Page 2190 - Week 06 - Thursday, 6 June 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
these amendments, it still will not be fit for purpose. It will not reflect the global trend, because there is no global trend. It will not protect people from increases in mental illness. It will not protect the community from violent crime. And we do not know the impact of commonwealth law in this space.
There is a sense of inevitability, and Ms Cody spoke about it today: “Drug prohibition does not work.” We only really say that about drugs, but in the same breath, when you say, “Drugs are dangerous,” they say, “Yes, but alcohol and tobacco are dangerous.” Yes, alcohol and tobacco are dangerous. We do recognise that. But if we were starting from scratch, we would not legalise tobacco and alcohol in the way that they are. They came into our community gradually, over time. They have filtered into our culture and our way of life. But if we were starting from scratch and saying, “Here is a substance; should we legalise it?” we would not be legalising it. (Extension of time granted.) We would not be in the space of legalising alcohol and tobacco if we were at ground zero. I think this is a fallacious argument.
There is a problem with the legalisation of cannabis and other recreational drugs, because of the impact that they have on our community. To say, “Prohibition doesn’t work; therefore we should just legalise everything,” is a counsel of despair, and we do not say it in other places. We do not say, “We’ve got laws about murder, but people still murder one another, so we should give up and legalise murder,” or domestic violence or armed robbery. We do not do that. While it is true that we should be dealing with people who are affected by what we call recreational drugs—and I think we do people a disservice by calling them recreational drugs—in the health space as much as possible, we do not serve the community well by saying, “It’s all right.”
It is not all right to consume cannabis. It is bad for your health. It is not something that you do privately, and everything is cool and laid-back. This is what is being said across the world: “There’ll be more mellow people because they’re able to legally consume cannabis.” Actually, if the crime figures that come out of Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington are to be believed, there are fewer mellow people. There are many more psychotic people who commit dangerous crimes. That is the main reason—because of the impact on people’s mental health and the flow-on effects that that has into the community and to public safety—that we should not be supporting this legislation.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (10.41): I would like to start by thanking my fellow committee members, echoing Mrs Dunne’s comments about the collegiate way in which we worked, and thanking the committee secretary and all of those who made submissions or appeared before the committee.
I one hundred per cent support the basic idea behind this legislation. I am totally of the view that drug issues should be treated as health issues. As has been mentioned, alcohol and tobacco both cause more health issues than cannabis, and they are legal. As a society, we have done the experiment with alcohol, and prohibition does not work. What you get with prohibition is whatever health issues there may be with that drug plus a criminal element who can make money out of supplying the drug.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video