that the inhalation of burning vegetable matter is bad for the respiratory system. Laws that prohibit the sale or possession of paraphernalia reduce the likelihood that individuals will smoke through devices which cool and filter the smoke
The hypocrisy of cannabis prohibition undermines the effectiveness of drug education programs. Adolescents are not fooled by exaggerated statements about cannabis intended to scare them off, and they see their parents, police and policymakers openly use other more harmful drugs, or indeed admit to previous cannabis use with a smirk. Cannabis prohibition sends a message that society is hypocritical, does not base drug policy on scientific evidence or reasoned analysis, and does not value the opinions or experiences of its young people.
"We view the double standard which sometimes surround the cannabis issue as an
impediment to effective anti-drug education. Attempts by users of legal drugs
to deter the use of illegal drugs often affects the credibility of the message.
The younger generation perceive a double standard in the social acceptance of
alcohol and tobacco despite their obvious negative health and social
repercussions, while cannabis is clearly prohibited and its harms are less
apparent."
Health Committee, Mental Health Effects of Cannabis, 1998
"Several generations of high school students have grown up ignoring and disbelieving everything they've heard from government and police about drugs, including information that was factual and valid, because they discovered for themselves that most of what has been taught to them was simply not true."
Ann Shulgin, PhD, Therapist and Author, Lafayette, CA, at the DPF Conference, November 1996.
Recommendation: Cannabis policy be developed using principles consistent with the two other commonly used recreational drugs alcohol and tobacco.
Recommendation: Cannabis harm reduction information be developed and provided to cannabis users.
Prohibition Is A Barrier To Effective Treatment Services
Prohibition creates a barrier to adequate health treatment for those who need it, by pushing cannabis use underground and threatening cannabis users with arrest and imprisonment.
According to the Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit's Te Ao Taru Kino - a survey of drug use among Maori:
"When people who used marijuana were asked whether they needed help to reduce their level of marijuana use ... 8% said that, at some time in their life, they had wanted help to reduce their level of marijuana use but had not got it. Their reasons for not being able to get help were: fear of the law (35%), fear of losing friends (23%), no local services (21%), not knowing where to go (19%)"
Prohibition drives cannabis users from their social support networks, making it hard to reach them with education messages about protecting themselves.
The marginalisation of cannabis users leads to lower self-esteem and decreases motivation for self-care, and means many other New Zealanders care little about what happens to them. The criminal status of cannabis and cannabis users also creates an additional barrier for those being treated for mental illnesses.
Zero-tolerance approaches to addiction discourage addicts from seeking help. Drug users are reluctant to call for help for fear of being charged with a crime. Drug problems are compounded by the very laws meant to address them.
Recommendation: Treatment opportunities should be available for all those who need them. Cannabis policy should not discourage users from seeking help.
'Zero Tolerance' Approaches Harm Adolescents Caught Experimenting With Cannabis More Than The Cannabis Use Itself
Prohibition has seen the curtailing of education for thousands of children every year who are caught experimenting with cannabis, while their peers who are caught using alcohol or tobacco, which are just as illegal as cannabis for a minor, and given a second chance or less severe punishments. The use of expulsion and suspension by schools as a primary punishment provides a useful illustration of how prohibition in general works: those caught are punished far more severely than their "crime" warrants; the punishment creates more harm than the cannabis use itself; those caught are predominantly Maori, despite Maori having only a slightly higher use rate; the motive underlying the use of punitive sanctions is not to help the person caught, but to "send a message" to others not yet caught that they had better watch out.
Recommendation: Schools should be encouraged to solve problems with adolescent cannabis use rather than exacerbate them. School policy should aim to help rather than punish. Suspension and expulsion should only ever be used as a last resort and after all other options have been tried.
Cannabis Prohibition Endangers Communities
Prohibition endangers entire communities by fuelling a lucrative black market that is ruled not by law, but by violence and intimidation. Because vigorous enforcement of the marijuana laws forces the roughest, toughest criminals to take over marijuana trafficking, prohibition causes violence and increases predatory crime. Rip-offs are common place, and are settled not by the Disputes Tribunal, but by the end of a shot-gun. Hundreds of local growers spend the summer guarding their plants with guns, knives, sticks and traps, making the New Zealand bush a dangerous place to be. Several people are killed every year in New Zealand over cannabis deals gone wrong, and many more are threatened, beaten, or abducted. No one is killed over a cup of coffee or a cigarette.
"Cannabis never killed anybody and it's use is widespread. You can't stop it. The law defeats itself because all the efforts to stop drugs coming in only drives up the prices and then gangsters move in to push the drugs. If they legalised there wouldn't be gangsters and huge profits."
- Judge James Pickles, UK
Prohibition encourages property crime to pay the vastly inflated prices set by the underground drug market. The situation is exacerbated by the police placing a priority on arresting cannabis users and therefore not having the resources to sufficiently investigate property crimes.
Prohibition dividing communities into those that do and don't smoke cannabis, and thereby creates widespread fear, suspicion and alienation
Recommendation: in the interests of healing our communities, cannabis prohibition be repealed and replace by the lawful regulation of the cannabis industry
Recommendation: that a cannabis 'truth and reconciliation' commission be instigated to restore a sense of justice and heal the harms that have been caused by blindly pursuing cannabis prohibition
Prohibition Is An Abdication Of Control
Far from controlling the market for drugs or reducing the supply of drugs, prohibition is an abdication of control. With such a highly demanded substance society is faced not with a choice of "can we ban it?" but "how best do we control it?" Completely prohibiting cannabis is impossible, but it is possible to effectively regulate the way it is sold and used and minimise the harms are associated with it.
Recommendation:
Regulating the cannabis industry would best restore control and most restrict juvenile access to cannabis.
Prohibition Fuels The Growth Of Organised Crime
The current policy means handing over control of the billion-dollar market for cannabis to whoever is prepared to break the law. The difference between the true cost of producing and distributing cannabis and the inflated black market sale price is essentially a tax to support criminals. The chances of being caught are small compared to the profits to be made. Alcohol prohibition in the 1920s fuelled the growth of gangsters such as Al Capone and the Mafia, and this experience is being mirrored in New Zealand with the increasing dominance in of organised crime in the distribution and retailing of cannabis.
Contrary to popular media reports, organised crime involved in the supply of cannabis are not only limited to patched 'gangs'. Gangs in themselves are not problematic but the way they behave often is. Accompianying the growth in organised crime has been a huge increase in violence as home invasions, beatings and even murders are used to settle contractual disputes or protect market share.
A new form of drug dealing modelled on the American "crack house" - the tinnie shop - has emerged in the 1990s. These outlets exist in every town and suburb of New Zealand, and many trade 24 hours a day. There are no age limits or other controls on supply. Many tinnie shops are staffed by teenagers. Most of their customers are teenagers.
It is sometimes claimed that cannabis should remain prohibited so that organised criminals do not move onto distributing other harder drugs. This argument - which implicitly acknowledges the relative safety of cannabis - is flawed for several reasons:
Cannabis distribution networks are already moving on to selling other drugs, largely caused by increased police efforts aimed at apprehending cannabis growers and dealers coupled with an increased demand for stimulants. It is quicker to manufacture amphetamines than it is to grow cannabis, and it is easier to distribute concentrated powders and pills than bulky plant matter.
The vast majority of cannabis arrests are for the use and possession of cannabis, rather than for cultivation or supply. The police annually allocate over 300,000 hours to enforcing cannabis prohibition, equating to about 150 full-time police officers. These officers could be better used combating organised crime.
Regulating the supply of cannabis will break the link between cannabis users and hard drug sellers. Licensed cannabis outlets would not be able to sell other drugs.
Overall government policy should examine why gangs exist in the first place. Society would be better served by policies that reduce the desire of young people to become involved in organised crime in the first place, than placating criminal groups by giving them a drug to distribute to young people at inflated prices.
Recommendation:
The cannabis market be regulated in a way that limits the involvement of organised crime and protects public safety.
Cannabis Prohibition Encourages Corruption Amongst Law Enforcement Personnel
Prohibition invites corruption within the criminal justice system by giving officials easy, tempting opportunities to accept bribes, steal and sell marijuana, and plant evidence on innocent people. Alcohol prohibition in the 1920's fostered corruption on an epidemic scale, while the NSW Wood Commission noted that drug prohibition was the cause and source of that State's institutionalised corruption. This is increasingly being discovered in New Zealand amongst our prison guards and police officers. W can expect corruption to continue to escalate as long as the billion dollar cannabis black market exists.
The undercover police programme is at particular risk of institutionalising corruption in New Zealand. This work usually involves a police officer trying to infiltrate a given social group in order to gather evidence. It usually involves the police officer using, selling and giving away drugs. Some have begun live-in relationships with women. One undercover officer in Auckland was the get-away driver for an armed robbery. Entrapment is legal in New Zealand and this technique is commonly used by the police who implore a person to commit a crime and then arresting them for it. Such crimes may not have occurred had the police not taken part.
It has long been reported to NORML - and acknowledged by former police undercover officers - that many police officers routinely take seized cannabis for their own use, for the use of undercover agents, to sell, or to pay informants. Over the years, we have been contacted by many people who have ended up being charged with a fraction of the cannabis that had been confiscated from them. Most have not spoken out as being charged for a lesser amount may make the difference between a prison term and a non-custodial sentence. Although it may or may not be officially sanctioned, we can state that the theft of cannabis is routine and rife amongst the police force.
Recommendations:
An independent investigation be held into instances of police corruption relating to cannabis law enforcement and the undercover programme.
Legislation be passed to prohibit entrapment by police officers.
Prohibition Creates A Mixed Market For Drugs And Encourages The Use Of Hard Drugs
Marijuana prohibition creates a mixed drug market, which puts marijuana consumers in contact with hard-drug dealers. Regulating marijuana - e.g., allowing adults to grow their own - would separate marijuana from dealers who also sell cocaine, heroin, and other hard drugs.
Just over a quarter of current cannabis users reported in the "Drugs in New Zealand National Survey 1988" (Field & Casswell 1999) that their dealers sold other drugs, and of these people, 39% reported that their dealers had encouraged them to buy other drugs.
According to the Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit's Te Ao Taru Kino - a survey of drug use among Maori: "Those with one or more suppliers were asked whether their supplier(s) sold other drugs, and about one in five (22%) reported this to be the case. Of these people, over a third (38%) said that their supplier(s) had also encouraged them to buy other types of drugs."
Separating the markets for marijuana and hard drugs is one of the main aims of Dutch drug policy. The Dutch were even prepared to accept a higher rate of cannabis use if that meant hard drug use rates would drop. In fact, rates of use for both cannabis and hard drugs have dropped since the Netherlands introduced de facto legalisation in 1976.
The double standard of cannabis prohibition also makes it less likely that adolescents will heed warnings about the dangers of hard drugs. Exaggerations and scare tactics designed to make young people afraid of the "demon weed" only serve to entice them, while diluting more important messages about addictive and harmful drugs such as heroin.
Recommendation:
In order to separate the markets for cannabis and more harmful drugs, the sale of cannabis be regulated by law.
Cannabis Prohibition Contravenes Basic Human And Civil Rights
Prohibition restricts the rights and freedoms of all New Zealanders, whether or not they choose to consume cannabis. Because marijuana is typically used in private, trampling the Bill of Rights is a routine part of marijuana-law enforcement, e.g., drug dogs, urine tests, phone taps, government informants, garbage searches, military helicopters, infrared heat detectors, and so on.
Prohibition contravenes several fundamental right guaranteed by both the Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act including:
the right to freedom of expression
the right to freedom of religion
the right not to be arbitrarily detained or searched
Prohibitionists often justify their stance by stating cannabis use effect the rights of other people, or that the state knows best and has a valid role protecting people from themselves and therefore rights can be subsumed in the interest of the greater good. Both these arguments are fallicious. It is difficult to accept that an adult's choice to consume cannabis in the privacy of their own home, or out in the fresh air, effects anyone else. It is also patently obvious that cannabis prohibition creates far more harm than the use of cannabis itself, both to cannabis users and also those around them.
"Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control man's appetite through legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not even crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our Government was founded"
- Abraham Lincoln, December 1840
Recommendation:
In the interests of restoring the basic civil liberties and human rights of all New Zealanders, cannabis prohibition be abolished.
Cannabis Prohibition Contravenes The Principles Of Natural Justice
One of the most basic rules of natural justice that is fundamental to our criminal justice system is that the accused is held to be "innocent before proven guilty". This principle does not apply to those caught with drugs or even suspected of using drugs. Instead of the burden of proof being on the prosecution to prove the charge, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove they are innocent.
The Misuse of Drugs Act specifies that anyone who grows more that 10 plants is presumed to be cultivating for the purpose of supply. Anyone who is in possession of more than 28 grams of cannabis (1 ounce) is presumed to be guilty of supply. According to the law, there need not be any evidence of any commercial activity, but the defendant must somehow prove that they did not intend to supply anyone, which is obviously a difficult thing to do.
A fundamental principle of natural justice is that there should be a victim for any crime, and that the accused has the right to face the accuser.
Recommendation: The burden of proof for Misuse of Drugs Act offences be returned to the prosecution. If any arbitrary limits remain, they should be scaled upwards to ensure users of cannabis are not tried as suppliers.
Cannabis Prohibition Has Ruined The Careers Of Many Suspected Cannabis Users
Workplace drug testing has seen the careers of many cannabis smokers ruined, while those who choose to consume alcohol, amphetamines or opiates are undetected and therefore unpunished. Workplace drug testing is a punitive measure that has been shown to be unreliable, discriminatory and ineffective.
Few companies with drug testing programs have ever conducted a cost-benefit analysis. The US National Academy of Sciences studied drug testing in 1994 and concluded there was no clear evidence of any negative effects of drugs - other than alcohol - on safety and or job performance.
A recent paper prepared by Labour Department senior medical practitioner Chris Walls has questioned the usefulness of workplace drug testing. Dr Walls says there are "no useful analytical measures to accurately indicate the level of acute impairment" caused by cannabis use on or off the job, and that urine testing "has no practical use in assessing impairment caused by marijuana use."
Recommendation: Workplace drug testing be banned as unreliable, discriminatory, and encouraging poor workplace relations.
Cannabis Prohibition Sanctions Land Theft By The Crown
Asset forfeiture under the Proceeds of Crimes Act allows police to seize the money and property of convicted cannabis offenders. To seize the property, the police need only show that the property has been "tainted" - they don't need to show it was paid for using drug incomes - and they only need show a civil burden of proof, ie a "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt". Since 1993 over $11 million worth of property has been seized, almost all of which involved cannabis offenders. There have been several reports of police impropriety in attempting to seize property including planting evidence and lying under oath.
In one of the biggest sums awarded against police, in August 1999 Judge Michael Lance awarded Great Barrier Island man Colin Moore $54,000 towards the $100,000 he spent defending charges of cultivating cannabis and fighting to keep the family farm. Police did not photograph the evidence or give Moore the chance to look at the plants. They also left out evidence during the trial. The Police helicopter was allegedly spotted delivering a load of cannabis to Mr Moore's farm. The farm had been in the family for generations and could not have been paid for with drug money. The Judge was scathing of the Proceeds of Crime Act. "It's an invasion of personal privacy when a person is presumed innocent," said Lance. "The legislation needs some careful attention."
Maori are at particular risk of having their ancestral lands taken by the Crown again. Many Iwi and Hapu have only marginal lands left. Faced with little prospect of farming this land, little hope of legitimate employment and ongoing land rates to pay, some have chosen to use the opportunity cannabis prohibition has presented them with. Money may not grow on trees, but it does grow on cannabis plants that are almost worth their weight in gold. If they are caught Maori face not only a harsher average sentence but may have their ancestral lands confiscated under the Proceeds of Crimes Act, despite the obvious fact that the land could not have been paid for using illicit drug money.
Recommendation: The Proceeds of Crimes Act should be amended to provide for a criminal burden of proof, and properties that cannot be proven to have been paid for through illegal means should not be subject to the Act.
Prohibition Alienates Cannabis Users From The Rule Of Law, And Erodes Respect For The Entire Criminal Justice System
When a law is openly broken by large sectors of the population on a regular basis and only a small fraction are apprehended each year, the rule of law becomes weaker. Most people recognise cannabis prohibition as unjust and unworkable. To continue trying to enforce this law puts the police in an unenviable position and erodes community respect for them. Huge numbers of people now regard police not as their friends, but their enemies. This impacts on the police's ability to solve all crimes.
New Zealand communities are now divided into those that do and don't smoke cannabis. Those that do not consume cannabis enjoy all the rights and privileges of citizens in a civilised democracy. Those that do choose to consume cannabis have only half the rights of the others, and none of the protection offered by the police. Cannabis smokers cannot report crimes for fear of being arrested for a plant in their back garden or the bong in their bedroom. They cannot step forward as a witness to other crimes for fear that they will be searched. Over the years we have received numerous reports on our helpline of the victims of real crimes being arrested instead of helped, simply because they choose a different social drug. Oftentimes a police officer will stop investigating a burglary or assault once they see evidence of cannabis use, and will instead turn their attention to arresting the robbed or beaten person. This will continue to happen as long as cannabis users are called criminals.
Complaints about police behaviour and processes are handled by the Police Complaints Authority, who have no budget or paid staff so they must rely on police officers to carry out the investigation - usually a colleague of the officer under investigation. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of complaints have not been upheld.
"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced."
- Albert Eistein, "My First Impression of the USA" 1921
Recommendations:
To restore respect for the police and the criminal justice system, cannabis prohibition should be repealed.
The Police Complaints Authority be made a truly independent organisation with it's own budget and staff.
Cannabis Prohibition Sends The Wrong Message
Supporters of cannabis prohibition often say that strong laws are needed in order to send clear and consistent messages to young people, but they ignore the fact that cannabis prohibition does not send a clear and consistent message. The real message it sends is that society is hypocritical, condones the use of more harmful drugs, is more interested in morals than evidence, and is incapable of making sound judgements based on scientific evidence and reasoned analysis.
The message prohibition sends to young people is that smoking cannabis will make them appear cool and rebellious, they can send society a message of non-conformity, and for many they can make more money leaving school and becoming a dealer or grower than they could hope to earn lawfully.
Cannabis prohibition sends a wrong message that the lucrative profits of powerful drug traffickers will be protected by parliaments. Conversely, regulation of cannabis sends a powerful message to the community that legislators are finally 'getting real' about cannabis, and admitting that prohibition has been the expensive and resounding failure now widely recognised in the community. More realism and less rhetoric is required in policy responses to illicit drugs.
Introducing a legal age of 18 for the use of cannabis would send a clear message to youth that cannabis is an adult activity. It should not require arresting thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens for cannabis use to "send a message" to someone else's child to abstain from using cannabis. If parents or policymakers can think of no better way to communicate with young people about drug use, perhaps they should take a course in basic communication.
Some argue that cannabis law reform would "send a wrong message", but no evidence has ever been produced that young people actually interpret realistic policy as condoning illicit drug use. From California comes evidence that young people are more intelligent than supporters of prohibition often give them credit for. A survey of 16-year-olds in California, in the year following passage of the state's landmark medical marijuana initiative in 1996, showed their use of marijuana declined slightly, after having increased for several years previously. The results of the survey were suppressed by the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, which provided funds for the study then decided it didn't like the results.
Cannabis Prohibition Breaks Powerful Market Forces
While there has been no local research on the size of the cannabis industry, the UN has estimated the global drug trade to be the second biggest industry after weapon sales and ahead of petroleum. It is a folly on the part of law makers to think that they are more powerful than these market forces.
Australian research provides some indication of the scale of the illicit cannabis market. A 1999 study by the University of Western Australia's Economic Research Centre found Australians spend an estimated A$5 billion per year on cannabis, or A$351 per person. This amounts to 1 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product - double the expenditure on wine and three-quarters of the money spent on beer. The study also found a direct link between marijuana consumption and drinking habits - when cannabis use goes up, alcohol consumption goes down. Experience in other countries has shown similar trends.
"Alcohol and marijuana seem to be substitutes, with cross-price elasticities" the survey said. "In most cases, (liberalised) legislation lowers drinking. Spirits consumption falls the most, then wine and then beer." The researchers said they hoped to gain a better understanding of the economics of a drug which they estimate "is used by something like one-third of the entire adult population" but which generates no tax revenue.
Surveys have shown higher rates of cannabis smoking among New Zealanders, but if they spent the same amount per person it would make the New Zealand cannabis market worth around $1.4 billion. GST alone on this would be $177 million.
It is ludicrous to imagine that an industry of this size will be significantly altered by law enforcement when the police budget is a fraction of the resources available to drug dealers. Furthermore, forcing such a large part of our overall economy underground subverts the entire taxation system and affects market signals for other goods and services. Excise taxes and benefits will have unintended consequences because forecasting models cannot take into account the underground economy. Taxpayers pay an overall higher rate of tax than they should because illicit incomes are not declared.
Following the collapse of communism, there has been a greater recognition of the high costs of ignoring powerful market forces. If the billion dollar demand for cannabis is not supplied by legal sources, it will be supplied by illegal sources. More attention should be given to the high social costs that result from encouraging such a large and lucrative area for organised crime and the black market. The community pays a high price when legislators try to break the law of supply and demand.
When policymakers choose laws that determine that the cannabis market will only be supplied from illegal sources, they ensure that it is as easy for children to obtain cannabis as adults; the purchase of cannabis will often bring otherwise law abiding citizens into contact with suppliers also selling heroin, cocaine or amphetamines; and police are provided with a strong financial incentive to become corrupt.
Recommendation: Achievable and important objectives of cannabis policy should include restricting availability for children, separating very different kinds of markets and maintaining the integrity of the police force.
Cannabis prohibition must be rejected
For all these reasons, we submit that the current policy of prohibition is utterly untenable. It is unjust, unworkable, and achieves the opposite of what it is intended to achieve. Prohibition is a policy of harm maximisation and has caused a huge increase in cannabis use.
Recommendation: Cannabis prohibition must be rejected.
Unless stated otherwise, copyright © 1998-2005 by NORML New Zealand, working for marijuana law reform Published on: 2003-07-27 (4370 reads) [ Go Back ] |
