Home ›

Frequently Asked Questions regarding cannabis law reform

Nandor Tanczos MP

04 Jul 2003
Subject: Drug Law Reform

Spokesperson: 
Green Party


"Do you support legalisation or decriminalisation"?

We support decriminalisation. By that we mean that it should not be a crime for adults to use cannabis.

We recognise that some people do have problems resulting from cannabis use. We believe that reducing the harmful effects of cannabis lies in providing realistic and credible education on the consequences of using drugs such as cannabis and alcohol, in providing adequate treatment facilities for those with problems, and in addressing the underlying causes of the abuse of cannabis, alcohol and other drugs.

The police should be focussing their attention on cracking down on those who supply children with cannabis.


"Won't gangs sell harder drugs if we change the cannabis laws?"

They already do, and we are currently facing a serious problem with the use of crystal methamphetamine (P). The only way most people come into contact with such drugs is through buying cannabis. If people are able to grow their own cannabis, they won't need to buy it or come in to contact with hard drugs. One of the aims of our policy is to minimise harm by making it less likely that people will come into contact with hard drugs.

If people could grow their own cannabis there would be fewer tinny houses and less of a market for gangs. In Holland a deliberate policy to split the cannabis market away from hard drugs has led to one of the lowest rates of hard drug addiction in Europe. It is prohibition that creates the 'gateway' effect.


"We already have enough problems with alcohol and tobacco. Why make another drug available?"

Cannabis is already available — and its use has been increasing under prohibition. The fact that it is illegal does not stop people using it. The statistics clearly show this:

  • Fifty two per cent of New Zealanders aged 15 — 45 admit having used cannabis at some time.
  • Only 7.7% of people stated that the reason they had never tried cannabis was because of the risk of being caught by the authorities.
  • A recent study in CHCH showed that 95% of people convicted for cannabis use continued with or increased their use after their conviction.

This shows that the legal status of cannabis does not stop people using it.

However, surveys by Whariki Maori Health Research Unit and by Sally Casswell of Auckland Public Health Research Unit show that the main reason that people who identify themselves as having trouble with cannabis do not seek help is fear of being arrested.

Prof Fred Fastier a former professor of pharmacology at the University of Otago and member of the Board of Health Committee 1973 which developed the Misuse of Drugs Act said:

"Mike Moore may well have been expressing an opinion held by many other MPs when he said "It's a crazy world where we will be banning cigarettes and legalising dope." Nevertheless, that view is not supported by the facts. Compared with tobacco, cannabis is almost innocuous. Commissions set up in the United Kingdom, the United States and various other countries have all found that the danger of taking cannabis has been exaggerated and that in moderate use it is rarely harmful (a conclusion accepted by the Health Select Committee of the New Zealand House of Representatives in a report published in 1998)"


"But won't decriminalisation make cannabis more available to young people?"

Cannabis is widely available to young people now. It is more easily accessed than alcohol for many young people because when they visit a tinny house, even in school uniform, they don't have to show age ID.

Evidence clearly shows that young people are able to easily access cannabis. Current laws do not stop this:

  • 4% of people aged 15 — 17yrs reported that they use cannabis frequently (10 times or more in the last month). Of concern is that between 1998 and 2001 the numbers of women aged 15 -17 reporting "frequent use" increased from 0% to 4%.
  • In 2001, 36% thought marijuana was easier to get, 48% thought there had been no change, and 15% thought it was harder to get.
  • In 2001, increases in the use of "skunk' (a more potent form of marijuana) were particularly marked for 15-17 year old women: use in the last year increased from 4% to 12% and current use increased from 3% to 10%."

It is important that we acknowledge that young people are already using cannabis and the current laws aren't stopping that. In fact cannabis use has been growing under the present laws.

Holland, a number of Australian states, Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, England, Alaska and even some American states have all realised that prohibition for adults does not work and that the best way to protect young people is to remove criminality from adult cannabis use and deal with it in the open. They have changed their laws.

It is time for New Zealand also to develop a system that meets the values and needs of our society. There are many examples of behaviours which adults can enjoy but which are prohibited to young people. Our society places regulations and obligations on the adult users in order to protect young people. The Green Party aims to make cannabis legislation consistent with such other behaviours. We believe that regulating who can access cannabis will offer more protection to young people than the unregulated situation under prohibition.


"How does making it legal to grow your own plants in your back yard make it harder for under 18 year olds to access pot? They're not stupid, they'll either steal it or grow their own"

Cultivation for personal supply would be subject to restrictions including the quantity of marijuana that can be grown. If thefts occur (and it is obviously in the home growers interest to reduce the risk of this occuring) then at least the matter can be referred to the police, and if young people are involved, then it is important that their parents and the appropriate authorities know and appropriate assessment or treatment for drug use / theft can be put in place.

Prohibition creates a blanket of secrecy. By removing the penalties for adult personal use, we are removing that secrecy and creating an environment where the whole community (including adult users) are able to take responsibility for keeping children and teenagers safe.

In the current prohibitionist environment, victims of theft have no other recourse than violence to prevent it happening again.

"The Northland police believe competition between rival cannabis cultivators and thefts of crops have been responsible for some incidents of violence in the area — including 3 of the last 5 murders"
Dr Chris Wilkins, "The cannabis black market and the case for the legalisation of cannabis in New Zealand". (Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Massey University; Social Policy Journal of New Zealand; Issue 18; June 2002)


"Relaxing the laws on cannabis would give the wrong message to young people"

The message we want to give to young people is to avoid substances that will adversely affect their education and development (alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, caffeine, illegal drugs etc). The message we want to give to adults is that, if they choose to use substances such as alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, caffeine, etc, they should only use them in a manner which will minimise harm to themselves, those around them and society as a whole.

Prof Fred Fastier a former professor of pharmacology at the University of Otago and member of the Board of Health Committee 1973 which developed the Misuse of Drugs Act said (9th Oct. 2000, Otago Daily Times):

"People who oppose relaxing our drug laws on the grounds "it would give the wrong message" should consider whether they have been giving the right message. For instance, have they been right in maintaining that cannabis is far worse than alcohol or tobacco? This flouts expert opinion.

I have two objections to the frequently aired slogan, "Let's get tough on drugs!" The first is to its selective application. An existing "wrong message" is the reluctance of society to get tough on the abuse of alcohol. The second is to the implication that the non-medical use of drugs is necessarily harmful.

Consider alcohol: most of those who take it harm neither themselves nor anyone else. We have gradually realised the need to concentrate attention on measures to minimise the abuse of alcohol."


"Why does the Green party support initiatives for healthy lifestyles (organic farming, safe food, etc) then blow it by promoting cannabis?"

The Green Party does not promote cannabis. We promote a sensible cannabis policy, as do many doctors, lawyers, educators and police.

We recognise that some people have problems with cannabis. We also acknowledge that many people will continue to use cannabis regardless of its legal status. Studies have indicated that 95% of those convicted of a cannabis offence continue to use cannabis after their conviction. We do not believe that arresting people for cannabis use is an effective solution.

The Green Party has a consistent approach to addictive behaviours, such as gambling, alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and prescription drug abuse. We are opposed to the promotion of addictive behaviours but do not support making criminals of those who have problems of addiction. For example, the Green Party is opposed to the promotion of gambling but we do not propose arresting people for having a flutter.

We also recognise that people are responsible for their own behaviour and removing penalties for personal use is consistent with other Green Party social polices. A basic principle governing cannabis policy development is - "upholding of individual rights where these do not unreasonably impinge on others" (official NZ Drug Policy since 1995).
(National Drug Policy: 1998 - 2003, Part 2: Illict and Other Drugs, Ministry of Health, page 37; available at www.ndp.govt.nz.)

We lastly recognise that some groups in our society are less able to voice their views and concerns in the political arena. In particular, marginalised ethnic minorities such as Maori, those living in poverty and young people are the groups which are most harmed by current cannabis laws. These groups are also the least able to access legal assistance, have the least knowledge of how to initiate law change, and have the fewest resources to defend themselves or present their opinions to lawmakers.

It is consistent with Green Party ethics to speak up in support of those groups in our society who are disproportionately harmed by discriminatory, inefficient and ineffective legislation.


"We already have a serious drugs problem in NZ. Won't a change in cannabis laws just make it worse?"

International evidence indicates that removing the penalties from personal cannabis use will reduce the harm to individuals and society from cannabis use. In Holland for example, a relaxation in cannabis laws has reduced heroin use. That was one intention of the law changes. Separating cannabis from the "harder drug" market reduces the chance that individuals will come into contact with those drugs.

Some benefits of a change in cannabis laws would be:

1. Encouraging those who develop a problem with their cannabis use to seek help.

Surveys by Whariki Maori Health Research Unit and by Sally Casswell of Auckland Public Health Research Unit show that the main reason that people who identify themselves as having trouble with cannabis do not seek help is fear of being arrested. Removing penalties for personal use would enable people to access health care and education more easily and without fear.
"Repressing drug use prevents us from being able to contact cannabis users and to help them to stop taking the drug" Michael Graf, Institute for Drug and Alcohol Prevention

2. Reduction in the use of other illicit drugs.

Countries that have changed their laws, such as Holland, a number of Australian states, Switzerland, Belgium etc show no increase in cannabis use as a result of law reform, and had often have reduced rates of other ("harder") drug use.

In the current situation cannabis users come into contact with harder drugs through a dealer. If penalties for personal use and cultivation were removed most users would be content to grow and use cannabis and might never come into contact with "P", speed, ecstasy etc.

A recent American twin study noted
"experience with and subsequent access to cannabis use may provide individuals with access to other drugs as they come into contact with drug dealers. This argument provided a strong impetus for the Netherlands to effectively decriminalize cannabis use in an attempt to separate cannabis from the hard drug market. This strategy may have been partially successful as rates of cocaine use among those who have used cannabis are lower in the Netherlands than in the United States."

This is reinforced by research in New Zealand.

3. Free up police and justice system resources.

Removing the penalties for personal use could free up to $52 million dollars from law enforcement and court systems. Part of this money could be redirected to drug education and treatment for people who abuse drugs.

"Our judgement based on a review of research evidence is that at present the primary harms of marijuana use come from criminalisation: expensive and intrusive enforcement; shock to the conscience from disproportionate sentence and a substantial (although generally non-violent) blackmarket" R. MacCoun and P. Reuter


"I don't care whether cannabis is a health issue, a legal issue, or a human rights issue. I just don't want my kids using it."

Nobody wants their kids to be using drugs, although many parents do allow their children to use drugs in the form of caffeinated drinks, such as Coke, V etc. The real question is what are we doing now to protect our kids from drug use?

The Green Party is the only Parliamentary party that is acknowledging that the status quo is NOT protecting our kids. Cannabis is readily available to young people and prohibition has not stopped that. It has been shown that the legal status of cannabis is not a deterrent.

We are the only political party which has researched the issue and developed a policy which we believe will help to protect our children and reduce harm to individuals and society.

Most political parties don't even want to discuss the issues because of the strong public reaction. However, the ostrich "head in the sand" approach will not keep our kids off drugs.

The Green Party believes that New Zealand cannot afford to ignore the issue. We need to improve the situation.

International and national studies have repeatedly shown that prohibition does not stop drug use. Holland, a number of Australian states, Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, England, Alaska and even some American states have all realised that prohibition is not working. Many of these countries have improved the quality of drug education available, and address the issues via education from as young as preschool age.

International research indicates that holistic social policies combined with education and community building initiatives are the best way to keep kids off drugs (1). Countries such as Switzerland, Australia, Holland and West Ottawa have implemented drug education strategies which start at pre school level, are incorporated into general health and social policies and education curriculum's and include the family and community(2),(3) (4).
(1)Home Office Research Study 261 "Substance use by young offenders:the impact of the normalisation of
drug use in the early years of the 21st century" by Richard Hammersley, Louise Marsland and Marie Reid, (2)Department of Health and Human Sciences, University of Essex, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate February 2003
(3)"Schools take over more anti-drug education", Barton Deiters, The Holland Sentinel, Sept 7 1998
Project CHARLIE Curriculum; The Storefront Group
(4)National School Drug Education Strategy; Australian Dept. Education, www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au

Prof Fred Fastier a former professor of pharmacology at the University of Otago and member of the Board of Health Committee 1973 which developed the Misuse of Drugs Act said (Oct 2000):
"A common argument against easing restrictions on cannabis is expressed in such ways as, "We've trouble enough with booze and tobacco. Allowing pot would make things so much worse". I myself argued this while the number of New Zealanders using cannabis was still small. Though not optimistic, I hoped it might be possible to nip the habit in the bud, because I realised that effective control would be impossible if there were a substantial increase in demand.

My chief consolation for the failure of prohibition is that cannabis now appears to be less harmful than had been feared. To quote the health committee of our last Parliament: "Evidence received in the course of this inquiry has raised serious doubts about commonly-held beliefs about cannabis. Moderate use of the drug does not seem to harm the majority of people, though we do not deny the serious impact cannabis use may have on certain individuals". This is in line with conclusions reached elsewhere."


"Booze and smokes are legal, now you want to make cannabis legal. Where are you going to stop?"

Legislation is not set in stone. It is important to constantly review our laws to ensure that they continue to reflect the needs and values of our society. Laws should be monitored and evaluated to ensure they are effective. If the majority of the population ignore a law, then perhaps it could be concluded that that law no longer reflects the will of the society, and a change of law is needed.

The Green Party believe that penalties for personal use of cannabis must be removed (this is different from legalisation) and the effects of law reform carefully monitored and evaluated. If the evaluation process said the changes were not working, we could rethink our approach. If it recommended further law reform, further action could be taken.


"Most people are against a change in the laws on cannabis"

A UMR Insight Poll, August 2000, found that 60 per cent of New Zealanders favour cannabis law reform.

Support for law reform has been growing steadily, both in New Zealand and internationally. Holland, a number of Australian states, Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, England, Alaska and even some American states have all realised that prohibition is not working and removed criminality from adult cannabis use.