The Press THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1969. Legal Marijuana ?

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32072, 21 August 1969, Page 10

The Press THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1969. Legal Marijuana ?

The Minister of Health, Mr McKay, is abundantly justified in rejecting the proposal to legalise the use of marijuana. No argument so far put up by its advocates suggests that they have special knowledge of the drug and its effects that has not been weighed carefully by authorities who oppose its use. When the committee on drug dependence and drug abuse has reported to the Board of Health New Zealanders should have a much better understanding of the use and misuse of drugs in this country. The committee has already commented on the control of marijuana. Five months ago it noted the findings of the Wootten committee in Britain (the Home Office advisory committee on drug dependence). The Wootten report classified marijuana as a dangerous drug “ having as wide a capacity as alcohol to alter “ mood, judgment, and functional ability ”. The New Zealand committee’s spokesman said: “ It was signifi- “ cant that even those of our witnesses who saw “ the least danger in the drug were concerned to “ discourage juveniles from using it. We conclude, “ therefore, that in the interests of public health “it is necessary to maintain restrictions on the “ availability and use of this drug. For the purpose “of enforcing these restrictions there is no “alternative to the criminal law and its penalties ”, The committee's report is now being drafted and it will be surprising if the committee has changed its opinion: in the light of evidence on the dangers of marijuana its recommendations will probably be even more explicit Proposals that the use of marijuana be made legal, such as the deferred resolution by the national commission of the New Zealand University Students’ Association, draw heavily on the proposition that marijuana is no more damaging to its users than alcohol. They sometimes appeal to the idea that the State should not interfere with the individual unless the actions of the individual are harmful to others. The idea is summed up in J. S. Mill’s dictum: “ The only purpose “ for which power can rightly be exercised over “any member of a civilised community against his “will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, “ either physical or moral, is not a sufficient “warrant”. Both propositions are doubtful. While the use of marijuana might not lead to a physical dependence on the drug it may easily lead to a psychological dependence. The confidence of those seeking the abolition of legal restraints is certainly not shared by medical authorities. It is generally agreed that marijuana is less dangerous than many other drugs. But even those competent authorities on drug use and addiction who see no need for severe penalties on users of marijuana oppose its legal sale because the effects of the drug are inadequately understood.

The Mill dictum is difficult to reconcile with modem concepts of government—especially in the Welfare State. Furthermore, it does not comprehend the fullness of Mill’s own argument “ On Liberty Society, as a whole, must protect itself against the collective effects of individual actions on the community’s welfare, even if those actions are not directly and immediately harmful to other individuals. This argument applies equally to the use of alcohol and any other drug. Although the community may tolerate the use of one drug and the problems that arise from it, it does not follow that it should tolerate the use of another drug. The misuse of drugs that are medically prescribed is no justification for making other drugs legally available. It is, if anything, an argument for the more discreet use of all drags.