Better way on cannabis law

The draft Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill to be voted on at the referendum has been made publicly available. At 154 pages it is unlikely many people will read through this bill before they vote for their preferred referendum statement:

■ Yes, I support the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill

■ No, I do not support the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill

Perhaps recognising this, the Government has produced a summary of the bill on its website. This states that ‘‘The bill’s purpose is to reduce cannabis-related harm to individuals, families/ wha¯ nau and communities’’.

A regulatory body will be set up to oversee the cannabis market in a way that:

■ promotes the wellbeing of New Zealanders

■ reduces the harms associated with cannabis use

■ reduces overall use of cannabis over time. Ways in which these goals will be achieved, we are told, include: ‘‘eliminating the illegal supply of cannabis; raising awareness of the health risks associated with cannabis use; restricting young people’s access to cannabis; improving access to health and social services, and other kinds of support for families/wha¯ nau; making sure the response to any breach of the law is fair’’.

We need to carefully consider whether legalisation will enable any of the bold claims being made about promoting the wellbeing of New Zealanders. Firstly, legalisation is not necessary for ‘‘raising awareness of the health risks associated with cannabis use’’ – we can do this without legalisation.

Further, there is nothing in the bill that says how ‘‘access to health and social services, and other kinds of support for families/wha¯ nau’’ will be improved. Further still, we need only look to other jurisdictions that have legalised cannabis for recreational use to see that eliminating the illegal supply, restricting young people’s access, and making sure the response to any breach of the law is fair, are unlikely to happen.

Evidence does not support the argument that the black market and its associated gang involvement will disappear with legalisation. In Canada and California, government-authorised sellers are unable to keep up with newly created demand, and government prices are higher than those of the black market. The range of products available is also greater on the black market.

Although the bill sets the legal age of cannabis use at 20, this will not guarantee the safety of younger people. Research has found a significant increase in adolescent cannabis-associated emergency department and urgent care visits after legalisation, with greater numbers of young people requiring treatment for acute medical or psychiatric symptoms after cannabis use.

Research from US jurisdictions that have legalised recreational cannabis use also shows responses to breaches of the law are not applied fairly. Minority groups and indigenous people remain disproportionately represented in cannabis-related arrests.

Alcohol and tobacco companies have invested heavily in what is set to become the next addictionfor-profit industry. Given the way in which corporations are already organising for legal recreational cannabis use, we need to ask: ‘‘Who will really benefit from such legalisation?’’

If we recognise that there are harms associated with cannabis – as we do – then legalisation is not the way to address those harms. A better way may be to explore and discuss decriminalisation, as opposed to legalisation.

Decriminalisation would facilitate the separation of cannabis use from issues of social justice and health, and provide space in which the wellbeing of New Zealanders can be better addressed. It will be wiser to vote ‘‘no’’ to the proposed bill, and instead push for public discussion on the decriminalisation of cannabis.