Australian National Task Force on Cannabis
[2] In 1994 the NTFC published its findings (a series of four technical reports by commissioned specialists and an executive summary) and recommended imposing civil penalties for minor cannabis crimes.
Although the Northern Territory acted on the Task Force's recommendation by imposing a civil scheme for minor cannabis offences (1996).
[2] The Commonwealth Department of Health extended on the NTFC's principle research (1995-1998) by funding reports for the Australian Institute of Criminology and National Drug Strategy Committee.
The NTFC report concluded that there were three ‘high risk’ groups: adolescents (as use was most prevalent and could result in increased dependence), women of childbearing age and persons with pre-existing conditions.
[9] Current total prohibition policies (implemented in most Australian and US states) had been unsuccessful in reducing drug use and cause “significant social harm”.
[9] A partial prohibition system would reduce “social harm” and the financial costs of law enforcement, but it had not been implemented or evaluated yet in any country.
A regulation scheme would remove the incentive for a black market in cannabis but, leave non-targeted those forms of use that are high-risk (particularly adolescents or those prone to dependency).
[2][7] The NTFC justified a civil schemes application by arguing that the social and economic costs of enforcing criminal penalties on cannabis users far outweighed any benefits in deterring use or the harms arising from use.
[2] The Ministerial Council on Drug strategy did not initially accept the Task Force's key recommendation, for reasons that are unknown because their deliberations are secret.
[2] Civil schemes imposing fines for minor cannabis penalties were already operating in South Australia (SA) in 1989 and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) in 1992.
The Commonwealth Department of Health also funded research recommended by the Task Force (for the Australian Institute of Criminology and the National Drug Strategy), acknowledging that the community was less informed about cannabis use than alcohol, tobacco, heroin and amphetamines.
[2][13] The argument that civil schemes could reduce social harm was supported by most accompanying reviews at an international, federal and state level.
[14] In 1998, the Commonwealth Department of Health funded a report for the National Drug Strategy Committee which concluded that the social harm of criminal penalties far outweighed those arising under a civil scheme.
[8] According to some reports, prolonged cannabis use (now termed CUD) causes decreased reactivity to dopamine, suggesting a possible link to an inhibited reward system and an increased addiction of severity.
[2] Recent research has indicated that adolescent cannabis use is associated with increased misuse as an adult, as well as long-term cognitive implications and psychiatric problems.
[9] In 1995, the Victorian State Premier appointed a Drug Council which proposed to remove criminal penalties for cannabis use following the advisory of the Task Force but, conservative political parties opposed this.
[9] It also advocated for public education campaigns (mainly to discourage high-risk users), efforts to reduce cannabis availability and improved treatment options.
In Australia, criminal penalties for cannabis offences remain in Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland but jurisdictions have adopted 'diversionary' cautioning procedures.
