Page 4338 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am not so naive as not to understand that this will have broad ramifications; but it is a different approach from that which is already in the Drugs of Dependence Act, as Mr Connolly has pointed out.
Mr Connolly also raised the issue about the security that we have in the Drugs of Dependence Act. That is a very important issue. What we have in the Drugs of Dependence Act is a system of testing security. When we are talking about a trial where a researcher is providing cannabis for a number of clients or patients, then obviously security is a major issue. When we are talking about the growing and using of five plants, then we are not talking about a major security issue. In fact, we consider it a minor offence in Canberra, an offence that brings a $100 fine. Some of us would like it to be a $40 fine; nevertheless, it is a $100 fine.
Madam Speaker, it is an important issue, in that it deals with people who are suffering at the moment. That is what the urgency is. I had a woman come to me some time ago. She had tried all the drugs on glaucoma. This reflects the community debate. She said, "I have been reading about your approach to the medicinal use of cannabis. How can I get some?". How do I answer a question like that? It leaves me in a very awkward position. I replied to the woman, "At every school that I go to the kids tell me that they can get it in 20 minutes; so there must be ways that you can find to access cannabis". This is a woman who is well over 60. Unfortunately, I do not have her phone number; we are still trying to find her. She came back to me and said, "I have decided that I am not going to ask my grandchildren to get me cannabis, because that would involve them in the black market". One can understand that. But her decision meant that she would go blind. Cannabis might have helped; it might not have helped.
Mr Connolly: If her specialist is interested in going down a research path, we will facilitate it.
MR MOORE: Mr Connolly says, "We will facilitate it". That is a great outcome in that case. The position is the same in the United States. Robert Randall, the first person who was legally provided with cannabis for glaucoma, had to go through a long and tedious process. As I recall, it took something like four years in the courts, until, under the American Bill of Rights, he was able to make out a case so that the government actually provides him with cannabis. I met this man a year or so ago, and he drew my attention to just how difficult the process was. It is so difficult that, of that huge population in the United States, there are only a handful of people - I think it is currently 12 people; it might be nine - who have actually been provided with cannabis for glaucoma. It is only for those who can afford it, because they have had to go through such a long and tedious court process, and that has been a very expensive process.
Madam Speaker, there is already strong evidence of the beneficial use of cannabis as a medicine, as there is strong evidence of the beneficial use of hemp as a fibre, which Mr Stevenson has drawn our attention to very effectively. We have the opportunity to assist some people who are in the most appalling circumstances. They are dying from AIDS; they are undergoing chemotherapy for cancer; or they are going blind. It is only because this drug is prohibited that we have somehow excluded access to this medicine in that way, and we have the opportunity, in a very restricted way, to change that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .