If the goal is to reduce harm to society, a cost-benefit analysis shows that cannabis prohibition has failed

ANALYSIS: The case of a referendum on New Zealand’s cannabis law was already urgent in 2015 when the supposedly most pressing issue was whether we should change the flag. As I argued at the time, prohibition had failed and was costing society much more than the drug itself.

As with alcohol, tobacco, prostitution, and gambling, regulation, not prohibition, seemed like the smartest way to go. Nothing has changed as the cannabis legalization and control referendum looms on October 17. If anything, the evidence from a wasted five decades of war on cannabis is even more compelling.

First, tens of thousands of New Zealand lives have been disproportionately damaged, not by drug use, but by criminalization.

According to figures published under the Official Information Law, between 1975 and 2019, 12,978 people spent time in jail for convictions related to cannabis (use and / or trafficking). In the same period, 62,777 received community sentences for cannabis-related convictions.

READ MORE:
* Cannabis referendum: old newspapers reveal drug culture shift from ‘medicine’ to ‘threat’
* I used to be in the police drug squad. Here’s why I’m voting against the legalization of cannabis
* Northland GP calls for the cannabis referendum to be dropped, decriminalizing the drug instead
* Legal recreational use of marijuana backed by more than half of kiwis
* Cannabis legalization in New Zealand could generate up to $ 240 million in tax revenue, says an economist

These statistics have not been distributed evenly. Maori are more likely to be convicted of cannabis charges, even considering the higher rates of use.

Each conviction represented actual or potential harm to job prospects, the ability to travel, education, and other forms of social opportunity.

Despite the law, cannabis use is on the rise

Second, despite these penalties and the millions of hours of police time spent enforcing the law, the demand remains stronger than ever. Reflecting international trends (an estimated 192 million people used cannabis in 2018, making it the most widely used drug globally), the number of people using cannabis in New Zealand is increasing.

The most recent statistics suggest that 15 percent of people used it at least once in the past year, nearly double the 8 percent recorded in 2011-12. The rate for those aged 15-24 could be closer to 29 percent (almost double the 15 percent in 2011-12).

Research suggests that the majority of New Zealanders (about 80 percent) born in the 1970s have used cannabis at least once. Despite the hype, propaganda and fear, such widespread use has not caused the nation to lose control.

This is not a universal rule. For a minority (perhaps 4 to 10 percent of all users), there is a risk of developing a dependency that impairs their psychological, social and / or occupational functioning. Once again, the Maori suffer disproportionately in this area.

Despite these risks, in general, the harm from cannabis is much less (both for individuals and for society in general) than that of legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.

Black markets only work for criminals

Third, criminals have profited from the illegality of cannabis. The median price for an ounce ranges from $ 350 to $ 400. With profit margins so attractive for an illegal product, a black market is inevitable.

At the same time, the quality and safety of the product are not regulated, the market is not controlled (children become customers) and there are no taxes on profits. The indirect crime rate increases as gangs or cartels seek to monopolize businesses and expand their territory.

The referendum now offers the Cannabis Control and Legislation Bill as a solution to these problems. If it were to become law, the current situation would change in several significant ways:

• access to cannabis for those over 20 years old would be restricted to a personal supply (two plants) or purchase of 14 grams per day at a set potency level

• the sale would be made through authorized establishments that sell quality controlled products from authorized producers

• standardized health warnings would be mandatory

• advertising would be strictly controlled

• cannabis cannot be consumed in a public place

• Selling to someone under the age of 20 would risk four years in jail or a fine of up to $ 150,000

• cannabis sales would be taxed

• Money would be made available for public education campaigns to raise awareness of potential harm and promote responsible use.

Some estimates put the possible tax collection at $ 490 million a year. There are also optimistic arguments that crime and drug-associated harm will be drastically reduced, if not completely eliminated.

But these results will depend on the price and quality of the product, the effectiveness of monitoring noncompliants and providing adequate help to those who need it.

there is no perfect solution

While evidence abroad suggests that legalization reduces many of the peripheral crimes associated with the illegal supply of cannabis, this tends to depend on the types of crimes examined and the nature of the black market.

New Zealand conditions may differ. These warnings suggest that it is too simplistic to believe that regulating recreational cannabis will lead to a happy utopia on the continent. There will always be harm, and there will certainly be initial problems if the new law goes ahead.

But that’s not the question that will be asked on October 17. What voters have to answer is this: Does regulation offer a better path than prohibition when it comes to reducing the harm in our society?

Five decades of failure would suggest that one of those options offers more hope than the other.

Alexander Gillespie is a professor of law at the University of Waikato.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.