Page 1805 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 19 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In her report Ann Symonds also quoted a speech given at the World Ministerial Drugs Summit, organised by the British Government and the United Nations, by Dr Eddy Engelsman, head of the alcohol, drugs and tobacco branch of the Ministry of Welfare in the Netherlands, who noted in relation to the Netherlands:
In the age group below 19 less than 2 per cent had used cannabis in the last month. The lowest figure in Europe, yet the country with the most liberal restrictions.
This contrasts with a United States figure of 20 per cent of high school seniors who had used illicit drugs ...
That is broadly illicit drugs, not specifically marijuana; so there is a slight incongruity there. He continued:
And between 12 per cent and 16 per cent of young Canadians (aged 15-19) had used Cannabis in the last month.
In 1989, 16 per cent of 17 year old males in New South Wales used Marijuana in the previous week.
That was very high. Allowing for variations in the way people collect their data, and knowing what we know about the ACT, it would appear that in the Western world there is a range of usage that varies from 16 per cent to 30 per cent, which contrasts with the Netherlands, where there is the least restriction of all, where the use is 2 per cent.
What people would have expected to happen in the Netherlands was that where there was an easing of drug laws there would be a major increase in usage, and certainly those who have already objected to this proposed legislation have argued that way. In fact, it did not happen. There was never a major increase in usage; there was a fairly steady decline in usage and in harm associated with it. The Australian drug policy in all jurisdictions relies on a policy of harm minimisation. What we are interested in, first and foremost, is minimising the harm associated with drugs and, where possible, minimising the usage. How do we account for this drop in relaxation laws and in the usage of such a drug? No-one knows, but most observers suggest that the reason is associated with the Garden of Eden principle, the principle of the forbidden fruit. The mystique is associated with what you are not allowed to have, particularly for children from 13 and 14 through to adulthood. The forbidden fruit becomes irresistible. The attraction, perhaps, is to express rebellion in a community that is not serving these people well. I suppose that one way of expressing that rebellion is to experiment with something which is outside the law.
Another reason for reforming the laws on marijuana is that people who choose to smoke marijuana, often as a sign of that rebellion, wind up with a criminal record and begin their lives on the wrong side of the law. Often the lessons they learn embitter them for the rest of their lives. I know a number of people who fit into this category, specifically over marijuana offences, and who have lost faith, unreasonably, in the criminal justice system and have a tarnished attitude towards police officers. There is a very good argument for accepting that the law is not achieving what it sets out to do in this case, and the reason perhaps is that so many members of the community feel that if somebody chooses to smoke marijuana they ought not to wind up with a criminal record.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .