Page 2077 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 9 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The existing regime has recognised since 1978 a massive distinction between possession of 25 grams or less and five plants for personal use, carrying a $100 fine, and all other cannabis use, supply, possess or consume offences, which have always carried very substantial penalties ranging from $5,000 and two years' gaol up to life imprisonment.
The distinction that we make in relation to the personal use offences and other cannabis offences is one that has been in the law in this Territory for some 14 years. It was originally introduced, ironically, given this debate, by a Liberal government; but perhaps that shows that the Liberal Party in the past has been open to ideas and open to constructive debate. Only last year a newspaper report, on 3 March 1991, was headed "Libs move on drug use - Legal marijuana considered". The report said that the Liberal Party was taking a rational approach to the issue, and Mr Humphries was saying that he thinks our community is mature enough to handle this issue and to debate it fully. How sad it is, and how badly it reflects on this Opposition, that all they have been able to do in this debate is to try to generate hysteria in the community, to try to generate assertions, which they were making even during this morning's debate, that we somehow are soft on drug traffickers, or have not been prosecuting drug traffickers. That is a sad state of affairs for the once great Liberal Party.
MRS CARNELL (10.56): Madam Speaker, decriminalising cannabis is not the obvious step that members of the Government and Michael Moore appear to think it is. There is still a lot of ignorance surrounding cannabis. In contrast to what the Government seems to believe, cannabis is a dangerous drug. It is potentially more dangerous than either tobacco or alcohol, and at least as dangerous. This fact cannot be disputed. Yet there is a widespread belief that cannabis is relatively harmless. Unfortunately, the legislation we are now considering appears to be premised on this belief.
Let us look at the facts. Let us look at what the United Nations has to say in their document called, "United Nations and Drug Abuse Control". Cannabis can impair short-term memory. It slows learning and responsiveness. There is no doubt that the drug affects skill performance and other tasks involving judgment and motor-neurone skills. One of the things that this deterioration has pronounced effects on is traffic and driving skills. It is well known that people under the influence of cannabis who drive cars can cause accidents. They can also cause fatalities.
Cannabis is clearly a cause of driver impairment - a fact of which we are becoming increasingly aware. A study conducted by Judith Perl, of the forensic unit of the New South Wales Police, shows that cannabis is the single most important source of driver impairment discovered in blood and urine samples. Cannabis constituted 68 per cent of all drug-positive urine and blood tests conducted in New South Wales during 1990. Thus the threat that cannabis poses to driving safety is not idle and it must not be ignored. We know that alcohol also affects driving ability, judgment and skill performance, but the residual effects of cannabis last much longer than those of alcohol. Alcohol will be excreted from the body within a maximum 24-hour period because it is water soluble. Cannabis, however, is fat soluble. This means that the active parts of the chemical can be traced in the body for a very long time afterwards, sometimes as much as 30 days after the initial use.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .