It's almost amusing to watch the United Future party trying to hold back the tide of cannabis law reform. Fortunately it is as futile as Canute.

But their smug smiles whenever the issue is raised just reinforces how the debate has been hijacked by petty politics.

In 2000 the Labour / Alliance Government and the Greens worked together to set up an inquiry into cannabis. This picked up the recommendation of the 1998 Health Select Committee report into the Mental Health Effects of Cannabis which said that the dangers of cannabis had been exaggerated, and that prohibition hindered helping the minority that did have problems with its use. It said that the Government should review its legal status.

The inquiry did not manage to report back before the 2002 election. As a result its findings have been heavily influenced by the election result. That saw Peter Dunne's United Future party win a surprising number of seats and negotiate a confidence and supply agreement to support a Labour Government. If you didn't vote, its your fault, because the agreement included a commitment that the Government would not introduce legislation to change the legal status of cannabis.

This by a man who admits having smoked cannabis as a youth, who admits that the law does not work and has said that we need a fresh approach. But except when voting to support the interests of tobacco and alcohol companies, consistency is not at the forefront of Peter Dunne's mind.

The challenge for the committee was producing a report that would have some value in the context of that agreement. It was clear from the evidence that doing nothing was not an option.

Look at the situation. Between 1990 and 2001 the number of 15 to 45 year-olds who admit (to a stranger in a telephone survey) that they have smoked cannabis increased from 40 per cent to 52 per cent. Figures from 1994 to 2000 show an average of 22,000 people each year are arrested for cannabis use. Prohibition has obviously not resulted in fewer people wanting to smoke cannabis.

It takes up about two per cent of the total police budget - hey, they've nothing better to do, right? – and costs New Zealand around $22 million a year to prosecute cannabis offences. Most of that is personal possession and use type charges.

We are tagging thousands of people with criminal convictions for something which is less harmful, according to the World Health Organisation, than alcohol or tobacco. And if you think 'they don't bust people for cannabis anymore', it depends who you are. Diversion, for example, is used only three per cent of the time, compared to the 70 per cent who are convicted and fined.

Some say cannabis use leads to hard drugs. My observation is that it just leads to raiding the fridge and talking philosophy.

Prohibition is the gateway to hard drugs, not cannabis. Check the situation of the Netherlands, where cannabis is available in coffee shops over the counter. 29 per cent of Dutch people said they had tried cannabis by the age of 15, compared to 34 per cent of Americans and 41 per cent in Britain. The Netherlands also has a lower rate of hard addiction than Italy, Spain, Switzerland, France, Britain and the US. Separation of the cannabis market from the market for hard drugs was a deliberate aim of the Dutch policy.

The question is not, should we change the law. The only question left is 'to what?'. The recommendations of the committee will probably be public by the time you read this. I strongly urge you to get a copy and read it, and give this debate the reasonable attention it deserves.


So, do you think cannabis law reform is inevitable?
Have your say>>