Pubdate: Sat, 17 Jun 2000
Source: Press, The (New Zealand)
Copyright: 2000 The Christchurch Press Company Ltd.
Contact:  Private Bag 4722, Christchurch, New Zealand
Fax: +64-3-364-8238
Website: http://www.press.co.nz/

SMOKE AND MIRRORS

There is a growing clamour for change to the cannabis laws in this country. 
Today, The Press launches a major series on the cannabis debate, to place 
in context the calls for reform, to highlight the nature of the problem, 
the state of research, the policing and educational issues, and the 
political arguments.

In 1998 a health select committee chaired by National MP Brian Neeson 
unanimously pitched for a review of the current law. That review, while 
almost certain to go ahead, is now on hold, blocked temporarily by the 
Greens, who want the issues examined by the electoral and justice committee 
rather than the health committee.

This high-level political attention is mirrored by a recent two-year 
government inquiry in Britain. The Runciman report, Drugs and the Law, 
concluded, among other things, that cannabis, although not harmless, is "by 
many of the main criteria of harm - mortality, morbidity, toxicity, 
addictiveness, and relationship with other crime - less harmful to the 
individual and society than any of the other major illicit drugs, or than 
alcohol and tobacco".

Whatever the evidence - and it seems that there are sufficient 
international studies to support the spectrum of opinion from liberal 
reform to hard-line reaction - there are very real indications that in New 
Zealand sections of the community remain frighteningly vulnerable to the 
drug: notably adolescents and the mentally ill.

The increasing use of marijuana in our secondary schools is of grave 
concern to teachers, principals, and parents up and down the country. They 
see changes in personality and behaviour in adolescents exposed to 
marijuana: these children - and many of them are just this - become 
uncommunicative, confrontational, and unmotivated. Such observations accord 
with an emerging consensus among medical researchers that for young people 
whose bodies and brains are still maturing the drug can impart serious 
conditions: memory impairment, attention disorders, and an adverse effect 
on personal development and socialisation.

In Christchurch, initiatives have been set in motion by those looking to 
confront and deal with the problem in a constructive manner. Barry Maister, 
at St Andrew's College, is investigating a programme for offenders that 
rather than see them expelled - thereby simply passing the buck to the next 
school on the block - would enter them into a radical drug education programme.

And those working in the mental health sector time and again report the 
dangerous and sometimes fatal consequences of mixing marijuana with 
medication, or simply with particular mental conditions.

Proponents of legalisation or decriminalisation point to the "waste" of 
police manpower and court time prosecuting "harmless" cannabis users. Last 
year police spent more than 300,000 hours and $22 million enforcing 
cannabis laws. Approximately 8000 people were prosecuted for cannabis 
possession. Another 3000 were given warnings, diversion, or handled by the 
youth justice system.

The pro-reform lobby has a point. But so do those who warn that any 
loosening of the laws governing the drug makes it more acceptable, and 
ultimately more available, to the vulnerable young.

The most productive approach to the conundrum is clearly to define the 
ultimate aim of the putative reform. If it is to protect this country's 
young from the effects of a drug the long-term effects of which are still 
uncertain, then relaxation of the current laws should be resisted until we 
are in a better position to gauge the likely impact.

Dr David Fergusson, executive director of the Christchurch Medical School's 
Health and Development study - based on a group of 1265 15-to-21 year olds 
- - says that it is possible to liberalise without relaxing the law. This 
would involve making an administrative decision at police level that 
first-time users would be diverted and not sent to court. Occasional 
recreational smokers would not be criminalised, while serious prohibitions 
would remain.

Such an approach is not entirely out of line with police opinion. Assistant 
Commissioner of Police Paul Fitzharris says the police are considering a 
number of options including "depenalisation" for small possession offences. 
This could include a system of warnings and diversion which would not 
require law changes.

There is a considerable irony in the baby-boomer generation having to 
grapple with the problem. This is, after all, the generation that grew up 
in a fug of dope smoke. In the 60s and 70s they thrilled to the music and 
rebellion of Easy Rider - "Don't bogart that joint, my friend" - swayed and 
played in the mud at Woodstock, laughed hysterically at Cheech and Chong 
and the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers, served hash cookies at dinner 
parties ... and mellowed out on the whole trip, man, along the overland 
trail to Europe.

Today, exposure to dope is almost an inevitability for young people. For 
this they should not be unnecessarily criminalised. But neither is it a 
trip on which they should be in any way encouraged to embark until they are 
adult enough to understand the consequences.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart