- submissions to the Health Select Committee close 7th February, 2001.

11,500 words, happy reading;     K.P. O'Connell - ALCP web-editor, 15 October, 2000

DRUGS (PREVENTION OF MISUSE) BILL    

    Hon. T. M. McGuigan (Minister of Health) - I move, That this Bill be now read a second time. Last year my predecessor introduced legislation designed to revise and strengthen existing law that controls the misuse of drugs. The Bill has since been examined by a parliamentary select committee, and recommendations made by the committee will, I feel sure, improve the Bill in several aspects. At this time I would like to thank those organisations and individuals who made submissions to the committee. I would also like to thank compliment the members of the committee for their contributions.

Before the House proceeds to consider the Bill it may be helpful to comment on the background to legislation of this kind, and to examine some of the new provisions contained in the Bill. The history of measures to control the misuse of drugs provides a study of attitudes and values which divide mankind and our own community to this very day. We find ourselves faced with a major issue, philosophical and practical, in trying to decide to what extent those in authority should be expected to administer restrictions over the use of drugs. Legislation to control the import and distribution of drugs has, in New Zealand, sometimes anticipated misuse, but has more often followed the recognition of abuses.

Without international control, however, national measures alone proved ineffective in preventing unrecorded drugs, moving between countries in commerce, form being diverted to illicit markets. Gradually a system of international control was worked out through successive international agreements and conventions. In 1961 all previous international agreements were summed up and replaced by the single convention on narcotic drugs. In New Zealand the provisions of this convention were embodied in the Narcotics Act 1965, which replaced the Dangerous Drugs Act 1927. These provisions relating to narcotics did not deal in any way with other groups of drugs which had a potential for abuse and had been abused. Drugs liable to abuse which are not defined as narcotics under the Narcotics Act 1965 are controlled at present in New Zealand under the Poisons Act 1960, the Poisons Regulations 1964, and amendments. Important examples of these drugs are the amphetamine group, the barbiturate series, and the wide range of drugs commonly known as tranquilisers. LSD, although not a narcotic in the dictionary sense, has for some years been included in the schedule of the Narcotics Act.

Control of prescription poisons does not include quantitative accounting such as is required for narcotics. Illicit distributions has been substantial in some countries and significant even in New Zealand. There have been thefts and misappropriations from our warehouses, and sale from pharmacies without prescription, as well as the sale and giving away of drugs by people who obtain them on prescription for their own use. In recent years the International Narcotics Control Board and World Health Assembly, and other international bodies, have given close study to the need for extending conditions of quantitative accounting to certain psychotropic substances. This term is employed to group together the hallucinogens such as LSD and mescaline; the central nervous system stimulates such as the amphetamine group, and drugs of similar effect commonly known as “pep pills”; and the central nervous system depressants, including the barbiturates, sleeping pills of similar pharmacological effect, and many of the so-called tranquilisers.

In early 1971 a United Nations conference was called to provide an instrument under which parties would undertake to impose effective national control and to co-operate in controlling psychotropic substances. Arising from the discussions, a convention on psychotropic substances was drafted, providing for the international control of these substances. Countries which signed the convention are required to establish national controls similar to those already operating to some extent in New Zealand under the Narcotics and Poisons Acts. It has, however, become clear that purely national controls are not effective in limiting the distribution of drugs for non-medical purposes. There must be comparable national controls in other countries, or controls of an international nature, to achieve the intended result of the convention. New Zealand’s signature of the United Nations convention on 13 September 1971 remains subject to ratification, and this requires additional controls outside the powers conferred by existing legislation. To provide for these controls this new legislation is introduced to cover both narcotics and psychotropic substances. 

The legislation has three main purposes. First, as I have indicated, we want to give effect to the provisions of the 1971 United Nations convention. Secondly, we want to give effect to the recommendations contained in the second report of the committee set up by the Board of Health to study and report on drug dependency and drug abuse in New Zealand. Thirdly, we want to consolidate and update the law enacted a decade ago to control the use and misuse of drugs. The Bill groups different drugs according to their potential harm, to permit a scale of maximum penalties for offences which are in line with recent court decisions.

I would like at this time to draw attention to the valuable contribution by the select committee, which recommended a number of important amendments beginning with a change in the short title from the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act to the Misuse of Drugs Act. This is the same title that is used for comparable legislation in the United Kingdom and seems an appropriate recommendation. Other recommended changes made by the committee deal with clauses 6, 7, 11A, 12, 16, 17, 28, 29A, 30, 35,  and 38A. Clause 6 is a revised versions of section 5 of the Narcotics Act 1965 and sets out the major offences against this Act. The bare supply of class C drugs - for example, cannabis in the fruit, plant, or seed form, as opposed to cannabis resin or hashish - to persons over the age of 18 will no longer be numbered among the major offences. But the sale of drugs in these circumstances will remain a major offence. The supply of drugs to persons under the age of 18 will also remain a major offence. There has always been considerable sympathy with the complaint that the passing of a marijuana cigarette by one person to another attracted the maximum sentence of 14 years. The legislation now provides for more realistic penalty for this offence of a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment.

At the suggestion of the select committee, clause 6, dealing with controlled drugs, substitutes a reference to a custodial sentence for the present reference to a prison sentence in the direction to the courts that such a sentence should be imposed. This direction, which applies in respect of all narcotics under the 1965 Act, is restricted in the Bill to dealing in class A drugs. The clause also incorporated the general concept in the Criminal Justice Act that the age of a young offender must be taken into account before a prison sentence is imposed. Subclause (5) of clause 6 establishes a presumption that possession of certain quantities of drugs is possession for the purposes of supply, and therefore within the major offences of the clause unless the defendant shows that he possessed the drugs for his own use. In the light of developments since 1965, there have been minor amendments in the presumption quantity, but the clause retains the rule of thumb concept that anyone in possession of more than 1 month’s supply for a regular moderate user, which is the equivalent of about 1 weeks supply for an extremely heavy user, and 6 months supply for a casual user or taster, is almost certainly a supplier.

Clause 7, dealing with the possession and the use of controlled drugs, transforms the bare supply of class C drugs to persons over the age of 18 into a less serious offence. The select committee has to some extent created a new distinction by recommending that a custodial sentence - the expression introduced in clause 6 - shall not ordinarily be passed for the possession or use of a class C drug. This principle is in line with the current practice of the courts. The general prohibitions imposed by clauses 6 and 7 are, for the first time, exempted in clause 8 in favour of  doctors, dentists, persons caring for patients, and so on. Clause 12, relating to the use of premises or vehicles, has been divided into two clauses in line with the select committee’s recommendation. The use of premises or a vehicle for the commission of an offence has been made an offence in a separate clause, 11A, which increases the maximum penalty of imprisonment to terms of 10 years for class A drugs, 7 for class B drugs, and 3 years for class C drugs. Under the 1965 Narcotics Act this offence attracted only the general penalty of 3 months or a fine of $400.

Under clause 13 the issue of a licence for the consumption or smoking of a controlled drug is prohibited except in the case of a licence issued for research or study. This is intended to avoid requests for permission to smoke cannabis, but it will not exclude the legitimate use of any controlled drug by a person otherwise authorised to have possession of it. The select committee’s suggested amendment to clause 16 makes a person liable to conviction only if it is proved that an offence is carried out by his agent or servant with his consent or connivance or through his neglect. The onus of proof is transferred from the defense to the prosecution, and the vicarious liability of supervisors has been restricted to supervision exercised in the course of employment. Thus any risk that superintendents of hostels, for example, might be caught by the clause is removed.

Clause 17 deals with search and seizure. The Narcotics Act 1965 permits search with warrant by any member of the Police in connection with a suspected offence concerning any narcotic specified n the related regulations. The Bill limits such action to all class A, but to only some class B and class C, controlled drugs. There was some doubt under earlier legislation that the power of search of a person in a street or public place. A new clause in this Bill, recommended by the select committee removes any doubt. the police submitted that there were sound reasons for the existence of such a power, principally because of its deterrent value. No matter where he goes, the drug dealer is running the risk of being searched without warrant under the provisions of the Bill. The effectiveness of the power as a whole would no doubt be greatly reduced if the dealer could seek the haven of a public place where he could not be searched and from where he could make good his escape. The Department of Justice expressed the view that the police already had this power. street dealing by drug traffickers can and does take place. If such persons were immune from search, and aware of it, this might become a more popular mode of conducting transactions. Another new subclause (5) of clause 17, recommended by the select committee, gives statutory obligation to the existing administrative rule requiring members of the police who make searches without warrants to submit a written report to the Commissioner of Police within 3 days.

Clause 21 introduces a provision contained in the Poisons Act 1960. It enables the Minister, by notice in the Gazette, to prohibit the import, manufacture, production, procuring, possession, supply, administration, or other use of any specified controlled drug. This prohibition can be applied either absolutely or subject to conditions as the Minister thinks fit, for any specified period not exceeding 1 year. Clause 22 authorises the Minister, by notice in the Gazette, to prohibit any specified person from prescribing controlled drugs or from exercising any of the powers which that person may be entitled to under the special exemptions contained in clause 8. In the case of a medical practitioner, dentist, vetenary surgeon, or pharmacist, the power conferred on the Minister can be exercised only on the recommendation of the relevant governing professional body.

Clause 23 restricts the power of medical practitioners to prescribe drugs for dependent persons and incorporates the substance of Regulation 25A of the Narcotics Regulations 1966. It is felt that such an important power should be given by Parliament in the statute rather than by regulation. The prescribing of narcotics for the treatment of dependency was restricted in 1973. It became clear at that time that New Zealand doctors, like those in other countries, were not able to provide complete services for the therapeutic needs of patients, nor could they assure control against redistribution of the prescribed drugs into illicit channels. The only places where narcotics may be prescribed, administered, or supplied for treatment purposes are now the 31 hospitals or hospital board clinics notified in the Gazette.

It would appear that drug dependency in New Zealand is now less, overall, than it has been in past years when addicts were obtaining supplies of narcotics from a few general practitioner. At one time it was known that about 200 addicts were being looked after by one doctor, and it is doubtful that many of them had any real motivation to get off narcotics; but since the law was amended the numbers seeking treatment has dropped dramatically. at present 177 persons in the North Island and 48 in the South Island are receiving treatment. There have been claims that pharmacy burglaries have increased because of the 1973 restriction. But there has been a notable increase in the activities of a criminal section who have recognised the profitability of selling illicit drugs on the black market.

Clause 28, dealing with a mistake as to the nature of a controlled drug, was based in its original draft on the United Kingdom Act. However, the select committee recommended that what is called “Strawbridge principle”, based on a New Zealand Court of Appeal decision, should be preserved. The amendment means that the Crown does not have to establish knowledge on the part of the accused in order to present a prima facie case. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, knowledge on the accused’s part will be presumed. If there is evidence that the accused honestly believed that his act was innocent, he in entitled to be acquitted unless the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this is not so. A new subclause (3) added to clause 30 by the select committee will enable a court to order the forfeiture of money found in the possession of a convicted person and relating to an offence or intended offence under this Act. Recently large amounts of money have been found in the possession of some drug dealers. In one case $26,000 was admitted as being the proceeds illicit dealing in narcotics. Clause 38A, recommended by the select committee, extends the application of Act to Niue at the request of the Government of that country.

In conclusion, I wish to draw attention to a rider in the committee’s report recommending the Government to make further investigations into the prevention, treatment and rehabilitation of persons misusing onto only drugs but also tobacco and alcohol. Although tobacco and alcohol could not appropriately be included among the provisions of this Bill, the Government is mindful of the need to carry out further studies in this field, and I assure the House that it is my intention to follow up on this recommendation at the earliest possible opportunity. It is also my intention, when the Bill is before the Committee of the Whole, to move amendments to the Schedules to correct the spellings of some drug names. This will not affect the substance of the schedules  but will vary the descriptions of some drugs in line with recommendations made by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

    Air Commodore GILL (East Coast Bays) - The Opposition is very pleased to see this Bill back in the House for its second reading. Examination of its provisions has been long and thorough. It has not been an easy task, one of the difficulties being that three departments - the Department of Justice, the Department of Justice, and the Police Department - were involved. There was a satisfactory, though time-consuming, reconciliation of the various ideas from those departments. I pay a tribute to the chairman of the select committee, the member for Porirua, who dealt with the matter very patiently and very effectively over a long period. I would also commend my colleague, the member for Hawke’s Bay, who has made a study of this and related problems.

The Minister spoke not only about drugs but also about tobacco and alcohol, which of course really are drugs - I know the Minister did not mean to suggest that they are not. The member for Hawke’s Bay has made a considerable study of the whole area of alcoholism and drug addiction, and the misuse of drugs, including tobacco. he has traveled overseas for research and to attend conferences, and he made a great contribution to the deliberations of the select committee. I do not have too much to say about the details of the Bill. Personally, I consider that we are swinging back a little from the preoccupation we had with drugs, and with marijuana in particular, several years ago. Earlier this month I read an article in the New Zealand Herald which suggested a great upsurge in the use of drugs among secondary school pupils. I doubt the accuracy of that allegation, but I suppose time will tell, when we have more information on the matter. I doubt whether the situation is really as bad as the report would lead us to believe. I think in the last few years it has been running at the same sort of level.

I hope and trust that there has not been an upsurge, because there is now considerably more knowledge among the community in general about the danger of drugs. Even those people who hold that some of the drugs do not do too much harm, and that we should not be worrying about drugs when we cannot deal with alcohol and tobacco, will at least admit that we are better off without drugs if we can manage it. As the Minister said, it is a difficult area, because we are dealing with people’s personal freedoms. It is extremely difficult to legislate, and it is difficult to enforce the legislation.

This Bill does a great deal towards implementing what is needed in this area. I am pleased to see the schedules set out as they are. When, in accordance with overseas practice, we had only one schedule, cannabis was shown as a narcotic. the argument was put forward, from the legal profession in particular, that cannabis is not really a narcotic. I was not particularly impressed with that argument, because if we wished we could describe it as a narcotic in terms of our legislation. However, it was confusing for many people, and it did produce in people’s minds a sort of disrespect for documents that could make what they suggested was a rather elementary mistake, and create a silly misunderstanding of the situation.

I heard the Minister say that in the Committee of the Whole he would be amending the spelling of the names of some drugs included in the schedules. I cannot say that because the drugs were misspelt I did not know what they were, and that if they were spelt correctly I would know what they were. I would not. We are in the hands of the experts in the Department of Health, the Department of Justice, and other departments - and perhaps some experts in the House among whom I don not include myself. I take on trust what we were told in the select committee and in various other places about how serious is the effect of such-and-such a drug. We know a fair bit about opium, heroin, and marijuana, and we think we know a little about LSD, but in general a very thorough job has been done and I am prepared to accept the findings of the committee. It is horrifying, when one looks at the schedules, to try to pronounce, spell, or even read the names of the drugs.

I think members will agree that the departmental officers and others who gave evidence satisfied us that the schedules are good schedules. Drugs are reasonably well categorised in their rightful schedules, and as our knowledge and experience of the use of misuse of drugs increases we will have to capacity to change the drugs from one schedule to another. One of the rather niggling complaints we had - and I have never been satisfied as to its justification - was the belief of a lot of people that the police from time to time entered premises to search for drugs under circumstances that were unjustified. The University Students Association was one of the groups of young people that complained about this. The students seemed to think that the police occasionally, on suspicion that was not too well based, entered premises “just for the hell of it”.

The statistics show that this is not so, of course, but the complaint has been made that not every visit is recorded, that the police can visit premises ostensibly to search for drugs, and having made a general nuisance of themselves, they do not report the matter. This sort of suggestion will now be squashed, because, as the Minister has said, this legislation calls for a report to be made within 3 days of such a visit regardless of whether any drugs were found or any police action was taken as a result. I am glad to see this amendment, although I was never satisfied that it was really necessary even though there was a belief in some people’s minds that this could happen.

Another amendment that was tidied up in the committee was to make it quite clear that, as well as the police being able to search premises, ships, aircraft, and so on, they can now search people. Before the change was made someone could be carrying drugs on his person, and although his house could be searched, because he was in the street he would be inviolate. I am glad that that has been cleared up. There is another thing I am pleased about. I cannot vouch for this - but I was told of a case where a man who was charged and convicted of dealing in drugs had in his possession an unexplained amount of $26,000. The natural deduction would be that the $26,000 had been obtained from illegal trading in drugs. I think it would be a wise decision for a magistrate or judge to make such money forfeit to the Crown.

I suppose many members would have minor criticisms; there are various parts of the Bill they are happy to go along with but would like to see changed slightly. In general, I do not feel that way. I am wholeheartedly for the Bill as it is at the moment, except for one part which was not unanimously decided by the committee, and indeed might be one of the few matters on which there is not unanimity. I refer to clause 6(1), where, to put it in simple terms that everyone can understand, it is stated that it is no longer an offence to give a marijuana cigarette to anyone over the age of 18 years. However, to give such a cigarette to somebody under 18 years attracts a 5-year penalty. Clause 6 (1)  (ca) uses the words “supply or administer, or offer to supply or administer, any Class C controlled drug to a person under 18 years of age”. So if you are merely supplying or administering drugs to a person under 18 years of age it is an offence, but you have to be selling or offering to sell drugs to a person over 18 years for it to be an offence.

    Dr. Wall - it would be an offence if you actually had drugs in your possession.

    Air Commodore GILL - Yes, but the point I am trying to make is that to chop the age off at 18 makes it extremely difficult. I personally would have left it to the judge or magistrate to decide whether or not it was a serious offence to give a drug to a young person under 18. He would have evidence before him of that person’s identity and the circumstances. The situation now is that at a party or other gathering it is O.K. to give Tom, who is 19, a marijuana cigarette, but it is not O.K. to give one to George, who is under 18. I hope the member for Kapiti is going to speak rather than to interject. We are trying to discuss the Bill.

    Mr O’Flynn - A point of order, Mr Speaker. I just walked into the Chamber a few minutes ago, and I have not uttered one word.

    Mr SPEAKER - I hope that point was taken by the member.

    Air Commodore Gill - Is that a point of order, Mr Speaker?

    Mr SPEAKER - The honourable member for Kapiti thought you referred to an interjection he had made.

    Air Commodore GILL - I said that I hoped the member for Kapiti was going to speak rather than interject, because he was rearing up in his seat as if he was going to interject.

    Mr SPEAKER - The point of order was raised by the member for Kapiti who said he had not interjected. I hope that is understood by the member for East Coast Bays.

    Air Commodore GILL - That is one of the queerest points of order I have ever heard in this House. I repeat, for the benefit of the member for Kapiti, that I hope he is going to make a speech rather than interject. It has never worried me that the maximum penalty for giving somebody a marijuana cigarette was 14 years imprisonment. I do not think that for the offence of dealing in marijuana, even in the worst case of supply, there has ever been imposed a penalty of more than half the period of 14 years. People expressed concern that a youngster caught smoking a marijuana cigarette could be sent to jail for 14 years. That is absolute nonsense, and a misunderstanding of the law. I would sooner have a maximum penalty of 5 years. That is absolute nonsense, as at present, for supplying, selling, or giving marijuana cigarettes. I would not expect it would happen more than once in a lifetime that anybody would receive the maximum sentence. However, I would far sooner have left that to the discretion of a magistrate or judge. Having said that, and made that criticism of this portion of the Bill, I would like to end by saying that my comments must not be read out of perspective. I am not critical of the Bill; I think it is a good Bill. I again congratulate the chairman for the work he put in, and I thank the departmental officers for the study they made and for the help they were to us.

    Dr. WALL (Porirua) - I should like to echo the thanks the previous speaker has given to the other members of the committee. as he stressed, the committee’s task was difficult because of the quantity of conflicting interests of the three departments that advised the committee. I feel that, out of the evidence and the prolonged discussions that followed the hearing of evidence, the committee achieved a very satisfactory compromise of the contending and very often opposing positions adopted by the various parties.

The previous speaker spoke of the implications of the amendment to clause 6. He correctly stated that the actual passage of a small quantity of marijuana between two people over the age of 18 would no longer be an offence. Unfortunately, the inference that may be taken from such a statement is that taking marijuana in any of its forms to a party is not an offence as long as no one under 18 is present, or that to dispense it socially is not an offence unless to a person under the age of 18. Nothing could be further from the truth. The actual possession of marijuana is still an offence, and I hope will remain an offence, but the technical act of handing it on to someone else over the age of 18 does not now become a further offence. I think this distinction must be clearly made. The fact that we have decided that the free passage of small quantities without any payment or evidence of payment - what may be termed a social “shout” - will not aggravate the offence of actual possessing, does not remove the offence of possessing.

It was apparent in the committee that there is widespread feeling among considerable sections of the community, particularly the young, that the time has come when society should recognise the fact that marijuana in particular is being widely used and the practice should be condoned because, in the opinion of so many of the users and of so many of the people who are supporting them, the amount of harm likely to come to the individual and to society is so small that it does not justify the attention the law at present pays it and intends to pay it. In the course of my professional activity I have had some 20 years’ experience in dealing with addictive disorders of one form or another, and while it is true, as so many have said, that the use of marijuana is not an inevitable prelude to the use of other drugs, the problem of progression must be looked at from two directions, not just one. I think it is quite correctly stated that everyone who uses marijuana will not go on to the use of more dangerous drugs or to addiction, but I have not yet come across any patient who has been using the more potent drugs in a self-destructive way who has not at least at some stage been involved in the use of marijuana, which in my opinion has considerably contributed to his personal use of very much more immediately dangerous drugs.

So the picture even here is not clear-cut  It would be wrong to make any sweeping assumptions one way or the other about progression from marijuana to other drugs, but without a doubt the use of the associated mind-changing drug LSD tends to be very much more frequent among those who are marijuana users than among those who are not; and because they are both in the same family of hallucinogenic drugs their associated use is understandable and in many ways predictable. It is quite wrong to suggest that LSD is in any way at all a harmless drug, and no evidence to that effect was brought before the committee. Certainly 10 or 15 years ago it was promoted, even on television in this country, as being harmless, but evidence of its destructive influences has accumulated so rapidly that no one of any responsibility or with any knowledge would now advocate that approach to its use. So I think we have to accept at this stage of progression from marijuana to LSD there is a very strong association in the user groups, and one which can only be deplored. If there were no other reason for promoting the control and continued prohibition of marijuana, that association of itself would justify it.

But there are further very good reasons for maintaining control with improved efficiency, if not necessarily with increased severity. The user of marijuana is convinced that it is personally undamaging to himself. It is realised from observing those who use it with any great frequency that it is a mind-changing drug of a different type from alcohol; in fact, a different type from most of the other psychoactive drugs currently in use - tranquilisers, alcohol, and barbituates. The effects they have on the thinking processes are sometimes extreme and devastating, but essentially temporary and reversible. But those who involve themselves in the use of marijuana, while very conscious of the fact that there is an intense and temporary effect on their thinking, also agree, if they have much insight, that there is a prolonged alteration in attitudes and mental processes after use of the drug. How much of this is due to an educative effect of an altered psychological experience repeated under the influence of this drug, so that the changed mental attitude following its use is solely due to an educating and repeating educating experience, and how much is due to a possible pharmacological change in the process of thinking involving the chemical reactions of the brain is, I think, quite undecided at present.

We have no evidence to suggest that one type of effect is more likely than the other, but the persistent effect is present. This presents itself in a number of ways. It is very common to see the very heavy user of marijuana in whom these effects are most marked, and perhaps in a very much more exaggerated form than one sees in the casual user. There can be quite a misleading self-judgment about the user’s creative ability. Very many regard themselves as having considerable ability in the creative arts of pottery, painting, and other art forms. It is quite extraordinary that many users have developed their self-expression in these ways after their introduction to marijuana, who before its use did not have those interests. I am not condemning the social effect of the development of arts and crafts which have undoubtedly occurred because of this association, but this sort of artificial stimulant cannot be reconciled with good human development; it is something that is artificially stimulated and not resulting from the true educational development of the human personality, either in its social context or its individual application. Therefore this matter should be viewed with considerable reserve and skepticism.

Associated with this also is undoubtedly a reduction in aggressive tendencies; in fact a member of one of the bodies that was most strong in its recommendation that marijuana be legalised gave me personally, after the hearing of the committee, what its members thought was an absolutely convincing argument that should totally alter my attitude, and that was that a group of bikies who had been continually in trouble with the police, particularly over the consumption of alcohol, had decided among themselves that alcohol was the cause of most of their difficulty and that they would shift over to using pot. From then on the difficulties with the police had disappeared. They found themselves no longer involved in incidents of aggressive behaviour, damage, and physical violence; in fact, the group received considerable commendation from the police because of the altered nature of the behaviour of its members and their socially much more constructive approach.

The person who told me this thought that this experience would be totally convincing to me in altering my attitude to marijuana. In actual effect it had the reverse effect. no matter how immediately socially desirable it might be to improve the behaviour of a group of bikies, doing this chemically, or accepting that the chemical alteration of aggressive behaviour is the right approach, represents a considerable danger. It reinforces the idea - which is destructive to our society - that the answer to one of our social problems is the chemical answer. Because the chemical answer in the short term appears to be good and certainly appears to be easy, it is concluded that it should not only be tolerated but should also be encouraged.

The inherent danger to our society if we try to bring about good order by use of drugs is tremendously great. Marijuana does induce behaviour which is seen by the pacifist and the dropout group to be socially attractive - the pleasing amenability to other opinions, a diminution  of aggressive tendencies, and a reluctance to be involved in physical violence; in fact the approach of what was called “the flower group”, the easy compliant approach. The fact that marijuana induces that form of behaviour, as it undoubtedly does in a significant section of the community, might and say, “If we can get a widespread use of this drug we will emasculate the protest groups, who will talk a lot and do nothing”; but to promote that approach is a denial of everything we are striving for in the promotion of our society. Our aggressive tendencies have their attractive aspects. Their control is undoubtedly good and proper if done in the proper way, but their reduction and abolition by the use of drugs of any sought whatsoever is to me fraught with very great hazard. For that reason I could not go along with those who said that the free and widespread use of marijuana, because of its short-term social advantages, could in any way be interpreted as an advance in our society.

The other aspects of drug control in the changing approach to be seen in this Bill were given just as great consideration as that given to marijuana. We have recognised that there are degrees of immediate danger in the use of various categories of drugs which were not spelt out in the legislation, and we have given legislative effect to this recognition. We have altered the penalties in line with the short-term hazards and in recognition of the immediate dangers in the use of these drugs. In the light of our present knowledge I think that the committee, particularly its advisers, has done a very good job. We have brought in the recommended penalties in the light of what the courts - from their experience, and with the advice that they have constantly been receiving from parties on both sides of this argument - have established, and which appear to be maintaining control in accordance with the public’s desire to ensure the good order of New Zealand. [ how ironic in light of the Matrix of Dysfunction evident today- ed.]

We have tried to bring humanity into the control without relaxing efficiency. We have tried to reduce the harshness of the former approach, again without in any way diminishing the efficiency of control, because so little is known of the long-term effects of the psychotropic, hallucination-producing drugs - marijuana, LSD, and the mescaline group - that any relaxing of control or tendency to diminish the vigilance with which we must folly the progression of these drugs in our society would not server the best interests of our community. I support the second reading of this Bill because I think it does reflect Parliament at its best, with both sides of the House working in cooperation on a difficult and little understood problem.

    Mr HARRISON (Hawke’s Bay) - I was very interested in the comments of the member for Porirua, who was the chairman of the committee on this Bill. I was very pleased to hear him say that he does not condone the use of any of these chemicals as possible short-term solutions to the problems of individuals and of society in general. Indeed, there is no chemical solution to people’s problems. They must sort out their problems for themselves, with the aid of chemicals only in certain circumstances, and certainly not using chemicals as the final answer. I thank the member for East Coast Bays for his comments on my interest in this field of drug addiction and the misuse of alcohol. This Bill recognises the risks inherent in the misuse of drugs of various types, and attempts to put in legislative form parts of the 1961 single convention and the 1971 United Nations convention on psychotropic drugs. In this New Zealand is ratifying in legislative form its earlier acceptance of the principles laid down in the 1971 convention. It is interesting to note that not every member of the United Nations is preparing to do this, and indeed probably the most important member of the United Nations is unlikely to ratify the 1971 convention on psychotropic drugs. The United States, from discussions I have had with various leaders in the drug field, is unlikely to ratify the convention in its present form. 

The problem of the misuse of substances is almost universal. In the United States I am told there are estimated to be 25,000,000 alcoholics and 28,000,000 users of marijuana or cannabis. In Thailand it is estimated that there are 300,000 heroin addicts. This is interesting because opium used to be the chosen drug in Thailand. Members will probably have heard of the Golden Triangle, on the borders of Thailand, Laos, and Burma, where, above 3,000 feet, the opium poppy grows to perfection. Opium used to be used very widely in Thailand, but some years ago the Thai Government decided that it should be outlawed, and steps were taken to prevent its growing and distribution. The people turned instead to heroin, which is a concentrated form of opium that is much more easily transported and much more difficult to identify. As a result there are estimated to be 300,000 heroin addicts in Thailand. The New Zealand Government has been involved with the United Nations and the Thai Government in a move to try to persuade the hill tribesmen in the Thai part of the Golden Triangle to substitute other crops, such as fruit, cereals, or vegetables, for the crop of opium poppy - I believe with some success. The New Zealand Government is also involved with the United Nations in trying to rehabilitate people who have become addicted to heroin.

I have spoken with leading experts from Egypt, Iran, and Nigeria, three countries where cannabis is widely used and misused. In Mexico, solvents are the major problem, particularly among children in primary schools. There are many solvents, and petrol is one of them. This glue sniffing scene is giving tremendous concern to the authorities in Mexico. it causes brain damage, and if the habit is indulged in too long the damage is irreversible. In New Zealand probably one of the major problems is the misuse of licit or legally prescribed drugs. There is a long list of  them in the schedules to the Bill. For instance, in 1972 we were told that about 140,000,000 doses of valium had been prescribed by doctors for New Zealanders. I hope they were not all consumed, but such a large number of doses is just not necessary for such healthy people as we have in this country. Many communities are also getting into the multiple use of drugs, combining alcohol and cannabis, pep pills with alcohol, or another drug such as heroin.

Unfortunately the news media tend to distort the position. The tend to lead us to believe that the major problem is in what the Americans call the street drugs - cannabis, opium, and heroin - whereas in New Zealand the major problem is the misuse of alcohol, which is by far our greatest health and social problem. That is followed by the misuse of prescribed drugs. Finally, we get to the one which the news media say is the most significant, though it is probably the least significant - cannabis. There is a paradox about cannabis: the more scientists, research workers, and leaders in the fight against drug abuse in user countries such as Egypt, Iran, and Nigeria tell us to beware of the danger to our society from the use of cannabis, the more pressure groups and the politicians in some Western countries are saying, “If you don’t legalise the use of cannabis, at least liberalise its possession and use.” There are grave dangers, not only physically , but psychologically and socially, in the misuse of these substances.

Many new drugs have been introduced by scientists and are now in use by medicine. Opium has long been known by doctors, or those who pose as doctors, as a useful drug, and its use goes back many thousands of years. It is interesting to recall that a British scientist in the 1870s developed a drug from opium which he decided was dangerous. He tried it on his dogs, I think, and it killed them. But then a few years later a scientist in a German pharmaceutical company carried on that work and decided that the drug was a highly desirable product. The company launched it with a great deal of sales promotion under the name of heroin, a name that it coined. The company said, “Here is a non-addictive wonder drug.” By 1924 both Houses in the United States had decided that this new wonder drug should be prohibited, because by that time there were 60,000 heroin addict in the United States. Stopping supplies of opium and heroin coming into the United States during World War II almost eliminated the addiction problem in that country, but of course now, once again, it is a massive problem. A report a couple of years ago indicated that there was some downturn in the use of heroin, but tragically that has since been reversed, and now the upward trend in the number of heroin addicts in on the march again in the United States.

Other drugs have been developed by medical science and used for specific purposes, but have later been found to be harmful. Most of us would recall thalidomide, and many people are now aware of dangers, not then thought to be dangers, in the use of amphetamines. They are now very carefully used by doctors, and I see great cause for satisfaction in the fact that the medical profession has adopted this very responsible attitude to the amphetamines now that it knows what the dangers are. I see cause for hope that the misuse of some of the other drugs can be, if not eliminated, at least reduced considerably by persuading members of the medical profession to prescribe much less liberally and much more carefully some of the new or comparatively new drugs, and particularly the depressants and stimulants.

In the international scene drug peddling has been an important problem for many years. In the last century the United Kingdom waged two wars in China to keep open its access for the sale of Indian opium. Since then the drug-peddling scene has shifted more into the area of the Mafia and the criminal elements from Corsica, the European Basin in general, and particularly Marseilles in France. This international drug-trafficking ring has been involved in taking opium and heroin from the area between Turkey and the Golden Triangle of Laos, Burma and Thailand, through the string of countries between them, into Europe and the United States. Very big money is involved, and in the select committee it was disturbing to learn from the police that whereas up until about a year ago the bringing of drugs into New Zealand was on a sort of personal, amateur basis, the police are now very concerned indeed that the international peddling scene has moved into New Zealand in a big way. We have heard reports of large quantities of cannabis and other drugs being collected and being found by the police after being smuggled into the country. That certainly gives us cause form a great deal of concern.

Not only are the chemicals and substances being misused, but, in addition, the people who misuse them are adding financial problems to their other difficulties, and contributing to the benefit of the peddlers who damage their health and the lives of other people. One danger for the uncontrolled use of cannabis is not that its users often automatically graduate to other harder drugs such as heroin - and that has often been claimed to be so - but that the people in a drug-orientated subculture tend to move from one to another of the drugs and also to the multiple use of drugs. I think the rider on the Bill brought in by the select committee is of great interest and particular importance. The select committee recognised not only the concern we should feel about the drugs listed in the Bill, but also that adequate facilities should be provided for the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of people misusing other drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. It recommends that the Government examine further the problems in this field with a view to taking measures to alleviate or prevent them.

We must have a law that gives society an indication of the dangers we recognise as inherent in the misuse of the substances. We provide the law, and we expect the police to uphold that law. The committee gave a great deal of consideration to the recommendations made by the police as well as to those made by the other departments involved with the problem, and particularly to the recommendations made relating to the sale of drugs. Many people say we should have an education programme, but it is recognised internationally that great dangers are inherent in providing an education programme that is not properly orientated or based. In New Zealand we have on a limited scale, experience of where an education programme has been counter-productive, perhaps because it has been carried out by the wrong educators, or perhaps because it has been directed at the wrong age group or type of people in the wrong circumstances or setting. [this problem has amplified in the “double standards” setting - Ed] If we are to have an education, I believe it is more important that it should be aimed at educating society towards adopting mature and civilised attitudes towards the use of substances, be they licit drugs, the street drugs, or alcohol. Indeed, I know of only three communities in the world who have come to grips properly with alcohol and do not misuse it - the Chinese, the Italians, and the Jews. Most other communities, including our own, have the problem of alcohol misuse, and I consider it undesirable to subject our society to the added stresses and strains of the misuse of other substances when we have not learned properly to deal with the misuse of alcohol.

I hope the Government will take every possible step to encourage the activities of some of the voluntary organisations. I mention particularly the National Society on Alcohol and Drug Dependence, which has been spearheading the drive to make the country, and all the people in it, aware of the problems brought about by the misuse of these substances. It has also been spearheading the drive to provide for the proper identification of people who have been afflicted by the misuse of alcohol and other substances. I believe the great thing is not just the law - that is important, but is not the full answer - and not just education, which has to be approached with a great deal of caution. Most important in the prevention field is the attitude of people to the misuse of these substances, and the attitude of people to themselves and to society as a whole.

    Mr MUNRO (Invercargill) - I support the remarks made by the member for Hawke’s Bay about some of the dangers associated with education on sort of subject. Sometimes we are in danger of giving, under the guise of education, free advertising for what one can experience and what can go on. I also acknowledge that throughout the select committee hearings all members were impressed by the quality and the standards of submissions from a wide group of people. No single person would claim to know the answer to this problem of illicit use of drugs. We had representations from groups that could be considered extreme at one end and at the other. I commend the members of the select committee. As has already been said this morning, there was a kind of equal thinking and an endeavour to wrestle with what is a very serious problem. I congratulate the officials who serviced the committee. They were drawn from various departments of State, and were not always in accord with each other in their views on some of the submissions and some of the requests that members of the committee made. I pay particular tribute to the work done by Mr Digby. It is not easy to legislate for what is really a social problem; and coming through from all the submissions was the fact that the whole problem of drugs is much more a social problem than a criminal one. We have to recognise, I think, that New Zealand is not ready to accept the fact that perhaps there are other ways of trying to cope with some of these problems.

Society sees the drug offender as a criminal, but there is no doubt that the pusher of drugs is a criminal and should be dealt with accordingly. We were concerned throughout the hearings of the committee that this legislation did not cover other drug problems of alcohol and tobacco. That is the reason for the rider. In past years we have tended to deal with some of the pushers of alcohol by giving them knighthoods. Now we seem to think that we have to put drug pushers into jail. Certainly they should be punished, but we have to recognise that some people are pushing the sale of alcohol too hard. Our society was described by one of the witnesses before the committee as being a chemical culture in that we are all brought up in a climate that leads us to believe that if we are suffering from almost any ailment we can obtain relief from one chemical or another. While we have no reliable figures, it can be claimed that medicine chests containing a great variety of pills are more common in New Zealand houses than are washing machines. The facts and figures show that the amount of money New Zealand is spending on drugs is rising astronomically. Ordinary depression is often relieved by having a drink. Not only that, but drinking is the prevalent method of celebrating. It would not be surprising if substances other than alcohol which achieved the same effect and were readily available were often used as a substitute.

The latest police figures clearly show that more and more people are being convicted of drug offences; and New Zealand recognises that these are on the increase. The latest report of the New Zealand Police says that the increase in offences relating to drugs is a cause for concern. As in past years, young people in the 14-to-26 age group were responsible for most offences. The increase of 789 offences in the year represented an approximate increase of 50% over the 1973 total. Faced with that and much other evidence, the select committee recognised that the provisions in the Bill as first introduced into the House, with some adjustments, had to be put through. We recognise that some people say that putting people into prison does not in any way overcome the problem. The member for Hawkes Bay mentioned that we urged, by way of a rider, that greater emphasis be given to the treatment and to the provision of more facilities for the prevention and rehabilitation of people misusing not only drugs controlled under the Bill, but also alcohol and tobacco. However, we know, as bodies such as Alcoholics Anonymous would acknowledge,  that a person has to hit rock bottom before he seeks help. I suppose it is rather pious to suggest that a person who has been convicted or has been found to be misusing drugs or being addicted to them will automatically of his own volition seek treatment. This is a problem for the community as a whole to wrestle with.

New Zealand has a police force that is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the proper order of society. The committee was impressed with the representations made to it by Assistant Commissioner Walton, who said that many theories put forward for the control of drug use may well befit a Utopian situation, but regretfully such a society does not exist at present, hence the need to face up to reality. It is agreed that punitive law alone cannot success in countering the problem, and long-term results can best be obtained through education, treatment and rehabilitation. All New Zealanders must realise that we have a potential big trouble maker in the ease with which some people are able to get at drugs. That is why in this legislation we are hitting hard at the pushers. Mr Walton, in his report to the committee, said that until a few weeks ago the drug squads dealt with virtually all persons apprehended for drug offended, but a policy statement has now been circulated requiring the drug squads to concentrate on the traffickers unless the users and possessors are detected in the course of the inquiry.

Mr Johnston, from the New Zealand Society on Alcoholism and Drug Dependency, expressed concern that it appeared that some members of the medical profession could perhaps exercise a little more responsibility in the way they issued prescriptions for drugs. He said in his submission to the committee: “We are aware of a small but continuing irresponsible sector of prescribing from some few doctors. We know of the provisions laid down by the Medical Association for disciplinary action, and we can only assume that for some reason these provisions appear not to be working.” I hope that if any doctors in New Zealand are abusing their high office in this way they will take note.

I conclude by saying that for Parliament to accept the rider attached to this Bill and to do nothing more about it would be grossly wrong. The committee, moved by the evidence that was given to it, recognises that in New Zealand we have a major social problem with drugs, alcohol and tobacco. There is no doubt that individual responsibility is called for, but we must make sure that the facilities are available. About 30 hospitals and clinics in New Zealand are already approved for the treatment of people affected by drugs, and we must make sure that these facilities are staffed with people who can cope with the problems. We must also recognise that the responsibility is with each and every one of us not to abuse any of the privileges we have in living in this land of New Zealand. The number of drug offences in New Zealand is increasing, and Parliament has been faced with the responsibility of making sure that at least one aspect of the fight is dealt with. It may not be acceptable to all groups, but this legislation goes quite a way to meeting the current problem. [ accountability must be tagged to the outcomes, not the intent  -Ed. ]

    Hon. MICHAEL CONNELLY (Minister of Police) - As Minister of Police, few problems cause me more concern than the proliferation of drug offences in New Zealand. As Minister of Police, and earlier as Minister of Customs, I have ensured that additional resources are directed towards stamping out drug trafficking in this country. If anyone remains unconcerned about the illegal use of drugs, may I make a few observations that might dispel any illusions? While only 8 years ago 28 people were charged with drug offences, it is obvious that in recent years there has been a tendency for the overall rate of offences in this area to double annually, and last year over 1,500 people were charged with offences involving drugs. The mind boggles at the consequences of the rate of offending continuing at that level.

The dangers in the illicit use of drugs are very real, particularly when the decision to use them is made by the very young. That decision is being made by the very young in New Zealand today. There has been uncertainty about the effect of drugs upon people physiologically and otherwise, but modern research is removing fast that uncertainty. For those who still argue about the harmlessness of marijuana, or cannabis if you want to put it that way, I shall refer to a report from the United States Congressional Record of October 1974. It refers to the cannabis epidemic in the United States, and says: “The epidemic spread of cannabis was encouraged and facilitated by a widespread propaganda in favour of marijuana. It was recommended in glowing terms to the young people of our country” The report goes on to say: “The epidemic spread of marijuana was also encouraged by the widespread belief that it was a harmless as well as pleasant drug. The myth of the harmlessness was based on no scientific evidence. Actually, hard scientific evidence on the effects of chronic cannabis use has become available only in the last few years.”

Later the report says, “But, with the assistance of a few best-selling books, the myth of harmlessness over a period of years came to enjoy almost universal acceptance.” That is the danger about drugs, and in particular about cannabis and marijuana. The report later states: “The collective testimony of eminent scientists who appeared before the subcommittee points to massive damage or potential damage to the whole cellular process, the reproductive system, and to the respiratory system. The evidence also pointed to the serious possibility of irreversible brain damage and genetic change.” That was in respect of the allegedly harmless drug, marijuana.

Many of those, including scientists, who formerly argued and advocated the liberalisation of this drug are now taking a different view. I now wish to quote the view of one of those because it will be of interest to people who have any doubt about marijuana and cannabis. I am quoting from The Alert about a Californian research psychiatrist, who once called marijuana  harmless and urged its liberalisation but now thinks it is the most dangerous drug sold illicitly in the United States. It states, “Dr. David H. Powelson, a former director of the Student Health Service Psychiatry Department at the University of California at Berkeley, says he has found evidence that chronic marijuana use permanently impairs the ability to think clearly.” That is the important part of his statement. He regrets his 1965 statement that marijuana should be sold openly, and he based his new conviction on 7 years of research with Berkeley students and junior faculty members who had been injured by the prolonged use of the drug. That scientist, who once advocated the liberalisation of marijuana, is now saying after 7 years of research, that he thinks it is the most dangerous drug in the United States.

I think it is not only dangerous, but also insidious, and we don not want New Zealanders involving themselves in the drug scene; and we certainly do not want people from overseas bringing illegal drug habits into this country. That is why it is now the Government’s policy to seek deportation of these non-New Zealanders convicted of drug offences when the court has the power to impose a sentence of imprisonment of a year or more. Amendments to the Immigration Act and to the new citizenship legislation, which are now under consideration and will be before parliament this session, will provide wider powers of deportation of drug offenders. I welcome those amendments.

There is a need for education against drug abuse and its consequences. In the past the tendency has been to direct this programme especially at children in schools although some provision has been made to also direct it at adults. Towards the end of last year, because of reports that school children were now being involved in drug offences, I asked the commissioner of Police to convene a meeting of interested departments - the Department of Health, the Department of Education, and the Customs Department - to reconsider the present approach to drug education. It was evident that there was a need for the programme on drug education to be directed not only at young people, but adults as well. A new updated drug education programme is now in preparation. Among other its purpose will be to direct the attention of the programme to parents so that they can be aware of the problems and be able to identify signs indicating that their children might be involved in drug offences.

Finally, there are other harmful effects of drugs as well as those I have mentioned. Drug addiction leads to crime as people get hooded on drugs find the need to obtain additional money to meet the cost of them. Drug addiction also leads to apathy towards work, reduces efficiency at work, and also leads to unemployment. One has only to read the papers to see how often people convicted of drug use are recorded as being unemployed. The idea that marijuana is harmless is its greatest danger, because the users of soft drugs tend to graduate to hard drugs. If evidence is required of that it can be seen in the cases the come before the court when people who are convicted of possessing cannabis are also convicted of being in possession of harder drugs.

We are all aware of the dire consequences of drugs on health and on life itself. Only a couple of weeks ago in Christchurch a young man was found dead in a hotel because of an overdose of drugs - the third such person to die in the Christchurch area in the last 18 months. Four types of drugs were found in that man’s possession. I am concerned about the young age group which is now becoming involved with drugs, and I am concerned, too at the efforts which traffickers are making to penetrate New Zealand. Only last year the police in one haul took drugs worth almost $500,000 on the drug market. I believe that in the long term - although measures must be taken effectively now - there is need for improved social conditions - more and better housing, wiser use of leisure, drug rehabilitation, and matters such as that. I cannot emphasize too strongly the grave effect that drugs today pose to health, to attitudes to work, and to attitudes towards crime, and to the threat they pose to family life and, if not curbed, to the very life of our society. I personally consider it is essential that a firm line be taken on drug trafficking and addiction at this time, and I am pleased that in the main this Bill takes such a line.

    Hon. T.M. McGUIGAN (Minister of Health) - It must be clear from the contributions of members to the debate this morning that it is Parliament’s intention to deal strongly with a major problem. We have heard speakers from both sides of the House talking of the dangers, the social impact, and the need for education and treatment. I was pleased to her the member for Invercargill stress the fact that the Bill places the emphasis on action against the peddler, the pusher, or the trafficker. There can be no sympathy at all for that type of unscrupulous person. Unfortunately, this type seems to be increasing in numbers. The Bill clearly shows the determination of the Government and Parliament to deal effectively with a very widespread social problem by striking at the means by which illicit drugs become available to the community. There can be no relaxation at all in the drive against illicit trafficking in drugs.

I suggest that some countries have made mistakes in legislating on this matter, and experience has shown that their approaches to a vast social problem can have serious effects. I am confident that the Bill has avoided this pitfall. It recognises the illegality of possession, but, above all, it provides for the trafficker to be dealt with adequately and effectively. The legislation should encourage all those whose aim and duty are to eliminate a practice which is a cancer in our society at present, and unfortunately a growing one. We all deplore the reported use of drugs by the very young. In my opinion it is the source of supply which must be attacked now, and it must be the subject of sustained attack in the future. This the select committee has shown a determination to do. Members of the police have the responsibility of stamping out these sources of supply. There can be no doubt about the need for support for their activities against the pedlar and the trafficker. The Bill establishes this support and clarifies the situation regarding traffickers. I don not wish to say anything further on this legislation except to repeat my appreciation of the work of the committee. Adequate tributes have been paid to the departments involved and to the officers of the departments who were able to advise the committee in such a competent way.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 12.56 p.m.