Cannabis Inquiry Report ExtractsHealth Select Committee inquiry into the legal status of cannabis - key findings and extracts from the report
By Chris Fowlie, NORML New Zealand. 7 August 2003.
Download the full inquiry report (443 kb PDF file)
The 1998 Health Select Committee Inquiry into the Mental Health Effects of Cannabis, chaired by National MP Brian Neeson, unanimously concluded that: "based on the evidence received, we recommend that the Government review the appropriateness of existing policy on cannabis and its use and reconsider the legal status of cannabis".
The 2003 inquiry report found clear support for law reform, but became hopelessly bogged down in party politics and was unable to reach a decision. Instead, they recommended not just one, but two more inquiries into the legal status of cannabis.
The main finding is that: We agree that the aim of cannabis legislation needs to be focused on preventing young people from using cannabis, and protecting them from the harms associated with this controlled drug. However, we have not been able to agree on the most appropriate legal status of cannabis, and have made our separate recommendations regarding the best legislative options in the relevant sections of the report. Some of us think the Justice and Electoral Committee should further consider the issue of the most appropriate legal status of cannabis."
The Justice and Electoral committee includes Nandor Tanczos and is chaired by Tim Barnett. Nandor and Norml both said three years ago that the inquiry should have been done by this committee but Labour insisted on the health committee.
The second inquiry is to be held by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs (EACD), a statutory body charged with considering the appropriate classification of controlled drugs. It would seem logical to have already asked them for advice as part of this report, but better late than never.
Pt I: Background information
Health effects
Overall, the report confirms what many larger and more comprehensive investigations have found - that the risk of harm associated with cannabis is low for most people, and confirms that cannabis can have beneficial uses for many people.
"Many submitters to this inquiry commented that people are less aggressive, more thoughtful, and calmer under the influence of cannabis... Other submitters, notably young people, stated that they prefer to use cannabis, having developed an aversion to alcohol from watching adults using it".
The report points to the Christchurch Health and Development Study which found that for the majority of occasional recreational cannabis users there is no evidence to suggest that usage has harmful effects. The authors stated "cannabis use is likely to be no more harmful than alcohol and may well be shown to be less harmful than alcohol use."
The report also points to Norml's submission that "highlighted that the World Health Organisation and the United States Institute of Medicine both state that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco."
The low credibility of those who try to demonise cannabis was evident in claims that it causes "hair loss... wrinkling, hearing loss, skin cancer, tooth decay, osteoporosis..."
The committee did express "serious concern" about the long-term pulmonary effects of smoking cannabis, and recommended the provision of harm reduction information. The report agrees with Norml's advice that "the use of high-THC cannabis may have the effect of decreasing harm by reducing the amount of smoke inhaled by the user." They also promoted the use of devices "that steam cannabis, and vaporise cannabinoids, as an alternative to smoking the dried plant."
As part of the inquiry Norml presented a large petition calling for the ban on cannabis pipes and bongs to be lifted, but only Nandor Tanczos supported the petition. In a minority report he said he believes the ban "makes a harm reduction approach more difficult".
A section on suicide notes there is no clear linkage with cannabis, and that ESR testing of suicides "does not indicate any relationship between cannabis and suicide". This lack of evidence did not stop the committee recommending that ESR be required to "test all suicide referrals for traces of cannabinoids", although they do go on to say that "evidence suggests that cannabis use does not cause behavioural difficulties; instead, it is frequently used by youth who are predisposed to deviant behaviours."
Gateway hypothesis:
The report points to the expert submission of Australia's National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, which found "the relationship between cannabis use and the 'harder' drug use arises from the legal status of cannabis rather than its pharmacological effects."
The report also notes the findings of Dutch research that while most hard drug users had also used cannabis, the majority of cannabis users had no experience in the use of other illicit drugs; "which could be viewed as evidence against the stepping stone theory of drug use. Further, the Netherlands has fewer hard drug addicts per capita than Italy, Spain, Switzerland, France, Britain and the United States, and fewer young people in the Netherlands are becoming hard drug addicts. This was the stated aim of the Dutch Government's policy of separating the cannabis market from the market for hard drugs."
Cannabis and Maori
The report confirms that Maori are at higher risk of harm resulting from the criminalisation of cannabis. Maori convictions for cannabis offences are disproportionate to the Maori percentage of the population and Maori cannabis use rates, and "similar disparities have been documented in the United States of America for people of black and Hispanic ethnicity".
"We are particularly concerned with the suggestion that a high level of police bias is leading to the disproportionate arrest and conviction rate of Maori for cannabis offences, based on the irrelevant attribute of ethnicity".
Cannabis economy
NZ National Drug Survey somehow calculated the total quantity of cannabis purchased is 7,308,820 grams (almost 15 million joints) at an estimated wholesale value of $52.2 million, and estimated retail value of $84.3 million, although other estimates of the value of the cannabis market vary wildly from $140 million to $900 million for Northland alone.
Enforcement of prohibition
The committee expressed concern that the police record "huge numbers of offences involving cannabis", and pointed to the Christchurch Health and Development Study found that the administration of current cannabis laws is inefficient, discriminatory, and ineffective in deterring users from cannabis use.
The report notes that the use of police diversion for cannabis offences remains very rare, with only about 300 diversions, or three percent of prosecutions, granted in 1999. The committee recommended more use of diversion, "so that fewer minor cannabis offences are prosecuted through the courts."
Police often claim they generally detect cannabis possession offences in association with other matters, but the committee remained "unconvinced by this", noting that 42 per cent of convictions for cannabis do not include other offences.
Police searches
The report notes that the Misuse of Drugs Act's special search powers were "intended by Parliament to be used primarily for serious trafficking and supply offences, not for personal possession charges... Today these powers are used as part of routine activities or street patrols... [and] The Police Association President admitted that the Police have targeted people on the basis of their dress... We would be concerned if appearance alone... is a key determinant in Police deciding to search someone for possession of drugs under section 18 of the 1975 Act."
The police tried to argue that the case involving Norml's Chris Fowlie actually showed that the reasonableness of searches "can be tested by the courts on an individual basis", but the committee found this to be an "inadequate protection".
They expressed concern that the "frequency with which the Police are invoking these powers appears to be increasing" and said some members were "concerned about evidence that police misuse these powers to search without warrant".
In a significant move the report recommends that "the Justice and Electoral Committee investigate the use of search without warrant powers by police under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975."
Pt II: Public health and health promotion strategies to minimise the use of, and harm associated with cannabis
A harm minimisation strategy is supported by the highest proportion of submissions (44 per cent).
Support for school-based education is cited the least frequently in the submissions - 21 percent:
"Overall, there were few complimentary comments about the general standard of drug education programmes and providers currently available for school education ... Some submitters considered that there could be a lack of credibility when some organisations receive funding from the tobacco and alcohol industry to conduct such education."
The main recommendations for public health strategies are for more "community action programmes" and "Student Assistance Programmes" although it is short on detail as to what these actually are.
The committee expressed concern that the numbers of school suspensions for cannabis-related incidents exceed stand-downs alone among all offences including violence, "which indicates that schools treat cannabis more seriously than violent incidents".
Schools need to respond to cannabis issues "in a way that preserves educational opportunities. An environment more conducive to youth drug education is required."
The committee was concerned that "most young people who use cannabis do so in an environment that is not conducive to well-informed decision-making" and recommended the government "ensure that useful information is readily available".
The Police are not the best at drug education. "We are not convinced that [Police-led school drug education programmes] is the best use of police resources, and would prefer to see drug education being funded through, and provided by, a more relevant ministry."
Pt III: Legal status of cannabis in New Zealand
The committee notes that the Government has undertaken "not to introduce legislation to change the legal status of cannabis", but notes "the majority of submissions to this inquiry supported the legalisation of cannabis".
Summary of the legal status of cannabis preferred by the 532 written submissions:
- Continued prohibition - 17.5%
- Exemption for medical use only - 1.9%
- Police cautions or diversion - 2.3%
- Decriminalisation (total) - 20.8%
- includes civil penalties ("instant fines") - 3.0%
- also includes Partial prohibition ("grow your own") - 7.1%
- Legalisation and regulation (Dutch-style "coffeeshops") - 52.3%
- Legalisation and free trade - 1.3%
- Not specified or no opinion - 3.9%
- Total support for change: 78.6%
However the report largely ignores a further 1,978 postcard submissions, which supported Dutch-style coffeeshops. These were not included in the committee's analysis of submissions. If they were, the number wanting change would have risen from 78.6 per cent to 95 per cent. The number in favour of licensed coffeeshops would be 90 per cent, rather than the 53.6 per cent recorded in the report.
One of the themes emerging from the expert submissions is the view that policies should avoid criminalising non-problematic cannabis users. The report confirms various social harms result from giving criminal convictions to occasional cannabis users, and says the law "should therefore contain options for dealing with minor cannabis use, which avoid criminalisation".
Several mechanisms are recommended, including:
- cautioning for first offenders
- diversion to education programmes or treatment
- expiation of repeat offences through fines (with flexible payment option) or compulsory education.
The report lists eight categorises of options for the legal status of cannabis:
Option A: Prohibition
"Prohibition arguable limits use, supply and availability and is consistent with the United Nations drug conventions. However, the current high levels of use, and the level of black economy activity indicate that the current prohibition regime is not effective in limiting cannabis use. Prohibition results in high conviction rates for a relatively minor offence, which inhibits people's education, travel and employment opportunities. Prohibition makes targeting education, prevention, harm minimisation and treatment measures difficult because users fear prosecution. It also facilitates the black market, and potentially exposes cannabis users to harder drugs."
"We are advised that very strict prohibition of cannabis, where even minor personal use offences are criminalised, could contribute to a range of problems... Removing the criminal penalties for cannabis offences to some extent may alleviate these problems by providing more options for dealing with cannabis."
Option B: Prohibition with an exception for medical purposes
The report notes that "cannabis has been shown to be effective in providing relief for some medical disorders" and argues that "the issue of medicinal use should be dealt with independently from the legislation regulating general use". Allowing medical use "does not require a change to the legal status of cannabis", and the committee recommended the Government support "the prescription of clinically-tested cannabis products for medicinal purposes."
"Provision exists in the legislation for prescription of cannabis products approved by regulatory agencies overseas, or approval of clinical trials of approved cannabis products. The manager of Medsafe has offered to approve the prescribing of a synthetic cannabinoid product called Marinol (dronabinol)... The Medicines Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act both contain exemptions that would enable a doctor to lawfully prescribe or administer cannabis... provided ministerial approval is given."
Only the National Party disagreed, saying they didn't want the medicinal use of cannabis to be a "back door to legalisation".
Option C: Prohibition with an expediency principle
"No submissions were in favour of a prohibition model with an expediency principle. This is the situation that currently exists in the Netherlands, and has resulted in very low levels of cannabis use among youth and some of the lowest rates of hard drug addiction in the Western world. In practice, the policy allows for licensed premises to sell cannabis over the counter, and users are never prosecuted for simple possession or use. The lack of support for this model among submitters may be because few recognise that this is the actual position in Holland, although it could also be because submitters believe that proper regulation above board is required. It is notable that some 1500 submitters signed a form letter calling for 'Dutch style coffee shops'."
Option D: Prohibition with formal cautioning and/or referral
This model would see people given formal warnings and perhaps even compulsory drug rehab or education as an alternative to court proceedings.
In a pointer to a government constrained by their agreement with United-Future, the report hopefully notes that "in Australia, state [cautioning] programmes were brought about by policy initiatives rather than legislative changes."
However a problem with cautioning is that the "discretion itself would be determined by the Police rather than Parliament... [and] the use of Police discretion may be selective or arbitrary, and applied inequitably. We would like to see the development of formal criteria and protocols to ensure consistency."
The committee concluded "there may be some merit in the Police expanding the diversion scheme to further reduce the number of persecutions and convictions for minor cannabis use offences" but also recognised concern was raised during hearings about the inconsistent application of diversion: "In particular we note the potential for police to become effective judge and jury, where they decide who gets diversion and what the effective 'sentence' will be. We also note a potential source of conflict of interest where individual officers can decide on the appropriate recipient of diversion money."
Option E: Prohibition with civil/administrative penalties
The report identifies the advantages of 'instant fines' as reduced conviction rates, savings for drug law enforcement, an opportunity to send information with the infringement notice, and being consistent with UN drug conventions. A suggested link between decriminalisation and increased use was countered by "more recent research [that] found no discernable impact on the rates of cannabis use". The report warns that potential savings in law enforcement could be offset by non-payment of fines, while the 'net widening' effect, "mainly due to the greater ease with which a [fine] can be issued" coupled with "a high rate of non-payment of infringement fines" could lead to "clogging up" the courts.
Option F: Partial Prohibition
Under partial prohibition, use, possession and cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal use are legal; but the cultivation and possession of large amounts, and the sale of any amount, are illegal. This is otherwise known as the "grow your own" model.
The advantages are reduced convictions, and freeing up resources "to apply more intensive enforcement on suppliers to ensure users switch from black market purchasing to home cultivation". Also, "targeted and general education, prevention, harm minimisation and treatment measures and safe practices in using cannabis would be promulgated in an environment that is more conducive to education about cannabis harms."
"This option has been recommended by official government inquiries in Canada (1972), the USA (1972) and Australia (1996)". There was "no evidence that it would increase use, in fact evidence suggests it would make no difference."
Option G: Legalisation and regulation
This option would see cannabis become "a drug on the open market, in a similar way to how tobacco and alcohol are available."
Advantages included "information about the quality and effects of cannabis would be readily available... Education, prevention, harm minimisation and treatment measures would be easier to promulgate including the promotion of safe cannabis use practices. This option would eliminate criminal convictions for cannabis use and personal possession cases... This option could free up Police resources. Over-the-counter sales could substantially reduce the cannabis black market. Legislation would provide the opportunity to tax what is reportedly a thriving cannabis business and to direct the additional revenue toward treatment and education. However, the tax levels would have to be calculated to ensure that price levels discouraged use without being so high as to preserve an incentive for an illegal market."
The report cryptically notes that "Some of us believe that cannabis should be regulated, like tobacco and alcohol." Committee chair Steve Chadwick was among members who expressed this view during the inquiry hearings.
Option H: Free trade
"This option would see cannabis become a product on the open market, like bananas, subject to minimal regulation... It would make cannabis a freely-available, uncontrolled substance... Clearly, this option would free up some resources throughout the justice sector and remove a black market. However, this policy would be inconsistent with international conventions. It may tarnish New Zealand's image in the international community, and may encourage cannabis tourists to New Zealand."
Minority reports
The extent to which the inquiry became politicised is demonstrated in the dissenting minority reports issued by every party other than the Government.
The National Party said "the legal status of cannabis should remain unchanged." There are "no grounds" for the Justice and Electoral committee to consider the law or investigate police abuse of search powers.
United Future does not support the further review by the Justice and Electoral committee, but does concede that it is "possible to offer diversionary options to young and first time offenders... without changing the legal status of cannabis."
Act considered many of the recommendations to be "vague... unrealistic... politically correct rhetoric [that] will allow the Government to hide behind the real problem which needs to be addressed, that of the most appropriate legal status of cannabis. This was included in the terms of reference of the inquiry but has not been dealt with."
The Green Party noted that "the evidence heard by the Committee was very clear that the law must change" and therefore "United Future's demand that the Government not introduce legislation to change the legal status of cannabis undermines the Select Committee process and shows a lack of regard for the evidence."
Unless stated otherwise, copyright © 1998-2005 by NORML New Zealand, working for marijuana law reform Published on: 2003-08-12 (5548 reads) [ Go Back ] |
