OPTIONS FOR CANNABIS POLICY IN NEW ZEALAND.

• Author: Field, Adrian

INTRODUCTION(1)

Debate on cannabis policy has tended to focus on retaining the current system of prohibition, versus "decriminalisation." The term decriminalisation usually refers to a change in policy that would see minor cannabis offences become civil rather than criminal offences, and incur on-the-spot fines. However, in the debate over prohibition versus decriminalisation, the wide array of other cannabis policy options are often overlooked. There are many different policy measures available to policy makers to deal with cannabis as a recreational drug. Each option has advantages and disadvantages, and each offers different approaches to meeting New Zealand's needs.

Key to assessing policy options is the likely impact on prevalence of use of the drug. An increase in prevalence may well be accompanied by an increase in related problems, as is the case with the use of other recreational drugs (Edwards et al. 1994). Accessibility, including price, is likely to affect levels of use and social health impact. Any proposed change in policy should therefore be accompanied by an assessment of its impact on accessibility.

The role of the suppliers of any drug is also key in policy development, as the profit motive tends to be counter to social health goals. Policy impacts on either the black market, or the development of a legal industry, are important.

Debate on policy options often focuses on the financial costs of the present policy, which are presented as a strong argument for change. The financial resource implications of all potential policy change (including costs of civil penalties administration, education and enforcement of prohibition or regulations, and need for increased treatment services) are therefore relevant.

Social costs (including criminal convictions) are also perceived as important reasons for policy change. The way in which charges for cannabis offences are used within current policing and how this would change is relevant. Disadvantaged groups within New Zealand are currently experiencing harm associated with marijuana use (Health Select Committee 1998), and policy impacts on them require particular consideration. Whatever policy options are put in place, there will be a need for community responses to deal with ongoing problems. There is an identified need within New Zealand for treatment services (Health Select Committee 1998), and some innovative communitylevel initiatives have been developed in response to local problems (Conway et al. in press). The need for resourcing of these responses may influence policy choices. A recent initiative in the UK is the development of a Confiscated Assets Fund, which channels money seized from drug traffickers back into activities aimed at countering the drug problem (International Narcotics Control Board 1999). Activities funded to date include a review of drug services for hard-to-reach groups, and a range of pilot projects (Cabinet Office 2000).

In New Zealand, in the four years since 1996/97, at least $2.5m has been paid to the Crown by the Official Assignee, using money confiscated under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 (Ministry of Economic Development 2000). To date, the confiscation powers under the Act have been exercised predominantly in relation to drug offences, and the money is channelled into the Consolidated Fund. Although the amount obtained has fluctuated from year to year, a policy option could be for this money to be directed to community initiatives aimed at countering drug problems in New Zealand.

A political consideration is the extent to which any policy change complies with New Zealand's international obligations under United Nations Conventions. The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) monitors individual states' drug policies, and reports annually on the Board's views on the policies' consistency with UN Conventions (International Narcotics Control Board 1999). Policy changes that move away from total prohibition do not necessarily violate UN Conventions (Krajewski 1999), but they will come under some international scrutiny.

Internationally, a clear trend has emerged of trying alternatives to simple prohibition. This paper contributes to the debate by outlining a number of options for cannabis policy, and discussing the likely advantages and disadvantages of these given the New Zealand situation. These options are canvassed within the context of research on drug use in New Zealand, drawing particularly on the results of recent New Zealand surveys (Field and Casswell 1999a, Field and Casswell 1999b).

THE NEW ZEALAND CONTEXT

Under the United Nations 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, New Zealand is obliged to assist with international efforts to control cultivation, production and distribution of cannabis, as well as a broad range of other recreational drugs. New Zealand currently meets its obligations through a mixture of supply reduction, demand reduction and harmminimisation strategies (Abel and Casswell 1998a). Essentially, cannabis control is exercised through a policy of prohibition, under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. However, some limited options are available as alternatives to criminal prosecution, through use of standard police discretion, and the more formal Police Adult Diversion scheme.

Prevalence of Use

A 1998 survey of drug use found marijuana use is common in New Zealand, despite its legislative prohibition. Half of a national sample of people aged 15-45 years had tried marijuana, 20% had used the drug in the last 12 months, and 15% were current users. Heavier use of marijuana (10 or more occasions in the previous 30 days) was confined to only 3% of the sample, and only 1% were daily users (Field and Casswell 1999b).

For most people who had tried marijuana, use was occasional rather than regular. Of those who had ever tried marijuana, 61% had not used it in the last 12 months, and 15% had used it once or twice in the last 12 months. More than two-thirds of those who had tried marijuana had since stopped using the drug.

A comparison of results from two regional surveys, conducted in a metropolitan area (Auckland) and a provincial/rural area (Bay of Plenty), carried out in 1990 and 1998, reveal some changes in marijuana use, although not as much as might be popularly supposed. Use of the drug in the previous year had grown from 18% in 1990 to 22% in 1998 among metropolitan respondents, but there was no increase in use among provincial/rural respondents. However, more people had used marijuana for the first time by age 16 in 1998 (52%), compared with 1990 (40%) (Field and Casswell 1999a).

Attitudes to Enforcement

The regional surveys showed a shift occurred between 1990 and 1998 in attitudes towards enforcement against people caught with marijuana for their own use, to perceiving the law as "too heavy". In 1990, 25% said they thought the current level of enforcement was too heavy; in 1998, this had increased to 32% of the sample. Those who thought laws were "too light" fell from 24% of the sample to 21%. These findings are in line with other surveys indicating growing support for a change in cannabis laws (Sell 2000).

Health and Welfare Risks

According to the Ministry of Health, cannabis use in New Zealand poses a small to moderate public health risk, where this risk is defined according to the proportion of the population experiencing adverse health effects, and the severity of those effects (Ministry of Health 1996). In comparison to alcohol and tobacco, cannabis is less of a public health issue. However, all drug use carries risk, and if prevalence increased then the extent of community-wide harm would increase accordingly. In particular, cannabis use is perceived as creating learning problems within the school system in New Zealand (Ministry of Education 1999). Other identified harm from heavier use includes respiratory damage, and psychological and social consequences including cannabis dependence (Hall and Babor 2000, Hall et al. 1994, McGee et al. 2000, Strang et al. 2000).

SEVEN POLICY OPTIONS

A review of the research literature and consultation with international research colleagues has suggested seven policy options for consideration (Lenton et al. 1999, McDonald et al. 1994). They are:

* Total prohibition

* Prohibition with exclusion for medicinal use

* Prohibition with an expediency principle

* Prohibition with cautioning

* Prohibition with civil penalties

* Partial prohibition

* Regulation of production and distribution

It should be noted that some, but not all, of these options are mutually exclusive. It is possible, for example, for a prohibition with civil penalties approach to incorporate cautionary provisions.

TOTAL PROHIBITION

The policy of strict prohibition is currently in force in New Zealand. Total prohibition also operates in most US states (Abel and Casswell 1998a). Some Australian states offer formal cautioning or diversion within a generally prohibitionist legal framework (Lenton et al. 1999).

Prevalence of Use

One of the main arguments given in favour of prohibition is that it provides a symbolic deterrent to use. Research casts doubt on the effectiveness of cannabis law as a specific deterrent (dissuading offenders from further use). Canadian and Australian research has found that the majority of people prosecuted for personal marijuana use continued using the drug (Erickson 1980, Lenton 2000). Research from Australia and the United...