NEWS: SMH - 16/05/2006 'Never a hard case, cannabis use finally gets attention'

Never a hard case, cannabis use finally gets attention
May 16, 2006

A national approach to dealing with the drug does not preclude debate about law reform, writes Richard Mattick.

A DECADE ago, it may not have been possible to arrive at a consensus approach to cannabis use in Australia. Cannabis was seen as less harmful than other illicit drugs and most of our illicit drug policy focused on the heroin epidemic and growing rates of heroin overdose. Media attention also focused on ecstasy use and youth culture. For a long time there was limited evidence on exactly what the harms related to cannabis use were.

Yesterday's decision to adopt a national strategy, made by the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, marks the start of a move to correct this imbalance in our response to illicit drugs.

Although there may have been some decline in the use of cannabis in recent years, it remains by far the most widely used illicit drug in Australia, with 750,000 Australians aged 14 years and over using the drug each week.

In addition, young people are starting to use cannabis at an earlier age and we know that the earlier cannabis use begins, the more problems users will have in the future.

At the same time, there have been changes in the way young people use cannabis, most particularly which part of the plant they use. Rather than the less potent cannabis leaf, the flowering head of the cannabis plant, its most potent part, is being used increasingly.

More frequent use is also being reported among young people. Evidence suggests that heavy cannabis users are more likely to experience educational, social and employment difficulties, and long-term smoking of the drug may cause physical illnesses, as with smoking tobacco.

These risks need to be communicated more clearly to users and potential users to reduce cannabis-related harm.

More attention has also been given to the mental health problems associated with cannabis use, such as anxiety, depression and psychosis. Demand for assistance with cannabis-related problems has been growing at drug treatment centres and hospital stays for cannabis dependence have also increased.

Some people need help to reduce their cannabis use and there are options available. These should be better communicated to the public, and new ways of treating the problem explored.

The response within the health system is only part of the answer. Diverting users from the criminal justice system, providing them with appropriate advice about their cannabis use and equipping them with ways to reduce cannabis use when it is problematic is a sensible approach.

We also need to recognise that commercial cannabis crops are associated with significant organised criminal activity. The associated potential for violent crime, the drain of money from the economy and the impact on the public must be considered.

Cannabis use is often viewed as harmless, or as being less harmful than alcohol use. As well, some claim that the drug has important medicinal potential for those in pain or suffering wasting diseases. This is opposed by others who argue that cannabis is a toxic and dangerous drug.

These polarised views feed a simplistic debate about the legal status of cannabis: whether its use should be decriminalised (if not legalised) or continue to be prohibited.

This debate dominates discussion about cannabis and distracts attention from improving our understanding of the drug and its consequences for society.

As a result, many remain uncertain about what to believe. The prohibition debate has effectively hijacked attention from the legitimate need to provide accurate advice to the public and has prevented effective communication about the true health and social effects of cannabis use, which, in turn, has prevented good policy responses from being developed, until now.

A national approach to dealing with cannabis does not preclude debate about drug law reform or the medicinal value of the drug. However, this should not become another opportunity for the extremes of that debate to confuse the public about the issues involved. The public needs accurate, unbiased information. Against this backdrop, policies should be in place to discourage its use, but especially to discourage the transition to heavy and dependent cannabis use.

The agreement on a national strategy opens the way for a national approach to inform the public, professionals in health, the legal fraternity (policing and judicial) and decision-makers about the true nature of cannabis use and its actual impacts, and how these might best be addressed.

Professor Richard Mattick is director of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre.

Click to expand...

Pyne: Treat cannabis like heroin
16 May 2006

THE Federal Government says it wants tougher cannabis laws as state and territories endorse a national strategy to combat the drug.

The Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy yesterday also endorsed a national strategy on alcohol abuse and announced it would develop, over six months, a plan to fight the use of amphetamines and other psychostimulants.

Federal parliamentary secretary for health Christopher Pyne said the national strategy on cannabis would focus on reducing the public acceptability of the drug.

He said the Federal Government would like tougher cannabis laws - including revising the decriminalisation of personal use in some states - but it could not force states to change the law.

"We have to treat it as an illicit drug as dangerous as heroin, amphetamines or cocaine," Mr Pyne said.

Click to expand...

Federal parliamentary secretary for health Christopher Pyne said the national strategy on cannabis would focus on reducing the public acceptability of the drug.

Click to expand...

Australia, like the US, has a Federal system with 6 states and 2 territories (only a fine legal distinction between states and territories). Since March 1996, the Federal government has been a conservative coalition and for the last few years, all 6 states and 2 territories have been unusually controlled by the conservative's political opponents.

It is hard not to see this move by the Federal government to ahieve uniform marijuana laws as a wedge issue. If the Federal government achieves this, they will wrap themselves in the national flag and claim to have saved Australia's youth. If the Federal government doesn't achieve it, they can then blame their political opponents for being soft on drugs.

In 2 recent state elections, the conservative opposition tried to make tougher cannabis laws an election issue. A rally called by the conservative opposition was attended by more journalists than citizens. In both elections, this issue got no traction and the conservative opposition was thrashed at the polls.

Another problem for the conservatives is that a conservative government (in the Northern Territory) liberalised cannabis laws because they cost too much to enforce, benefits were hard to find, and the budget was in deficit. But I think we can rely on journalists being too lazy to find that out.

Of course, as with all stories about drugs, it's the perception that really matters and the reality which is irrelevant. The reality of tough new cannabis laws would be an undetectably small difference in cannabis use; more arrests; more blue collar young people getting criminal records, losing jobs, busting relationships; more money spent on cannabis law enforcement and less on policing violent crime; and higher incomes for criminals and corrupt police.

I can't help wondering what the people are smoking when they dream up these policies.

It's interesting that the recent report from the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research Are We Losing the War on Drugs? An Analytic Assessment of U.S. Drug Policy by David Boyum and Peter Reuter 2005 was pretty damning about cannabis prohibition.

It seems that the news has not filtered through to Australian conservatives that the line in Washington DC is changing.

My own person hope is that the consertaves get their way and cannabis prohibition is intensified. As Abraham Lincoln said "the best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."

http://blog.drugpolicy.org/2006/05/australia-to-crack-down-on-marijuana.html

Click to expand...