Proceed with caution

21/01/2019

University of Otago researchers recommend a cautious approach to decriminalising cannabis:

Associate Professor Joseph Boden from the Department of Psychological Medicine at the University of Otago, Christchurch, has a research interest in the use of cannabis and has specifically investigated the use of cannabis among participants in the Christchurch Health and Development Study, a study following the lives of 1265 children born in Christchurch in 1977. By age 35, almost 80 per cent of the participants had reported using cannabis at some point in their lives.

In an editorial in the latest issue of the New Zealand Medical Journal today, Associate Professor Boden says to date most of the debate on changes to cannabis law imply it is a relatively harmless drug and that cannabis law change will only have beneficial consequences. However, both he and co-author of the editorial, the late Emeritus Professor David Fergusson, former director of the Christchurch Health and Development Study disagree.

“We would argue that, on the basis of evidence generated by longitudinal studies based in New Zealand, both assumptions are incorrect,” their editorial states.

What they propose is development of laws and policies that both discourage the use of cannabis and avoid criminalising recreational users of the drug. The key elements of their policy are:

  • Simple possession of cannabis by those over 18 would be decriminalised, as would supply of small amounts to adults, as recommended by the recent Mental Health Inquiry.
  • Penalties for the supply of cannabis to those under 18 would be increased.
  • Investments in mental health services for those with cannabis use disorder and cannabis-related conditions would be increased, again in line with the recent Mental Health Inquiry.

Professor Fergusson died in October last year, but he and Associate Professor Boden wrote the editorial prior to his death. Associate Professor Boden explains their reasoning is based on their research which shows resoundingly that cannabis use by participants in the Christchurch study is associated with educational delay, welfare dependence, increased risks of psychotic symptoms, major depression, increased risks of motor vehicle accidents, tobacco use and other illicit drug use and respiratory impairment.

At the same time, evidence from the study suggests the prohibition of cannabis is also a cause of some harm with males and Māori participants having higher rates of arrest and conviction for cannabis-related offences. Furthermore, the analysis showed that cannabis use did not decrease following this, suggesting prohibition generally failed to reduce cannabis use among participants.

“Given this context, the most prudent course of action for New Zealand to follow is to develop policies which eliminate the adverse effects of prohibition while at the same time avoiding the possible adverse consequences of full legislation,” their editorial states.

They highlight recent research reviewing changes in both medical and recreational cannabis laws in the United States that has shown cannabis legislation has increased the use of cannabis and cannabis-related harm. While cannabis use among adolescents has not increased, both cannabis use and cannabis-use disorders increased among adults. There was also evidence of increases in cannabis-related emergency department visits, driving under the influence of cannabis and accidental exposure to cannabis in children.

The war on drugs hasn’t worked, or at least that’s what those wanting to liberalise drug laws say.

But what does hasn’t worked mean?

It has provided opportunities for crime and income for criminals.

It hasn’t stopped all people from using the drugs that are illegal.

It hasn’t stopped the health problems that result from use.

But has it stopped some people from using them and reduced the harm done by use?

Would there still be opportunities for crime and income for criminals if personal use of cannabis was legal, or at least decriminalised?

Would more people use cannabis if it wasn’t illegal or at least decriminalised?

Would there be more health and social problems resulting from that use and greater costs dealing with them?

If law changes in the USA has increased the use of cannabis and cannabis-related harm that is likely to happen here.

Can we afford the human and financial costs of that here?


Lack of money or learning?

26/04/2012

The Christchurch Health and Development Study, by Otago University has found that poverty doesn’t lead to increased rates of crime or mental health problems in later life.

The study’s leader, David Fergusson, says low income appears at first glance clearly associated with crime and mental health problems.

But he says poverty is also connected with a lack of parental care, and that is what seems to be the real culprit in these adverse effects.

Poor parenting isn’t confined to poor people but the study, which has observed the development of about 990 people from birth over 30 years, did show a link between family income and the child’s later educational success and earning power.

But is the cause a lack of money or lack of learning? Is it being poor or the fact that poorer people are likely to have less education – and sometimes less regard for education – that handicaps their children?

This doesn’t apply to all poor people, some understand that education is the key to a better life and work hard to ensure their children have opportunities they didn’t have.

But some parents don’t recognise, or don’t care about, the importance of education and don’t give their children the help and encouragement they need to succeed.

That could be a contributing factor to their poverty and the poorer chances for their children in which case education could be at least part of the answer.

There’s more on the study here.


%d bloggers like this: