Page 4329 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (11.22): I have pleasure in speaking to the Drugs of Dependence (Amendment) Bill 1994. I believe that it is important to remember that this Assembly endorsed the harm minimisation approach to the growing and possession of small amounts of cannabis when it passed the Drugs of Dependence (Amendment) Bill (No. 2) 1992, introduced by my colleague Mr Moore. It is important to recall that in his presentation speech of 19 August 1992, he made this point:
The war on drugs has had a great deal of attention. Any war has its winners and losers. In the war on drugs the losers are the poor, the disenfranchised, the impoverished, who are normally on the receiving end of prejudice and bigotry.
In a similar vein, I said when speaking to the same Bill on 9 September 1992:
By leaving the personal use of cannabis as a criminal offence, all we do is introduce otherwise law-abiding community members into the judicial system.
These are sentiments I supported at that time and still support today. Before I speak to the Bill we are debating today, I think it is appropriate to recall some of the comments and recommendations made by the Select Committee on HIV, Illegal Drugs and Prostitution, in its third interim report of October 1991, on marijuana and other illegal drugs. Paragraph 2.4.17 of the report stated:
In line with these arguments, ie personal use of cannabis has some degree of social acceptability and perceived health threat levels are no greater than alcohol and tobacco, it can be proposed that people should not be stigmatised by a criminal conviction nor subjected to being searched, arrested and brought before a criminal court for indulging in an acceptable and relatively harmless activity.
Paragraph 2.4.19 of the report went further in discussing detection of and prosecution for cannabis use. I quote the relevant parts of that paragraph:
Detection and prosecution practices appear to be discriminatory with a small, unrepresentative sample of cannabis users routinely prosecuted. In some jurisdictions penalties are seen as unduly punitive and harsh particularly for the young ... Offenders are often left with a criminal record which can disqualify them from a range of professions and job opportunities; this can be seen as an unduly harsh double punishment (the payment of a fine or other penalty to be followed by job discrimination), especially as it applies to the relatively small proportion of users who are caught ...
The report of the select committee went on to recommend in paragraph 2.5.10:
That the possession, cultivation and use of cannabis for personal purposes not be an offence at law.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .