Little hints at conservative approach

WELLINGTON: The 2020 referendum to legalise cannabis looks likely to propose a tightly regulated framework, including strict rules on supply and possession, an age limit of at least 18, and a nonprofit model under which money from sales may be funnelled into health services.

Although it is widely accepted that legalising personal use would not eliminate harm or kill off a black market, a political consensus appears to be emerging that the status quo is broken, but a profitdriven legal market would be just as bad.

Justice Minister Andrew Little said the Government was still working on the referendum question, but he was opposed to a framework similar to alcohol if the public voted for legalisation in 2020.

‘‘My general view would be, if there is an appetite for liberalisation in whatever form, to start with maximum regulation and control,’’ Mr Little said.

‘‘That’s the way you mitigate the risks, and then future generations can review what’s happening and whether further relaxation is needed.’’

This sentiment was echoed by New Zealand First justice spokesman Darroch Ball, who said the level of cannabisrelated harm in a black market dominated by gangs showed that the current system was not working.

‘‘But we all understand that marijuana is a drug, and it’s not all positives.

‘‘It’s just common sense to start at a more conservative, regulated market. Once you have no regulation, the horse has bolted and there’s no coming back.’’

He added that the NZ First caucus was yet to make any decisions about the referendum question.

Green Party spokeswoman for drug law reform Chloe Swarbrick said a black market and a legal free market both ‘‘preyed on vulnerable people’’.

She pointed to a report from the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which said both models were ‘‘extremes’’ that pursued profit without having to deal with social harms, while ‘‘an optimal level of government regulation can minimise overall harm and maximise benefits’’.

‘‘Regulation means quality control. We have no control over it right now,’’ Ms Swarbrick said.

This week, National Party deputy leader Paula Bennett was appointed its spokeswoman for drug reform, and she warned about the perils of a profitdriven model.

‘‘They’re turning marijuana products into lollies and ice cream so that it attracts younger people and gets them hooked. ‘‘It then becomes a business . . . ‘‘We’re hearing about a major beer brewer also looking at a cannabisbased product. Those things frighten me.’’

Mr Little was reluctant to detail what ‘‘maximum control’’ might look like, but suggested the alcohol industry was the horse that bolted and ‘‘we’re not going to repeat the mistakes of the past’’.

Drug Foundation executive director Ross Bell said an example of ‘‘maximum control’’ would be to select the strictest measures from jurisdictions that have legalised cannabis.

That could translate to a government monopoly on supply and a national register for all users (Uruguay), a ban on home cultivation and public consumption (Washington state), a purchase age of 21 (many US states, in line with the respective drinking age in those states), a weekly purchase limit of 10g (Uruguay), a limit on the level of THC in the blood to be legally allowed to drive (Canada and Colorado), and a blanket ban on advertising.

Mr Bell said any controls had to consider whether they would create a legal vacuum that the black market could fill; an age limit of 25 and banning highly potent products, for example, could lead to criminals meeting that consumer demand.

How rules could be enforced was also a factor.

Mr Bell also supported a regulated, nonprofit model with smaller community providers rather than ‘‘CocaCola type’’ suppliers.

A poll conducted by Horizon and released at the end of last year found some public support for regulation: 63% wanted licensed operators; 75% wanted a purchasing age of either 18 or 21; 40% wanted an excise tax, and 68% said tax revenue should go towards health services.

Mr Little said he would be looking closely at the effects of legalisation overseas as the Government considered the referendum question.

One option he is considering is to prepare a Bill setting out a regulatory framework, and then framing the question around support for the Bill.

That would allow for a select committee process and public consultation, before Parliament decided on the level of regulation to put to the public vote. It would only become law if a majority voted for legalisation. — NZME