Medical Cannabis

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (15:48): For some time now, I have been researching the issue of access to medical cannabis for those suffering from a serious medical condition or conditions, treatment of a serious medical illness—for example, chemotherapy—or those with a terminal illness. In this research, I revisited the work in New Zealand following their 2013 Psychoactive Substances Act and also their regulations in 2014. The philosophy behind this legislation is that prohibition of drugs does not work. Untested, unproved and self-medication, whether for health or recreation reasons, should be avoided, and that testing of substances avoid people getting injured or overdosing on those substances. Manufacturers through that legislation are to prove that their products are safe for human consumption.

I was particularly interested in an article by Mr Avinash Tharoor, a journalist, who supports drug law reform. This article was in The Huffington Post in September 2013. He offered some interesting points, I thought, in relation to the New Zealand legislation. First of all, he said that drugs are safer to consume if they are legal and raised the question of purity of drugs such as cocaine, MDMA, ketamine (or colloquially as he calls them 'bath salts' drugs) that come in the form of indistinct white powder.

He also says that the Psychoactive Substance Act ensures that newly-legalised drugs will be vigorously tested, their contents clearly detailed on packaging and the purity guaranteed. He also says that regulations protect children and educate users. The legislation does not accept that under 18-year olds are allowed to avail themselves of these drugs, but I am told that dealers very rarely ask for their buyer's ID in any case.

So, under this provision there is actually a clear regulation and legislation that you must be over 18 years. Also, there is information about how the drug is to be used and to avoid overuse. He goes on to say that the belief that legislation encourages drug use amongst young people is largely unfounded, and he cites a number of comparative research events that have happened to show that, for example, marijuana use amongst teens is higher in the US than it is in the Netherlands where it is legally available but restricted to adults.

There are a whole lot of other research projects that refute more people using a drug if it has been decriminalised. He says that the sale of a legal drug does not fund criminal enterprise. He believes that the New Zealand legislation will allow the entire supply chain of production, transport and sale of the many synthetic narcotics to be taxed and regulated, and I think this would be attractive to any Treasurer if there is taxation through the whole process.

Unlike the sale of illegal substances the profits of selling these legal drugs will be directed to legitimate businesses—and I am not sure what he means by 'legitimate businesses'; I mean, tobacco companies are legitimate businesses, but, anyway—as well as government initiatives that will be available through these taxes.

Mr Tharoor says that this sort of legislation could lead to the reduction in violent crime that is associated with the drug trade, and that profits from synthetic drugs do not empower violent gangs. Criminalising synthetic drugs is a futile battle, he says. Synthetic drugs are made by people. He says:

…under traditional prohibition, when the government outlaws a synthetic drug, manufacturers simply have to make a slight alteration to the product's chemical composition to avoid the law.

With the creation of new drugs it is difficult to keep up with the laws and policing is just not going to keep up with those new drugs. I am advised that under the New Zealand provisions consumers have the opportunity to have knowledge about a range of drugs available. Effective drug laws give people faith in the system. He finishes by saying that Albert Einstein made it very clear that 'nothing is more destructive of respect for the government than passing laws which cannot be enforced'.