- Free Article: No
- Contents Category: Law
- Review Article: Yes
- Article Title: Drugs and Community Values
- Online Only: No
- Custom Highlight Text:
The approach taken by the South Australian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs is to be highly commended. This commission was appointed in January 1977, under the chairmanship of Professor Ronald Sackville, Professor of Law in the University of New South Wales, nearly nine months ahead of the Federal Commission chaired by Mr. Justice Williams and the New South Wales Commission, chaired by Mr Justice Woodward. The South Australian Commission includes Earle Hackett, Deputy Director of Adelaide’s Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, and Richard Nies, Head of the School of Social Studies at the South Australian Institute of Technology.
- Book 1 Title: Cannabis – A Discussion Paper
This commission has been the first to produce results, as well as the first to adopt an informal approach in obtaining information, in addition to the usual judicial-type enquiry, which has more appeal to the media. The Commission began by releasing two preliminary documents, Some Questions and Some Responses dealing with general matters, followed by three public discussion papers, Education, Cannabis, and Social Control.
The second of these papers, now being reviewed, caused some public controversy as it accused Australian legislators of not keeping up with the known effects of cannabis use, both on the user and the community as a whole, and because it appeared to suggest that there should be no further criminal punishment for the possession of Cannabis sativa L for personal use, and the adoption of other methods to control its use. However, the opinions expressed in the Commission’s summary do not constitute a report, and have been put forward in the style of ‘policy alternatives.’
This reflects the present situation in Australia, because the debate over cannabis has more to do with community values and attitudes than with the assessment of medical, pharmacological, and other scientific research. The Commission commented:
In formulating policies for the regulation of the non-medical use of drugs, specifically cannabis, certain guiding principles should be borne in mind. These include the need to pursue realistic goals, the need to confront policy decisions openly, the need to recognize the values of privacy and individual freedom, the need to distinguish between different kinds of cannabis use, the need to acknowledge the choices open to people relating to the use of drugs, the need to adopt a policy of discouragement of use, the need to attack the black market and the need to respect the sensibilities of non-users of cannabis.
Hence, a discussion of community values, attitudes, and the social cost of the present policy of prohibition is far more important than merely recapitulating research results.
Current research has not been neglected by the Commission, and a summary of relevant data is provided in an extensive Appendix to the discussion paper, Section 3, ‘How Dangerous is Cannabis?’ is the most important of these, because it deals with such controversial aspects as the effect on driving, the use of cannabis with other drugs, the problem of escalation – still the subject which worries the public most – the relationship to crime and aggression, the problems of brain damage, the ‘amotivational syndrome’, the effects on sex and pregnancy, the immune response, and lung and liver damage.
The Commission has considered the evidence on all these matters up to the date of publication, and, as in the reports of all previous enquiries, the evidence points to the widespread use of a drug which is not dangerous when used in moderate doses, but which may be harmful if taken continuously in large doses. It has been known for many years that high dosage and longcontinued use can cause, in some people, respiratory complaints, liver disease when taken with alcohol, and psychotic episodes. The message has been clear, and known to be so for many years, that cannabis should be avoided when driving and when pregnant. None of the recent investigations have made it easy to detect the amount of THC present in a human being at any one time. There is no instant breathalyser to detect cannabis, and no easy test to determine whether a driver is ‘stoned’ or not. The only methods of detection are cumbrous, time-consuming and expensive, and in any case cannot detect the amount and incidence of cannabis originally ingested, because the effect of THC varies amongst humans, pharmacologically and psychologically.
The Commission has covered the evidence well and concisely, but as no other plant in history has been more researched and is still so much the object of continuous investigation, new material is being published daily, and much of the Commission’s bibliography is already behind the times. The only recent new research of note has been the study of female rhesus monkeys which appears to show that cannabis has an effect on the menstrual cycle.
The Commission concluded its paper with the following assessment:
If the total prohibition policy is to be modified, the choice lies between the partial prohibition and regulatory models, although there is room for variation within each model. Under the partial prohibition model possession or cultivation of cannabis for personal use would no longer be a criminal offence; dealing would remain an offence and no legal market in cannabis would be established. Under the regulatory model cannabis would be cultivated and marketed under stringent government controls. Each model has advantages and disadvantages. This paper does not choose between the alternatives, but invites comment on which model should be preferred.
Comments powered by CComment