Page 4583 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I will not be supporting the amendment put up by the Liberals, although Mr Connolly almost convinced me to. When Mr Connolly was talking about synthetic THC, Delta 9 THC, he said that this is the only way that such a clinical trial should be carried out because this is the only way we can deliver a known quantity in a known quality. Normally, that would be a sensible argument, and I can understand where Mr Connolly is coming from. But we have a great deal of research on this, and I imagine that even some members here would know that people who ingest cannabis by smoking, as opposed to swallowing, have a far better control over their own level of THC and over the impact of the drug. That is something that needs to be explored and researched.
As Richard Refshauge observed, the purpose of research is to ask questions that have not been asked, to find out whether or not this is a sensible way to go about it. We know from our research with pure heroin, for example, that where somebody injects heroin the effect is instantaneous; and that is why people get a rush, and that is why they do it. We also know that when people use the method known as chasing the dragon, where they inhale the heroin - it has to be very pure heroin for them to be able to do that - there is about a 15-second delay before the same rush. Similarly, that is why people snort cocaine. What we do know is that many users claim that when they are given synthetic THC or ingest THC, as in swallowing it, they cannot control the amount they have and they cannot control the impact. Considering that we have a very strong movement in terms of pain control, where we give to people control over their own medicines, when we find that they tend to use less, it would seem that there is a good reason to research the issue of cannabis being used in this way, no matter what the strength of the THC.
That brings me to the next point, which relates to skunk. We now hear of a new strain of cannabis that has 30 per cent THC. Nobody has indicated where this information has come from; it just appears. One of the things that have been very interesting to observers of drug law reform is that every time there is a movement towards drug law reform some new drug or some new form of that drug suddenly appears from nowhere. I urge members to take that information with caution and to try to ensure that they know where that information came from so that it can be assessed sensibly.
Mr Berry: The Australian Doctors Fund.
MR MOORE: If the Australian Doctors Fund is talking about skunk, we ought to ask the Australian Doctors Fund where they got this information. To the best of my knowledge, it has not been published in a peer review journal, which is exactly the sort of information, the sort of research, that Mr Connolly wishes to rely on. I am just urging caution in accepting that sort of thing. Even so, it is very important to understand the question, in terms of cannabis, of quantity and purity. Do not forget that cannabis is widely used and widely available and that people use it primarily for the purpose that my colleague Mr Stevenson disagrees with me most strongly on, that is, to change their psychological state, to change their terms of consciousness.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .