Page 1807 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 19 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
marijuana psychosis". I think that argument is a red herring. We are aware of the side effects of marijuana. There is some doubt as to whether there is, in fact, a real psychosis associated with its use, but there are significant side effects from marijuana use. That is all the more reason to look into drug law reform. Perhaps we might look at the effects of marijuana.
If, indeed, we could dry up the supply - and there might be some reason to do it - we would. They have not even been able to do that in countries that have totalitarian regimes. The chances of doing it in a free society are very limited indeed. In fact, we are aware now that almost any 13- or 14-year-old in the ACT who wishes to smoke cannabis can access it easily and quickly. This legislation will not change that situation. The only changes will be in the way we react and, most importantly, in the attempt to remove the mystique associated with it. This legislation is the first step in removing the mystique associated with marijuana and ensuring that kids who experiment in this way will not suffer and will not wind up with a criminal record.
What is the experience in South Australia? It can be clearly identified from the report on the effects of cannabis legislation that was developed two years after the expiation notices, referred to as CENs - cannabis expiation notices - were introduced. You can refer to the monitoring, evaluation and research unit of Drug and Alcohol Services in the executive summary from South Australia, which was brought out at the end of 1991 - only a few months ago. It found that such a move towards cannabis decriminalisation does not lead to increased use and, in fact, can operate successfully at the same time as community prevention and education initiatives, such as those being implemented by NCADA are being implemented. Madam Speaker, it is important that whenever we look at drug law reform, as far as the legislation goes, we do not lose sight of the importance of the initiatives, if you like, at the other end of the system. I guess those are some of the most important aspects of dealing with the general drug problem - the educative initiatives and the rehabilitation and treatment initiatives.
Having spoken about the losers in the war on drugs, it is appropriate that I conclude my speech by talking about just who are the winners. The winners in the war on drugs, of course, are those involved in major crime, the moralists and the evangelists who can feel very good about it. I have already commented on who the losers are. (Extension of time granted) In the conclusion to her report Ann Symonds said:
My experience on the Committee, which reflects the experience of other people who have seriously investigated the issue of drug use and prohibitionist policies, and I assert that, particularly in relation to cannabis 'the war on drugs' must be abandoned in favour of education and health policies.
I believe the community recognises the absurdity of the present situation and it is our responsibility to change direction for the benefit, not only of youth, but for the entire community.
One of her recommendations was the decriminalisation of marijuana in New South Wales, along the lines of the model currently operated in South Australia.
Debate (on motion by Mr Berry) adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .