page 4

Editorial

The drug question is one which tends to arise time and again, with a kind of monotonous regularity. That it should be so much in the news is, really, not surprising, though. Drug convictions are among the most common type of criminal convictions in New Zealand. The vast majority of these convictions are for offences relating to marijuana.

Estimates of the number of people in this country who indulge in this drug vary considerably, but most hover around the 200,000 mark. This probably makes cannabis offences the most widespread criminal offence in the country, after our national part-time, drunken driving.

When one is faced with a law that is honored in the breach, one does not automatically argue for its abolition. There would be very few New Zealanders who have never violated our traffic regulations. But no-one seriously argues that they should in consequence be scrapped.

While it is impossible to rigorously enforce them, our traffic laws provide a disincentive to people to consistently endanger the lives of others through reckless driving, and provide a mechanism whereby those who do can be punished. Furthermore, most of our traffic offences carry relatively light penalties. Exceeding the speed limit by 10k/h will usually earn only a $20 fine. Parking offenses etc also carry light penalties. So in general we could say that our traffic laws provide a service to the community, even though they are generally broken. Minor transgressions do not earn disproportionately heavy sentences (and most offenses are of this nature), but individuals who exceed normal bounds can be clobbered.

Now when we turn to consider the drug laws, the important question to ask is not whether or not people on the whole respect the laws — that is not necessarily the criterion to use. However when there is a law so widely disobeyed, the question to ask is whether its continued existence is of benefit to the community.

If we just concentrate on the marijuana question, it is hard to see just who the law as it stands benefits. It does not "protect" the community by making the drug unavailable (I would be amazed if any university student would be unable to procure some marijuana if s/he had the urge). Rather the laws harm the community by applying quite disproportionate punishments for the offence. Average fines possession for personal use are currently running between $100 and $200, which few could regard as trifling. A significant number of people earn prison sentences for marijuana offences. In this case the punishment is out of proportion to the seriousness of the crime or its widespread nature.

Furthermore, by keeping these laws in existence, the police and other enforcement agencies are obliged to spend vast amounts of time and resources in chasing marijuana users. This time would be far better used in trying to track down those who are involved with "hard drugs", which I think everyone agrees are a far more serious problem than marijuana. In fact the police probably actually actively seek for marijuana rather than other drugs. Marijuana is extremely difficult to conceal and transport because of its bulk and smell. While marijuana is usually dealt, in by the hundred weight, or even the ton for most other drugs a kilo is a huge amount. Clearly police who look for tons of grass are going to have much more success than their colleagues on the lookout for a kilo of heroin. Like anyone else, members of the police like to have an impressive record of "kills".

The drug debate is often side-tracked by hoardes of "medical experts", exactly half of whom can be guaranteed to say that marijuana is good, the other half to say that it is bad. In view of the division of opinion, it seems unlikely that marijuana has any outstandingly harmful effects.

Most would probably agree that any use of drugs, whether it be marijuana, alcohol, nicotine or cocaine, is undesirable. But with the marijuana laws we are left wondering whether the attempted cure of outlawing the drug is worse than the drug itself.

Peter Beach