Page 4328 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I believe strongly that wherever and whenever we can find a drug or plant that may be able to be of benefit, particularly in these important medical conditions, we should be doing everything in our power to ensure that that medical research is carried out. That does not have to be the mega-research project worth millions and millions of dollars. It can also be fairly small research projects, in some cases carried out by postgraduate doctors who are looking at going down the PhD track. It can be fairly small clinical trials that do not require all the bells and whistles Mr Connolly was talking about.
I do not believe that medical practitioners will certify that cannabis is being used for medical research if it is not. If they do, the medical board, I am sure, will be fairly interested in their approach from a perspective - - -
Mr Connolly: But what does "research" mean? "It might be interesting to see whether this helps his nausea"?
MRS CARNELL: Medical research, I think, is fairly well defined. It does mean that you have to publish. It means that you have to compile your data, publish your data, all of those things. It is not good enough to give people the substance and say, "How did it affect you?". That is not research. We should not walk away from this amendment just because it could be a little controversial. We have to ask ourselves why it is controversial, and the answer is: Because the substance is cannabis - not because of the medical research factors, not because of any of the 6,000 studies that have been conducted worldwide. It is interesting that everybody who has looked at this issue says that more studies have to be done. I think that is the one issue we all agree on. We have to be very careful not to let our legislation impact on the capacity of that extra research to be done.
I will be very interested to hear Mr Moore's comments on this issue. At least at first look, the Opposition would not be negative to cannabis being used for any commercial purpose. If there is a commercial reason or a commercial benefit in any substance, then surely - - -
Mr Connolly: Did you mean to say commercial?
MRS CARNELL: Commercial, like Indian hemp. Drugs are commercial preparations.
Mr Moore: You are not talking about the world illicit drug trade.
MRS CARNELL: We are not talking about illicit drugs. We are talking about commercial purposes. Commercial purposes are things like drugs. We are talking about using a plant for maximum benefit for the community. If we can look at that from a perspective that is not tied up in a whole heap of preconceived views, I believe that we will be doing better. The Opposition, obviously, has huge problems with the abuse of cannabis. Cannabis is not a good drug to be used in the way that it often is; it has a number of side effects. What we are saying is that it may be a good drug when used for specific purposes such as glaucoma, nausea, pain relief, and so on, and we must do everything in our power to see whether that is the case.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .