Page 3782 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The purpose of these Bills is to put in place a new approach towards controlling the substance, and, so much as is possible, controlling the underground network of supply which has become the greater evil. While the use of cannabis cannot really be condoned, a far greater evil is the organised crime behind it. If we cannot eliminate the substance, we should control its use, to reduce the scope for large-scale trafficking, blackmail and corruption.
On 30 April 1987, the South Australian Government introduced an expiation system for the possession, cultivation or private use of small amounts of cannabis by adults. That Government introduced a different penalty regime for the use of this substance. The Bills before the house today also seek to alter the form of punishment for this offence. South Australia followed at least 10 United States jurisdictions and initiatives that have been taken elsewhere in the Western world. The term "decriminalisation" is, in the popular sense, a misnomer; it suggests liberalisation or legalisation, neither of which is true.
The South Australian Government completed, at the end of 1989, a two-year review of the effects of its law reform. That reputable study, conducted by the Office of Crime Statistics of the South Australian Attorney-General's Department, sought to determine whether these new procedures, allowing some offences to be dealt with outside the courts of criminal jurisdiction and subjected to the on-the-spot penalty, had broken down symbolic barriers to cannabis use, particularly among young people, such as to, in fact, encourage more widespread use.
The South Australian study does not support this proposition. The study, based on police statistics, does not reveal a changed pattern to the circumstances of cannabis offences and the social profiles of detected users. The study concludes that the amendments to South Australian legislation had not precipitated major changes in the extent or nature of cannabis possession, cultivation or use.
This law reform move heavily distinguishes between private consumers of cannabis and large-scale operators. In fact, the Bill before the house imposes a far stricter regime on commercial operators. It imposes heavy penalties and mandatory imprisonment, subject to judicial discretion, for those who deal with cannabis at schools, youth centres, swimming pools and the like. As well, I have adopted a recent Northern Territory initiative and will propose an amendment to the Liquor Act to ensure that licensees are more vigilant about drug dealing on their premises. The amendments to the Liquor Act give the registrar power to cancel a licence - a reviewable decision - in the event that there are two convictions for drug dealing within 12 months relating to those licensed premises.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .