Page 3870 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 25 September 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Amendment agreed to.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (3.32): I move amendment No 4 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 3923]. As the Chief Minister alluded to, this amendment provides a higher cannabis possession limit for an individual with a recognised diagnosis for which medicinal cannabis can provide treatment. An individual with a recognised diagnosis, or their carer acting on their behalf, under this proposal could possess up to 150 grams of cannabis compared with the standard possession limit of 50 grams proposed in the bill.
The ACT Greens have led the way in calling for the legal use of medicinal cannabis for nearly 20 years. Regardless of the hesitation of the commonwealth, and even some in this place today, to properly tackle the supply issues of the current scheme, we will always seek ways to improve access to cannabis by the sick and dying people that we know it can help.
The proposed amendment provides greater access to treatment for those patients with a condition approved for medicinal cannabis prescription under the ACT controlled medicines prescribing standards. This would enable patients to grow and produce their own medicinal product and allow them to have an increased amount of cannabis, providing treatment to people who have difficulty accessing it through the ACTÂ medicinal cannabis scheme, and potentially reduce their exposure to both criminal elements and negative contact with police and the legal system.
We are cognisant that, if you have this prescription, you have a different need and a different expectation of supply from somebody who may choose to consume cannabis for recreational purposes. We think this is a demonstrably different circumstance. Having a continuity of supply is quite important to somebody who is using it on a prescribed basis.
I do not concur with the Chief Minister’s analysis of this. We think these patients are not users as such, and they should be entitled to access what, to them, is effectively medicine.
We have been very clear in our amendment that a relevant diagnosis is defined in the amendment as those conditions for which medicinal cannabis can be approved under the ACT controlled medicines prescribing standards. This is not some way of putting in a get-around for people who simply want to have more; this is about recognising the genuine need that people have and being practical about their ability to access it reliably when they need it.
This is an important amendment, and one that I think would benefit and have an impact on a small group in our community.
MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (3.35): Principally for the same reasons outlined by the Chief Minister, the opposition will not be supporting this amendment. We do not want to conflate the two issues. We have been supporters of medicinal cannabis. There are guidelines for that, and I do not think that we want to be conflating recreational cannabis, and the way it is grown, with medicinal cannabis.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video