Should there be alternatives to prosecution where possession of drugs is for personal use?

This is somewhat sensible.

American cops have been saying it's a waste of their time and an unwinnable war:

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

People should be free to ingest recreational substances. If New Zealand taxed drug sales instead of diverting the profit margin from the black market to criminals, the revenue could be used to fund health initiatives that educate people about the risks.

Let's face it, so many people medicate their depression, anxiety, low libido, hair loss. Why are they allowed to do that, while people that chose to use psychedelics that enhance and alter their perception are not? This, even when substances like Ayahuasca and Iboga have been used for 1000s of years by shamanic tribes as a spiritual rite.

http://drugr.org/

The personal possession and use of any drug should not be an offence and so it should not be a matter for the Police.

This is policy in several countries which for some reason you have failed to mention in your overview. It works well.

Genuine offences committed by drug users if any (eg drunk driving, assault, theft etc), should be the only justification for attention from Police.

Brandon Hutchison

The use of any drug should never be considered a criminal offense.

I would like to see govt controlled outlets where the supply is regulated, quality controlled and addicts treated with compassion not prison.

Why would I want to go to drug assessment, or drug treatment programs? I am educated, I enjoy some drugs and I don't hurt anyone. Why should I pay a fine and not someone who has a few beers?

What a waste of time even discussing this issue. Do you really think any government is going to take one iota of notice? This has all been said before and nothing changes.

Let's just get more police, more judges and more prisons, and leave gangs to control the drug market.

Bury your head in the sand Power!

Like the approach suggested here. It has always concern me that a rite of passage for young people in this country was a criminal conviction for possession of cannabis

Of course tragically the detached rationalism of this report will never win over the 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' cohort easily inflamed by the media.

I can see the political logic in having a fine system, certainly it seems to be work better than more punitive sanctions where it has been tried, but it still implies that an offense has been committed and this is clearly not the case, if no third party is harmed.

Possession is the a classic mala prohibitum crime (because it is written), rather than a mala in se crime (because it is wrong in principle). This important distinction and needs to be highlighted, as does the influence on domestic law of equally outdated UN conventions that domestic Governments are signatories to, and constrained by.

Adult Possession for personal use should not be subject to any sanctions unless there is some form of secondary or offense or direct third party harm - like consumption within a specified non-consumption zone, or secondary supply.

Treatment or education referrals should only be applicable to minors, or where there is clear evidence of problematic use or other reasonable cause for intervention, such as reckless or antisocial behaviour. How non medically trained enforcers are qualified to make these judgments is the obvious problem here.

It's the old 'body ownership' issue. If it is my body, then I should be allowed to put into it whatever I so choose. My body does not belong to anyone else, not the Government, not my friends, not my neighbours and it certainly does not belong to the medical/health police and various 'interest groups'.

Why is 'education' (aka attempted brainwashing) seen as the solution to everything? If people own their lives and their bodies then surely they can make their own decisions should they need help!

Simon Power (Minister of Justice)needs to seriously reconsider what he is say, statistics state in Holland since Legalisation the use of Cannabis has reduce dramatically,

I would bet NZ would be the same if the law changed.

High use comes down to the whole "forbidden fruit" social stance, If its illegal, young people want to do it, its called rebellion. Change the god dam law, its current state is destroying this country, and the problem is getting worse despite policing efforts, that must say a lot about prohibition and how it is not working.

I ask that Simon Power (Minister of Justice) step down form his position or make a better judgment, doesn't look he read the review at all.

Seems to be a lot of intelligent comments here. Prohibition has obviously failed; its time for change. Reclassification of drugs - Cannabis and BZP to Class D (already conveniently created, though not used by our govt.) Govt. regulates and controls market - money gets pumped back into our economy (instead of into the hands of gangs, or US cigarette giants, once they start mass producing packaged joints to meet demand).

Obviously when the reclassification of drugs is done, their must be some lee-way given to alcohol, which would probably receive a Class B for its social harms. We can learn from history and the 1920/30's Prohibition in the States to know what would be in store if we closed all the bars. Seems hard to see through the smoke when it comes to prohibition of other substances.

With Cannabis, it strikes me as odd that we would have to follow another countries system. I digress; it should be other countries that follow a 'New Zealand Model', instead of a 'Dutch Model' or a 'Portugal Model' (if you wanted to decriminalize all drugs). Our country has the most pot use per capita in the world, why could we not have led? (Guess we need to be in Uncle Sam's pocket for protection - lot of fear out there these days - maybe a bit of paranoia...*cough* in parliament)

I am sure a Dutch Model would work very well in this country.

PS. Maria, nice yarn about bodies - does that mean you think its ok for a person to blow their body up?

I agree with you though. There is something very wrong with the way we lock up our people.

Bottom line - no fine! Drug use is (should be) a public health issue, not a criminal justice one.

A few questions that need your help answering: http://dpffl.org/wodques.htm

I do not believe persons using drugs most especially cannabis should be prosecuted

Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis, marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care

[DEA] Chief Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young

According to research of scientists at Keele University in Staffordshire, UK, the incidence (the number of new diagnosed cases) of schizophrenia in the years 1996 to 2005 does not support the hypothesis that cannabis use increases the risk for the development of schizophrenia or psychosis. For this study an analysis of data from 183 practices in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland was conducted. The study cohort comprised almost 600,000 patients each year, representing approximately 2.3 per cent of the UK population aged 16 to 44. Between 1996 and 2005 the incidence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining.

http://tinyurl.com/ygdskmw

Instead we prefer to lock up our sick who choose to supplement their lifestyle with their medicine of choice

Many otherwise law abiding citizens are dragged through the court system which often has devastating consciences for their future

A recent article on TV3’s 60 Minutes Ganja Granny highlights this perfectly

http://tinyurl.com/y86btun *9 (Video Clip 13:27)

All the while its now easier for our children to buy cannabis than alcohol

Which Im sure through the cloak and dagger nature of the black market, introduces them to harder substances

Teenagers say they find it easier to buy cannabis than beer

National Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse Columbia University

August 14, 2008

National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse XIII: Teens and Parents

http://tinyurl.com/52rgob

prosecuting cannabis users is a huge mis-management of tax payer resources

Possession of drugs for personal use should never be treated as a criminal issue.

The harms related to drugs fall into three categories: personal harms, social harms and harms related to the fact that they are illegal. This third type of harm will never be addressed by continuing to prosecute people for possession for personal use - if anything, this exacerbates the harms by marginalising the user.

Initiatives to reduce personal or social harms should focus on problematic drug use, which depending on which research you read makes up between 3% and 15% of total use - not a large percentage. Identifying people for whom drug use is problematic is not achievable if police are directed to treat any drug use as a crime - if they issue cautions or infringement notices to anyone found in possession of drugs this does not separate problematic use from non-problematic use.

Of the options offered above, I prefer the formal cautioning scheme with the caveat that the prosecution option be removed as it is pointless - if after the third caution a person is then required to attend assessment for problematic use and it's found that their use is not problematic, the slate should be wiped clean. If it's found that their use is problematic, appropriate treatments should be offered as a health/social intervention, and no criminal ones should be applied.

Drug misuse is a health issue, not a criminal one, and drug users should not be criminalised. Drug users who have problems should not be marginalised further by the criminal justice system. Marginalisation of an already marginalised group is not justice.

I believe that full legalization is the only scientifically proven answer to the control of all harms associated with cannabis.

I can see that focussing on alternatives to prosecution for the meantime would be an effective way of enacting change by "not scaring the horses", however decriminalisation - or whatever you choose to call it - will not solve anything as it still leaves the drug supply in the hands of criminals.

Full legalisation with an emphasis on mitigating the health consequences of the likes of truly addictive substances such as heroin and methamphetamine should be the natural aim. As unpleasant as it may be for some to acknowledge it, most other illegal drugs are virtually harmless or certainly less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.

Prohibition is based on prejudice and decades of lies and hysteria. Let's end it.

After 80 odd years of [largely U.S. originated] propoganda & demonisation the gap between the realities of drug use issues & public/politicians perception is HUGE. Exec. summary RSA 2007 - A KEY FINDING - quote `The use of illegal drugs is by no means always

harmful any more than alcohol use is always harmful.

The evidence suggests that a majority of people who

use drugs are able to use them without harming

themselves or others. They are able, in that sense, to

‘manage’ their drug use. They are breaking the law

in possessing illegal drugs, but they are not breaking

the law in any other way. The effects that drugs have

depend to a large extent on the individuals who use

them, the drugs that they use, the ways in which

they use them and the social context in which

they use them. The harmless use of illegal drugs

is thus possible, indeed common` .I`m quite sure this would be news to the general public & politicians of NZ.The law commission has done a great job here & although the agenda is rational reasoned & conservative it represents a bold step in the present climate. The above mentioned reality gap has seen your report binned by our esteemed PM & justice minister- most likely before even reading it. Little can be acheived in drug policy reform until the public/politicians get a reality check.Another key quote for this audience; from Nutt& Blakemores rational scale

`Our fi ndings raise questions about the validity of the

current Misuse of Drugs Act classifi cation, despite the

fact that it is nominally based on an assessment of risk to

users and society. The discrepancies between our fi ndings

and current classifi cations are especially striking in

relation to psychedelic-type drugs. Our results also

emphasise that the exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from

the Misuse of Drugs Act is, from a scientifi c perspective,

arbitrary. We saw no clear distinction between socially

acceptable and illicit substances. The fact that the two

most widely used legal drugs lie in the upper half of the

ranking of harm is surely important information that

should be taken into account in public debate on illegal

drug use.`In your`e press release oyu dealt with some of this re `overblown drug harms vs undersold alchohol harms` .I feel it is a strategic error to so fully uncouple alchohol/tobacco from this dialogue ,RELATIVE HARMS, is the linchpin concept in closing the above gap.This debate will

go nowhere [witness Key & Power`s response]until this sort of info is stated clearly,simply & unequivocally .

there r drug like alcohol that r legal but do more damage to our bodys n society than marijuana, bout time 4 a change!

A lot of good things have been said in this thread.

With the current status quo, if I smoke a joint after a hard week's work and want to relax I am basically a criminal. However if instead I choose to buy a 6 pack of beers I'm not. It seems so unreasonable to me as it is. I do not think that any monetary penalty is a solution either for the user. I am an adult, I am not harming my fellow human, I am not a criminal.

There's a common consumer product that kills one out of every two users

Tobacco

There's substance that's not responsible for any deaths per year, has hundreds medical and industrial benefits yet its illegal?

Cannabis

I find it hard to understand why when cannabis is concerned punishment is always the main topic, I believe this train of thought is flawed on so many levels. When we deal with issues around Alcohol we don't look to punish Alcohol use but the issues arising from its use I have never seen anyone facing charges for drinking Alcohol accept for breaking laws in Alcohol banned areas, yet I have seen figures stating 70,000 plus charges per year for crimes committed where Alcohol played a huge role in crimes often violent and sexual in nature.

I believe we must shift away from the idea that Cannabis use in it'self is a crime and look to how Cannabis law affects our society, we already have many laws in place for any possible bad behavour its use may have on law abiding citizens of this country. The real question that must be answered is one of prohibition and does it serve any good to the general public I think not, as we have been teaching our children since I was at school this approach did nothing but generate crime as with Alcohol prohibition and inhibiting policing efforts because these laws were seen as unjust to the wider community.

I would also like to add that the laws in-acted late last year pertaining to drug-driving are unfear in relation to cannabis users and I don't condone driving stoned and I wouldn't have a problem with testing if this was the case, but will this be true for many who are pulled in with road side testing? As everybody knows certain parts of Cannabis take a very long time to leave your system and it's these parts testing revolves around and not intoxication. How long will it be before we start to see people in court facing charges for driving because they consumed a small amount of Cannabis a week or six weeks earlier and punished for drug-driving offences as a de facto consumption charge. This will also lead to searchs of homes and many other intrusive practices by the police and points to a major flaw in the parameters around testing in regards to Cannabis intoxication and driving. Yet meth,coke,LSD, are all out of your system in 2-3 days in regards to testing.

God forbid we encourage a move to hard drugs as a down stream effect of testing policies, this shift to the harder drugs which are out of your system faster have become the drugs of choice for many who work in the 3 weeks on 2 weeks off type industries.This will have to be addressed if the laws around Cannabis change.

To comment on a number of objections the current law

1) that profits should be converted to public coffers.

This argument is illegitimate a similar argument could be made for people smuggling. Potential profits is not and should never be a means for criminal legislation.

2) people can handle themselves - not all users are hurting themselves.

Ignoring medical evidence that links psychiatric conditions with extended cannabis use, take a similar argument with explosives. The majority of current professionals using explosives do not hurt anyone (engineers, miners). If cannabis can be used with out personal harm by some (and I'm not certain evidence supports this) why should it be legal to all. Explosive legal to all would cause epidemic problems.

3) These people medicate this way, why cant we medicate this way (Hair Loss = Propecia, Mental Health = Seroquel, etc)

Medicating for known medical conditions (ie medicating depression in its clinical sense is not the same as treating sad people) if entirely different than self medication for perceived medical/emotional ailments. And quite frankly the suitability of cannabis as a medication is an argument for physicians not advocates

I partially agree with this.

This would work great with the minor drugs like Cannabis but I still feel that we need to stop the use of more powerful drugs such as P and LSD due to them being more likely to negatively effect the user or the user to do something harmful to anyone else.

we got rid of slavery,got womens suffrage sorted,got homosexual law reform sorted ,this is no different.Everytime rational non bigoted people want to move the social agenda forward ; the hard-nosed, uninformed,ideologically driven conservative fools will fight tooth & nail to obstruct positive change.For how many more decades & ruined lives are we going to pander to the UN treaties with their roots deeply embedded in fear ,bigotry & racism .Anslinger presided over the 1961 treaty & Nixon over the 1973 one - fantastic role models to base our ethical underpinnings on. Justice!!! Yeah right.

Personally, as a tax payer, it makes me cringe that my taxes conrtibute for the hunt to prosecute for possesion and use of cannabis.. when it is a product of mother nature. P, MDMA, LSD etc are understandably illegal as it is man made and potentially very harmful. What is the most you can do when your high? I'll tell you, I'd know, I love to smoke the reefer. I relax, I contemplate, I laugh, I joke, I smile, I'm carefree, I bear no animosity and life is choice! As a drinker also, I can tell you that alcohol is not even remotely the same effect. Some get aggressive, get into sticky situations, break the law doing ideas which seem clever at the time, get into a fight, get emotional, wear some serious beer goggles and wake with the want to chew off you arm the following day...its a poison, and user's are not completely coherant or able to weigh out the consequences for their actions. There's no way one could do that when they're stoned...you just don't have it in you..but due to greed and the Government having absolutely no control or cut of the money exchange, it simply can't be legal (despite the medical attributes it has.) Some of the most successful people in society smoke weed and if only they would second the notiton of legalising marijuana; this would be much more apparent. However, due to consequences of speaking out, no one dare, not when it is illegal and therefore harming one's professional reputation.

If legalised, the pro's could be endless;

-More shops (cosmic corner etc) Good for economy

-500million dollars additional annually to subsidise or grants for important causes such as Cancer Research or Education Funding (As Canna-med stated)

-Copious amounts of MORE police avaliable for important issues such as domestic violence, drink driving and child abuse cases

-Medicinal Pro's

-Less desirability-teens love living by their own rules

-Less fights, the hippies who smoked weed were all about peace not war and grooovy vibes as I do.

How is Amsterdam a functional city if cannabis was so outright preposterous?!

Appears as though there isn't enough information to back up the argument on why Marijuana is unacceptable. Which makes the law that much harder to comprehend.

Kylee

I am posting my submission edited:

I respond to your invitation to comment on the proposed review of the law.

Can I just make one immediate point please - the Law Commission and numerous other sources continually make a serious error of law in discussing this subject. This mistake is a fatal flaw in the entire consultation process as it misleads all commentators and obscures the truth. The point is often made that the NZ law is based upon the UK 1971 legislation. Under the law, the object of which is the amelioration of social harm caused by drug misuse, the Government is afforded many powers under Sections 7, 22 & 31 of the UK Act to achieve this. This can only be done by recognising that peaceful use of controlled drugs is distinct from misuse of such drugs - the powers government have already can make Orders to achieve this balance. Why is it not being done? Because of the error of law you make throughout your reports, documentation, introduction, terms of reference to the consulation etc - the description of drugs as being 'legal' or 'illegal'.

If you think about it the error is fundamental. You are flipping the subject and object of legal control. Objects are not subject to law, people are. When we talk of illegal guns, we are getting it wrong - guns are not illegal, what is illegal is the unauthorised possession of them. All drug offences are property rights offences concerning people, not drugs!

This expression is nonsense - drugs are controlled or not under law. No harmful drug is outside of the purview of the Act. This means that alcohol and tobacco are included in the Act, but due to administration of law (and not the law itself), they are still not classified despite accounting for more harm than all controlled drugs put together. This is because it seems impossible to prohibit alcohol, and this belief that classification equates to prohibition is the error that means that there is an artificial divide at the heart of the administration of drug law. This divide means that drinkers and smokers are not afforded the relative protection by deterrence of criminal law, whilst consumers of controlled drugs have no protection from consumer law. So-called legal highs are sold without either protection as well. The idea of excluding alcohol and tobacco from this review is akin to having a review of the health service and not including hospitals and GP's.

My submission is also a letter from a US citizen to the new chair of the UK Advisory Council.

Regards

Darryl Bickler

Letter:

10 February 2010

Casey William HARDISON - POWd (Civ)

HMP Wellingborough LH5330

Wellingborough

NN8 2NH

Professor Leslie Iverson

Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs

6th Floor, Peel Building

2 Marsham Street

London SW1H 4DF

Re: Advisory Council remit & Legal Advice

Dear Professor Iverson,

Welcome to what you already know is a difficult job. Thank you for volunteering and thank you for your courage and wisdom.

This letter intends to communicate the key understandings I have gleaned from five years of legal scholarship on the purpose and objects of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 ("the Act") and the key discoveries about the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs ("Council") revealed in Freedom of Information Act 2000 responses from your predecessors, particularly the discovery that since the Act's inception the Council have not taken or received independent legal advice re the purpose and objects of the Act or the Council's remit.

It is my sincere hope that you, the new Council Chair, will procure and make public this desperately needed legal advice. Short of that, I lay out below my interpretation of the Act. In so doing I highlight notable passages of Council scholarship, compare and contrast these with Government declarations and show how they led to the confused dismissal of your predecessor by the Secretary of State for the Home Department ("SSHD"). I implore you, Professor; only full legal advice will enable you to discharge the Council's duty to protect the public effectively. Please have a current copy of the Act to hand.

a. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 - The Preamble & Section 1 in brief

The preamble indicates that the Act's area of competence is public protection re "dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs" i.e. harm minimisation or harm reduction:

"An Act to make new provision with respect to dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs and related matters, and for purposes connected therewith."

Nowhere in the Act are the terms "dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs" defined. The closest I find in the Act is found in s1 which creates the Council and then defines its duty. In s1(2), it can be found that the Act concerns:

"drugs which are being or appear to [the Council] likely to be misused and of which the misuse is having or appears to [the Council] capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem".

Thus, it is for the Council to define what "dangerous or otherwise harmful" means and so too the meaning of "harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem". I suggest that any drug use that impacts on the public purse in any way is "sufficient to constitute a social problem". With that quick intro, let us step back for a wide view.

b. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 - The Principles of Law

Recognising that the exercise of various activities re "dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs" may result in a variable likelihood of risks and benefits to public welfare and individual autonomy and that these must be consciously balanced, Parliamentarians embodied four principles of law in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971:

1) A determination, read from the Act's preamble, s1(2) and the offences stated in the Act, to employ education, health and police power measures to prevent, minimise or eliminate the "harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem" that may arise via any self-administration of "dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs''.

2) A determination, read from ss1, 2(5), 7(7) & 31(3) of the Act, to employ an independent Advisory Council to help the Secretary of State exercise the Act's discretionary powers in a rational and objective manner, particularly when making contingent subordinate legislation and interstitial administrative rules and when considering regulatory options.

3) A determination, read from s1(3), to employ an independent Advisory Council to consider any matter relating to drug dependence or the misuse of drugs that may be referred to them by any Minister and to advise them as required or requested.

4) A determination, read from ss1l(2)(a)-(e), to enable persons affected by drugs misuse to obtain advice and secure health services; to promote stakeholder co-operation in dealing with the social problems connected with drugs misuse; to educate the public in the dangers of misusing drugs, and to give publicity to those dangers; and to promote research into any matter which is relevant to prevent drugs misuse or deal with any connected social problem.

Crucially, this first principle of law is neutral and generally applicable, coherent with s31(1)(a) of the Act, and based on outcome, irrespective of the drug, the agent's status, class, or intent, or the circumstances in which the drug-related activities occur.

The second principle of law facilitates Due Process and seeks to ensure that the Act's police power measures are employed proportionate to available objective evidence of the potential risk each drug presents when used and are suitably targeted to achieve the Act's objective.

The third and fourth principles facilitate a coherent social conversation for minimizing harms risked by drug use through the intelligent use of education, health and ministerial services.

c. The Object of Regulation - People not Drugs

The Act concerns itself with public health and safety; however, the Act does not concern itself with absolute safety. Rather the Act seeks to prevent, minimise or eliminate the "harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem" that may arise via any self-administration of "dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs".

The Act targets these "harmful effects" only indirectly through "restrictions" ss3-6, "prohibitions" ss8-9 and/or "regulations" ss7, 10 & 22, on the exercise of enumerated activities re controlled drugs: import/export, production, supply, possession, etc., whilst generating a harm minimisation conversation at all levels of society via education, research and the provision of specific health services.

Accordingly, the Act does not regulate drugs; the Act regulates human action.

d. General Provisions as to Regulations - Section 31(1)-(3)

"31. General provisions as to regulations. (1) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under any provision of this Act - (a) may make different provision in relation to different controlled drugs, different classes of persons, different provisions of this Act or other different cases or circumstances; and (b) may make the opinion, consent or approval of a prescribed authority or of any person authorised in a prescribed manner material for purposes of any provision of the regulations; and (c) may contain such supplementary, incidental and transitional provisions as appear expedient to the Secretary of State. (2) Any power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. (3) The Secretary of State shall not make any regulations under this Act except after consultation with the Advisory Council". (My emphasis)

This means the Council is in the driving seat and that the Council's advice or recommendations are not limited to scientific or medical matters re drug harm and classification. Section 31 conjunct ss7 & 22 would allow a completely regulated legal commerce in controlled drugs.

e. Section 7 - Authorization of activities otherwise unlawful under foregoing provisions

Section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 shows Parliament's intent not to implement Article 4(c) of the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs by the creation of the Act. Only HM Government, the executive, is a "party" to the UN drug Conventions. Only they are bound; and this is a matter of international law not domestic law. The Council, Parliament and the Judiciary are all independent of HM Government.

In creating global "prohibition", Article 4(c) of the 1961 UN Single Convention states:

"The parties shall take such legislative and administrative measures as may be necessary: (a) to give effect to and carry out the provisions of this Convention within their own territories; (b) to co-operate with other States in the execution of the provisions of this Convention; and (c) subject to the provisions of this Convention, to limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs". (My emphasis)

Parliament did not intend to implement Article 4(c) fully because s7(1) states:

"(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations: (a) except from section 3(1)(a) or (b), 4(1)(a) or (b) or 5(1) of this Act such controlled drugs as may be specified in the regulations; and (b) make such other provision as he thinks fit for the purpose of making it lawful for persons to do things which under any of the following provisions of this Act, that is to say sections 4(1), 5(1) and 6(1), it would otherwise be unlawful for them to do". (My emphasis)

Section 7(2) builds on and qualifies s7(1)(b):

"Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above, regulations under that subsection authorising the doing of any such thing as is mentioned in that paragraph may in particular provide for the doing of that thing to be lawful - (a) if it is done under and in accordance with the terms of a licence or other authority issued by the Secretary of State and in compliance with any conditions attached thereto; or (b) if it is done in compliance with such conditions as may be prescribed". (My emphasis)

According to ss7(1) & 7(2) the SSHD "may" by regulation "except" a controlled drug from restrictions on their import/export, production, supply, possession and/or make it "lawful" for anyone, within reason, to produce, supply, possess, or cultivate controlled drugs.

Conjunct s31(1)(a), above, this means the SSHD can do whatever the SSHD wants provided (1) the regulation promotes the purpose and object of the Act, viz harm reduction; (2) the Council have been consulted; (3) Parliament does not oppose it; and (4) the regulation is not open to judicial review. This is a very broad power! In legal speak this power is "unfettered".

This means the Act does not mandate "prohibition". The Act does not intend to "limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs". Sections 7(3)-(4) make this distinction.

Section 7(3)-(4):

"(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, the Secretary of State shall so exercise his power to make regulations under subsection (1) above as to secure - (a) that it is not unlawful under section 4(1) of this Act for a doctor, dentist, veterinary practitioner or veterinary surgeon, acting in his capacity as such, to prescribe, administer manufacture, compound or supply a controlled drug, or for a pharmacist or a person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business, acting in either case in his capacity as such, to manufacture, compound or supply a controlled drug; and (b) that it is not unlawful under section 5(1) of this Act for a doctor, dentist, veterinary practitioner, veterinary surgeon, pharmacist or person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business to have a controlled drug in his possession for the purpose of acting in his capacity as such.

(4) If in the case of any controlled drug the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it is in the public interest - (a) for production, supply and possession of that drug to be either wholly unlawful or unlawful except for purposes of research or other special purposes; or (b) for it to be unlawful for practitioners, pharmacists and persons lawfully conducting retail pharmacy businesses to do in relation to that drug any of the things mentioned in subsection (3) above except under a licence or other authority issued by the Secretary of State, he may by order designate that drug as a drug to which this subsection applies; and while there is in force an order under this subsection designating a controlled drug as one to which this subsection applies, subsection (3) above shall not apply as regards that drug". (My emphasis)

Sections 7(3) & 7(4) closely resemble HM Government's obligation re Article 4(c) of the 1961 Single Convention. Prohibition is therefore a regulatory option not a command.

Please note, the "classes of persons" in terms of s31(1)(a) that ss7(3)-(4) distinguish are professionals who would be unable to carry on their professions without the SSHD making provision for them. This is the reason for the "shall" in s7(3); it is mandatory that the SSHD provide for these professionals work with controlled drugs.

The "may" in other clauses of the Act, such as in ss7(1) & 31(1) are merely permissive, however, the Courts have held that if relevant and sufficient evidence exists, that goes to the jurisdiction of a permissive statutory discretion, then the permissive "may" will be read as a "must" and the Courts will require the decision-maker to exercise the discretion.[1]

So, what are the Council's duties? What discretions must the Council exercise?

f. Section 1(2) - Whether or not involving alteration of the law

"(2) It shall be the duty of the Advisory Council to keep under review the situation in the United Kingdom with respect to drugs which are being or appear to them likely to be misused and of which the misuse is having or appears to them capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem, and to give to any one or more of the Ministers, where either the Council consider it expedient to do so or they are consulted by the Minister or Ministers in question, advice on measures (whether or not involving alteration of the law) which in the opinion of the Council ought to be taken for preventing the misuse of such drugs or dealing with social problems connected with their misuse, and in particular on measures which in the opinion of the Council ought to be taken - (a) for restricting the availability of such drugs or supervising the arrangements for their supply; (b) for enabling persons affected by the misuse of such drugs to obtain proper advice, and for securing the provision of proper facilities and services for the treatment, rehabilitation and after-care of such persons; (c) for promoting co-operation between the various professional and community services which in the opinion of the Council have a part to play in dealing with social problems connected with the misuse of such drugs; (d) for educating the public (and in particular the young) in the dangers of misusing such drugs, and for giving publicity to those dangers; and (e) for promoting research into, or otherwise obtaining information about, any matter which in the opinion of the Council is of relevance for the purpose of preventing the misuse of such drugs or dealing with any social problem connected with their misuse". (My emphasis)

Section 1(2) charges the Council with the "duty" of: (1) keeping the drugs "situation" and relevant law "under review"; (2) giving ministers advice on exercising the Act's powers; and (3) giving ministers advice on any measure or measures thought necessary by the Council to achieve the Act's purpose, "whether or not involving alteration of the law".

Again, the Act's purpose and object is to prevent, minimise or eliminate the "harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem" that may arise via any self-administration of "dangerous or otherwise handful drugs". The Act contains various mechanisms for doing this. The foremost is the creation of the independent Advisory Council whose "duty" is to give ministers (and the public) advice on any measure or measures thought necessary "whether or not involving alteration of the law".

But what law? The phrase "whether or not involving alteration of the law" does not say "the Act" nor does it say "this law", "this section", or even "these regulations". If, in the opinion of the Council, a clause in the Medicines Act 1968 needs changing, the Council can and should say so; so too with other relevant legislation, including regulations re alcohol and tobacco.

Obviously, the phrase "whether or not involving alteration of the law" applies to the Act. Thus, it is the Council's "duty" to provide advice to the SSHD, and other ministers on regulations, regulatory strategies and regulatory options. This is supported by s31(3) which shows that the Council's advice is not limited to scientific matters, e.g. drug risks, drug harms, drug classification; nor to the regulatory option of "prohibition".

Thus, I believe that Alan Johnson was wrong to censure Dr Nutt for criticising Government policy. It was indeed the entire Council's duty to criticise Government policy, if "the Council consider it expedient to do so". All the more so because the Council is one of three procedural safeguards on arbitrary and unreasonable government; the other two are Parliament, in ss2(5), 7(6) & 31(2), and the Judiciary via judicial review.

This highlights a possible legal challenge against the Council.

g. Pathways to Problems- a Neglect for Duty

On 14 September 2006, the Council published a commanding report, Pathways to Problems: hazardous use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs by young people in the UK and its implications for policy, in which the Council declared unequivocally that the artificial divide in drugs policy lacks rationality:

"We believe that policy-makers and the public need to be better informed of the essential singularity in the way in which psychoactive drugs work: acting on specific parts of the brain to produce pleasurable and sought-after effects but with the potential to establish long-lasting changes in the brain, manifested as dependence and other damaging physical and behavioural side-effects. At present, the legal framework for the regulation and control of drugs clearly distinguishes between drugs such as tobacco and alcohol and various other drugs which can be bought and sold legally (subject to various regulations), drugs which are covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) and drugs which are classed as medicines, some of which are also covered by the Act. The insights summarised [here] indicate that these distinctions are based on historical and cultural factors and lack a consistent and objective basis". (Paragraph 1.13, p22, my emphasis)

A few pages earlier the Council admitted "neglect[ing]'' their duty under the Act by discriminating between "harmful psychoactive drugs' on the ground of 'legal status":

"The scientific evidence is now clear that nicotine and alcohol have pharmacological actions similar to other psychoactive drugs. Both cause serious health and social problems and there is growing evidence of very strong links between the use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs. For the ACMD to neglect two of the most harmful psychoactive drugs simply because they have a different legal status no longer seems appropriate". (Introduction, p14, my emphasis)

Consistent with this, the Council's first recommendation in Pathway to Problems reads:

"As their actions are similar and their harmfulness to individuals and society is no less than that of other psychoactive drugs, tobacco and alcohol should be explicitly included in the terms of reference of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs". (My emphasis)

I believe that Dr Nutt was on the Prevention Working Group that led this report. To this day, the Government has not replied to this report or its recommendations!

In 2007 I reminded Sir Michael Rawlins that alcohol and tobacco are implicitly included in the Act's remit as the term "drug", as used in the Act, is not synonymous with the phrase "controlled drug" found in s2(1); thus, "drug" means any drug irrespective of its chemical structure, delivery method, legal status and/or purpose of use.

Sir Michael apparently accepted this as page two of the Council's 20 October 2008 contribution to Me Department of Health's 2008 alcohol consultation paper, "Safe, Sensible, Social - consultation on further action", stated the Council's remit and then said:

"This therefore implicitly includes alcohol and tobacco"

Accordingly, an important question for you to consider which has legal ramifications: Why is the Council still neglecting its duty re the so-called "legal highs" alcohol and tobacco? I believe the answers lie in "historical and cultural factors [that] lack a consistent and objective basis" and I have discovered a thought-provoking way of demonstrating this.

h. Reasonable Differentiations Fairly Related to the Object of regulation

With the exception of opium smoking, s9, drug use is not an offence under the Act or at common-law. And whilst the difference between the activities enumerated in ss3-6 of the Act and drug use might seem insignificant, Parliament drew the line here.

Crucially, s37(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 states:

"References in this Act to misusing a drug are references to misusing it by taking it; and the reference in the foregoing provision to the taking of a drug is a reference to the taking of it by a human being by way of any form of self-administration, whether or not involving assistance by another". (My emphasis)

Therefore, in ensuring consistency with the Act's object of preventing, minimising or eliminating the "harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem" that may arise via "the taking of a drug" differentiations should distinguish drug use from drug misuse.

With respect to drug use, i.e. "self-administration", I believe the Act's principles of law afford three reasonable differentiations fairly related to the object of regulation:

1. A primary differentiation between drug use that is reasonably safe to the agent and does not result in harm to others and drug use that is reasonably safe to the agent and results in harm to others; (e.g. drinking in a pub versus drinking and driving)

2. A secondary differentiation between drug use that is reasonably risky to the agent and does not result in harm to others and drug use that is reasonably risky to the agent and results in harm to others; (e.g. smoking outside versus smoking in enclosed public spaces)

3. A tertiary differentiation between drug use harmful only to the agent following competent informed choice and drug use harmful only to the agent not following competent informed choice. (e.g. smoking by adults versus smoking by minors)

These reasonable differentiations, based on the outcome of drug use, are neutral with respect to the drug, the agent's intent, and the setting in which drug use occurs, and consistent with s31(1)(a) of the Act. Only in this way are autonomous individuals separable from the public interest and education and health measures separable from the need for police power.

Yet, because of historical accident, cultural factors and political vision, the Government only affords these reasonable differentiations to the use of drugs preferred by the majority, alcohol and tobacco. As a result, they are familiar to us. This familiarity has led to irrationally, which in turn has led the SSHD and the council to exclude them from the Act.

This denies equal protection to the public from the "harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem" caused by alcohol and tobacco use whilst denying equal liberty to persons who produce, commerce, and use controlled drugs for peaceful, amateur purposes. This is an abuse of power by the SSHD. For persons prosecuted for unauthorised activities with "controlled drugs", this ultimately manifests two inequalities of treatment:

1. a failure to treat like cases alike, viz the unequal application of the Act to persons concerned with equally harmful drugs without a rational and objective basis; and

2. a failure to treat unlike cases differently, viz the failure to regulate persons concerned peaceful activities re controlled drugs differently from persons causing harm.

I believe the source of these two inequalities of treatment lay in Government's interpretation of the Act; and Government's interpretation has become the Council's interpretation.

i. The Government's interpretation of the Act

On 13 October 200G, Government let loose their interpretation in Cm 6941,The Government Reply to the Filth Report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Session 2005-6 HC 1031 Drug classification: making a hash of it?, where the Government said:

"the classification system under the Misuse of Drugs Act is not a suitable mechanism for regulating legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco". "The distinction between legal and illegal substances is not unequivocally based on pharmacology, economic or risk benefit analysis. It is also based in large part on historical and cultural precedents. A classification system that applies to legal as well as illegal substances would be unacceptable to the vast majority of people who use, for example alcohol, responsibly and would conflict with deeply embedded historical tradition and tolerance of consumption of a number of substances that alter mental functioning [...]. Legal substances are therefore regulated through other means. [...] However, the Government acknowledges that alcohol and tobacco account for more health problems and deaths than illicit drugs". (p24, emphasis added)

These six sentences from Cm 6941 admit that the SSHD administers the Act unequally without a rational and objective basis fairly related to the Act's policy and/or objects. These admissions pare from within the SSHD's three incoherent and/or subjective attempts to justify excluding alcohol and tobacco from the Act:

1. "[T]he Misuse of Drugs Act is not a suitable mechanism for regulating legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco". (Emphasis added)

2. "The distinction between legal and illegal substances is not unequivocally based on pharmacology, economic or risk benefit analysis. It is ... based in large part on historical and cultural precedents". (Emphasis added)

3. "A classification system that applies to legal as well as illegal substances would be unacceptable to the vast majority of people who use, for example alcohol, responsibly and would conflict with the existence of a deeply embedded historical tradition and tolerance of consumption of a number of substances that alter mental functioning". (Emphasis added)

My analysis of these three justifications follows. This analysis elucidates three errors of law supporting an abuse of power and shows that the subsequent application of the Act in the courts has manifested the two inequalities of treatment under criminal penalty, here repeated:

1) a failure to treat like cases alike, viz the unequal application of the Act to persons concerned with equally harmful drugs without a rational and objective basis; and

2) a failure to treat unlike cases differently, viz the failure to regulate persons concerned in peaceful activities re controlled drugs differently from persons causing ham.

It is precisely because of these inequalities, and Government's three justifications for them that the Council needs to procure independent legal advice. It is the Council's duty to interpret properly the Act's powers and to advise Government on how to use them to reduce harm.

a. The First Justification

The first justification the SSHD gives in Cm 6941 for the first inequality of treatment admits an abuse of power. In effect, the SSHD says, "[The Act] is not a suitable mechanism for regulating ... alcohol and tobacco". This is manifestly absurd and shows inter alia that the SSHD has failed to give effect to two established and relevant facts:

1) Alcohol and tobacco are harmful drugs within the Act's scope as the term "drug", s1(2), is not synonymous with the phrase "controlled drug", s2(1)(a).

2) Alcohol and tobacco misuse is "having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem", s(1)2; or as Government declared in Cm 6941: "alcohol and tobacco account for more health problems and deaths than illicit drugs".

These two facts appear to underpin the ACMD admission in Pathways to Problems:

"For the ACMD to neglect two of the most harmful psychoactive drugs simply because they have a different legal status no longer seems appropriate". (p14, emphasis added)

The SSHD's failure to act on these two facts conjunct the claim that the Act "is not a suitable mechanism for regulating legal substances" unveils two errors of law:

1) The SSHD believes that the Act permanently proscribes the enumerated activities re controlled drugs, bar medical and scientific purposes, i.e. "our policy of prohibition [is] reflected in the terms of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971".[2]

2) The SSHD claims a power, the SSHD does not possess, to "exempt individuals or classes of individuals from the operation of the law"[3] by excluding de facto the "dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs" alcohol and tobacco from the Act's control.

Re the first error of law, the SSHD's belief that the Act permanently proscribes the enumerated activities re controlled drugs, bar medical and scientific purposes. This belief shows that the SSHD has failed to understand and give effect to two powers:

1) The SSHD's unfettered power to authorise the exercise of any of the enumerated activities re any controlled drug by any class of person for any purpose, i.e. "for doing things . . . it would otherwise be unlawful for them to do", s7(1)(b) & 31 (1)(a); and

2) The SSHD's unfettered power for "excluding in such cases as may be prescribed ... the application of any provision in [the] Act which creates an offence", s22(a)(i).

Re the second error of law, the SSHD's assumed power to exclude alcohol and tobacco from the Act's remit, the Act has jurisdiction to regulate the exercise of the enumerated activities re alcohol and/or tobacco. So, the SSHD's failure to give effect to the two established and relevant facts re alcohol and tobacco thwarts the Act's policy:

"to make ... provision with respect to dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs ... which are being or appear ... likely to be misused and of which the misuse is having or appears ... capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem".[4]

b. The Second Justification

The SSHD's second justification, given in Cm 6941, for the first inequality of treatment exposes a third error of law while declaring that the inequality is "based in large part on historical and cultural precedents". It reads:

"The distinction between legal and illegal substances is not unequivocally based on pharmacology, economic or risk benefit analysis. It is ... based in large part on historical and cultural precedents". (Emphasis added)

The third error of law is the SSHD's belief in the "illegality of certain drugs",[5] i.e. the belief that some drugs or "substances" are "legal" whilst the Act makes other drugs or substances "illegal". A decision maker holding this belief does not understand the Act correctly.

A drug is either "controlled'' under the Act, s2(1)(a), or it is not. If the Act controls a drug, only the unauthorised exercise of the enumerated activities re that drug is unlawful. All three of the SSHD's justifications for the inequality of treatment contain this error of law.

Without this error the second justification reads:

"The distinction between [. . .] substances is . . . based in large part on historical and cultural precedents". (Emphasis added)

Re the "historical and cultural precedents" at the heart of the "distinction", this and other related phrases found in Cm 6941 are not rational and objective grounds relevant to the Act's policy and/or objects; rather, they are suspect "indicia"[6] of unjustifiable majoritarian discrimination equally applicable to homophobia, sexism and racism.

And whilst "historical precedent" may have an objective basis, "cultural preference"[7] can only mean the subjective preference of the majority as the SSHD has not consulted affected minorities and so unfairly treats as irrelevant their cultural drug preferences. Understanding this, the ACMD declared in Pathways to Problems that these "historical and cultural" factors re drugs and drug policy "lack a consistent and objective basis".[8]

Similarly, a decade ago, the 1997 United Nations World Drug Report recognized the contradiction inherent in "cultural and historical justifications" re harmful drugs:

"The discussion of regulation has inevitably brought alcohol and tobacco into the heart of the debate and highlighted the apparent inconsistency whereby use-of some dependence creating drugs is legal and of others is illegal. The cultural and historical justifications offered for this separation may not be credible to the principal targets of today's anti-drug messages - the young".[9] (Emphasis added)

Truly, the SSHD's allegiance to "historical and cultural precedents" lacks credibility because it diverts the Act's measures from the "harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem" that arise via alcohol and tobacco misuse. This denies equal protection to the public from the harmful effects caused by alcohol and tobacco misuse whilst denying equal liberty to persons concerned with controlled drugs for peaceful, amateur purposes.

c. The Third Justification

The first clause of the third justification the SSHD gives in Cm 6941 for the first inequality of treatment exposes the second inequality of treatment. It claims:

"A classification system that applies to [alcohol and tobacco] as well as [controlled substances] would be unacceptable to the vast majority of people who use [alcohol and tobacco] responsibly'. (Mutatis mutandis, emphasis added)

I believe this justification shows the SSHD fears the political cost of applying a "policy of prohibition"[10] to alcohol and tobacco and thus the SSHD is close-minded to evidence: (1) that peaceful, amateur use of controlled drugs is both possible and commonplace; and (2) that the permanent proscription of production and commerce activities re controlled drugs, bar medical and scientific purposes, is equally "unacceptable" to the millions who are concerned in the peaceful, amateur use of controlled drugs.

On this, the Third Report from the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Session 2001-2002 HC-3 18 The Government's Drug Policy: is it working? stated:

''Around four million people use [controlled drugs] each year. Most of these people do not appear to experience harm from their drug use, nor do they cause harm to others as a result of their habit". (Para 20, emphasis added)

The second clause of the SSHD's third justification for the first inequality of treatment embodies the first error of law, the belief that the Act permanently proscribes the enumerated activities re controlled drugs, bar medical and scientific purposes. Essentially, this clause declares that the SSHD's "policy of prohibition":

"conflict[s] with deeply embedded historical tradition and tolerance of consumption of a number of substances that alter mental functioning". (Emphasis added)

This illuminates a deep, unsettled legal controversy whereby the State facilitates access to certain drug mediated mindstates whilst concomitantly obstructing access to other drug mediated mindstates. This would appear to violate freedom of thought.

Overall, the SSHD's third justification for the first inequality of treatment suggests three general duties re the use of "[drugs] that alter mental functioning":

1) a duty to respect an individual's "free and informed choice''[11] in the peaceful, amateur use of "[drugs] that alter mental functioning"; and

2) a duty to differentiate the peaceful, amateur use of "[drugs] that alter mental functioning" from the use of "[drugs] that alter mental functioning" ... "having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem", s1(2). This is use versus misuse; and

3) a duty to subject all commerce and production of ''[drugs] that alter mental functioning" to reasonable, necessary and proportionate regulations.

Yet, Government only executes these general duties re the drugs preferred by the "vast majority", alcohol and tobacco. Hence, the SSHD fails to regulate persons concerned in peaceful activities re controlled drugs differently from persons causing harm. The SSHD fails to target regulations at the problem: misuse. This creates the second inequality of treatment.

j. So, where do we go from here?

In Pathways to Problems, the Council nailed the solution in their Recommendation 11:

"A fully integrated approach should be taken to the development of policies designed to prevent the hazardous use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs". (Emphasis added)

What would this require?

1) The Council needs to agree, under Schedule 1 Section 3 of the Act, a inclusive set of procedural guidelines'[12] for risk assessment, particularly the specific criteria prompting the Council to recommend that the SSHD seek to control and classify a drug and proportionately regulate activities re that drug. This helps ensure due process and creates unimpeachable decisions, advice and recommendations based on best practice.

2) The Council and the SSHD need to agree, "whether or not involving alteration of the law", a proportionate regulatory structure similar to the 5 tiers of the Medicines Act 1968. This would allow for:

a) more familiar drugs - those drugs the general population have demonstrated their ability to manage the risks of harm to a substantial degree - to have proportionately less restrictive regulations re production, commerce and possession; and for

b) less familiar drugs - where understanding of the risks of harms and the means of ameliorating them have not reached the majority of the general population - to have progressively and proportionately restrictive regulations re production, commerce and possession.

3) The Council needs to recommend and the SSHD needs to control under s2 alcohol and tobacco.

a) On the other hand if the SSHD and the Council are committed to excluding persons concerned in the production and commerce of alcohol and tobacco from the sections of the Act applied to those concerned with controlled drugs and the SSHD and the Council believes that there is a rational and objective basis for doing so, Due Process, and the Act mandates that the SSHD apply s2 to alcohol and tobacco and then ss7(1), 7(2) & 22(a)(i) as required. Section 22(a) (i) states:

"22. Further powers to make regulations. The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision . . . (a) for excluding in such cases as may be prescribed . . . (i) the application of any provision of this Act which creates an offence". (Emphasis mine)

However, if the SSHD and the Council choose this route, an inevitable question arises, why are those who produce and commerce the dangerous drugs alcohol and tobacco excluded when those concerned with other less harmful controlled drugs are not?

b) Here again, s22(a)(i), like ss7(1) & 7(2), reveals Parliament's intent not to implement Article 4(c) of the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs by the Act.

Having said all the above, Professor Iverson, I again implore you to procure independent legal advice, and to do so immediately.

And in doing so, please attend closely to ss7(1), 7(2), 22(a)(i) and 31(1)(a). These sections allow for a path out of the intractable mess of current prohibitionist drug policy. These sections allow for a completely regulated drug control system that properly targets the "harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem" that may result from the self-administration of drugs.

And all of this is within the power of the Council to recommend - "whether or not involving alteration of the law". Whether the Government of the day bows to the rationality is another matter.

I leave you with a quote by Richard Brunstrom QPM, B.Sc., M Sc., former Chief Constable North Wales Police from his 9 October 2007 document Drugs Policy: a radical look ahead?

"If policy on drugs is in future to be pragmatic not moralistic, driven by ethics not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral, to be replaced with an evidenced based unified system (specifically including tobacco and alcohol) aimed at the minimisation of harms to society. [. . .] This logical, rational and consistent approach will inevitably lead to the legalisation and regulation of all harmful drugs".

Thank you for your time! Please share this letter with other Council members. And, if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

—Fiat Lux!

Casey William Hardison - POWd (Civ)

www.drugequality.org

[1]Padfield v Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries & Food [1968] AC 997, 1039; Julius v Lord Bishop of Oxford (1880) LR 5 App Cas 214

[2] Home Office (2007) Response to Better Regulation Executive, 27 September 2007 www.betterregulation.gov.uk

[3] Pretty v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 1 at 77

[4] Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 c.38 Preamble conjunct s1(2), emphasis added

[5] Cm 6941 (2006) page 18

[6] San Antonio School District v Rodriguez (1973) 411 US 1 at 29 'the traditional indicia of suspectness'

[7] Cm 6941 (2006) page 15; Cf. Hansard, HC Deb, Misuse of Drugs Bill 1970, 16 July 1970 Vol. 803 Col 1801

[8] ACMD (2006) Pathways to Problems, Para 1.13

[9] UNODC (1997) UN World Drug report 1997, p198 www.unodc.org/adhoc/world_drug_report_1997/CH5/

[10] Home Office (2007) Response to Better Regulation Executive, 27 September 2007, www.betterregulation.gov.uk

[11] Cm 41 (1998) Smoking Kills, at 1.26, "the right to smoke"; Cf. Wockel v Germany (1998) 25 EHRR CD156 smoker's "interests"

[12] Via Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests of your predecessors, I established that no such procedural guidelines exist for the Council. Cf. s811 US Controlled Substances Act 1970, 21 USC 811; and s4B NZ Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

I have observed that drug legislation is a way to limit peoples liberty’s and freedom of those who may have a different perception of their existence because of drug experiences.

It may well have been the existence of psychotropic substances on this planet that were responsible for the great evolution of the human brain.

Laws need to be based on common sense without political interference.

If this statement were true cannabis would be legal now.

If drug laws were based on the level of harm they produced, alcohol and tobacco would be illegal and prohibited.

So the question is, why do we have the exact opposite of common sense here in New Zealand?

The answer is quite simple - due to politicians being more interested in what's going into their pockets and being misled by so called 'experts' on the perception they need to show has meant voters have been penalised, convicted and persecuted by society for using a substance far safer than legal alternatives.

Democracies are meant to be about what the voters want, in this country however it appears to be what politicians want.

Should decisions such as this be left to politicians who's motives are to benefit business rather than voters?

if there is someone you care about who is on methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine etc. you should be able to call the police without having to worry about the one you care about going to jail, the possession should stay illegal for the hard drugs, but if somebody is caught for using drugs they should get help instead of being sent to prison, which is a horrible environment and people always come out of prison even worse. the police should become people we trust and we should not be afraid to call the force.

less serious drugs like cannabis should be decriminalized for personal use and cultivation, cannabis should also be prescribed medically. because most people realize it's not much of a problem and is not a lethal drug, and is less harmful than alcohol.

(Referring to Cannabis only)...The present tone of the situation is such that reform of the misuse of drugs act 1975 is overdue. Metiria Turei's amendment bill of 2006 fell short because it sought somewhat arbitrary allowances for people to grow their own in their backyard on a compasssionate basis. In rough terms, this is also what the Law Commission's discussion paper recommends. The only arguement with substance against this is that prolonged use results in adverse psychological effects, and that there will be some sort of gang proliferation if Cannabis laws were relaxed.

It is unhelpful, unnecessarily confusing and lazy to propose the police deal with minor offences with discretion or half measures like infringement notices. For one thing, they already do, and this discretion has done nothing to correct long term addiction OR stem the tide of illegal demand & supply (the cornerstone of gang activity in this country).

A drastic rethink is required, It is likely that the average Kiwi knows of at least 3 or 4 people who uses Cannabis habitually (at least recreationally) yet tax dollars are poured into failed attempts at control by successive Governments. We must get sick of banging our heads against brick walls soon, Cannabis regulation MUST move on from prohibition toward a reasonable middleground whereby supply is regulated, statistical data related to harm is formal, therefore, robust and a tax is yeilded to meet the cost of adverse affects.

If the issue is about relative harm, then the anecdotal evidence tells us that, like prostitution, prohibition is harmful, Cannabis is not. Police & mental health experts will gain mileage from pointing out the negative statistics in their favour. These statistics fail to recognise that Cannabis is supplimentary to other addiction and on that basis, real harm can not be quantified. I also point out that if Cannabis laws were regulated, then the allure related to prohibition is then removed, and the effects of Cannabis can be reliably measured & factored into future law amendments.

We know that ciggarettes kill about 100 Kiwi's a week (NOT a typo) this is a reliable statistic. We do not know the effects Cannabis will have on the country if it were made available for pain relief. Provision of this data will be a benefit to this country, but real value will accrue to NZ when illegal demand & therefore supply, diminishes.

Absolutely. I support the Portuguese model of the decriminalisation of all substances. Stop molly coddling adults and stop treating them like children.

A combination of fines and warnings for dangerous drivers or at risk individuals

In return the respect to government and state from the people will be enormous, and national pride will take over from dispirited apathy.

Watch the country come alive like when we said 'no' to nuclear

Personal use of drugs should not be a criminal matter. If there is problematic drug use then surely this is a health matter. If the drug use is not problematic then why is it anybodies business but the adult concerned? If the drug use is medicinal (i.e. cannabis) I would say it is criminal to prevent the use!

If we must take a criminal approach to drug use in order to meet our obligations under UN conventions then the least severe option possible should be the chosen course of action.

Why are we sticking to this UN convention again? Why must we persist with a policy that harms our own people?

After 15 years of drug use the only two drugs I've ever had problems with are the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco! Go figure.

The recent raids on hydroponics stores around the country should send a message to anybody wishing to grow their own to avoid contact with gangs. The police through their actions have now forced people to go visit gangs as they will be the ones still stocking cannabis, this will expose them to the criminal element we want stopped, it may also expose them to harder drugs. A recent news report indicates 1000 people are behind bars from the last 4 months work by the police, this won't just effect those 1000 people, it will effect everybody wihtin their families as the stigma is passed on.

Shame we have a govt who's justice minister was a cop, all he will do is protect his mates and this scenario will occur again and again.

While its good that the Law Commission has done this review, what isn't good however is a govt who appear unable to see the advantages of what the review recommends and common New Zealanders like you and I will continue having our lives ruined by the police and system simply because politicians are more interested in their business and police mates than in the citizens they say they are protecting.

Drug law reform in this country especially where Cannabis is concerned is long overdue.

Just this evening we're seeing the results of "operation Lime". The media still hasn't brought us the details of how many police officers were working this case, how much time between them was spent or indeed how much all of this has cost the taxpayer. We do know that potentially 250 mostly otherwise innocent people could be occupying jail cells; which we are told by the justice minister are at a premium.

Is this country more concerned with filling up prisons so there will be a fat profit for the new owners? Or are we going to be serious about harm prevention? Is this country happy to throw money at a problem which doesn't really even exist? Or will we see to it that our Police force is working on the real problems that plague society, which might actually be solvable?

Thousands unpon thousands of New Zealanders smoke cannabis every day. That won't stop tomorrow because of Operation Lime; it's hard to see if it ever will. But the ills of our society that we see every day in the media; child abuse, armed robbery, gang warfare, brawling, drink driving carnage, mass job losses, homelessness; none of these are the result of anyone smoking cannabis. So what are these draconian laws protecting the public from?

I would argue that because of the harsh and needless penalties served to anyone involved with cannabis, they do more harm than good. They send innocent people to prison, they enable the police to seize property for no good reason, they also help line the pockets of organised crime (because who else is prepared to take the risks?).

No more of this! Simon Power and Co. should listen to the experts and the public for once and make a difference instead of carrying on with this more of the same approach. The waste and the harm needs to stop!

I would like to commend the law commission for their honest and fair review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. It is refreshing to know that there are people in New Zealand in positions of authority that are prepared to be honest when it comes to the issue of drugs. It is saddening to see so much harm caused by prohibition when it is known beyond doubt that the harm caused by prohibition far outweighs any potential harm that could be caused by the drugs themselves. More and more experts from around the world are speaking out against prohibition and it is well and truly time for New Zealand’s leaders to listen and base policy on science.

I would like to see drugs in New Zealand treated according to their relative harms. In a recreational sense so long as alcohol is legal all drugs that pose less potential for harm must be legalised. Surely this is the most basic expression of justice in regard to drug laws. I have never seen the justice in criminalising certain drugs but not others based on nothing more than the arbitrary preferences by some people of certain drugs over others, regardless of the relative harms those drugs pose. So long as alcohol is legal how can we expect our youth to make sense of the criminalisation of cannabis? Cannabis has been scientifically proven to be less harmful than alcohol. That is a fact. What more is there to be said?

From a medical perspective it is a great tragedy that people are denied an effective and safe medicine, cannabis, yet allowed highly addictive and far more dangerous alternatives such as opiates. Where is the equity in this? Compared to a high percentage of pharmaceutical drugs cannabis is practically benign. It has very few negative side effects, zero potential for causing death and a myriad of positive proven medical applications. Denying medical users of cannabis access to their medicine of choice is entirely unjustified, cruel and deplorable. Criminalising sick people for using cannabis as medicine is shameful. Furthermore, I believe that drug abuse is a medical problem, not a criminal one.

Finally I would like to mention each and every person’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So long as no harm is caused to another person what benefit is there in the state standing in the way of an individual’s pursuit of these natural rights?

It is my wish, as a New Zealand citizen, that the least severe criminal penalties possible, in line with New Zealand’s obligations under the UN, are adopted. I would like to see money and resources directed towards education and healthcare and not wasted on the criminalisation of drug users.

Despite the law commissions review being based on science and the most up to date evidence from around the world I am not optimistic about the potential for their recommendations to be taken seriously and acted upon, let lone even considered, by our current government. This is deeply saddening.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this. I will not make a formal submission because my personal details could be subject to an Official Information Act request, jeopardising employment and potentially other opportunities for me. Given the way the police have invaded the privacy of innocent people caught up in the recent Switched on Gardner busts I do not feel it is prudent to submit my personal details to the law commission.

I very much believe allowing people to have/grow for personal use would be greatly beneficial.

A law like Canberra's allowing people to grow a few plants for personal use would be a great thing to consider.

also, I believe having it on sale in shops (taxable) and being R18. much like tobacco and alcohol are at the moment. This would allow us greater control of who can get it.

as I'm sure most people have heard about the sting operation on hydroponics stores.. I find that to be horrific. they've used hundreds of thousands of our nations tax dollars targeting stores that are selling things to grow PLANTS.. even the people that WERE buying equipment to grow cannabis, it was mainly for small personal home grows of cannabis. why not focus their resources on fighting drugs that ACTUALLY cause harm to our communities like "P".. the amount of damage caused by cannabis to our community is minuscule. the amount of wasted tax dollars on fighting it is huge.

I can imagine that the raids would have caused more trauma to peoples children and families than "Dad's drug of choice" ever would..

all these busts will mean for the cannabis market, is that the price will go up and more people will have to rely on gangs for there drug of choice, thus putting money in the pockets of gangs.. this seems incredibly counter productive.

Cannabis has been proven to have NATURAL medicinal benefits too. it's great for pain relief, insomnia, eating disorders etc..

how many violent crimes are committed by users of Marijuana? how many violent crimes are committed by users of Alcohol? exactly.. Cannabis chills you out, relaxs you, calms you down, brings happiness into people's lives. while alcohol makes people violent and aggressive.

how can something like alcohol be legal while cannabis is not?

something needs to be done to fix the craziness of NZ laws regarding cannabis.. I really hope NZ can get with it, and sort the laws out.

I believe the cannabis prohibition laws which are in place are an infringement of my rights, devastating to people the judicial system punishes and a drain on police resources.

Ultimately I would like to see Cannabis legalized, regulated and taxed. Until this happens I would be happy to have possession and cultivation for personal use decriminalized. No fines, no diversions, no tickets.

Resources currently used for targeting users could then be channeled to drug treatment programs (for addicts of "harder" drugs) and increased resources to tackle the gang supply and dealers of P and other hard drugs. At the moment I feel that prohibition especially of cannabis, empowers gang control of the market.

There are thousands of users of cannabis who would happily grow a plant or two in their garden for personal use. Personally I enjoy vaporizing some cannabis after a hard day at work. Unfortunately to acquire said cannabis I am forced to buy from the black market, my money funding god knows what. I commit no other crimes apart from possessing cannabis and would very much like be allowed to smoke and possess cannabis without being made into a criminal. Thanks for considering my submission.

Through out history there have been drugs of some sort. The key issue is around using them safely and with proper education. We must focus on the good of the community so harm reduction is priority. The Swedish penal system is a good model in terms of sentencing. Prohibition attitudes create the problem so the focus needs to be on education.

you say in your intro `Many of those who regard the current approach to drugs as illogical, hypocritical, and based on double standards....... .Indeed, rather than just an opinion this would seem to any well-informed & rational person an obvious & manifest reality.We currently see 2 of the highest harm drugs -alchohol & tobacco both legal & one heavily promoted,while relatively benign recreational drugs such as cannabis, BZP, MDMA, LSD & other entheogens remain criminalised with users victimised & hounded - shades of the Inquisistion.It is ludicrous to pretend when there are 700,000 heavy/binge drinkers in this country that a large number of Kiwis don`t have a deep natural urge to alter signifigantly their state of consciousness at times.It is an oppressive & a gross infringement of cognitive liberty to allow the use of only one psychoactive - alchohol- to acheive state change. When used to the point of signifigant state change alchohol is far more dangerouse than the other popular pschoactives. Talk to the A&E depts each weekend for confirmation of that!! It certainly looks to me like `..... current approach to drugs is illogical, hypocritical, and based on double standards......` is indeed a truism . In the 21st century said current approach is surely a pitiful manner in which to enact an important area of public policy .

The laws on Cannabis are a complete charade, millions in New Zealand and around the world partake of it for medical and recreational uses.The problem of dealing with its legal status is something many Goverments have had to come to grips with, some having made great in-roads, with others like our own Government having fallen by the way-side. This has become even more apparent under the National parties term of crush-em style politics, crush who! the citizens of New Zealand? The politics surrounding Cannabis issues are not based on facts or the will of the people and this disgraceful practice of trying to perform a cultural cleaning not unlike a good old Ethnic cleansing needs to be stopped.

I believe in a society like ours with a Bill of Rights protecting the basic rights of worship and ethnic background we should also apply these principles when formulating a fair practice in relation to Cannabis users as they are citizens too and deserve the same repect and protection we show others in our society. All to often you hear them called dirty people,scum and all manner of insults this would not be tolerated under the Bill of rights for any other group in society, just as the insulting and bullying of particular ethnic groups because of head-dress, skin colour, or be it catholic versus protestant,muslim against christian.

To those who don't think this has parallels with the Cannabis culture which directly effects over 25% or 1 million people in this country alone, your heads are firmly in the sand.Cannabis users have families and friends, work-mates, just about everyone in this country knows someone that uses or has used cannabis whether they know it or not, so the numbers affected are huge.The same laws affecting us here are coming under fire around the world as unfair and unjust. The super power countries like the U.S have found the will of the people hasn’t been swayed by harsh laws concerning Cannabis and with fourteen states voting yes to Cannabis and many more on the way, the multi trillion dollar war on drugs has just been a war on people and a epic failure.

I qualify this statement with the best legal minds our country has to offer telling us that our present Cannabis laws aren't working for the best interests of All New Zealanders. The laws regarding Cannabis prohibition directly affect the social standing,treatment and care of its Cannabis citizens thus in actual fact divide them into a sub-class.

When someone like the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer after doing a two year study can qualify cannabis having a medical use we can rest assured he's researched his statement and when this ex prime minister says our present laws around Cannabis are in need of fixing we should all at least listen and feel safe to talk about it.

To be honest people, it's not going to matter one bit what we want, the law won't change. More prosecutions are in favour of what the govt wants for their new privatisation of prisons, and what do you think of the timing of the busts on Switched on Gardeners? Now, today the police release a report on the strength of cannabis in NZ. So much for a public service to have opinions other public services are not allowed. Of course the cannabis they produced would be of high quality, I'm sure they wouldn't want to produce a bad crop to disprove their sensationalistic report.

Why release all this now right at the moment the law commission review on a better approach to drug laws? Considering the police gladly take about $440 million a year for their continued prohibition it would indicate they are more interested in their own incomes and power than care about society.

I think the easiest way to find your own personal solutions to this drug law is simply to move to another country that is relaxing laws, this country is living in the bloody dark ages.

Our politicians are corrupt.

Why have we seen little if any media coverage on the completion of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 review?

Why was there a media ban on Jday?

Why the busts on Switched on Gardeners right now?

What ever happened to freedom of speech in this country?

It would appear the Government is pulling the strings to prevent this getting any coverage and to continue to paint cannabis as some evil drug, which it isn't.

This Government is corrupt.

I think politicians should take note of what other countries policies are when deciding on this, two particular countries I see the govt always turns to when they want to cite something regarding drugs - the US and the UK are both changing their stances in regards to cannabis, in the US its about medical marijuana and in the UK it appears a new possible govt coalition partner the Liberal Democrats want to legalise cannabis.

Sure the govt is getting tough on drugs right now, putting a blanket ban on media positives about drugs and increased funding but what it comes down to is other countries are recognising that cannabis isn't the drug they should be targeting in harm reduction, there are far worse in society that should be focused on, it's just a matter of our politicians seeing what future implications of international relations may bring, alignment with the likes of the US and the UK will allow medical users of these countries access to another country and be able to continue using the medication that may be prescribed here.

US cannabis as medicine

http://www.cannabisnews.com/

UK political news

http://cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/05/04/Liberal-Democrats-Want-Legalize-Cannabis-UK

New Drug Control Strategy Signals Policy Shift

Posted by CN Staff on May 10, 2010 at 19:46:08 PT

By Sam Hananel, Associated Press Writer

Source: Associated Press

justice Washington, D.C. -- The White House is putting more resources into drug prevention and treatment, part of President Barack Obama's pledge to treat illegal drug use more as a public health issue than a criminal justice problem.

The new drug control strategy to be released Tuesday boosts community-based anti-drug programs, encourages health care providers to screen for drug problems before addiction sets in and expands treatment beyond specialty centers to mainstream health care facilities.

"It changes the whole discussion about ending the war on drugs and recognizes that we have a responsibility to reduce our own drug use in this country," Gil Kerlikowske, the White House drug czar, said in an interview.

The plan — the first drug plan unveiled by the Obama White House — calls for reducing the rate of youth drug use by 15 percent over the next five years and for similar reductions in chronic drug use, drug abuse deaths and drugged driving.

Kerlikowske criticized past drug strategies for measuring success by counting the number of children and teens who have not tried marijuana. At the same time, he said, the number of deaths from illegal and prescription drug overdoses was rising.

"Us facing that issue and dealing with it head on is important," Kerlikowske said.

The new drug plan encourages health care professionals to ask patients questions about drug use even during routine treatment so that early intervention is possible. It also helps more states set up electronic databases to identify doctors who are overprescribing addictive pain killers.

"Putting treatment into the primary health care discussion is critical," Kerlikowske said.

The policy shift comes in the wake of several other drug policy reforms since Obama took office. Obama signed a measure repealing a two-decade old ban on the use of federal money for needle-exchange programs to reduce the spread of HIV. His administration also said it won't target medical marijuana patients or caregivers as long as they comply with state laws and aren't fronts for drug traffickers.

Earlier this year, Obama called on Congress to eliminate the disparity in sentencing that punishes crack crimes more heavily than those involving powder cocaine.

Some drug reform advocates like the direction Obama is heading, but question whether the administration's focus on treatment and prevention programs is more rhetoric than reality at this point. They point to the national drug control budget proposal released earlier this year, for example, which continues to spend about twice as much money on enforcement as it does on programs to reduce demand.

"The improved rhetoric is not matched by any fundamental shift in the budget or the broader thrust of the drug policy," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which favors drug policy reform.

Nadelmann praised some of Obama's changes, but said he is disappointed with the continued focus on arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating large numbers of people.

Kerlikowske rejected that as "inside the Beltway discussion," and said there are many programs that combine interdiction and prevention.

The drug control office's budget request does include a 13 percent increase in spending on alcohol and drug prevention programs, along with a 3.7 percent increase for addiction treatment.

Source: Associated Press (Wire)

Author: Sam Hananel, Associated Press Writer

Published: May 10, 2010

Copyright: 2010 The Associated Press

http://cannabisnews.com/news/25/thread25659.shtml