Cannabis in New Zealand perceptions of use, users and policy Geoff Noller A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Otago, Christchurch Aotearoa, New Zealand November 5, 2008 ABSTRACT Introduction Despite humanity’s lengthy relationship with psychoactive substances, their consumption in contemporary societies is perceived as highly problematic. Cannabis, the most commonly imbibed illicit psychotropic, has come to embody these concerns. Medical and scientific research informs notions of use and user, with these being further constructed in the public realm by law, the media and policy against a backdrop of health deficits and other harms including risk taking, criminality and deviance. With many studies drawing on clinical populations, e.g. high intensity users or those in treatment, a pathologized view of the user predominates. Where general population studies incorporate user data, these typically concentrate on the epidemiology of use: frequency, intensity, duration, and symptoms of abuse and dependence. This, however, tells us little about the meaning of use for users or why use continues despite universal official disapprobation. A lack of studies incorporating user perspectives thus ensures the limited focus of much present research and a policy accent on supply reduction at the expense of harm minimisation and safe use education. Those choosing to continue use are stigmatised as deviant or dependant. This has the effect of further bolstering enforcement, a strategy showing little evidence of efficacy. The present study sought a comparison between this dominant discourse on cannabis use and the perspectives of users, with a range of exploratory hypotheses being identified. Method Eighty cannabis-using respondents participated in open-ended face-to-face interviews, of which seventy-six successfully completed a follow-up questionnaire. Participants were secured through local newspaper advertisements and snowballing. Twelve government officials from three drug policy committees completed face-to-face interviews. A formal mixed method sequenced design was adopted, whereby the qualitative (interview) component preceded the quantitative (questionnaire) by a minimum of one week, for each i user-participant. Quantitative data including demographics, use patterns, levels of abuse and dependence, and styles of use were compared with discursive data derived from a thematic analysis of interviews. A sub-sample of twenty user-narratives was selected on the basis of twelve criteria (ten quantitative and two qualitative) for a more detailed secondary discursive analysis. Themes from the initial analysis of the total sample were more fully explored, and where appropriate quantitative data were incorporated. Results Quantitative data indicated participants were generally representative of the Dunedin population, and New Zealand cannabis users. These data also described a range of rules, practices and beliefs held in common by the sample, which mediated use and limited the harms to users and their affiliates. The qualitative data substantiated notions of rule-governed behaviour, and rules’ mediation of harms and appropriate use. Users claimed awareness of the costs of use but recognized net benefits. Users’ preference for a controlled drug experience was a major theme, with cannabis compared positively against alcohol. Relaxation, stress relief and medicinal use were also commonly reported explanations of use. While acknowledging their ‘technical’ criminality users universally denied any moral transgression. Conclusions Many New Zealanders perceive cannabis use as an unremarkable behaviour, compatible with the typical responsibilities of the general population and unattended by significant harm. Users in this study considered their choice rational as it offered net benefits over costs. Current policy was seen to have very limited effect on the decision to use, though it had significant bearing on patterns of use. Enforcement had negligible impact on curtailing use, while education was perceived as lacking credibility and as an extension of enforcement. In general, policy was seen as stigmatising users, promoting negative use patterns and ii behaviours, and as representing an imposed, ideological position on cannabis use uninformed by knowledge and experience of use. Results suggest future research would benefit from greater incorporation of user perspectives with the potential for offering users a sense of inclusion in resulting policy. iii iv PREFACE O! Mickle is the powerful grace that lies In herbs, plants, stones, and their true qualities; For nought so vile that on the earth doth live But to the earth some special good doth give, Nor aught so good but strain’d from that fair use Revolts from true birth, stumbling on abuse; Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes’ by action dignified. —Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet)1 Occasionally, in conversation with friends I draw the analogy between Dr. Johnstone’s famous remark about the gallows and having children: they’re both great for focusing one’s attention. So it was with the immanent arrival of our second son in 2002 that I began contemplating a return to university, and anthropology. One day I read a newspaper item reporting the prosecution of a young man for importing LSD. A successful software developer residing in the US, he had returned on holiday to New Zealand, only to be picked up at customs with six ‘trips’ given him by friends for recreational use over the Christmas break. Despite an exemplary record, having excelled in his chosen field and pleas from his lawyer for a diversion, he was convicted of importing a ‘Class A’ drug. His career was over. Having, as Foucault (1978:1) would say, “a tolerant familiarity with the illicit”, this visceral response from the State moved me to consider examining the social use of drugs. What was it about some substances that provoked such a reaction, whereas others, seemingly at least as harmful—as harm appeared to be the metric by which acceptable use was judged—were comfortably embraced? My initial interest was in drugs associated with the dance party scene as I was then managing a local entertainment venue. However, as at that time the government was re-examining cannabis’ public health implications and the appropriateness of its legal status, I settled on this most common of the illicits. Given my prior anthropological training I realized that to understand the phenomena of cannabis use in a holistic sense I would need to engage with a 1 Act ii, Scene iii, in Shakespeare, W. (1947/1977). Romeo and Juliet. Oxford: Oxford University Press. v range of perspectives. This dissertation is my attempt to locate cannabis use as a social practice, to understand its origins in New Zealand society, to track its construction in medical, scientific, legal and popular discourse, and most importantly to listen to and include the voices of users. As is the case with many PhD’s, the path to completion has been varied and not without obstacles. On the one hand, as a recipient of an Otago Postgraduate Scholarship, I have enjoyed the support of the University and, regarding funding for conference travel, of Otago’s Division of Humanities. Similarly, affiliated organisations including the Harold Richardson Memorial Trust, the Claude McCarthy Fellowship and the John Dobson Memorial Trust have contributed generously to fieldwork expenses (both within New Zealand and internationally) and international conference attendances. These opportunities have facilitated networking, refined my ideas through their presentation to, and discussion with colleagues, and it is hoped, will now lead to further honing of the research with the aim of publication. Given the nature of this research and New Zealand’s legal climate one might imagine any ethical approval process to have been fraught with obstacles and red tape. Surprisingly this was not the case. Almost immediately upon the project being accepted by my original Department, in one of those serendipitous moments crucial to progressing research (Fine & Deegan, 1996), I had the good fortune to make contact with a visiting postgraduate student who was working on an ethnography of another hidden population involved in an illegal activity.2 Despite our research topics differing markedly many of the ethical issues confronting my study, especially those surrounding illegality, gaining informed consent, and anonymity, had already been encountered and resolved to the satisfaction of the other student’s ethics committee. I was generously offered this successful ethics application as a template for my own. The sole issue I had doubts over was my proposal to verbally record user participants’ consent rather than via their signature. As predicted, the ethics committee responded that this was their only concern. I reiterated in greater detail my explanation for the verbal preference and this was accepted. The significant hurdle of ethical approval had been surmounted in only one month. Although commencing the project in the Anthropology Department, where my undergraduate work took place, upon completing the present study’s fieldwork the Department’s 2 It was agreed that the details of the student’s research would remain confidential. vi considerable nervousness about the project ultimately prompted a shift to Psychological Medicine and the subsequent embracing of a formal mixed method analysis.3 While it is only possible to speculate on the underlying perceptions generating