Smoke clearing over cannabis laws

Thus the US government recognises same sex marriages, although it is not constitutionally responsible for marriage laws. Thirty two of the 50 states, and a number of other jurisdictions, recognise same-sex marriage, and federal courts have struck down, as discriminatory against same sex couples, the laws of some jurisdictions. In Australia, three states and a territory have legislated, in one way or another to recognise civil unions between gay couples, and the Commonwealth, under the Gillard Government, has legislated to remove most of the federal or common law discriminations against people in gay unions, or their dependents.

IN Australia, power to make marriage laws is for the Commonwealth and it has explicitly rejected gay marriage as such; with the result that the High Court has struck down ACT legislation allowing actual gay marriage. By now, of course, it can hardly be said that gay marriage legislation is very radical, progressive, or in advance of public opinion, or, of itself, some form of affront to religious views of marriage, as a religious sacrament, being confined only to marriages between men and women. Britain, Span, Sweden, and most of Europe has approved gay marriage, as have Brazil, Mexico and Canada and most of the US.

The situation is somewhat similar with the decriminalisation of cannabis. As this week's Economist has noted, a general swing to conservative causes at the mid-term elections in the US last week did not stop three states and the District of Columbia voting to liberalise local marihuana laws.

Alaska and Oregon, which already permit the provision of "medical marihuana" to registered patients, voted to extend the law to allow the drug to be sold and used for recreational purposes, as Colorado and Washington state already allow. Washington DC is now to allow the possession and use of cannabis for personal use.

Other states have liberalised their laws, including for medical treatment or religious purposes; in only a narrow majority of the states (27 of 50) is use of cannabis still regarded as a major crime. Likewise, some states and territories of Australia, including the ACT treat possession of small amounts of cannabis as at worst a minor misdemeanour.

In both Australia and the US, federal governments are adamantly opposed to liberalisation of the law. It's treated as a moral issue, as some treat same-sex marriage. America has a self-appointed lead role in the so-called international War Against Drugs, and its activism about maintaining a vigorous and busy anti-drug industry, and with a tendency to treat all illegal drugs as equally bad, is perhaps the primary factor in maintaining the profits of the illegal drug trade.

This newspaper has advocated the decriminalisation of cannabis use for 40 years. We have never advocated the use of marijuana and we do not do so now. What we have argued is that the very "illegality" model of managing drug use and abuse doesn't work to reduce use, or prevent harm or to control abuse. More often, it increases the economic size of the market and gives unscrupulous players incentives to expand the range of users. It also provides massive temptations to law enforcement officials and even politicians and bureaucrats, temptations, which, experience has shown, will sometimes not be resisted.

Both the US and Australia, tolerate (just) a cigarette market, but permitting it does not imply endorsement of the product. With regularisation of a market, profits diminish, and so do incentives to expand the market. And it becomes possible to monitor matters such as the quality and quantity of supply, and the social and other problems of users, without their being compromised by the illegality environment. It may also permit a cooler and more dispassionate look, based on proper controls, about the value, if any (and it has yet to be established) of cannabis as a pain reliever, or actual treatment for medical conditions.