Page 4325 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
You have to specify the type and strength of the drug, maximum quantities of the drug, details of how that program is going to be conducted, the institution where the program is to be conducted, and the security arrangements to be undertaken while the program is in place, accompanied by a written description of the program, including its estimated duration, and, in the case of a program of research, a clinical trial protocol.
People who take an interest in these matters would recognise that the structure of the existing Drugs of Dependence Act for clinical trials of cannabis is a quite carefully thought out one. Clearly, to get through these hoops you need to have a pretty serious research proposal. I have indicated publicly through the media, and I do so again today, that I would look very sympathetically on a serious research proposal for the use of cannabis if there is to be research that may prove one way or the other the potential of cannabis in an area such as glaucoma. If consumption of cannabis in a controlled manner has the ability, as has been claimed, to stop and possibly reverse the deterioration in advanced cases of glaucoma, I am sure that everybody in the Assembly would say that that is a wonderful thing and it should be allowed. At the moment, we do not have sufficient evidence to form that conclusion.
I think this research would be a great thing for medical researchers in this community, particularly now, as we are embarking on the establishment of the Canberra Medical Research Centre - a collaborative venture between the University of Sydney and the two hospitals, and the John Curtin School of Medical Research, which has an international reputation for medical research. Indeed, it has an international reputation for research in glaucoma, so there would be some researchers there who, I am sure, would be well placed to do it. I would be delighted to see such a proposal. The hospital would cooperate, so we would have the possibility of a reasonable size sample for a clinical trial. If that research is to be done, it needs to be done properly. I am sure that members would agree that, if we are going to take what would be seen in some quarters as a fairly radical step, trialling the use of cannabis in a medical context, it would need to be done properly and you would want to do it under the existing provisions of the Act. You would want to have a very well thought out research program. You would want to have clinical trial protocols. You would want to have it all in a controlled manner. That is there in the Act. A simple provision that says that a medical practitioner can certify that it is being done for medical purposes, I think, at this stage is too early.
If somebody is prepared to do the research in Canberra and if serious clinical research done by reputable researchers, with all the peer review processes and with appropriate clinical trials, comes to the conclusion in a year or so that it is clearly clinically proven that the claims about the medicinal use of cannabis are valid, then I am sure that a future Assembly would support a provision like Mr Moore's proposed amendment to section 171B. But at this stage the clinical evidence to establish that is not there. I would be prepared to grant those authorisations for the very carefully controlled clinical trials. Issues such as security, which are covered in the existing provisions for clinical trial authorisations, are important. People do break into premises and commit crimes to get cannabis and, if we are to conduct clinical trials, all of that needs to be carefully worked out. We are prepared to do all that; the provisions are there in the existing legislation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .