Drug Addiction And The Law In N.Z.

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32214, 5 February 1970, Page 16

Drug Addiction And The Law In N.Z.

(By the Rev. P. D. RAMSAY)

A:es, New Zealand is “hooked.” Our addiction is sports and outdoor activities. The abundance of beaches, mountains, unspoiled countryside and a temperate climate provide wholesome outlets for youthful energy. Our 2| million people (92 per cent British descent.) possess initiative and an evenly-spread affluence.

We have no huge cities, and no problems with unemployment, illiteracy, slums, or racial tension. Our annual drug bill is over $26 million. 1 wish I could say, “No addicts.” But at least there are no big-time “pushers.” At present 13 out of 15 acquire the habit from persons already taking drugs. One 20-year-old, on the evening related to his conviction, had introduced nine youths to drugs. This trend to experimentation warrants comprehensive measures to counter the idea that peddling drugs in a big way is profitable. We have no smuggling ring, thanks to the vigilance of police and customs officers, whose aim it is to cut off the source of illicit supply. Drug thefts from premises —a new type of crime—has increased tenfold in the last two years. In Auckland alone, 107 pharmacies and a wholesale druggist (a $2OOO haul) were burgled in 1968. The black market is eight times normal value A licence for holding drugs is necessary in our country, and their issue dependent upon a satisfactory security check. Elaborate storage and locking regulations were introduced in April, ! 1969. I There is evidence, the Department of Health tells us,

of prescription abuse and forgery. Some doctors oversubscribe, and some patients attend several doctors for the express purpose of drug supply. The 1969 Poisons Amendment Act was introduced last September, not to restrict the legitimate use of prescription poisons, but to curb the trafficking in drugs misused for non-therapeutic purposes. The act provides up to six months imprisonment and a fine up to $lOOO or both. Prosecution is now easier, for the police have power of arrest and immediate right of search where a suspicion of drug abuse or peddling is involved.

In 1968 the Government appointed a committee “to inquire into and report on drug dependency and drug abuse in New Zealand and make recommendations thereon.” To this date there has been no report to the Minister of Health, nor has the public been informed of progress. Its chairman, Dr G. Blake-Palmer, deputy Direc-tor-General of Health, said in February last year that New Zealand still has a little time in which to take the counter measures to minimise the impact of narcotics.

Concern over addiction may appear to some as exaggerated: 156 drug-taking offences in 1968 (and three deaths), 50 in 1967, and fewer than 25 in 1966. The acceleration, and two-thirds of prosecutions now against persons under 21 years are however, disturbing trends. Formerly, drug charges were almost wholly against older men. Drastic measures to meet a serious situation have not won universal support. Surprisingly, a number of responsible people opposed the 1965 Narcotics Act as “unsporting” —a departure from the traditions of British justice. We would hope their view has changed, for results have justified the special powers then igiven to the Police. The right to enter and search private property without warrant—is for a democracy—a big legislative concession. Our Police have shown a commendable restraint in its use. That some people would prefer addiction to seldom-used Statutory power is a frightening thought. Narcotics abuse is a public problem more than a police problem and any effectiveness in law enforcement and expansion, and ment depends upon the public’s co-operation. Victims Of Alcohol Legislation (and mass communications media) has dramatised “narcotics” without due recognition of the effects of our most popular depressant, Both court and culture should “come of age,” surmount prejudice, and plainly admit that alcohol produces 20 times more victims than all other addictive substances combined. Neither in the Nar-I cotics Act nor in the terms of reference of the Drug Dependency and Drug Abuse Committee is alcohol named. Does it deserve this political favour? Alcohol acts progressively on the nervous system as its effects are concerned. Atrophy of the brain due to chronic alcoholism cannot be distinguished from atrophy due to morphine or heroin. There is general recognition of the risks accompanying indiscriminate use of barbiturates, tranquillisers, and pep pills. The public is alert to the "hard” drugs and is rightly suspicious of LSD and marijuana. When the alcoholimpaired driver sweeps on to our crowded highways in his powerful ear there is no matching abhorrence or public outcry. To underline our social hypocrisy a man cannot grow a cannabis plant in his garden, nor have the merest puff in the solitude of his own home without risk of a heavy fine or prison. How can our nation expect to make progress with its 35.000 ad-

diets when the broader question of alcohol use is unanswered, avoided? The Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act, in force since January, 1969, defines the alcoholic as “a person whose persistent and excessive indulgence in alcoholic liquor is causing or is likely to cause serious injury to his health or is a source of harm, suffering or serious annoyance to others or renders him incapable of properly managing himself or his affairs.” The drug addict similarly. “Any person whose addiction to intoxicating, stimulating, narcotic or sedative drugs is causing . ... ”

Committal Powers Before this Act a magistrate had power to issue a prohibition order forbidding the purchase or possession of liqtior, or by virtue of the Reformatory Institutions Act, 1909, could direct an offender (mostly "found drunk in a public place”) to an inebriates’ home. Now he may commit for treatment for a period up to two years. It does not require a civil breach as a starter. Committal may be initiated by a relative, the Police, or any other reputable person. It need not be a public hospital (11 per cent admissions alcoholism) but a “Certified Institution.” The patient (he is no longer a prisoner, for control has passed from the Justice Department to the Department of Health) may appeal after six months to be discharged forthwith, released on leave of absence, or made over to any relative or friend who is willing and able to take care of him.

Our new laws, liberalised by the work of the behavioural sciences, and with a helpfulness towards victims of addiction as well as a protection of public decency and order, have built-in incentives. Alert communities may plan rehabilitative and information centres, or even establish and maintain a “Certified Institution.” Individuals are encouraged to exercise a supportive role. Some persons could train for this remedial ministry. When community resources are generally available and well publicised, addicts of alcohol and other drugs may be expected to appeal for assistance long before the chronic stage is reached. Education in matters of habituation may help our addicted society to see that prevention is infinitely better than cure. Self-destructive conduct is now an illness, not a crime. The change in law poses the question: Has a man no longer the right to “mainline” himself to oblivion, drink himself to death? Can he be helped—by compulsory treatment—in spite of himself?”