Report to Nandor Tanczos and The Greens on submissions to the Health Select Committee Cannabis Inquiry

The Health Select Committee received written submissions from the public until 7th February 2001. Oral submissions were heard at Public Forums held in venues throughout the country. No final report or recommendations from the Health Select Committee have been publicly released at the date of this report.

The Ministries of Health and Justice presented an analysis of public submissions to Chair Judy Keall in December 2001. That report concluded that "removing prohibition of possession of small amounts of cannabis will bring a reduction in the overall harms of cannabis use and prohibition. Any commercialisation, however, will probably increase regular use and associated harms."

Who made submissions?

Approximately five hundred and fifty written submissions were received by the Committee, the greatest number (83%) from private individuals. The Government invited 'Expert Witnesses' to make submissions, and some submitters that could also be described as 'expert witnesses' (professionals involved in the field of drugs and health) volunteered a submission.

I scanned all the submissions and read others in detail. I decided to put the submissions through a Consensus decisionmaking, in an effort to bring movement into this contentious public issue. To do this I viewed the combined submissions as if they were a group of people meeting together to resolve shared concerns. From this perspective the Meeting, over an extended period, and without the submitters being in the same room, carried out the following steps:

• Put the proposal — setting up the Terms of Reference

• Asked for initial responses and concerns with the proposal - Calling for Submissions
• Heard everyone speak — The Sitting of the Select Committee

I have come into the process at this point and am drawing on the contributions in the submissions to go through the next steps

• Identify the different points of view

• Clarify the issues that arise
• Seek to resolve disagreements or conflict
• Seek agreement on a way forward.

From a facilitation perspective this analysis has worked through to the point of 'seeking to resolve disagreements'. An additional dynamic process — representatives of the various 'bodies of opinion' meeting for further dialogue — would be preferable to clarify common ground and agree on a way forward. I have summarised the 'where to from here' proposals for the purpose of finding areas in common.

I found that the submitters fell into four distinct groupings

1. Government departments, concerned with the machinery of implementation of any changes. These submissions I viewed as part of the resource base of facts, information, and possibilities with regard to any changes.

2. expert witnesses — some invited and some voluntary, made up of academic/professionals and community based service providers (see Appendix I)
   I have used these submissions to cross-reference facts, information and beliefs, and included any comment with the general summaries.

3. special interest groups — made up of Medical Users and Law Reform Advocates. I have noted their contributions as a distinct group.
4. general public.

   Submissions from the general public fell into bodies of opinion along a continuum based on their position with regard to the legal status of cannabis. The spectrum of opinion amongst the general public ranged from full legalisation to tougher enforcement of existing laws:

   i)Legalise and Regulate (59%)
   ii)Decriminalise (17%)
   iii)Soften Policing (4%)
   iv)Stay as we are (15%)
   v)Toughen Policing (3%)

What are the views and concerns about cannabis?

I summarised the points repeated most often by the different groups, and included sample comments from the submitters, so that a sense of the participants in the meeting can be conveyed.

The accuracy or validity of the comments is not tested at this point, but simply reflected so that all participants may fully appreciate the concerns held by those of differing viewpoint.

Group General views Concerns Medical Users All submitters reported medical benefits of cannabis use covering:
~ relief of pain from injuries including ruptured discs, nerve injury, hip displacement, amputations,
~ relief for nausea
~ relief for stress
~ relief for symptoms of psoriasis
~ ease depression
~ assisted withdrawal from morphine and valium
~ assisted symptoms of glaucoma
~ no side-effects as usually suffered with prescribed drugs; that cannabis cannot be prescribed legally as an effective medicine;

that those in pain are treated as criminals and punished for growing their own pain relief; General Public — Regulate Cannabis use is widespread throughout NZ Society; it is readily available without regulations or quality control; the majority of users self-regulate and cause little or no harm to themselves or others; children and youth report that it is seen as normal amongst their peers; the recreational use of drugs is generally accepted or tolerated; drug use is not seen as a criminal offence; drug abuse is seen as a health issue; the law is out of step with popular culture; prohibition is a barrier for those with health concerns; school-based drug education has not prevented drug use; school-based drug education is seen to exaggerate the harms and is rejected as being unreliable; quality, truthful and research-based education is seen as the key to harm minimisation; regulating and taxing cannabis in the same way as alcohol and tobacco is seen as the way to best address all the concerns; use by children and adolescents is undesirable and to be discouraged;

prohibition is causing more harm to individuals and society than use of the drug; prohibition is seen as an unjust intrusion into personal morality;

the enforcement of prohibition is seen to be biased against the young, poor and brown;

prohibition is preventing the development of the economic opportunities of the hemp industry;

black-market control of drug supply raises the risks of cannabis use; General Public — Decriminalise harms can't be accurately measured because of legal status; the law is impossible to police; cannabis users are not criminals; illegal status attracts at risk youth; illegal status puts law into disrepute; illegal status inhibits otherwise law-abiding citizens from coming forward to help police with criminal inquiries; cannabis was not banned for health reasons; the law is based on prejudice that is unacceptable; cannabis abuse is harmful to minors, the mentally ill; 'just say no' is not being listened to; a whole generation has been criminalised by prohibition; cannabis has medical and industrial benefits; alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than cannabis; people use cannabis to relax and still live productive lives; it's easier for children to buy a tinnie than to buy alcohol; drug laws are seen as illogical the cost of enforcement is a waste of public money;

Cannabis threatens the health of our youth;

Cannabis prohibition is an unjust law;

Prohibition is preventing effective public health programmes General Public — soften policing current laws are causing significant social and economic harm; harm minimisation can't be encouraged under prohibition; expulsions from school harms students; cannabis use is harming communities; government is responsible for upholding standards and punishing those who don't; the cost of policing cannabis use is unacceptable; offenders should be diverted but not convicted; current education programmes don't appear to be working; a smoke-free environment is a national health priority; prohibition is not deterring use; cannabis use is a health and behavioural issue; prohibition is harmful to individuals and society;

cannabis use should be discouraged;

cannabis should not be decriminalised because of the adverse effects on the learning of children and young people;

communities feel unsafe knowing there are illegal booby-trapped plantations growing; General Public - Status Quo cannabis has huge negative impacts on the young; legalising cannabis will make it easier to get; legalisation will increase use; cannabis is often a step towards harder drugs; using cannabis interferes with the ability to learn; cannabis use is causing mental illness; legalizing another drug will not help society; prohibition is a symbolic deterrent to use and limits supply; cannabis in schools is ruining children's lives; passive cannabis-smoke is harming children; drug use can be devastating; prohibition is harm prevention; cannabis is bad for the soul; long term-effects of cannabis are unknown; drug users will not seek help unless the law makes them; cannabis smokers affect others with passive smoke; cannabis use is illegal dangerous and wrong; alcohol, cigarettes, cannabis and Ecstasy-related drugs are readily available to students-each is a threat; cannabis use by children and adolescents causes physical, mental and emotional damage; consistency demands that the dangerous drugs of alcohol and tobacco also be prohibited Cannabis is too harmful to be legalised;

legalisation will make cannabis more available;

legalisation of cannabis is an attack on the family and society

enforcement of regulations, licenses and standards is costly;

legalising marijuana will breed generations of under achievers General Public — toughen policing changing the law would send the wrong message to our youth; "just don't do it" is the right message; the use and misuse of drugs needs a comprehensive approach; cannabis turns people into zombies; the potential health damage to the majority of the population outweighs any advantage to a minority; smoking addictive drugs is lethal; recreational drug-use is an escape from reality; cannabis is harmful to those with mental health conditions; caregivers who use cannabis should have their children taken from them; legalising cannabis will cause an increase in use and the harms associated;

cannabis threatens the health and well-being of future generations Law Reform Advocates the misuse of illicit drugs is harming the public; the laws are not minimising the harms; laws that prohibit a substance or service are different from criminal laws, they criminalise a consensual act; if drug use cannot be controlled in prisons how can it be controlled in the community? prohibition is unenforceable; cannabis abuse is damaging, but criminalisation is more damaging; cannabis use has risen under prohibition; drug education is hypocritical and irrational; enforcement is harming youth; criminal law should focus on crimes that have a victim; Drug use should not be marketed or promoted;

The Government can only remove the right to 'personal liberty without undue interference' if someone else is prevented from enjoying their own liberty;

Prohibition undermines effective public health strategies;

cannabis prohibition is a double-standard when more dangerous drugs are legally available and actively promoted by vested interests

Points for clarification

The following differences of perception emerged between those advocating law change and those opposed:

• Impact of prohibition on youth
  Those favouring removal of prohibition believe the illegal status of cannabis attracts youthful interest.
  Those favouring retention of prohibition believe the illegal status of cannabis deters youthful interest.
  Question: has prohibition attracted or deterred youth?

• Levels of harm
  Those favouring removal of prohibition view cannabis use as being of a low health risk unless taken heavily and for extended periods.
  Those wishing to retain Prohibition view cannabis as extremely harmful and too dangerous to be used at all, even within a regulatory system
  Question: what is the level of known harms? how are they measured and compared against similar substances?

• Impact of prohibition on availability
  Those favouring removal of prohibition report that cannabis is widely available to anyone who wants it without any restrictions on age.
  Those favouring retention of prohibition believe that cannabis availability is successfully limited because of it's illegal status.
  Question: What is known about the availability of cannabis?

• Impact of prohibition on levels of use
  Those favouring removal of prohibition point to international trends which indicate similar levels of reported use regardless of legal status, with some exceptions (lower use amongst Dutch youth with de facto legalisation, lower use amongst Swedish youth with strict enforcement)
  Those favouring retention of prohibition believe that legalisation will increase use and adverse social harms.
  Question: What is known about levels of use and correlation with social harms?

Areas of Agreement

A 76% majority opinion of the general public stated or inferred that the prohibition of cannabis was more harmful to individuals and society than the moderate use of cannabis.

The majority of participants supported restricting use of cannabis to those over 18 years

A majority of participants supported the proposal for 'unemotive' and facts-based educational material, with a health-promotion method, would have better success at reducing drug use and abuse than prohibition.

Proposals for a way forward

Group Proposal Comment Medical Users Allow for medical use This is provided for under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 General Public — Regulate regulate and tax cannabis use; engage in facts-based research; provide accurate and factual education about drug use and associated risks; protect children and young people; wipe criminal offences from cannabis-only records; license growers and outlets, tax to pay for regulation, research, education and recovery; without regulation of supply the black market will continue; General Public — decriminalise allow possession and cultivation for personal use to those over 18; address the underlying reasons why some people choose to numb out; provide drug/alcohol free centres for young people; fund research into health impacts; allow for medical use; allow for industrial use; provide for treatment facilities; remove the criminal sanction against use for adults, but don't allow cannabis supply to be commercialised or it will be subject to marketing and promotion General Public — soften policing keep prohibition with civil penalties; allow for personal supply; minimise harm; adopt a community-wide approach to reduce drug abuse and foster responsible drug use; focus on health promotion, education and treatment; carry out NZ-based research; unemotive public education; monitor population for levels of use; apply the law consistently; Amend the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow 'simple possession'; allow for medical use; allow for industrial use; Keep civil penalties as a deterrent to use; General Public — stay the same no change;   General Public — toughen policing Carry out research into currents levels of use.Unambiguous education about the harmful effects of drug use;stricter enforcement; harsher penalties;increase support for drug-recovery programmes; coercive care; arrest self-confessed drug users; drug-test beneficiaries; Compulsory blood testing in schools; Child drug-users removed from parental care; corporal punishment; compulsory military training for boys; nursing & mothering skills for girls; drug use illegal, therefore breaking the law is a crime like robbery and assault.

going soft on drug use is giving in;

Additional 'evaluation' Questions to prepare for further action

What is the frequency of cannabis-induced hospital admissions?
What levels of people have been self-reporting to recovery programmes over the years since prohibition?
How many known deaths from cannabis use?
What number of school expulsions have there been for cannabis use/possession?
(answer = 1,506)
What is known about the levels of cannabis consumption?
What is the estimated value of the illegal trade in cannabis?
How many people have convictions against them for use or possession of cannabis?
(answer = approx 150,000 people?)

APPENDIX I

Academic/Professional Expert Witnesses — 11
1)University of Otago — Cannabis use findings from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study
2)Kent Institute of Medicine and Health Sciences, UK, Neil Kent, researcher in addictive behaviour
3)Helen Shaw, Researcher, Consultant in Education, Adolescent Health issues
4)John Marks, Consultant psychiatrist to MidCentral Dual Diagnosis (addiction and mental illness) Service
5)Royal Australian and NZ College of Psychiatrists
6)Alcohol and Drug Service, NSW, Australia
7)Mental Health Commission
8)Crown Public Health
9)GW Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Dr Philip Robson
10)NZ Automobile Association
11)Rick Williment, Independent Consultant, Hutt Valley Youth Speciality Service

Community Expert Witnesses
12)Health Action Te Mana Taki Hauora, Nelson, carrying out harm reduction programmes amongst youth in 6 different areas for four years
13)WellTrust — community provider of drug and alcohol education and rehabilitation programmes for schools in the Wellington Region.
14)Regional Public Health, Hutt Valley District Health Board
15)Schizophrenia Fellowship
16)Pharmaceutical Society
17)National Council of Women
18)Opotiki Safer communities Council
19)Andrew Lee, Manager of indoor growing systems, Christchurch
20)Australian Committee for Medical Cannabis, Timothy Moore

Law Reform Advocates
Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation
Drug Policy and Education Council
National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)
Coalition for Cannabis Law Reform