Australian Drug Law and Policy Should New South Wales Reform their Cannabis Laws

In order to make an accurate assertion as to whether the current regulatory model of criminalisation fits this purpose, several factors will be deliberated in this paper. Notably, the scientific and medical research has endeavoured to shade light in an otherwise obscure debate of regulation of cannabis. Fundamentally, in this paper, we are going to critically focus on the current cannabis regulatory model in NSW and make a comparison with other jurisdictions particularly Canada and the State of Colorado in the United States of America. Equally, we shall endeavour to look at the strengths and weaknesses of these regulatory frameworks and propose reforms through recommendations. Prudently, before indulging in this debate, it is important to understand certain terms in order to avoid confusion.

Thereupon, it is not unusual for Australia to follow suit in the ratification of the provisions of the 1925 International Opium Convention which prohibited access to cannabis in all forms. 2 Consequently, the states, including New South Wales reinforced this stance by including it into its laws. Unbeknown to Australia, the pressures to equate cannabis with opium stemmed from prejudice and inadequate scientific research on the subject which in most parts was described as a drug that made consumers mad. 3 However, there was a new trend in the 1960s which was motivated by liberalism which necessitated a relook and a rethink of most conservative stances. Ideally, this led to significant changes in the view of cannabis in which there was more tolerance leading to relaxation of the prohibitory stance.

Supremely, this meant that the recommendations that would be formulated by the National Drug Strategy would create a balance on which stance is most favourable in actual reduction of harm. Manifestly, as indicated in the National Cannabis Strategy of 2006-2009 outlined a more tolerable approach toward decriminalising cannabis. 8 To begin with, it emphasised on education on the use and effects of cannabis with more scientific backing. This was motivated by the realization that cannabis use was actually widespread than previously thought. Moreover, the problems associated with cannabis use were also found to have been acerbated by a stringent prohibition which deters seeking accurate and reliable information. Similarly, there has been increased law enforcement in relation to drug-related crimes over the same period of time.

Correspondingly, other statistics point out that 9. 5% of convicted persons ended up being reconvicted for the same drug-related crime adding credence to the fact that the prohibitionist stance has remarkably failed in deterring access and consumption of marijuana. 11 Interestingly, the data accrued from South Australia, Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory where cannabis has been decriminalised shows significant reductions in use over the same period. The reasoning behind the New South Wales conservatism stance relied on a faulty naturalism ideology which believes in convictions and detentions as a viable deterrence tool. Generally, it prefers to impose stricter penalties on cannabis which has been cultivated indoors. 13 Anyone found to have engaged in indoor cultivation and processing of cannabis risks being convicted to up to fifteen years behind bars.

Uniquely, this does not take into account the number of plants cultivated as it strictly presumes that all indoor cultivation of cannabis is for commercial use. Another rational argument presented by Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act in considering indoor cultivation and processing as an aggravated felony is the likelihood of the illegal substance being accessed by persons under the age of 18 years. Likewise, tougher penalties for indoor cultivation and processing are often assumed to be the most convenient conduit used by organised criminal entities to increase their operations threefold. The rationale of this approach is that it enables both suppliers and consumers to evade law enforcers and their informants especially those who are working undercover. A significant portion of suppliers and consumers actually cultivate, process and consume their product thus further reducing the risk if running into law enforcers and their informants.

Arguably, it is hard to make a case against those who are not motivated in profiteering but for self-consumption especially if such an argument is extrapolated to cover public safety. Ideally, there are two counterarguments for criminalizing such acts. Firstly, the prescribed penalty does not commensurate with the crime committed. Moreover, 89% of those arrested were in fact charged with possession and consumption of relatively small quantities. 18 Clearly, these statistics only adds credence to the fact that elaborate organised crime conducting the trade is more of a presumed myth rather than reality. What is even baffling is the fact that the policy makers are ready to commit significant resources to something that is basically founded on false perceptions. In my opinion, if such resources would have been availed to handle social issues that make people engage in the consumption of these illicit drugs, then it would have made some sense.

Notably, it is not easy to accurately quantify the income accrued from the sale of cannabis, but estimates show that it more than A$ 7 billion annually. Following this enactment, it became prudent for stakeholders to develop a sound policy as a strategy to realize the objectives set by the legalization process. Notably, legalization in the State of Colorado was informed and precipitated by public health discourse. As indicated by the legal framework much emphasis was to be put on reduced consumption and stringent enforcement to ensure compliance. 22 Ideally, one of the motivations of legalizing cannabis in Colorado was to reduce dependency on tobacco and alcohol. In similar fashion, legalization in Colorado was also directed by the need to raise revenue as cannabis attracts excise tax of 15% and sales tax of 10% which in retrospect increases the price of cannabis significantly.

25 Just like any regulatory model, the Colorado case is not immune to challenges despite the concerted efforts to fine tune it. For instance, Amendment 62 focuses primarily on recreational cannabis relegating the role of medicinal cannabis to the periphery despite the latter being more useful. 26 Although the law permits the advertisement of cannabis, some restrictions on public events with not more than 30% of the ineligible age may be difficult to enforce. In like manner, there is a danger of blanket restriction in access as the law does not explicitly articulate production, processing for personal consumption. Similarly, challenges can be expected in research due to limited funding. 28 However, the statute recognizes the following as equivalent which is 150 grams of fresh cannabis. If it has been incorporated into an edible product, the limit shall be 450 grams.

Additionally, the maximum number of seeds should be 30 seeds. Moreover, if it has been mixed in a liquid product the limit shall be capped at 2100 grams. Importantly, the Canadian Cannabis Act also articulates how cannabis for medicinal purposes is accessed. Uniquely, it also states the kind of ingredients that can be mixed with cannabis and other production practices in order to maintain good quality. Importantly, the statute formulates a tracking mechanism in a bid to suppress illegal marketing. Further, the statute grants authorities to provinces to enact more stringent laws related to access to recreational cannabis. Inimitably, the statute obligates the government to set aside funds for public education and research on cannabis. d. In imposing of taxes, there is a need to impose an excise tax in order to reduce profitability and increase its pricing.

Restrictions should be imposed on advertisement and promotions on public media. Another important aspect is imposing criminal sanctions to violations on the proposed legal provisions. Markedly, I am an opponent of mandatory sentencing as there is need to objectively deliberate on the prevailing circumstances. In this scenario, I propose a three-tier system which is minor, medium and serious offences. e. Conclusion Notably, blanket criminalisation and prohibition in access of cannabis were motivated by compliance with international treaties which in most instances were not informed by accurate scientific research. However, prohibition has proven to be ineffective and in most times increased harm. Therefore, it is prudent to decriminalize access to cannabis in New South Wales with the proposed regulations. Both Canada and the State of Colorado have implemented decisive measures in imposing reasonable restriction in access to cannabis.