Regulating Cannabis: A New Way Forward.

This is a copy of the paper delivered at the inaugural

AUSTRALASIAN DRUG STRATEGY CONFERENCE
"Let's Get It Right TOGETHER",

Adelaide
April 1999.

J. Danenberg BA(Hons)
Co-Convenor HEMP SA inc
South Australia.

Summary:

This is a submission from a user representative group focussing on the need to redefine our approach to drug law enforcement, in partnership with the community. Whilst it is clear that licit and illicit drug use can be problematic, national and international experience must be considered in informing future drugs policy.

Prohibition type approaches have consistently failed to reduce either supply or demand for illicit drugs, harms related to, and crime associated with, illicit drugs, particularly Cannabis. HEMP SA is instead proposing an alternative model of regulated availability, based around harm minimisation principles and consistent with the 14 point criteria for a good drug policy as determined by the Australian Institute of Criminology.

It will be demonstrated that normalising the currently illicit market for Cannabis will have positive outcomes for users, law enforcers and society on the whole, whilst minimising the negative effects of prohibition based policies on Cannabis users, the criminal justice system and the wider community.

Introduction.

Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP SA) is a community based, user representative group. We are dedicated to Cannabis law reform for personal use, medical and therapeutic purposes, as well as to the establishment of a commercial hemp industry. Our short term goals include supporting accurate, informative harm minimisation campaigns for users, by users, amendments to the SA Cannabis Expiation Notice (CEN) system and retrospective abolition of criminal records for simple Cannabis offences.

We have enormous public support for our cause, demonstrated by our showing at the last two state elections where we were the fifth best supported political group each time, despite running an all-volunteer campaigns on a shoestring budget.

We have not come here today to have a moral debate about cannabis.

We are here today to face facts.

And the fact is that prohibition of Cannabis serves to promote, not prevent, Cannabis use in Australia.

We contend treating Cannabis users as criminals not only hasn't reduced use, but is a counterproductive, expensive and harm maximising approach. It is a hypocritical and futile strategy that encourages corruption, tramples over civil liberties and human rights, fuels the world's second biggest industry (the illicit trade in drugs) and has created a multi-billion dollar black market for Cannabis in Australia that is unregulated, untaxed and unsupervised.

It is clear the current laws on Cannabis should be redefined in partnership with the community. To do that you must listen to the community and stake holders, especially users. Cannabis is overwhelmingly the most used illicit drug, with 1998 National Household Drug Survey showing 2.7 million Australians had used it in the last twelve months; more than tobacco (26%) and behind alcohol (80%). (Australian, 1/4/99, p5). Approximately 30-50% of adult Australians have tried it (Bowman & Sanson-Fisher, 1994, p9). Amongst younger generations that figure is even higher. The 1993 NCADA Australian household Survey determined that 83.5% of 20-24y.o. males and about 60% of 20-24y.o.females had tried Cannabis (Donnelly & Hall, 1994, p7). The most recent 1998 NCADA Household drug survey showed 17.9% have used Cannabis in the last twelve months (Australian, 1/4/99 p5).

The claim that the medical and psychological effects of Cannabis are so "dangerous and harmful" that we must not change the cannabis laws, has increasingly been seen to be unsupportable, particularly in light of the known effects of tobacco and alcohol. Nor does the "gateway theory" stand up to scrutiny (Donnelly & Hall 1994, pp59-64; Fox & Matthews, 1992, p178).

This is unsurprising. As the Sackville Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in South Australia found:

"even a cursory glance at the modern history of Cannabis shows a repeated pattern of widely believed myths which often fly in the face of the available evidence. It seems as discredited beliefs (such as Cannabis being an addictive narcotic causing violent crime and insanity) are rejected, they are replaced by new myths (for example, that even casual use carries serious health risks to the user)"...

"It is apparent that the debate has been more concerned with values and community attitudes than with the objective ascertainment of facts" (Sackville, Hackett, & Nies, 1978, p3).

Community values have changed since 1979, however. Surveys have consistently shown an increasing number of people do not believe Cannabis should be illegal.
Public opinion does not support punitive sanctions, nor aggressive law enforcement aimed at Cannabis users or growers. Whilst figures vary, the 1995 survey Public Perceptions of Cannabis Legislation, found:

"with regard to growing , possessing and using cannabis, approximately three quarters of the total sample do not believe they should be regarded as criminal activities". (Bowman & Sanson-Fisher, 1994, p39)

There has been a fundamental consensus from almost every major government enquiry on the issue of Cannabis as to the need for reform. From the British East Indian Report of Indian Hemp Commission 1893-94 to the La Guardia Report and Schaeffer Commissions' Marijuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding (US), The Wootton Report (UK), the Le Dain Commission (Canada), and several Australian reports all reached "strikingly uniform conclusions": Typically they concluded that 'the long term consumption in moderate doses has no harmful effects' on the user, but that heavy and sustained use carries some risks" (Sackville et al , 1979, p2).

It is understood that both licit and illicit drug use can be problematic, both to the individual and society, but as the British medical journal The Lancet concluded, the harms associated with Cannabis are far less than those associated with keeping it illegal (The Lancet, November, 1995).

Has Prohibition Worked?

The prohibition of Cannabis hasn't prevented anyone from using Cannabis. Nor have "prohibition with civil penalty" approaches like we have in SA, made much difference. We know South Australia's rate of Cannabis use is not significantly different from the rest of Australia (Makkai & McAllister, 1997, p54). Arguments that our laws have "opened the floodgates" are hysterical and misleading. Even though 41% of South Australians thought cannabis is legal (Makkai & McAllister, 1997, p85), SA's reported cannabis user rates are lower than several other states with harsh and draconian penalties. The recently released report into the Social Impacts of Cannabis legislation in SA & WA is just one of a number of reports that demonstrate this clearly (Ali, Christie, Lenton, Hawks, Sutton, Hall, & Allsop , 1998; Makkai & McAllister, 1997, pp49-59) Compared to the "total prohibition model in WA, people in SA were less likely to have been offered Cannabis, less likely to have tried it, less likely to have used in the last twelve months and less likely to use in a vehicle (Makkai & McAllister, 1997, pp50-52, 55).

A dilemma is created for those advocating tougher law enforcement. Cannabis usage rates do not correlate well to intensity of enforcement or legal sanction at all. Comparison of the control regimes in SA and WA or internationally between the Netherlands and the US are perhaps the clearest indications of this. (Ali et al, 1998; Australian Institute of Criminology, 1992)

When it comes to Cannabis, the evidence shows "liberal" models of controlling drug use don't increase rates of experimentation, whilst repressive models don't deter or prevent experimentation.

A 1985 study conducted by the Foundation for the Scientific Study of Alcohol and Drug Use at the request of the Netherlands Ministry of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs confirms that cannabis use went down after the Dutch so-called 'legalisation'. The study showed occasional use fell from 10% of 17-18 y.o.s to 6% between 1976-1985.( van de Wijngaart, 1990, pp 667-678)

The Dutch policy of "normalisation" has demonstrated "it is possible to relax some restrictions on [cannabis] use without increasing the rate of use, with savings to law enforcement and with positive outcomes for drug users and society" (Australian Institute of Criminology, 1992, p23).

In the US, despite ever increasing funding to the range of US$20-50Billion, increasingly draconian legislation and law enforcement tactics, teenage use continues to rise.

The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) noted:

"Arguably, the intensive American interdiction campaign against Cannabis has created both a worse domestic enforcement problem and more severe health risks for users"(AIC, 1992, p11). Despite US policy failing abjectly to control cannabis use, they "have vigorously pursued the notion that their approach to drug policy is the only correct one" (AIC, 1992, p16).

If a "tough" law enforcement focus has failed overseas, have Australian control regimes been any more successful? The clear answer is no. Differing regimes throughout Australia have similar usage rates with few significant differences between "total prohibition" regimes and the "prohibition with civil penalty" approaches that are used in SA, ACT and the NT.

In SA, the number of users has not increased significantly, as the police have acknowledged (The Advertiser, 1993) yet due to a net-widening effect, expiation notices have risen from 6,200 in 1987/88, to 16, 300 in 1995/96, almost a threefold increase (Ali, et al, 1998, p15).

Over half are not expiated and the recipients end up going through the court system and receiving criminal convictions (Ali, et al, 1998, pp15-18 ). It has failed in its original intentions to free up police and court time and not to criminalise small scale cannabis users/growers with over 37,470 criminal convictions in one four year period from 1991/92 to 1995/96 alone (Ali, et al, 1998, pp15-18, 37).

The system clogged the courts, amendments to the Expiation Notice system were made to provide for convictions by default along with other procedures to alleviate the workload and try and increase the rate of expiation (Ali, et al, 1998, p37). The "prohibition with civil penalties" approach of on-the-spot fines, although cost effective and easier to administer, when compared to total prohibition approaches, is no longer appropriate for Australian circumstances.

A New Way Forward.

Getting it right together , means it is important that we critically evaluate our drug policies. Our responses must be research and evidence based, as well as having the support of the community.

In 1989 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority found in relation to this:

"Over the past two decades in Australia we have devoted increased resources to drug law enforcement, we have increased penalties for drug trafficking and we have accepted increasing inroads on our civil liberties as part of our battle to curb the drug trade. All the evidence shows, however, not only that our law enforcement agencies have not succeeded in preventing the supply of illegal drugs to Australian markets, but that it is unrealistic to expect them to do so".

It is clear that relying on the criminal law and police as a mechanism for reducing the harms associated with Cannabis use for individuals and the wider community has failed. It's time for a new approach going beyond prohibition. In particular, any reforms should overcome the previous failings of the "policy debate which lacks precision and intellectual vigour, and whose outcomes depend more on rhetoric and emotion than on logical argument and empirical data" (McDonald, et al, 1994, p3).

To ensure rational drug policy effective and workable laws it is therefore essential to have a set of criteria for evaluating differing legal options (McDonald, et al, 1994, pp 4-8). The Australian Institute of Criminology have refined and clarified suggestions originally put forward by Kleiman and Saiger in 1992. They determined:

Accepting arguments that apply to the most appropriate control regime for one drug need not - and often do not- apply to others

Policy must take into account of the different patterns and types of harms caused by specific drugs; with the details crucial determinants of the outcome.

Analysis of control regimes should attempt to estimate their effects on both consumption levels and patterns of use, and should not be considered in isolation from the problems of implementation and enforcement.

Arguments about the consequences of [Cannabis] use should be separated from arguments about morals

Policy should be evaluated on the basis of evidence of damage, and should recognise the changing nature of the drug problem and be reviewed to ensure they are still relevant to current circumstances

Policy should be developed in the light of the costs of control as well as the benefits and have realistic goals, that specify which harms they are intended to reduce.

It should recognise the existence of multiple and sometimes contradictory goals, and must demonstrate it's effectiveness or be changed.

The harms caused by the control regimes themselves should not outweigh the harms prevented by them (McDonald, et al, 1994, pp4-9)

When we examine the current legal approach of either total prohibition, or prohibition with civil penalty to Cannabis throughout Australia, the Australian Institute of Criminology has clearly identified they do not satisfy many of these criteria:

"The total prohibition policy...has clearly not achieved its intended goal of substantially reducing Cannabis consumption. This is despite an increasing amount of resources directed towards achieving this goal. ... Cannabis policy has not been separated from other drugs, arguments about the consequences of drug use have not been separated from arguments about morals; the goals of the "war on drugs" are unrealistic; it appears the harms caused by the control regimes outweighs the harms caused by the drug itself" (McDonald, et al, 1994, pxi).

We advocate instead, a shift towards a regulated model of availability, as recommended by the Sackville Royal Commission, the Australian Institute of Criminology in the Monograph Legislative Options for Cannabis in Australia (1994), and by other recent reports including the SA Legislative Council Select Committee in 1996 and the Redfern Legal Centre's Drug Law Reform Project (1996).

A regulated availability model acknowledges that people, and young people in particular, will continue to use Cannabis. It moves beyond seeing Cannabis users as criminal, sick or deviant, assumptions that underlie much of our current policy. It is an acknowledgement that "tough on drugs" just isn't a realistic, necessary, or desirable strategy for Cannabis. It's time we cease basing our drug policy around unattainable slogans like a "drug-free Australia" and "zero tolerance for illegal drugs".

As the American group, Common Sense for Drug Policy (http://www.csdp.org) noted :

"This political rhetoric is intended to give voters the impression that politicians are controlling drugs when in fact the policies that follow from the rhetoric result in an abdication of control. Simplistic drug war rhetoric masks the inability of our political leaders to face up to the complex social and health issues that surround drug use. Such political posturing is a rejection of responsibility for controlling the drug market and reducing drug-related harm, and leaves the real control in the hands of narco-traffickers and drug dealers."

"Rather than facing the failure of the drug war, the U.S. government expands the failed strategy [but] we do not have to continue down this path...
There are alternatives, many with widespread public and professional support.
In light of this we ask you to consider: how can our nation do better? "

Harm Minimisation Defined.

In contrast to the American model, Australia's National Drug Strategy has been "widely acclaimed" internationally as a world leader for it's adoption of a harm minimisation framework with it's "overarching goal to minimise the harmful effects of drugs and drug use in Australian society". (MCDS, 1993; in McDonald, et al, 1994, p1)

However, a dilemma exists:

"harm reduction (in any meaningful definition) is incompatible with prohibition" (Redfern Legal Centre, 1996, p5)

What the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority found in 1989 is just as relevant today:

"...it seems harm minimisation means different things to different people. It is clear from the thrust of the campaign that at an official level [it ] means reducing the use of drugs...An alternative interpretation, based on an acceptance of certain levels of drug use in Australian society, would emphasise the need to minimise the harm which users may do to themselves as a result of their drug use. Such an interpretation implies rather different policies to those being pursued at present. It would suggest for example, that a policy should put primary emphasis on safe use, rather than deterring use." (Australian Institute of Criminology, 1992, p59)

The Redfern Legal Centre in it's Drug Law Reform Project 's report Beyond Prohibition of Sept 1996 concurs:

"We accept and acknowledge the fact that drug use will never be eliminated, even if we do not approve of it and must evolve effective ways of making it safer and reducing the harms associated with it". (Redfern Legal Centre, 1996, p8)

To this end, the Redfern Legal Centre gives a practical and workable example of a regulated availability model, that takes into account the criteria determined by the Australian Institute of Criminology.

Central to their model is the controlled availability of Cannabis.

A Model Of Regulated Availability.

It would be legal to consume Cannabis and to possess [Cannabis] for personal use. It would be legal to grow up to 10 plants for personal use and [gratuitous distribution]. Commercial growers would be licensed to supply Cannabis to Cannabis "Kafes" or shops. These shops would be established for retail sales of cannabis, both for consumption on the premises and for take-away consumption to adults. A range of products from rolled cigarettes to biscuits might be available, together with smoking implements designed to reduce the level of harm associated with smoking cannabis products (eg bongs or vaporisers)"

Other retailers would be licensed to sell take-away products. Cannabis seeds and information about home cultivation would also be available. Commercial suppliers would be required to label their products with consumer information concerning weight, THC content, recommended dosage and approved health warnings.

Profits earned from the commercial manufacture or supply of cannabis would be taxed.

Revenues from taxes and licences would be used to administer the regulatory system and to provide education and treatment services through services funded by the Health Department.

Sales to people under 18 and unlicensed (ie untaxed) sales would be illegal.

Advertising and marketing of Cannabis products would be restricted to a minimum necessary (eg brand identification). It might include a statement inside and outside that "Cannabis is sold here".

Cannabis smoking would be banned in places where tobacco smoking is banned.

A realistic education campaign about the hazards of using Cannabis and concentrating on safe Cannabis use, "dope-driving". the effects of both short term and chronic use, and the use of Cannabis and alcohol together, would be carried out at regular intervals.

It would remain an offence to drive whilst impaired by Cannabis and/or other drugs including alcohol.

(Redfern Legal Centre, 1996, pp32-33)

The Redfern Legal Centre model is a feasible and internally consistent model of controlled availability with numerous advantages to consumers, law enforcement and society as a whole.

Whilst prohibitionists might claim our international treaty obligations prevent us from adopting such a model, the International Narcotics Control Board note that "none of the conventions requires a party to convict or punish drug abusers [for possession, purchase or cultivation for personal use]..." (McDonald, et al, 1994, p31).

Even the conservative Williams Commission commented that the spirit and intention of the treaties were "a secondary matter in the sense that Australia must first decide what is the correct domestic policy, then shape its international course accordingly" (McDonald, et al, 1994, p33).

Direct Advantages to Consumers:

One of the most significant consequences of this model would be the separation of markets between Cannabis and other drugs with more serious health implications and addictive potential. This effect has been empirically demonstrated in the Netherlands, successfully isolating Cannabis users from those who sell heroin.

Removing criminal sanctions against use, possession and small scale cultivation would see a significant reduction in crime levels as the every day activities of hundreds of thousands of primarily young Australians would be removed from criminal status.

Users able to safely and legally grow their own, or purchase from taxed and regulated shops users would no longer have to resort to criminality to fund expensive habits. Incentives to induce newcomers for purely financial gain would be reduced. Nor would young people be forced to deal to friends to support their own purchases.

It is possible the incidence of home invasions and other property crime could also be significantly affected, as Cannabis homegrowers wouldn't fear seeking help from police at the first opportunity, if subject to such (otherwise unreportable) crime. It's likely fewer people would risk life in prison for a home invasion, when Cannabis could be purchased legally similarly to alcohol.

Based on current intra-state trends it is likely the price of Cannabis would go down following such reforms, although to what extent remains undetermined. A decrease in black market sales and increased home growing would reduce financial burdens of users from the lower end of the socio economic scale who pay a disproportionate amount of income for Cannabis; thus improving their potential health outcomes due to increase in disposable household income.

The removal of sanctions against paraphernalia like pipes and bongs would reduce the need to share implements and hence benefit users health, by reducing the risk of transmission of communicable disease like hepatitis, influenza and rhinovirus. Users could also access appropriate health care facilities without any legal obstacles (Redfern Legal Centre 1996, p11).

Credible, open and factual drug education and information can be given at point of sale, and is more likely be believed coming from peers, user representative groups and drug education services, rather than the police and courts.

Advantages for the Community:

A gradual retreat by law enforcement from the role of moral guardians and protectors of state sanctioned drug cartels will allow a vast redirection of funding into other health, welfare and education spending.

We won't have to tread down the American path, where prison funding outstrips that of universities for example, for ultimately in time of dwindling public sector spending, where every dollar has to be accounted for, fighting a drug war against Cannabis and it's users seems to fail all cost-benefit analysis.

Access to medical marijuana for patients with debilitating and serious conditions can be ensured with a minimum of legislative trouble.

Advantages for Law Enforcement:

The Separation of markets is critical, as it means users don't come into contact with sellers of other drugs. Breaking the nexus between soft and hard drugs is a key component of the Amsterdam model and has proven successful in that regard. (AIC, 1992, p23). Regulatory and police supervision of Kafes ensures no hard drugs are used or sold on the premises. Age limits can be enforced, dosages can be quantified and quality controlled and health education and harm minimisation information can be distributed direct to users(AIC, 1992, p 21; Redfern Legal Centre pp 32-34).

Regulating the availability of Cannabis in this manner would reduce significantly, but not eliminate, the black market's size and profits. Economic modelling of this scenario is difficult due to a lack of data however.

Given that 75-90% of all drug crimes dealt with by police concern Cannabis, (of which in SA only 7% are more serious than a CEN), it will free up police resources to permit them to tackle serious and violent crime and make our community a safer place (Advertiser, 20/5/96,p 3).

A greater respect for police force in community and improving police-community relations especially amongst youth would be other positive outcomes.

Of significant benefit would be a reduction in the opportunities for corruption at all levels, by impacting on what Justice Wood considered was the single largest cause of corruption; money from the sale of illicit drugs. Establishing legal channels of production and distribution would re-direct billions from the black market to the legitimate economy and permit closer scrutiny of the industry.

A regulated availability model resolves the outstanding difficulties police face currently regarding wet or dry weights and the awkward anomaly of ten plants being acceptable for personal cultivation, but only 150 gms of harvested material being considered for personal use. Any excess of that amount is deemed to be a trafficable quantity, thus requiring a criminal charges be laid and a court appearance required. Police discretion that is probably routinely applied in this situation means that the laws are inevitably being differentially enforced which is a significant concern.

A regulated availability model would also remove obsolete laws regarding paraphenalia which are routinely flouted by shops selling items for "ornamental purposes" or "for tobacco use only".

It obviates the need for police to act as moral guardians regarding censorship tasks, ie visiting shops that sell Cannabis related material and grow guides (that are currently available in other book stores and on the internet).

Under this model police would retain "ample legal power to control offensive or anti-social behaviour which might accompany drug use. Appropriate community policing strategies would address community concerns about unacceptable behaviour in public places by people under the influence of illicit drugs" (Redfern Legal Centre, 1996, p12)

The overall impact would include less paperwork all round and more time to enforce and detect more serious and violent crimes.

It also resolves ethical dilemmas surrounding law enforcement in cases of medical marijuana. Recent reports to acknowledge the efficacy of medical marijuana include US Institute of Medicine's comprehensive enquiry, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Report and the SA Governments investigation conducted by DASC. Although the issue is not yet front page in Australia, experience in the UK, Canada and the US demonstrate it will become a major issue. Law enforcement cannot and should not be forced into intruding into the doctor/patient relationship, nor should it usurp the role of doctors in deciding what is and isn't appropriate medical treatment for what are often serious, debilitating or life threatening conditions.

Conclusion:

We are now at a crossroads in Australian drug policy; a position where as national leaders are coming together to host drug summits it is incumbent upon this conference to send the right message. That must not and should not be a politically correct kowtowing to a simplistic "Tough on Drugs, heavy on the enforcement" American style approach, but support for a tolerant, harm minimising strategy that fulfils the criteria we have mentioned.

A regulated availability model can be seen to have fulfilled these criteria and achieved simultaneous goals: It will provide a greater level of harm reduction for users of Cannabis by removing them from one of the biggest harms; the laws themselves. It will also benefit society as a whole by reducing overall levels of crime, and take Cannabis use out of the sphere of criminal control. By removing obstacles to Cannabis users seeking treatment or advice for problematic use it will minimise also the number who experience problems related to their drug use. It is not a "silver bullet" solution, but on balance, a rational and tolerant alternative to move us beyond discredited and failed prohibitionist policies.

References.

The Advertiser, October 9th, 1993.

The Advertiser, May 20th, 1996 p3.

Ali, R., Christie, P, Lenton, S, Hawks, D., Sutton, A., Hall, W. & Allsop S., (1998) The Social Impacts of the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme in South Australia, National Drug Strategy Committee, Department of Health and Family Services, Canberra

Ali, et al, 1997,

The Australian, 1/4/99, p5

Australian Institute of Criminology, (1992), Comparitive Analysis of Illicit Drug Strategy, Prepared for the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, National campaign Against Drug Abuse Monograph No 18, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra

Bowman, J. & Sanson-Fisher, R. (1994) Public Perceptions of Cannabis Legislation in Australia, Prepared for the National Taskforce on Cannabis. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series No. 28. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra

Common Sense for Drug Policy website http://www. csdp.org)

Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services. (1996) National Drug Strategy Household Survey Report, 1995, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra,

Donnelly, N. & Hall, W., (1994) Patterns of Cannabis Use in Australia, Prepared for the National Taskforce on Cannabis. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series No. 27. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra

Fox, R. & Matthews, I., (1992), Drugs Policy: Fact, Fiction and the Future, Federation Press, Sydney.

Makkai, T & McAllister, I., Marijuana in Australia: Patterns and Attitudes, (1997), Prepared for the National Taskforce on Cannabis. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series No. 31. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra

McDonald, D., Moore, R., Norberry, J., Wardlaw, G., & Ballenden, N., (1994) Legislative Options for Cannabis in Australia, Prepared for the National Taskforce on Cannabis. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series No. 26. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra

Redfern Legal Centre, (1996), Beyond Prohibition: Report of the Redfern Legal Centre Drug Law Reform Project, RLC, Sydney.

Sackville, R., Hackett, E & Nies, R., (1978) Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in South Australia, Cannabis: A Discussion Paper, South Australian Government.

The Lancet, November, 1995

van de Wijngaart, G.F. (1990) The Dutch Approach: Normalisation of Drug Problems in Journal Of Drug Issues, 20 (4), 667-678.)

Wodak, A. & Owens, R., (1996), Drug Prohibition: A Call for Change, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney