Viewport width =
August 11, 2008 | by  | in Features | [ssba]

Does Cannabis Prohibition Work?

The drug legalisation debate is often conducted as if it depends upon whether a drug is essentially good or bad. In the case of cannabis, NORML will argue that the drug is ultimately safe, while Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne will tell you it’s just bad. This debate is fruitless, because lawmakers need to know not just what harms a drug causes, but how effective drug policies are in controlling whatever harms the drug does cause. We need to evaluate not cannabis, but the law.

The New Zealand Drug Foundation have been urging New Zealanders to discuss cannabis more openly. Their Executive Director Ross Bell told Salient that our current National Drug Policy recognises that drug use is a health issue first and a criminal justice issue second, but the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 does not take health treatment into account. At the government’s request, the Law Commission has begun a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act, to investigate “whether the legislative regime should reflect the principal of harm minimisation underpinning the National Drug Policy,” and what the most suitable models of regulation are. In particular, the Law Commission’s review will ask whether the current A, B and C class categories should remain, given that the NZ Drug Foundation argues they do not reflect evidence of addictiveness or harm.

So let us evaluate whether our current cannabis laws are working. A law should serve three functions: to deter potential and actual offenders through the threat or application of punishment; to improve the offender through the Corrections system’s ability to rehabilitate those caught; and perhaps most importantly, to reduce whatever danger the crime poses to the wider public. So we should evaluate prohibition on the grounds of deterrence, rehabilitation, and public safety.

i) Do cannabis laws stop the public from smoking cannabis? Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, possession of cannabis is punishable by conviction as well as “imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $500 or to both”. The risk of being caught and punished is intended to deter the public from using cannabis. However, recreational cannabis use was relatively unknown in New Zealand at the time it was restricted by the Dangerous Drugs Act 1927. Contemporary statistics relating to cannabis use vary: Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit surveys of over 5000 people, conducted for the Health Select Committee inquiry into cannabis, show that 50 per cent admitted having used cannabis in 1998, rising to 52 per cent in 2001. A more detailed study has been conducted by the Christchurch Health and Disability Study (CHDS), which records detailed information on 1,265 people born in 1977. 67.3 per cent of the CHDS’s subjects reported using cannabis by the age of 21. At the other end of the scale, a World Health Organisation report this year found that only 41.9 per cent of New Zealanders have used cannabis – but this is still the second highest rate in the world, behind the USA.

Whatever the correct figures, we know that around half of our population have used cannabis at some point. While this suggests that penalising cannabis does not prevent use, further evidence comes from a 1997 article in the journal Science, which found rates of cannabis usage remained statistically identical between the Netherlands – which legalized cannabis use in 1976 – and the USA throughout the 1990s.

ii) Do penalties for cannabis use reduce reoffending? While the above evidence suggests prohibition does not prevent the public from trying cannabis, we also need to know whether being caught and punished deters a user from reoffending. A 1976 Canadian study that interviewed those found guilty of possession found neither the certainty of punishment nor its severity had any correspondence to an offender’s intention to use in the future (Patricia G Erickson, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, June 1976). The CHDS study shows the same thing happening in New Zealand – of those subjects who reported being arrested for cannabis use, 90 per cent did not change the amount they used after arrest, 5 per cent decreased use, but the remaining 5 per cent increased use. This research suggests that prohibition has no effect on an offender’s use.

Deterrence relies upon the perception that if you break the law you’ll likely be caught – certainty of punishment. But it is common knowledge that very few of the large minority who smoke pot actually get caught (5.1 per cent, according to the CHDS), and fewer (3.6 per cent) are convicted. The law is not applied often enough to actually deter, but is common enough to damage a large number of lives. The law is commonly ignored, and the police could not change this even if they wanted to, but they still have to technically enforce it, and so over 14,000 people are arrested every year on cannabis charges. As the CHDS state in summing up their evidence: “The findings [of our study] show that the law was administered in an inefficient way, the application of the law was biased, and the law was ineffective in reducing cannabis use.”

While prohibition does not deter New Zealanders from using cannabis, advocates of prohibition would argue that police intervention also helps to rehabilitate offenders – for example, families and schools can get the police involved when their kids are caught using. It is debatable whether or not this “tough love” approach actually works. Even presuming that it does, if cannabis were legal for only those aged over 18 to use, parents would still be able to get the police involved.

The argument that imprisonment helps addicts get off drugs is deeply flawed, as Corrections freely admits its guards do not prevent visitors smuggling cannabis into jail (indeed, guards at Rimutaka have been caught smuggling themselves). Furthermore, while around 80 per cent of prisoners in this country have some form of drug or alcohol dependency, there very limited places available in drug treatment programmes – this means that in jail, drugs are easier to get than treatment.

Public Safety
Arguably the most important function of the law is to keep the public safe from criminal activity – for example, preventing public cannabis smoking. This argument is undermined by the public J-day smokeups that occur in major cities each May, where hundreds flout the law with only infrequent threat of arrest. Furthermore, opponents of prohibition argue that it forces users to buy their supplies from criminal gangs. University of Canterbury criminologist Greg Newbold wrote in Crime in New Zealand that much of the nation’s illegal drug trade was initiated by members of Hell’s Angels serving time in Paremoremo in the late 1970s, suggesting that imprisonment has facilitated the drug trade.

The Successes of Prohibition
If prohibition does not deter users, does not rehabilitate offenders, and decreases rather than increases public safety, does it do anything positive? Newbold argues that until customs stepped up border control in the late 1970s and 80s, most of New Zealand’s cannabis was imported form South East Asia, but following this crackdown local users have had to rely upon local producers. This has not reduced the amount of pot available, but it is good for our trade deficit, so at least that’s something.

Arguably the most positive aspect of prohibition is that it has inspired a counterculture rich in protest songs that would not exist if they had nothing to protest. So if you like Peter Tosh’s Legalize It or NORML’s quarterly magazine, then you have something to thank prohibition for.

Many of the arguments in favour of cannabis legalisation – for example, that it’s a breach of human freedom – would fall flat if we could show that prohibition reduced drug abuse. But since the statistics show this is not the case, we should ask whether it may in fact increase abuse. Technically, the sanctity of the doctorpatient relationship means addicts can seek treatment without fear that their details will be leaked to the police. However, many employers will fire workers who admit to using drugs, which means addicts are pressured to hide their problem. It is primarily this fact – that addicts are pressured into hiding their problem – which suggests that prohibition may increase the harms of drug abuse. Furthermore, by forcing users to seek cannabis on the black market, prohibition brings users into contact with vendors of harder drugs.

Why the problem remains
Legalisation will not solve drug problems; in fact the legalisation debate largely focuses on the relative harms and benefits of cannabis, while ignoring the real issue, which is the harms and benefits of the law. Ross Bell notes that during the Health Select Committee inquiries into cannabis New Zealand was able to have this debate; indeed, when the last inquiry reported its findings in 2003, it stated the prohibition “inhibits people’s education, travel and employment opportunities. Prohibition makes targeting education, prevention, harm minimisation and treatment measures difficult because users fear prosecution. It also facilitates the black market, and potentially exposes cannabis users to harder drugs.”

Although the government’s own inquiries have suggested that the law does not work, Ross Bell notes that the potential for change has been stifled by politics: “The ability to even talk about cannabis was taken off the table by United Future’s coalition deal, and since that time the awareness and understanding of cannabis has dropped.” Bell hopes that the Law Commission will provide a “neutral territory where we can have these bigger conversations about a better way that we can get our law to support policy.” It is also possible that an Obama victory in this year’s US Presidential election could see an end to the USA obstructing any efforts to focus the war on drugs on harm minimization.

You can get involved in creating drug laws based upon evidence rather than fear. The Law Commission will produce an issues paper about the Misuse of Drugs Act by the end of the year, at which point they will ask for public submissions. Tell them what you think:


1) Fergusson DM, Swain-Campbell NR, Horwood LJ, “Arrests and Convictions for Cannabis Related Offences in a New Zealand Birth Cohort.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 2003.


About the Author ()

Tristan Egarr edited in 2008. He threw a chair once.

Comments (7)

Trackback URL / Comments RSS Feed

  1. Paula Lambert says:

    It would be interesting to find out who you interviewed for the basis of your erroneous claim that “NORML will argue that the drug is ultimately safe.”. Relatively safe, not ultimately safe.

  2. Hi Paula – That’s not a quote (which is why it isn’t in quotation marks) but a generalisation based on years of working with NORML against prohibition. On reflection the line is probably a little harsh on NORML, since they do present a more nuanced argument than simply “pot is good.” Nevertheless, “ultimately safe” means much the same as “relatively safe” – that is, more safe than unsafe, though arguably “relatively” is a more appropriate word.

    The reason I make that statement is that NORML news, as an advocacy zine, focuses upon the benefits of marijuana and attacks media statements contradicting this. I support them on this, but I do think they can, at times, fall into the trap of debating along the lines promoted by the prohibitionists (ie debating the drug rather than the law), which is why I’m being a little harsh here: I’m arguing that we need to shift the lines of the debate, mainly by not being afraid to admit the drug’s harms, while still demonstrating that prohibition makes these problems far, far worse than they would otherwise be. That said, I don’t want this to be taken as an attack on NORML, who do a very good job.

  3. Brandon Hutchison says:

    Excellent analysis Tristan except for the straw man attack on NORML. While there is .
    always a fringe minority in the reform movement claiming cannabis is harmless, arguments for reform, focus on more significant matters along the lines that you have dealt with. That doesn’t mean that the many wild claims made about cannabis dangers shouldn’t be repudiated but that does not form the basis of the antiprohibition rationale. . Agree that harm debates can muddy the waters.You must read NORML’s statements very selectively to take the view that you have

    Brandon Hutchison, ChCh Drug Policy Group

  4. Rachael Ford says:

    Under the cannabis prohibition New Zealand has seen 35 over limit drink drivers decease in crashes from June 2006-July 2007, while 71 drivers impaired by active thc died in crashes they mostly caused, which is probably world leading (Source – OIA requesty release of Police statistics to Candor Trust).

    The overlap of thc and alcohol was under 50%, and the NZ drivers at great risk and all to frequently decease are those who mix levels of alcohol not unsafe stand alone that will never be illegal on road eg 1 drink, with pot.

    NZs toll and also drink driving related portion can therefore never reduce untiil the elephant in the room of a pot top up is acknowledged as the no1 major risk raiser.
    Why is NZ full of passionate harm minimisers who sit on their butts when it comes to doinmg anything about the main (and a significant) cannabis harm ie road crashes.

    Prohibition in my experience as a road safety worker works powerfully here against openness around drug driving risk in a number of ways. It inhibits group discussion at road safety sessions and preoccupies policy writers. Prohibitions theft of pressingly needed “debate time”, so indirectly contributes to the major cannabis harm (road crashes) going neglected – and uniquely so in NZ.

    I wonder how any road safety campaigners felt when drink driving was non agendered while scarce policy resources and community debate / education forums were taken up debating alcohol prohibition. This is not the case elsewhere as “drug driving” and prohibition have simultaneous non intersecting issue profiles, but NZ has such a small policy community that prohibition it is a definite distraction / obstruction to progress here.

    Victoria was the first place in the world to trial random roadside drug testing. South Australia followed in 2005, Tasmania in 2006 and NSW and WA in 2007 – these States are roughly twice as successful in reducing their road tolls.

    Under legalisation the road safety harms of alcohol have beren able to be reduced as there is an easier less emotive or threatening environment for education.

    Australian States almost all provide quality drug driving education whether they have prohibition or decriminalisation. We are seeing reduced rates of drug driving in recent Oz studies as a result of combined new credible enforcement and education.

    It will be interesting to see whether the anti drug driving programs will produce differing results depending on the varying legal status of cannabis in Australian States.

    I would suspect those States where Police and drivers only worry about road safety implications of cannabis use may be able to better target their resources to harm minimisation – from cannabis and other drug driving. But that the difference could be marginal.

    Police journals in the US quoted in NZs latest Police journal report that reducing P supply through application of prohibition has reduced P impaired driving charges. It would seem though that cannabis user can never be controlled, so encouraging safe driving practise by redirecting wasted cannabis prohibition resources to road safety would be best.

    The harm minimisation approach seems like a wasted effort so long as it focuses on ivory tower legal status of pot debate…. while ignoring the need for life saving road safety education for the many many pot victims dying yesterday and today on SH1.

    If Kiwi harm mimisation advocates were “for real” rather than spotty faced university programmed idealists all over concerned over high level human rights issues like the life changing effect a pot conviction can have on someone, they would put far more effort into dealing with the coalface life-ending pot use situation affecting the less educated on a weekly basis.

    One way to do this would be highlighting that a sole pot user may (apart from a tee-totallker) make the best designated driver as it is only 3-4 hours to sobre up (versus longer for a drinker), so making fatigue a lesser factor than with a drinker who says “when”… then has to wait out the reduction to a legal blood alcohol reading.

    While also making clear that harm reduction does not mean selecting a recent or behind the wheel pot user over a drunk driver – as the risk from that is the same as someone at anywhere from the limit up to double the alcohol limit (likely age dependent). Signed – disillusioned with harm minisation effort, but not “over it”.

  5. Buddy says:

    @Rachael Have you ever driven under the influence of THC?

  6. Wee Hamish says:

    Have you ever read Salient… on weeeeeed?

  7. Gordon from the ANZ Ad says:


Recent posts

  1. VUW Halls Hiking Fees By 50–80% Next Year
  2. The Stats on Gender Disparities at VUW
  3. Issue 25 – Legacy
  4. Canta Wins Bid for Editorial Independence
  5. RA Speaks Out About Victoria University Hall Death
  6. VUW Hall Death: What We Know So Far
  8. New Normal
  9. Come In, The Door’s Open.
  10. Love in the Time of Face Tattoos

Editor's Pick

Uncomfortable places: skin.

:   Where are you from?  My list was always ready: England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, puppy dogs’ tails, a little Spanish, maybe German, and—almost as an afterthought—half Samoan. An unwanted fraction.   But you don’t seem like a Samoan. I thought you were [inser

Do you know how to read? Sign up to our Newsletter!

* indicates required