Page 2095 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 9 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
One of the difficulties with studying cannabis use is that the ambiguities associated with its use may be attributed to four factors. Firstly, it is difficult to prove or disprove health hazards from animal experiments, and their ramifications then for people. Secondly, cannabis is still used mainly by young people who are in good health. Thirdly, cannabis is often used in combination with tobacco and alcohol, so those are compounding factors. Finally, the issue of cannabis use is so laden with emotion that serious investigations have been coloured by the prejudices of the experimenters. That one is very important. We did go on in our report to talk about chromosomes, cell metabolism, immunity, the reproductive system, the central nervous system, the pulmonary system, and the cardiovascular system. So a quite sensible understanding of the health aspects can be gained there, and there are harmful effects from its use.
In terms of prohibition - this sums up the arguments really - Mr Stevenson referred to alcohol prohibition. He says that if we let alcohol go we will get the same problems that they had in the United States. I think that is correct. That is why nobody is advocating what happened in the United States when prohibition ended and they said that it should be a free-for-all. Nobody in this house has ever advocated that. The mistake they made when they withdrew prohibition in the United States was to allow a free-for-all. They should have allowed restricted access. This is the most restricted access of all. There is restricted advertising - the sort of restrictions that are now applying to tobacco. We should not throw other illegal drugs into that sort of a sphere and then try to put restrictions on later. If you continue with prohibition you will increase usage. If you allow restricted access, you might start to solve the harm associated with those drugs - the organised crime and the personal health harms associated with the drugs.
I say, particularly to the Leader of the Opposition, that it is a perfectly consistent approach, and a perfectly logical and rational one. I think he has heard me speak on this before. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to accept the comments of members. I refer them to the South Australian evaluation of this. I accept and will support the amendments to be put by Mr Connolly.
Question put:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
The Assembly voted -
AYES, 10 NOES, 7
Mr Berry Mrs Carnell
Mr Connolly Mr Cornwell
Ms Ellis Mr De Domenico
Ms Follett Mr Humphries
Mrs Grassby Mr Kaine
Mr Lamont Mr Stevenson
Ms McRae Mr Westende
Mr Moore
Ms Szuty
Mr Wood
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .