Nandor Tanczos: Change inevitable for cannabis laws

COMMENT

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 report of Parliament's health select committee 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 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 evidence.

It also showed a worrying lack of interest in what the evidence might say.

The select committee report has now 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, are:

pf* Moderate adult use carries a low risk of harm, but heavy chronic and/or underage use is associated with health problems.

pf* A harm minimisation strategy is the most effective way of addressing the public health issues.

pf* The aim of legislation should be to prevent underage use, not to criminalise non-problematic adult use.

pf* Cannabis prohibition is not reducing cannabis use or abuse, but is causing significant problems of its own, including an illegal market and exposing cannabis users to hard drugs.

pf* 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 among submitters, including between the public and the experts.

In summarising and evaluating the evidence before it, the select committee has provided a useful contribution towards an informed debate.

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 that allowed evidence to be heard, evaluated and published. That is essential 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 is to find genuine solutions to the problems of drug abuse, 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 a 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 had resulted in 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 for progress.

The committee has made a number of recommendations to that end, including:

pf* Allow medical use of clinically tested cannabis products.

pf* Expand the police diversion scheme for cannabis offences.

pf* 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 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.

If the police were 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 in New Zealand between 1994 and 2000, and that there were 9399 prosecutions for the use of cannabis in 1999, that would free 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, despite United Future's best efforts.

* Nandor Tanczos is the Greens' spokesman on drug policy.