Page 3748 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 27 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is disappointing that the government is not. I said to the Chief Minister yesterday that I heard him once make an impassioned speech about illicit substances. He struggled to remember that, but I do recall it in this place. I also remember that Dr Foskey was operating on a different plateau in that same debate. But I was hoping the Labor Party would see the importance of protecting families and young people in terms of these measures.
The bill is not the panacea for all ills, but it certainly would send a very important message to the community that we are serious about trying to reduce the harm from illicit substances. Just as we have programs to try and reduce the harm from alcohol, just as we have programs to reduce the harm from tobacco, just as we have programs to try and reduce the impact of careless or reckless driving, this would be an important step in the overall equation of addressing the matter of illegal substances.
Some people argue that harm minimisation means facilitating illicit drug use by the easy provision of drug equipment. In my view it means identifying people with drug problems and providing them with care and rehabilitation, helping them through the problem so they are no longer reliant on illicit substances. It means educating people, especially children, about the dangers of illicit drug use. People have to understand that even casual experimentation with these drugs can often lead to addiction. This bill would assist with this aspect of harm minimisation. It would fix up the anomaly that currently exists where, on one hand, we try and educate our children and, on the other, we normalise the behaviour of taking illicit drugs through the sale of equipment that can only be used to facilitate their use.
I wonder what members who do not want to support this bill say to their children when they are coming home from school and they see these things in the shop and they ask, “Why are these things legally for sale? What is okay about these?” “Well, we think the things they are using them for are completely illegal and using them is a criminal act, but it’s okay to sell these.” Do not tell me that that does not send mixed messages to our young people. Do not tell me that that does not lead to confusion. Do not tell me that that it does not send the message “well, it’s illegal but it’s okay”.
I am vehement in my views on illicit substances. I have never used any, and I know that probably makes me a bit of a square, but I do believe in the harm of them. I have seen the effects on people when I lived in America, people in respectable jobs who had gone through a lot of their money because they were caught up in this sort of thing. It is all well and good to try and tackle these issues when people are adults, but if you do not get the message right when people are in their developing stages, when they are kids, it can be too late. Having these things on display within 500 metres of this Assembly sends all the wrong messages to our children. I actually think we owe it to our children to support measures of this nature.
Question put:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .