Post office cannabis idea just plain potty

[grace]

Post office cannabis idea just plain potty

By Harry Clarke

 

Posted 3 hours 42 minutes ago

Updated 3 hours 26 minutes ago

 

 

Cannabis use in Australia is falling, as the recent National Drug Survey shows. (File photo) (ABC News)

I wonder what Australia has done to deserve having people in charge of drug treatment services advocating the decriminalisation of illicit drugs such as cannabis.

 

The director of the alcohol and drug service at St Vincent's Hospital, Dr Alex Wodak, proposes selling cannabis in post offices to cut consumption. He made the proposal for taxed and legalised cannabis at the Mardi Grass festival in Nimbin on Sunday (an appropriate site for a medical practitioner to make a recommendation for decriminalising cannabis?) but said he would be happy to express his opinion as a policy proposal to the Federal Government.

 

People such as Dr Wodak have a high profile and their views carry weight. Is the Australian taxpayer getting value for the dollars it spends on such services? I also wonder why doctors so concerned with the health problems of managing illicit drug use seek to employ measures that will increase illicit drug use and, from my perspective, add to community harm.

 

Cannabis use in Australia is falling as the recent National Drug Survey shows. The proportion of males aged 14 and over in Australia that used cannabis over the past 12 months peaked in 1998 at 21.3 per cent, declining to 13 per cent in 2007. Among male youth aged 14-19 years use fell even more dramatically from 35 to 13.1 per cent over the same period. Comparable findings hold for female users. The problem of cannabis use is being reduced with public policies now in place. The problem is not one that is 'out-of-control' - to the contrary it is being steadily and effectively addressed.

 

This call by Dr Wodak is irresponsible. Providing cannabis legally, he claims, would reduce the harm of the drug. But there are two effects of decriminalisation. Those who do not wish to operate in illegal markets would now have the opportunity to purchase cannabis in legal markets, increasing supply. Furthermore, those troubled by the possible harmful effects of cannabis would now have the opportunity to purchase material that had a government-guaranteed seal of quality and social acceptability stamped on it. Those purchasing legal material would believe it to be less risky and more socially acceptable than illegal supplies so that non-price user costs of consuming the drug would fall. This would also encourage additional use.

 

But Dr Wodak believes that adding an additional source of legal supplies to pre-existing illegal supplies would substantially reduce consumption. How could this be? If prices (inclusive of other user costs) were less than illegal market prices then quantities demanded would increase. If legal prices exceeded prices in illegal markets then there would be two sources of supply: illegal cheap cannabis and more expensive legal cannabis. How will having an additional source of supply reduce demand? In short, it will not.

 

The move to decriminalise would substantially reduce the user costs of consuming cannabis and, given that the demand for cannabis certainly depends on price and other costs of accessing the drug, its decriminalisation would certainly encourage use.

 

Moreover, would providing legal cannabis reduce harm even to those users who simply switch from illegal to legal use without increasing use?

 

There are several well-recognised damages from smoking cannabis. One is simply the increased prospect of contracting lung cancer. Researchers in New Zealand found a 5-fold increase in the incidence of lung cancer from those who smoked cannabis. Smoking cannabis does far more damage to the lungs than smoking cigarettes and is linked to the emergence of emphysema. This is hardly surprising when the act of smoking a joint or bong is analysed - the objective is the hold smoke in your lungs as long as possible to maximise the effects of the THC.

 

Among young people cannabis use is associated with far worse mental health problems than even alcohol consumption. There are significant issues of dependence among cannabis users and a literature suggesting links between cannabis and psychosis.

 

How will any of these problems be reduced by providing an additional legal source of cannabis?

 

As I have written before, Dr Wodak's uncritical support for harm-minimisation at the expense of the most basic appreciation of the laws of supply and demand makes no sense.

 

Are not physicians supposed to 'do no harm'? How is reducing the cost of a dangerous drug by decriminalising it going to help? Why pretend that current policies seeking to limit the use of cannabis are failing when they manifestly are succeeding?

 

Fortunately Nicola Roxon, the Minister for Health, has promptly rejected even considering Dr Wodak's proposal. Good.

 

 

Harry Clarke is professor of economics at La Trobe University.

 

Comments (32)

 

Now the ABC have engaged some twit to slam Dr Wodak's idea. I am not too keen about post office idea but all for decriminalisation of drug users, licence to grow and sell and cannabis cafes.

[Stoney]

very informative

 

cheerz

[RobbieGanjaSeed]

Is there any avenue to redress these bullshit ideas? I mean I'd happily set myself up to be just in possesion (as opposed to growing I mean) for a couple years (that's basically what i have been for ages anyway), if I knew there was some way to publically get a way to refute this nonsense.

 

There has to be a way to get attention. Might be worth contacting Slater, the author of "we get the media we deserve" , or pilinger "the secret Australia", which both have gone into slanted journalism. Maybe it's worth writing to them and asking their adivse on how to get media attention.

 

Anyone got any other ideas?

 

rob

[nugget]

Can we have a link to this story please?

 

EDIT Nevermind, here it is