Government Commissioned Reports – II
“The criminal sanction for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana for personal use by a person aged eighteen or over should be eliminated. … Having reviewed carefully the information available on marijuana and its effects, and having heard from various representatives of law enforcement, corrections and the courts, we believe that taking this step will result in greater availability of resources to respond to more serious crimes without any increased risks to public safety.” – New Mexico Governor’s Drug Policy Advisory Group. 2001. Report and Recommendations to the Governor’s Office. State Capitol: Santa Fe.“It is acknowledged that cannabis prohibition enforced by traditional crime control methods has not been successful in reducing the apparent number of cannabis users in New Zealand. … If cannabis does cause harm to a small proportion of users then it is preferable that those people have access to treatment without fear of stigmatization or criminalization. … We recommend that based on the evidence received, the government review the appropriateness of existing policy on cannabis and its use and reconsider the legal status of cannabis.” – New Zealand Parliamentary Health Select Committee. 1998. Inquiry into the Mental Health Effects of Cannabis. Parliament House: Wellington.
“Following detailed consideration of the different options, the Federal Commission unanimously recommends the elaboration of a model which not only removes the prohibition of consumption and possession, but also makes it possible for cannabis to be purchased lawfully. The model should not be one of free availability, but instead should include clear provisions for the protection of the young and the prevention of all potential adverse consequences of legalization.” – Swiss Federal Commission for Drug Issues. 1999. Cannabis Report of the Swiss Federal Commission for Drug Issues. Swiss Federal Office of Public Health: Bern.
“The Council is not of the view that we should lessen efforts to control [illicit drug] trafficking, but rather that we should look afresh at strategies that might curb demand and reduce the harm caused in society by the use of illicit drugs. These entail …[the] elimination, as an offense, of personal possession and use of marijuana. … Growing up to five plants per household for personal use would also no longer be an offense. This would apply to a normal residence, but should not apply to schools, colleges or public institutions. – Premiere’s (Victoria, Australia) Drug Advisory Council. 1996. Drugs and Our Community: Report of the Premiere’s Drug Advisory Council. Melbourne.
“The Law Revision Commission has examined laws from other states that have reduced penalties for small amounts of marijuana and the impact of those laws in those states. … Studies of [those] states found (1) expenses for arrest and prosecution of marijuana possession offenses were significantly reduced, (2) any increase in the use of marijuana in those states was less than increased use in those states that did not decrease their penalties and the largest proportionate increase occurred in those states with the most severe penalties, and (3) reducing the penalties for marijuana has virtually no effect on either choice or frequency of the use of alcohol or illegal ‘harder’ drugs such as cocaine. … Based on [our] review, the [Connecticut] legislature should review and further consider as a strategy option establishing the offense of infraction for adults twenty-one years of age or older who possess one ounce or less of marijuana.” – Connecticut Law Review Commission. 1997. Drug Policy in Connecticut and Strategy Options: Report to the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly. State Capitol: Hartford.
Reference:
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3382
- Tags: cannabis, legal status of cannabis, marijuana
Comments