Page 3819 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 25 September 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Contrary to Mr Hanson’s advice to the chamber, a 2018 report from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addition concluded that there was no clear relationship between changes in cannabis possession penalties in EU counties and use rates by young people. The ACT government itself has long been a progressive government, with personal cannabis use first decriminalised in the ACT in 1989—30 years ago—with the introduction of the simple cannabis offence notice, or SCON.
Cannabis consumption has continued a downward trend since that time, entirely contrary to Mr Hanson’s scaremongering about the potential impact of this bill. In 1998, 20 per cent of ACT residents aged 14 and older reported using cannabis in the past 12 months. But in 2016 this had has fallen to eight per cent reporting past 12-month use. In spite of what those opposite have continued to say, the government’s policy regarding the harms caused by alcohol, tobacco and other drugs is clearly articulated and is essentially a harm minimisation approach.
The government have been clear that we do not condone nor encourage the recreational use of cannabis. We acknowledge that cannabis use can have negative consequences on a person’s health, particularly their mental health. No-one on this side of the chamber has claimed otherwise, and for Mr Hanson to claim it is not the case is completely and utterly untrue. He is misrepresenting the positions being put by people on this side of the chamber.
However, we also acknowledge, as jurisdictions across the globe have acknowledged, that prohibition does not work as an effective strategy for dealing with drug use in our community. This argument was reflected in the HACS inquiry submission from the Australian Medical Association ACT Branch, the AMA Mr Hanson is so keen to quote. Their submission states:
… that cannabis use should be seen primarily as a health issue and not primarily as a matter for law enforcement. The most appropriate response to cannabis use should give priority to policies, programs and regulatory approaches that reduce the harms potentially associated with its use, particularly the health-related harms.
This is precisely what this bill seeks to achieve. Removing recreational cannabis use by adults from the justice system allows problematic cannabis use to be treated as a health issue. Whilst drug experts rate cannabis as a drug that causes lower levels of harm to health than alcohol, tobacco, opioids and amphetamines overall, we know that heavier and more regular use of cannabis in particular is associated with harms to health. That is why, if the bill is passed, the government will increase public information on the negative effects of cannabis use.
It is clear that some people experience adverse mental health effects from using cannabis and that its use can be problematic. Again, no-one on this side of the chamber is arguing anything different in relation to that matter. However, these health risks already exist for anyone who uses cannabis under current legislative settings. Combined with a concerted public awareness-raising campaign, the changes proposed in this bill will assist in enabling individuals and the community to address some of these health risks.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video