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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Wednesday, 25 August 2004) . . Page.. 4132 ..

been put forward today by the government and the opposition. So in principle the Democrats are happy to support this proposal from Ms Tucker, but we recognise that the amendments are needed to make this bill more workable.

We have seen overseas trials of medicinal cannabis work and it is appropriate that we have a trial here in the territory. The ACT Democrats have a long health policy on treating drug use as a health matter not a criminal matter, and a trial like the medical use of cannabis is logical and gives us a chance to collect data to test the effectiveness of such a proposal.

For sufferers of painful diseases—cancer, arthritis and terminal illnesses—any steps we can take to reduce the pain they suffer should of course be investigated. There is research that too much use of cannabis can have detrimental effects such as schizophrenia and can lead to mental illnesses but so can the overuse of almost any substance, be that legal or illegal.

Once upon a time doctors were happy to prescribe heroin to relieve pain and the reasons to prohibit heroin were not made on any medical reasons but political ones. In fact, Professor Desmond Manderson, in a speech organised by the Friends and Family of Drug Law Reform, said that the first drug laws arose out of specific fear—fears based on a misguided response to social change—and the prohibition of drugs was not intended to eliminate those fears but to justify them.

I now think, 84 years later, that it is appropriate to look at why cannabis was put on the prohibited substance list and revisit those debates that were had then. Maybe it is time that we recognise that decisions made in the past were perhaps short sighted, did not have the intended effects and that we need to rethink them.

There is overwhelming research on the benefits of the medicinal use of cannabis and we need to take this opportunity to give people in our community who are in pain the opportunity of some relief. A trial for three years, with a review after two, is what is being proposed today. If it does not work, then we have lost nothing. Even the federal health minister recognises the merit of medical use of cannabis. But if it does work then we have gained a lot, especially for those people who are in an amazing amount of pain and who are looking for some relief.

So this is not a bill that allows the legalisation of cannabis; it will not bring society down around us; and it is not going to see the streets of Canberra awash with drugs. It is a bill about helping those in pain, those who are suffering and those who are suffering where the normal medical processes have failed them. I am happy to support this bill, as I believe there is merit in looking at ways in which we can assist to relieve the suffering of sick and dying people in our community.

MS TUCKER (12.10), in reply: I need to state again, in conclusion, that this is a compassionate response to the reality for people who are sick in our community. I hear the arguments from Mr Corbell about conventions on narcotics and so on, but I note that the minister was prepared to be quite courageous in supporting a supervised injecting place which, arguably, could be accused of having the same ambiguities in it. I think it is really disappointing that we have not seen a more positive response to this today,

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