T
The420Guy
Guest
The Green Party thinks the health select committee's report on the use
of cannabis should trigger a rational debate on the use of cannabis in
New Zealand. NANDOR TANCZOS writes that the report has confirmed just
how inevitable change is.
What passes for political debate is usually no more than marketing,
and good copy is more highly prized than good sense. That is
especially the case for such an emotive debate as cannabis law reform.
So the health select committee report on cannabis is an unusual beast.
It puts substance before sizzle.
It may be because we spent three years on the inquiry, or it may be
because the committee was constrained by the political environment
following the confidence-and-supply agreement between United Future
and the Government. That agreement, which included a Government
commitment not to introduce legislation to change the legal status of
cannabis, staked United Future's credibility on holding off the inevitable.
The attempt to pre-empt the inquiry showed a very real disrespect of
the select committee, of the almost 2500 members of the public who
made submissions to it, and of the expert witnesses, some of whom flew
from the other side of the world to present their evidence. It also
showed a worrying lack of interest in what the evidence might say.
The committee report has confirmed just how inevitable change is.
Without making headline-grabbing recommendations or rash promises, the
committee has well and truly set the scene for law reform. What the
committee's findings show, in summary, is:
Moderate adult use carries a low risk of harm but heavy chronic and/or
underage use is associated with health problems.
A harm minimisation strategy is the most effective way of addressing
the public health issues. The aim of legislation should be to prevent
underage use, not to criminalise non-problematic adult use.
Cannabis prohibition is not reducing cannabis use or abuse but is
causing significant problems of its own, including facilitating an
illegal market and exposing cannabis users to hard drugs.
Some progress towards decriminalisation can be made in this term of
Parliament and further work is needed on the justice issues to
identify the best model of legislative change.
The surprising thing about the process was the high level of general
agreement between different submitters, including between the general
public and the experts. In summarising and evaluating the evidence
before it, the select committee has provided a very useful
contribution towards an informed debate on this issue.
Parliamentary committees and commissions around the world have been
doing just that. Cannabis law reform in Canada, Britain, Belgium and
Australia has all been preceded by an inquiry process that allowed the
evidence to be heard, evaluated and published. That is essential in
order to sift the solid evidence from the spurious. What is evident is
that when the facts are known, the case for change is
overwhelming.
What most people want, I believe, is to find genuine solutions to the
problems of drug abuse in our society, of underage use and of an
increasingly rich and powerful drug distribution network. Most people,
according to surveys, have long come to the conclusion that while
cannabis law reform is not a silver bullet, it will remove one major
obstacle to achieving those goals.
So the select committee report is in line with general opinion when it
states that, "The current high levels of use and the level of black
market 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".
The committee also said that cannabis law reform in the Netherlands
"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
light of public concern about the increasing use of methamphetamines,
that should make us all stop and think.
While the agreement between United Future and the Government inhibits
legislative change of that kind, it does leave some room to progress
change. The committee has made a number of recommendations to that
effect, including:
Allow medical use of clinically tested cannabis products.
Expand the police diversion scheme for cannabis offences.
Divert minor cannabis offenders into compulsory health assessment for
first possession and use offences, rather than a criminal conviction.
Of greater significance is the recommendation that the Expert Advisory
Committee on Drugs give high priority to a reclassification of
cannabis. This regulatory change would not breach the
confidence-and-supply agreement as it would not entail
legislation.
Cannabis is currently scheduled as a C1 drug. Reclassification to C2
or C3, which is likely to be the result, would retain the same
penalties for illicit use and supply but make it easier to regulate as
a medicine. It would also remove the search-without-warrant powers of
the police.
I believe that if the police are unable to body search for cannabis
without a warrant, the number of arrests would go down to a fraction
of what they are now. When you think that on average about 22,000
people were arrested for all cannabis offences each year between 1994
and 2000, and that there were 9399 prosecutions for the use of
cannabis in 1999, that would free up considerable police resources for
investigating real crime.
To reinforce this, the report asks the justice and electoral select
committee to look at the search-without-warrant powers of the police
under the Misuse of Drugs Act, and in conjunction to consider an
appropriate legal status for cannabis. This will ensure that the
justice/civil rights issues will be at the forefront of any
recommended legislative model that develops.
List MP Nandor Tanczos is the Greens' spokesman on drug
policy.
Pubdate: Wed, 27 Aug 2003
Source: Otago Daily Times (New Zealand)
Copyright: Allied Press Limited, 2003
Contact: odt.editor@alliedpress.co.nz
Website: Otago News | Stuff.co.nz
of cannabis should trigger a rational debate on the use of cannabis in
New Zealand. NANDOR TANCZOS writes that the report has confirmed just
how inevitable change is.
What passes for political debate is usually no more than marketing,
and good copy is more highly prized than good sense. That is
especially the case for such an emotive debate as cannabis law reform.
So the health select committee report on cannabis is an unusual beast.
It puts substance before sizzle.
It may be because we spent three years on the inquiry, or it may be
because the committee was constrained by the political environment
following the confidence-and-supply agreement between United Future
and the Government. That agreement, which included a Government
commitment not to introduce legislation to change the legal status of
cannabis, staked United Future's credibility on holding off the inevitable.
The attempt to pre-empt the inquiry showed a very real disrespect of
the select committee, of the almost 2500 members of the public who
made submissions to it, and of the expert witnesses, some of whom flew
from the other side of the world to present their evidence. It also
showed a worrying lack of interest in what the evidence might say.
The committee report has confirmed just how inevitable change is.
Without making headline-grabbing recommendations or rash promises, the
committee has well and truly set the scene for law reform. What the
committee's findings show, in summary, is:
Moderate adult use carries a low risk of harm but heavy chronic and/or
underage use is associated with health problems.
A harm minimisation strategy is the most effective way of addressing
the public health issues. The aim of legislation should be to prevent
underage use, not to criminalise non-problematic adult use.
Cannabis prohibition is not reducing cannabis use or abuse but is
causing significant problems of its own, including facilitating an
illegal market and exposing cannabis users to hard drugs.
Some progress towards decriminalisation can be made in this term of
Parliament and further work is needed on the justice issues to
identify the best model of legislative change.
The surprising thing about the process was the high level of general
agreement between different submitters, including between the general
public and the experts. In summarising and evaluating the evidence
before it, the select committee has provided a very useful
contribution towards an informed debate on this issue.
Parliamentary committees and commissions around the world have been
doing just that. Cannabis law reform in Canada, Britain, Belgium and
Australia has all been preceded by an inquiry process that allowed the
evidence to be heard, evaluated and published. That is essential in
order to sift the solid evidence from the spurious. What is evident is
that when the facts are known, the case for change is
overwhelming.
What most people want, I believe, is to find genuine solutions to the
problems of drug abuse in our society, of underage use and of an
increasingly rich and powerful drug distribution network. Most people,
according to surveys, have long come to the conclusion that while
cannabis law reform is not a silver bullet, it will remove one major
obstacle to achieving those goals.
So the select committee report is in line with general opinion when it
states that, "The current high levels of use and the level of black
market 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".
The committee also said that cannabis law reform in the Netherlands
"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
light of public concern about the increasing use of methamphetamines,
that should make us all stop and think.
While the agreement between United Future and the Government inhibits
legislative change of that kind, it does leave some room to progress
change. The committee has made a number of recommendations to that
effect, including:
Allow medical use of clinically tested cannabis products.
Expand the police diversion scheme for cannabis offences.
Divert minor cannabis offenders into compulsory health assessment for
first possession and use offences, rather than a criminal conviction.
Of greater significance is the recommendation that the Expert Advisory
Committee on Drugs give high priority to a reclassification of
cannabis. This regulatory change would not breach the
confidence-and-supply agreement as it would not entail
legislation.
Cannabis is currently scheduled as a C1 drug. Reclassification to C2
or C3, which is likely to be the result, would retain the same
penalties for illicit use and supply but make it easier to regulate as
a medicine. It would also remove the search-without-warrant powers of
the police.
I believe that if the police are unable to body search for cannabis
without a warrant, the number of arrests would go down to a fraction
of what they are now. When you think that on average about 22,000
people were arrested for all cannabis offences each year between 1994
and 2000, and that there were 9399 prosecutions for the use of
cannabis in 1999, that would free up considerable police resources for
investigating real crime.
To reinforce this, the report asks the justice and electoral select
committee to look at the search-without-warrant powers of the police
under the Misuse of Drugs Act, and in conjunction to consider an
appropriate legal status for cannabis. This will ensure that the
justice/civil rights issues will be at the forefront of any
recommended legislative model that develops.
List MP Nandor Tanczos is the Greens' spokesman on drug
policy.
Pubdate: Wed, 27 Aug 2003
Source: Otago Daily Times (New Zealand)
Copyright: Allied Press Limited, 2003
Contact: odt.editor@alliedpress.co.nz
Website: Otago News | Stuff.co.nz