Friendly warning and disclaimer: These forums are provided for the thousands victims of prohibition who form the pot community of Aotearoa for discussion of marijuana-related issues. NORML reserve the right to delete off-topic posts. The views expressed in any forum are solely those of the contributor and not necessarily approved or endorsed by NORML New Zealand Inc.
My Letter to Jim Anderton Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 4:31 pm
Hi All - Just posted this to JA via the progressive website. I've made some changes and fixed some minor errors on a re-edit so that others can feel free to cut and paste and send to other politicians.
Quote:
Mr Anderton your comments on the Progressive Party website regarding the risks of decriminalisation of cannabis are in some cases factually incorrect. You state that decriminalisation of cannabis will lead to a rise in use, and it appears that you feel that decriminalisation will lead to a substantial increase in use.
However this runs contrary to scientific evidence. You quote that decriminalisation in the Netherlands was followed by a substantial increase is use. However more recent research has show that the increase in use by the dutch simply paralleled international trends.
Ergo useage increased across most Western Nations. The increased use in Holland was not as a result of Decriminalisation but simply a trend for increased drug useage in Western Societies. Moreover Holland shows and consistantly lower level of Drug Useage across the board (including hard drugs as well as cannabis) per capita than the US, Australia or NZ - 3 nations which have the most punitive cannabis laws.
This is also paralleled in Australia. There is no evidence of increased cannabis useage in States where cannabis has been decriminalised, as there is in states where Marijuana Possession remains an offence. This is at odds with your assertion that decriminalisation will lead to an (ostensibly) large increase in cannabis use.
The simply reality is that for most people cannabis use is not determined by its criminal status. Changing the law is unlikely to have a significant or long lasting impact on cannabis useage rate, other that perhaps a short term spike as people try it.
Given that 53% of the population have tried cannabis and 18% are regular users, even in the worst case scenario of 100% of people trying cannabis, it is unlikely that more than 25-30% will become regular users. This is unlikely given that most people with any interest in cannabis will probably have already tried it.
I'd even suggest that the original figures quoted of the number of users are probably lower that the real numbers. As such even a two fold increase in cannabis use will not sugnificantly affect social services to anywhere the same degree that alcohol or tobacco do, and if taxed appropriately I suggest would be be profitably funded from taxation revenue.
The real cost to society comes from 2 things. There are the enforcement costs which pose an opportunity cost to other social spending, and well as punitive individual costs which also impact society. Also prohibition of cannabis continues to provide significant streams of revenue to Organised crime. Methamphetamine may NOW be a significant form of funding but relative to the revenue cannabis has provided to organised crime over the past 6 decades, it is but a drop in the bucket, and cannabis continues to be a significant source of revenue to organised crime.
Lets explore the issues. Firstly Cannabis enforcement and its cost to society. The $40+million dollars that comes from cannabis policing and enforcement, that could be re routed and used for substantially more important issues like improving health and education funding. This represents a significant opportunity cost to New Zealand society. That is a significant sum, but pales incomparison to the cost imposed on individuals and ergo by extension society.
In addition if we assume there are 20,000 convictions for cannabis offences in New Zealand, and we assume that 10,000 of those convictions are for new offences. At an average wage of $25,000 per annum, if we assume that over a lifetime an individual will loose a 3rd of their earning potential from incurring a cannabis conviction. This equates to $8,250 per annum. Over a working lifetime of 45 years this equates to a loss of $371,250. Assuming a tax rate of 25% again as an average this equates to loss tax revenue of $97,812.50 per individual. Multiply this by 10,000 new convictions per year and each year the government loses $928,125,000 dollars in lost revenue - $1 billion dollars in potential lost tax revenue for each year of new cannabis convictions. These figures are failry conservative I would suggest. For a plant/substance that the WHO considers less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. Surely that tax revenue could easily fund and resolve all social issues caused by ALL drug use - not just cannabis.
Secondly, the issue of cannabis prohibition funcing organised crime. Only legalisation would enable to government to control the supply of cannabis. Anything less enables cannabis supply to be controlled largely by Gangs - a fact you yourself make reference to. If we accept that cannabis is here to stay, (and to refuse to accept that fact would be putting one's head in the sand quite frankly) Then should the government not control the supply of this plant - NOT the gangs?
You also make the statement that decriminalisation would make the price of Marijuana fall increasing availability. This is no scientific grounding for such a statement, and in fact if the government controlled the supply of marijuana it could be taxed in the same way alcohol and tobacco are, creating higher prices with the use of a "sin" tax, the profits of which could be diverted to effective drug education programs and other harm mininimisation activities.
Outside of these enormous costs of prohibition, in addition to a drastic failure as a control measure, the other problem we have with cannabis is its use by children and teenagers - we agree clearly on this. But I don't believe that continued prohibition is the answer to this issue either. Kids should NOT be using pot. How do we stop this? Not by allowing the gangs to control supply - but by Government controlling the supply - as it does with Alcohol. The simple fact it, it is easer for kids to get Pot than Booze. That to me says it all - drug prohibition is not only a failure but it harms those who need protection the most - kids.
When we look at the remarkably high cost of enforcing prohibition, including the disproportionate arrest and conviction rate of Maori and Pacific Islanders, and the overall disproportionate number of cannabis convictions relative to other offences, and it becomes clear cannabis laws are at best unworkable and at worst unjust. When taken in the context of their failure to prevent children from using cannabis, the benefit it provides to organised crime, and the ethical considerations of punishing otherwise law abiding citizens cannabis prohibition laws start to look rather ridiculous.
Lets also quickly contrast cannabis prohibition against Homosexual law reform. Both laws are/were based on out moded moral prejudices stemming from our Judaeo-Christian heritage. Cannabis laws were not enacted for any specific health reasons, and to suggest otherwise shows a fundamental ignorance of why cannabis laws were enacted. They were enacted on fundamentally on moral grounds. Much the same as homesexual laws were. Given that the evidence shows only very slight to moderate risks of physical harm from cannabis use, and bearing in mind about 2 times as many people in New Zealand smoke cannabis as are practicing homosexuals, and the unfairness of the law becomes further apparent.
What impact would the money spent on cannabis convictions have on resolution of property crime? I'd suggest that a higher resolution of property crime would also see a decrease in violence and other offences as most career offenders start with property crime and progress from there. What impact would an additional $1 billion and Tax revenue do for the country? How much better would out health and education systems be?
I and a significant number of New Zealanders also feel that Cannabis Prohibition also an immoral breach of an individuals right to determine what they do with their bodies. Mr Tanczos IS a good example of someone who uses cannabis with little or no ill effects. The simple reality is is that the majority of cannabis users are otherwise law abiding citizens who hold jobs and contribute to society.
For those who aren't responsible cannabis users, I would suggest to you than cannabis use is not the cause of their problems but rather a symptom - if cannabis didn't exist it would be alcohol or something else. Fixing the problem requires treating the problem - not the symptoms.
Please do some more reseach into this subject and look at the objective facts without being blinded by morality. The research I have done to date leads me to conclude prohibition of cannabis does far more harm than the drug itself. Also please consider the following information concerning the physical health risks of cannabis:
"The ruling by US Drug Enforcement Administration Judge Francis Young, in response to a petition by NORML in the USA to reschedule marijuana from Schedule 1 to 2 (to allow marijuana to be prescribed as a medicine) was the largest and most comprehensive study yet undertaken into marijuana's toxicity and medical efficacy. He found:
"4. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.
"5. This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.
"6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.
"7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.
"8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.
"9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity."
"Opinion and recommended ruling, findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision of DEA administrative law judge", Sept 6 1988
"Marijuana is one of the least toxic substances in the whole pharmacopoeia"
Professor Lester Grinspoon, Harvard Medical School, USA"
I respect WHAT and WHY you believe cannabis prohibition should continue, but the practicalities have shown that this is an unworkable solution that causes more harm than good. We need a new system, that minimises harm and restricts the access of children to marijuana effectively, without also penalising Adults who use cannabis responsibly.
Last edited by Realist on Tue Jul 13, 2004 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total
Joined: Jun 19, 2004 Posts: 99 Location: Wellington NZ
Kudos Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 12:30 am
Fantastic letter in fact.
I think I'd like to make a copy of that letter and send it in as well....
I mean.. really, it says it all.... _________________ I'll add a better signature when I think of one.
Bogus Morality and disinformation cannot stand the weight of logic and fact...
In many regards Jim is trying to do what he thingks is the right thing, but with outdated and illogical reasoning based on old fashioned puritanical morality...
I think keeping kids off drugs is a good thing - until they are old enough to make an informed choice, based on fact and logic, AND old enough to deal with the consequences of those choices...
BTW -I didn't put a return email address so I wont get a reply - but I'm happy for anyone to copy this and send it to anyone in politics they desire....
Maybe I'll put an FAQ together on Pot in the next week or so that can be sent out... "What the Government Doesn't want you to know about cannabis"
I guess I am lucky that I can write well - so I'd like to use my skills and do my bit to overthrow prohibition...
I'm happy to devote my time and brain cells to the cause... If anyone has any letter writing on the subject of cannabis please let me know and I'll be happy to do some more research and put fingers to keyboard...
Who knows, maybe in a wee bit I'll even pluck up enough courage to stick my head up and get involved in public debates....
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
