Page 2089 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 9 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (11.43): I see major parallels between marijuana and alcohol. It has been said in America that prohibition did not work. There are some interesting viewpoints on that which have not necessarily been presented in this Assembly. There was a study in 1981 by David Musto in America that showed that during prohibition in America male deaths from cirrhosis of the liver declined during the period 1911 to 1929 from 29.5 per cent to 10.7 per cent. Other alcohol related diseases were also shown to decrease during prohibition. It should also be known that the prohibition law was only half-hearted. It banned the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol but not its possession. People who could afford to stock up before the law took effect did so and its use at home was allowable during that time. The rate of drinking appeared to go down during prohibition. There is no doubt that large numbers of people in America did not agree with prohibition, as the referendum in 1933 in America showed, because they agreed with the repeal of prohibition. However, let us look at what we now have in America as a result of harm minimisation of prohibition.
Mr Moore: America uses full prohibition. Prohibition is not harm minimisation. Prohibition is harm maximisation.
MR STEVENSON: Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, perhaps I could ask Mr Moore, through you, to let me speak while I have some time to speak. He had an opportunity to present his viewpoint at the start of the debate and he will have an opportunity to present yet another viewpoint at the end of the debate. Perhaps, without so many interjections, I could present a few viewpoints that I would like to put.
There is no doubt that drug use can be minimised in two major ways. Obviously, it depends on what the people think and what the law-makers think, and on how effectively laws are enforced.
Mr Berry: Have you done a Dennis poll?
MR STEVENSON: Mr Berry talks about polling. I have not polled on this specific matter as yet. The Bill was introduced only on 19 August. I have no intention of rushing out there and doing polls to try to handle the common problem of members of this Assembly of wanting to finalise laws without allowing public consultation. I will vote against Bills until fair consultation with the public is allowed. Later on, after we have polled the area, I may vote yes or no, depending on the results of the poll.
Mr Moore: That is because you do not have any election platform. If you had an election platform you would know what to do.
MR STEVENSON: Mr Moore mentions that we do not have any election platform. Let us have a look at the specific election platform that we have. Firstly, it is to abolish self-government. Barring that, the major platform was to obey the majority expressed will of the people. I notice that when members, particularly those sitting in seats opposite, mention this fact they never say - and with good reason - that we also said consistently, and put in a declaration, that we will obey the majority expressed will of the people. That is never suggested.
Mr Moore: Which you get through polling. We can make any poll come out the way we want it, Dennis. Come on!
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .