cannabisnews.com: Pot: How Far To Go?





Pot: How Far To Go?
Posted by FoM on June 18, 2000 at 18:06:35 PT
By Glen Scanlon
Source: The Press Online
Supporters of cannabis decriminalisation claim that it would free the police to spend more time on more pertinent issues, but the police see big problems with harder drugs if too many changes are made. If there is indeed a war on drugs, it is not being won. Drugs are demonstrably cheaper and more easily available than ever before. 
"If a sufficiently large, and apparently growing, part of the population chooses to ignore the law for whatever reason, then that law becomes unenforceable." If you think these are the words of a Left-wing liberal pot-smoking politician, you could not be more wrong. Britain's Cleveland police force made the comments in a report it compiled on drug use last year. The report finds there is no apparent logic in making tobacco and alcohol available when cannabis is seen as less harmful by many scientists. It says the police may find themselves powerless to prevent illegal activity under present laws. Our own police recommended to the Government last year that priority be given to considering the use of infringement notices for offences such as cannabis possession to save money and time. The police spent more than 300,000 hours and $22 million on enforcing cannabis laws last year. That was 120,000 hours more and nearly double what they spent in 1992-1993. Nearly 8000 people were prosecuted for cannabis possession. Another 3000 were given warnings or diversion, or handled by the youth justice system. Under the present law a person can be arrested for possessing the tiniest amount of cannabis. Users and the odd dealer clog the court system, many returning over and over again. Punishments range from small fines to three months in prison for possession. Dealing in the drug attracts a much higher punishment. Supporters of decriminalisation claim, rather simplistically, that the police are wasting a lot of time which could be spent on more pertinent problems such as burglary and serious crime. They often point the finger, accusing the police of using cannabis to hold or harass individuals who use it for medicinal or recreational purposes. The police reject the claims, saying that only those suspected of committing crimes can be arrested, and that harassing offenders is illegal. Assistant police commissioner Paul Fitzharris says the police typically "fall over" cannabis offences in the course of other work. He repeats the police line on cannabis: "The policy at the moment is that the use and possession of cannabis is prohibited by the law, and it is our job to enforce the law." Individual constables, however, use their discretion when dealing with cannabis users, says Mr Fitzharris. University of Canterbury criminologist Dr Greg Newbold says some officers have told him that they already ignore more than 50 per cent of use. Mr Fitzharris says the police are trying to get away from individual opinions, and form a policy on possible changes to the cannabis law. He believes that no-one is advocating complete legalisation, which could result in cannabis being available over the counter, and large-scale production allowed. The police are considering several options, he says, including "depenalisation" for small possession offences. This could include a system of warnings and diversion, which would not require a law change. Infringement notices are another option, but they would need a law change, which would bring its own problems. Infringement notices would require enforcement, which would cost money and throw people back into the court system. This is not the goal desired, as South Australia recently discovered. A review of its 13-year-old system of issuing infringement notices found that a lot of young and poor people ended up with convictions because they were unable to pay fines. Moreover, it is almost impossible to calculate what the effect on price and supply will be of the above options, says Mr Fitzharris. The police approach now is to target dealers, but changes may mean more time and money are available to attack them and big growers. Police Association president Greg O'Connor, who has no problem with recreational use by adults, sees greater problems if too many changes are made. He believes too much change will cause the price of cannabis to drop, while also increasing the market, because a lot more people will grow their own. "Gangs in New Zealand are a little like the mafia in the United States, which grew up on alcohol prohibition. "When it was legalised, they didn't go away. They just moved on to other forms of illicit income," he says. Mr O'Connor believes the gangs will shift production to more profitable drugs such as methamphetamines, which are the drug of choice overseas. Plenty of information is available on the Internet detailing how $1000 of chemicals can be turned into $10,000 of drugs. Dr Newbold, who wants some liberalisation, agrees with Mr O'Connor. He believes, depending how far the changes go, that the price of cannabis will drop, and the supply will increase because the police will be spending less time spraying and destroying plants. If the price does not hold, the gangs will probably move to other drugs such as Ecstasy, methamphetamines, and LSD, says Dr Newbold. Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party spokesman and lawyer Michael Appleby disagrees. He believes cannabis prices will remain high because a lot of people will not grow their own. The price can vary from $250 an ounce to $600 an ounce depending on the time of year. Experiences overseas are probably the best source of information, but it is often conflicting and contradictory. Countries such as Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands have depenalised the use of cannabis, with the Dutch example the most researched. The Dutch have allowed the personal use of cannabis since 1976, but still aggressively target large-scale growers and dealers, which keeps the price high. Small amounts of cannabis can be bought from up to 1500 coffee shops across the Netherlands. The Dutch experience is often trumpeted by pro-cannabis groups as a success, but some studies have discovered problems in Nirvana. One found that from 1984 to 1996 the prevalence of cannabis use climbed sharply. In 1984, 15 per cent of people aged 18 to 20 had used the drug. This rose to 44 per cent by 1996. The biggest users were young people from wide backgrounds, including tourists, a point of contention in relations with France, Germany, and Belgium, which have complained that they are being flooded with drugs from the Netherlands. No link between cannabis and the use of harder drugs was found. In 1995 the Dutch dropped the amount that people were allowed to possess from 30g to 5g because of domestic and international pressure. Figures from the British Medical Journal, however, say that the monthly prevalence of cannabis use among Dutch students is 5.4 per cent, compared with 29 per cent in the United States. Mr Fitzharris says the effect any changes will have on the level of use and risk to the community, particularly young people, is one of the biggest concerns. Mr O'Connor says he does not want teenagers gaining easier access, or cannabis becoming so acceptable that it is smoked outside offices. Mr Appleby does not believe depenalisation will increase use dramatically. Mr Fitzharris expects the police will finish their research and form a view in a couple of months. Whatever happens, the one guarantee is that a high level of cannabis use will continue. As Mr O'Connor says, cannabis used recreationally is a good mood-enhancing drug. "We've got to start by acknowledging that people enjoy it." New Zealand News from The Press - Monday, June 19, 2000 Copyright © 1999 The Christchurch Press Company Ltd. Related Web Site:Aotearoa Legalise Cannabishttp://www.alcp.org.nz/
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on June 19, 2000 at 13:50:22 PT:
Simplicity
My thanks, as well, FoM. A shame we don't see such even- handed stuff in our news media.But I have some problems with the pronouncements made, here. For example:They [cannabis users] often point the finger, accusing the police of using cannabis to hold or harass individuals who use it for medicinal or recreational purposes. The police reject the claims, saying that only those suspected of committing crimes can be arrested, and that harassing offenders is illegal. Talk about circular reasoning! Possession is (for now) a crime. So jacking someone against the wall for having it is not illegal. But tell that to the hapless victim of prohibition!Even 'simpler' forms of reasoning seem to be endemic amongst certain police:Police Association president Greg O'Connor, who has no problem with recreational use by adults, sees greater problems if too many changes are made. He believes too much change will cause the price of cannabis to drop, while also increasing the market, because a lot more people will grow their own. "Gangs in New Zealand are a little like the mafia in the United States, which grew up on alcohol prohibition. "When it was legalised, they didn't go away. They just moved on to other forms of illicit income," he says.Yes, Constable, like running to the only other money maker left available for them to exploit, courtesy of other simple-minded attempts at prohibition - other illicit drugs. Whenever you create an illicit market, you automatically create a class of those who will service it. Just ask the Canadians about their Great Cigarette Escapade - and how quickly they scrapped the idea. (The only way to put a sword in the guts of Organized Crime and fatally disembowel it is to legalize presently illicit drugs - quickly. If it were done before the Mob had time to diversify it's holdings, the systemic shock would be so complete that it would never recover its' present power. This cop should know that. Then again... maybe he does. Hence his reluctance.)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by FoM on June 18, 2000 at 21:43:49 PT
Your Welcome dddd
Your welcome dddd! I was looking for news that was a little different then usual to see what you all want to know and comment on. I'm still sad but it does my heart good to see you with a little hope since Peter's death. The Funeral is on Tuesday we found out tonight at DrugSense's chat. I'll let everyone know when I know more!Peace, FoM!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by dddd on June 18, 2000 at 20:32:20 PT
good
Thanx FoM,for another excellent article. It affirms my belief,that in the hopefully near future,the insanity of marijuana prohibition will come to an end...I was going to write;"come to an ABRUPT end.",but I cant imagine it happening in an "abrupt" way. It will be fought and rejected from all the parasitic factions that have an interest in keeping it going...The massive quanities of brainwashing propaganda,amongst the masses,will take time to erase. They will not be able to lock everyone up,,but as we know,,they will try. We have to keep chipping away at this "war",that is not a war...It could be better described as an attack ,designed to destroy an anarmed,and undefined enemy,that consists of people who are starting to wonder what "America" is.Keep on,,,Keepin' on..............PEACE.............4D
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: