Drug reform has timing problem

Six months after cannabis legalisation was defeated narrowly in a referendum, drug reforms are back on the agenda. Well, at least on the agenda of a cross-sector coalition of health and social services groups, including the Medical Association, the Mental Health Foundation, the Public Health Association, the Ma¯ori Law Society and the Drug Foundation.

In an open letter to the Government, the 25 groups have called for reform of outdated drug laws to remove criminal penalties for low-level drug use in favour of a health-based approach.

Their argument is that the prohibition regime, enshrined in the 1975 Misuse of Drugs Act, does not address the harm of drug use.

In particular, they say Ma¯ori, Pasifika and young people suffer a disproportionately high number of convictions for low-level drug offences.

Decriminalisation, they say, would allow more focus on prevention, treatment and support, and bring New Zealand into line not only with recommendations from previous government and Law Commission inquiries, but with progressive and effective initiatives overseas.

The Drug Foundation says there are 1.2 million New Zealanders who are at risk of using drugs problematically, while about 100,000 need some treatment or support. But there is little in place until they form an addiction or end up with a conviction.

There is weight and merit behind the arguments, but they come up against a political reality. Many of them were advanced in the leadup to the referendum last October that asked voters whether they were for or against laws to legalise the sale and use of recreational cannabis.

The no vote had a slim 50.7 per cent to 48.4 per cent majority, but it was still a no. Although the results were non-binding, it would be a brave

Government to go against the will of the people, even for the lesser step of decriminalisation.

Drug reform campaigners, equal parts frustrated and buoyed by the close result, have moved the debate to removing criminal sanctions because they say thousands of people each year get low-level drug convictions that affect their livelihoods, mental health, relationships, travel, housing, and education.

A poll carried out for the Helen Clark Foundation last month showed 20 per cent of those who voted against legalisation in the referendum would have supported decriminalisation.

But in the absence ofwider authority, Labour says it has no decriminalisation plans on its work programme.

In part that’s because it’s not convinced such amove would bring the benefits sought. Soon after the referendum result then Justice Minister Andrew Little said that decriminalisation alone would not remove one of the social harms of drug use, which was the criminal element involved in supply.

The thinking goes that if cannabis use were decriminalised it would boost demand, but there would be no controls over its production and sale and that would play into the hands of criminal groups, like gangs.

The Greens are pushing for decriminalisation, but it seems unlikely they will get cross-party support to get a bill into the House, and the other pathway is the lucky dip of members’ ballots.

It is clear that the problems around harmful drug use are not going away. The co-ordinated approach of the groups behind the open letter is an encouraging step forward in advancing the debate.

But a decision to take action on such a deep societal issue should go back to the people in another referendum.

The no vote had a slim 50.7 per cent to 48.4 per cent majority, but it was still a no.