Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 9 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 2673 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, it is not just in New South Wales that there is alarm. Earlier this year the inaugural International Cannabis and Psychosis Conference was held in Melbourne, conducted by the Victorian Department of Human Services. I have a copy of the final papers in my office. It is a 247-page document containing 36 different papers specifically addressing the links between cannabis use and psychosis, yet here we are in the ACT sending our kids the message that marijuana is okay.

Since announcing my intention to table this Bill, a number of people have come forward to register their support, including the Canberra Schizophrenic Fellowship. The available evidence is that cannabis consumption has increased since the laws were relaxed. The ACT secondary schools survey showed an increase in marijuana use by Years 7 to 12 students between 1991 and 1996. Usage rates for Year 10 students rose from 19 per cent to 26 per cent. In looking at youth, the links between depression and cannabis use and depression and youth suicide are disturbing. The ACT youth suicide prevention strategy for 1998-2001 says that 90 per cent of the youth suicides are preceded by signs of mental illness, especially depression. That hammers home the point that we need to have a strong factual message out there about cannabis to steer our kids away from those outcomes.

There has been a proliferation of cannabis offences in the ACT. According to Australian Federal Police figures, the number of cannabis seizures has doubled - from 325 in 1991-92 to 665 in 1996-97. I suggest that one of the reasons for that is the amount of cannabis that is in the system. Mr Speaker, even South Australia toughened its liberal drug laws this year. They used to serve expiation notices for cultivating up to 10 cannabis plants, but they have reduced the figure to three plants because of the advent of hydroponics. This technology has seen the yield from cannabis plants increase enormously and, as a result, assist trafficking on the black market. The technology has overtaken their laws.

My research has found that cannabis plants today can be up to 8 feet tall. A plant of that size yields 1,200 joints or 6,000 cones. People seeking help for heavy cannabis dependency smoke about 15 cones a day; so five shrubs under the ACT laws, in effect, are equivalent to 51/2 years' supply for a heavy user. That is a ridiculous situation.

Another discrepancy is that the SCON system is impossible to enforce. If offenders choose to avoid paying the fine, there is no penalty. The courts are not issuing warrants for small cannabis offences and the failure to pay fines is going unchecked. With traffic fines, offenders could lose their licence for failing to pay, but there is no penalty for not paying cannabis fines. I have no doubt that an official caution from a police sergeant, with a lecture on the harms that cannabis can have on your health and your career, is of greater consequence than an on-the-spot fine which disappears into the ether.

It is a furphy to suggest that my proposal would clog the court system. Police would still have the option of issuing a caution. In most cases, that would mean first-time small cannabis offenders would not record a criminal conviction. It is totally unreasonable to point to the social impacts of Western Australia's cannabis laws when police officers there do not have the option of issuing cautions.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .