Cannabis prejudice Must end now
If the Premier wants to be a true reformist he should end the futile and dangerous mindset which criminalises a substance that’s widely used and enjoyed by the community.
Premier Jeremy Rockliff has the makings of being a genuinely reformist leader with liberal, as opposed to conservative, instincts. So how then does one explain his government’s head in the sand and dangerous attitude to cannabis? Despite 83 per cent of Tasmanians, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), believing that possession and use of cannabis should be decriminalised, if not legalised, the response from Mr Rockliff’s government has been to rule out any law reform.
In a democratic society laws should only remain on the statute books if they generally complied with and are in-step with community values. This is clearly not the case when it comes to criminal laws that punish those who use drugs. In particular one can say of laws that prohibit the use of cannabis that such laws are disregarded by most people. Cannbis use is common in Tasmania. Cannabis is a useful drug for pain relief or simply as a pleasurable substance just like alcohol. It is used by thousands of individuals from all walks of life. There are, for example, many people in this state who are in their 60s and beyond and who use cannabis rather than highly addictive opioids, to ease chronic pain.
The law that prohibits the use of cannabis has zero deterrent impact. No one takes it seriously. And that includes judicial officers. In fact in respect of that group a recent survey by the
Australian Institute of Criminology, published last year, found that most judicial officers think drug laws generally are ineffective and needlessly punitive.
The AIC paper found; “A number of participants were ‘sceptical’ about general deterrence in the context of responding to and preventing drug trafficking more broadly, giving the impression that the inclusion of this objective in sentencing remarks was more mechanical than meaningful. Others expressed much more negative views, describing it as a ‘bogus mantra’. In the context of social supply, general deterrence was seen as ineffective because offenders were unaware of the seriousness of their behaviour and its potential legal consequences. It was thought that specific deterrence had some meaning for this group but ought to be weighed against the lifelong negative effects of a criminal conviction on an otherwise law abiding group. Both general and specific deterrence were considered ineffectual when it came to minimally commercial supply that involved dependent drug users. This is a point often reflected in academic research.”
In other words, those who have to enforce drug laws generally think they are, to put not too fine a point on it, a waste of time.
So how to explain the fact that so many politicians in Australia, as opposed to Europe, Latin America, the US and Canada, continue to push back against the overwhelming view of the community about the use of cannabis? One can only assume it is for one of these reasons. Firstly, it is because they think cannabis users are a menace to society. Secondly, they are wilfully ignorant. Thirdly, they are hypocrites who are happy to keep alcohol and opioids legal, but not cannabis which does less harm than both those drugs. Finally, they are gutless. Or a combination of all.
Mr Rockliff has an opportunity to stop stigmatising cannabis users. He can do so with strong community support. He would find a receptive Legislative Council. And above all he will get no argument from judicial officers and lawyers who have to waste valuable taxpayer resources dealing with some poor individual who has been growing a bit of weed to enjoy once in a while, or who is using cannabis to ease the pain of a back injury that has plagued them for years.
In the ACT possession and use of cannabis has been legalised. In Canada, the government of Justin Trudeau has legalised cannabis. In Portugal cannabis, along with other drugs, has been decriminalised for more than two decades. In the US 19 states have legalised cannabis for recreational and medical use.
The law that prohibits the use of cannabis has zero deterrent impact. No one takes it seriously.
If the fear is that legalising, or at least decriminalising, which means it is no longer a criminal offence to possess and use cannabis, will lead to an increase in cannabis users then the Rockliff government can be assured there is no evidence to suggest it is the case.
Research in the US and
Canada shows that if there is an increase in cannabis use after legalisation then it is minuscule. In Canada, for example, its around 2 per cent. But more importantly there has been no increase in youth mental illness which can sometimes occur because of mixing cannabis with other drugs or because of dependency.
If Mr Rockliff wants to be a leader who is driven by evidence-based and rational policy discussions he will end the prejudice against cannabis users. He has plenty of evidence and experience to draw from given what is happening in the ACT and overseas. He should end what is a futile, punitive and dangerous mindset which criminalises a substance that it widely used and enjoyed by the community.
Hobart barrister Greg Barns, SC, is a human rights lawyer who has advised federal and state Liberal governments.