Page 2081 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 9 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Drugs of Dependence (Amendment) Bill (No. 2) 1992 provides a legislative base for the provision of on-the-spot fines for minor cannabis offences. The Bill, Madam Speaker, is similar to legislation which has been operating successfully in South Australia since 1987, and is similar to cannabis laws in some other countries. A person found to be possessing, cultivating or privately using small amounts of cannabis is issued with an expiation notice for the offence. Provided that the person pays the prescribed expiation fee within 60 days of receiving a notice, the offence is not prosecuted in court and no conviction is recorded.
Madam Speaker, the Labor Party strongly supports a philosophy of harm minimisation with respect to drugs. Harm minimisation is about reducing the social, economic and personal harm associated with drug use and improving the general well-being of the community. It is well acknowledged that punitive approaches to controlling drug use can be counter-productive.
Mrs Carnell: Where are the South Australian figures to show that fewer people use it?
MR BERRY: Madam Speaker, Mrs Carnell interjects. Mrs Carnell is a person who supports the sale of an addictive drug from pharmacies. Mrs Carnell favours the sale of addictive drugs from pharmacies with the aim of harm minimisation in mind, but she is not prepared to support these sorts of harm minimisation programs. What double-speak! What a Jekyll-and-Hyde approach! What hypocrisy!
It is well acknowledged, as I have said, that the punitive approach to controlling drug use can be counter-productive. The introduction of a cannabis expiation system would reduce the penalties associated with minor cannabis offences and, if an offender pays the fine, this prevents the acquisition of a criminal record associated with such offences. Such a system is consistent with harm minimisation because it removes the stigma of a criminal record which may serve to reinforce rather than discourage drug use behaviour, particularly in young people. Mrs Carnell takes a distinctly different position in relation to heroin use from the position she takes in relation to marijuana use. She argues that you should sell methadone to heroin addicts for profit in a harm minimisation program, but she does not support the harm minimisation approach on this occasion. You have to maintain your position; you are all over the place.
While the possession and use of small amounts of cannabis remains an offence, the recording of a conviction for experimenting, using or possessing small amounts of cannabis is a measure out of proportion to the seriousness of the offence, and potentially leaves many people with criminal records - people who are, in every other respect, law-abiding. Moreover, Madam Speaker, prohibiting cannabis by the imposition of criminal sanction does not necessarily lead to decreased use and may encourage the use of other drugs. For these reasons the removal of criminal sanctions for minor cannabis offences is also supported by the ALP platform within the ACT. Of course, the Liberals would not understand harm minimisation. Their typical approach is to criminalise everything that they see as an offence rather than supporting harm minimisation; although, on the other hand, they are prepared to support harm minimisation where there is a profit in it. This is the sort of approach taken by the Liberals. Mr Kaine knows what is going on. He knows what I am talking about.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .