Cannabis offences — a new view

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33445, 29 January 1974, Page 3

Cannabis offences — a new view

Drug abuse cannot and will not be eliminated bv legal means alone, according to the Board of Health Committee on Drug Dependency and Drug Abuse in New Zealand.

The committee's second report, released yesterday, recommends several changes in treatment, preventive education and legal sanctions, particularly a more lenient approach in the courts to offences involving cannabis.

The Minister of Health (Mr Tizard) has announced that many of the recommendations will be incorporated in new legislation soon. In its report, the committee said there was an urgent need for the devel-

opment of alternatives to legal sanctions in the control of drugs. Uneven laws “Where the use and misuse of drugs is concerned, the committee is firmly committed to the view that the law should be regarded not as the first line of defence against harm, but i rather as the last resort,” (the report said. ( “We are aware that, because of the high proportion (of young people involved, ; the use of legal sanctions (may bear unevenly on some ■of the very people they are .intended to protect. This is a (major reason for our stress op the development of alternatives to legal sanctions.”

The use of law for control had its own costs: the effect of court convictions on young lives, the committee said. These included reduction of vocational opportunities, loss of. reputation, limitation of rights such as that to travel overseas, and the mental suffering of the offender and his family. . But on top of these costs, there was the ineffectivenes. of legal sanctions. “While commendable progress has been made in some fields, there is little, if any, chance of halting, let alone reversing, the steady escalation in the misuse of drugs unless New Zealanders individually are prepared to meet the considerable cost of providing the broad and essential minima of treatment and research facilities now required and of developing an effective public education programme.”

‘Facts’ count The committee accepted that disrespect for the law as it applied to cannabis might well arise from putting cannabis on the same statutory' footing as the 'opiates, when an increasing (proportion of the population (considered it had a much !lower potential for harm, j “It is anomalous to class 'cannabis with narcotics like (heroin,” the committee said. Two mythologies existed — in one cannabis was unduly blackened, in the other

it was whitewashed — and these complicated the issue. . “While there are still sufficient reasons to warrant continued restrictions on the use of cannabis, those who take this view must recognise that it has no absolute validity. They must be able and prepared to support it with facts rather than opinions, and they must' be prepared to accept that some sensible and responsible persons will disagree with them

. and be prepared to discuss the issue on the basis of available information rather than preconceived attitudes.” ' It appeared that the; pharmacological standing of I cannabis was not very dif-( ferent from that of alcohol, the committee said. A major] difference, ’however, was that alcoholic drinks were not used solely as intoxicants while cannabis, on the other hand, was used with the sole aim of an al-1 tered state of consciousness. I

Tobacco cited '‘Even though it may be confirmed that the long-term use of cannabis preparations can be physically damaging, thi.; hardly constitutes a strong ground for denying its use — at least so long as the use of tobacco carries no legal penalty in spite of the risks to which the habitual smoker exposes himself,” the committee said. However, a great danger of easing present restrictions on the availability of cannabis would be widespread abuse of the drug, stemming from the near impossibility of enforcing any control measures. “Whether the use of cannabis in New Zealand has become so widespread that the habit must be regarded as ineradicable is uncertain. Since we support legislative measures aimed at strongly discouraging the habit, we recommend contin|uance of a prohibition policy so long as this can be 'shown to be largely effectve.”