Page 4571 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY: Yes, is that not funny? "Ho, ho, ho; only the Government. Ho, ho, ho; chortle, chortle. Am I not a clever little Opposition Leader? I will just run an amendment without showing it to the Government". You got criticism from everywhere last week about rushing in and passing legislation without appropriate consultation, and now you think it is a clever, funny little tack. Really, Madam Speaker!
We also have an amendment from Mr Moore. Mrs Carnell, I think, wants the doctor to go through the medical research protocol. So, there is a full reversal from last week; we have bells and whistles research. You are getting a bit more sensible, Mrs Carnell. They want the protection for the use of the 25 grams of cannabis. Mr Moore wants the plants back in; we do not know whether the Liberals want the plants back in or not. The problem is this: As you go through the process for approval, there are certain things that are compulsory in seeking the application.
Mrs Carnell: That is right.
MR CONNOLLY: "That is right", says Mrs Carnell. You have to specify certain things. One of the things you have to specify is the strength and form in which the drug or substance is to be possessed and used. The difficulty you have with medical experiments using cannabis leaf is that you cannot specify the strength and form in which it occurs. As the Australian Doctors Forum said the other day when they were referring to this rather nasty new variant of cannabis that apparently has emerged in some parts of Australia, it can range from one per cent to 30 per cent THC. So, you do not know the strength of the product you are experimenting on. The other thing you do not know is whether the person is going to ingest it in their tea or smoke it. If they are going to smoke it, can they do the old drawback? How much are they going to absorb into their lungs?
We are talking about serious clinical research on whether the active ingredient in cannabis, which is tetrahydrocannabinol, has a medicinal benefit. There are arguments that it has, but there are arguments that it is dangerous. I presume that Mrs Carnell keeps up with her professional reading, and I refer her to the journal of the British Pharmacy Society, the Pharmaceutical Journal, published in the United Kingdom. In the November 1994 edition, which has just been faxed to me by a very concerned doctor, an article talks about proposals for medical research using cannabis leaf. It states in part:
As a quality control pharmacist and, indeed, as a pharmacist alarm bells start ringing when it is not possible to standardise active principles, especially with a preparation such as cannabis that imparts a psycho-mimetic effect.
In other words, we should be alarmed about doing research on the raw cannabis leaf because we do not know the strength and quality of the product that would be ingested.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .