CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (PALLIATIVE USE OF CANNABIS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (20:24): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Controlled Substances Act 1984. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (20:25): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill is not about how we approach illicit drugs: rather, it is about how we ought to use science to assess the medical benefit of a drug—in this case, cannabis. We do not, for instance, have difficulty in allowing the use of morphine, from which heroin can be derived. Instead, we rely on the advice of doctors and researchers to assist in preparing safeguards, but the reduction of suffering that can come from using that drug is still allowed.

However, in the case of marijuana, the response is hysterical and the community is asked to believe that the use of this drug is somehow inherently evil, when the reality is that it is just one of tens of thousands of chemical substances used by humans. It is how we use such substances that matters, and this bill is about using it in a controlled way for the benefit of people suffering from some symptoms of particular illnesses or diseases. I introduced an identical bill on 23 July but, due to the prorogation of parliament, I have to reintroduce it.

The bill proposes that fines be waived for personal cultivation and use of marijuana for people who are suffering designated medical conditions. This would be on the proviso that a medical practitioner has signed a palliative cannabis certificate to indicate that the person is suffering from a specified illness or disease, the symptoms of which might be palliated by the smoking or consumption of cannabis or cannabis resin. The certificate would:

(a) certify that the person has a specified illness or disease;

(b) describe the symptoms;

(c) declare that, in the doctor's opinion, the use of cannabis would palliate those symptoms;

(d) state that the doctor has discussed with the patient the risks associated with the use of cannabis; and

(e) prescribe the amount and method of administration and the period of time for which the use is recommended. Such a certificate would be valid for a maximum of one year but could be revoked earlier by the doctor. The doctor would be required to provide to the minister a copy of the certificate within seven working days of issuing it and, similarly, provide advice if it has been revoked.

In South Australia cannabis is a controlled substance and is illegal under normal circumstances. However, under this legislation the medical practitioner is given protection so that they would not be subject to legal disciplinary proceedings provided that they had issued a certificate in the form prescribed in the bill. Failure to provide the appropriate advice to the minister would attract a fine, and any false or misleading statements made by a doctor in relation to any of the above could see them imprisoned for two years or fined up to $10,000. The bill also provides for the sale of approved equipment for the consumption of cannabis to a person who holds a palliative cannabis certificate.

I invite members to read the speech I made on 23 July when I originally introduced this bill and, because that is on the record, I will not go into the whole rationale and repeat the quotes that I gave back then. Because I do know that everyone will not go back and check that speech, I will repeat the list of conditions and benefits for which cannabis can be used to palliate:

reduction in muscle spasms, pain relief, better sleep and improved ambulation for people suffering from multiple sclerosis;

glaucoma;

depression and anxiety, particularly for people with terminal illnesses;

suppression of nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy;

body wasting resulting from AIDS;

bursitis;

control of seizures;

neuropathic pain associated with spinal damage;

pain relief for people with cancer;

muscle spasms associated with motor neurone disease;

and there are others.

I mentioned the Cancer Council of New South Wales in the speech I gave on 23 July but, because I just mentioned pain relief for people with cancer, I will read from a Cancer Council of New South Wales fact sheet. It states:

Until medical forms of marijuana extracts are available, the Cancer Council supports introducing a system for compassionate provision of marijuana to patients who may benefit from it. We also support limited exemptions from criminal prosecution for patients who have been certified as having particular conditions and who have been counselled by an approved medical practitioner about the risks of smoking marijuana—

which is exactly the model that is in this bill.

As a consequence of introducing the bill two months ago, I have received a lot of feedback about other scientific studies, with more information becoming available about the positive impact of medical marijuana. I have previously mentioned the number of states in the US where medical marijuana has been legalised and the international trials that are taking place. I mentioned the small and legal production of cannabis in Israel, and that is being made available for up to 150 patients to alleviate symptoms of cancer, AIDS or chronic inflammation of the intestine. Information provided to me since then is that the demand for cannabis for such purposes is likely to increase as a result of the Israeli Cancer Association's intentions to more widely publicise the compassionate access scheme to doctors.

I was also surprised to find out from one of the emails I received that the US government was awarded a patent back in 2003 on the use of cannabinoids in the prevention and treatment of a wide variety of diseases, including stroke, trauma, auto-immune diseases, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and HIV dementia. The patent number for those who want to follow it up is #6,630,507 and it is assigned in the name of the US Department of Health and Human Services, and it was based on research done at the National Institute of Medicine. Despite the tough-on-drugs mantra of the Bush government and various regimes before it such as the Reagan government, it secretly recognises the palliative use of cannabis.

The Journal of the National Cancer Institute in the UK last year published research from Ramer and Hinz at the Institute of Toxicology and Pharmacology, University of Rostock in Germany, showing that cannabis can inhibit cancer cell invasion. Also drawn to my attention was work by researchers at Bath University in the UK, which has shown that cannabis can alleviate symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease. Additionally, a study conducted at the Medical School of Hannover, Germany, found reductions in the tics associated with Tourette's Syndrome. This drug which is illegal in our state and nation is proving to have more and more medical uses.

On 5 July 1995, the Select Committee on the Control and Illegal Use of Drugs of Dependence tabled a report in this chamber, and its first and unanimous recommendation of members comprising Labor, Liberal and Democrats was that 'scientifically designed and controlled clinical trials in the use of cannabis for therapeutic purposes be undertaken for specified medical conditions'. I remind members that the AMA's national policy also supports this. Thirteen years after that select committee report, we are still waiting for an enlightened government to take up the recommendation.

The Rann government's 2002 Drug Summit recommended evaluating the regulated availability approach to cannabis and, six years on, we are still waiting. Meanwhile, people are forced to break the law in relieving either their own suffering or the suffering of a loved one. They have been waiting years, sometimes decades, to get sensible reform, and I for one will work to get it for them.

With the rise of Christian fundamentalism in that country, US author and social commentator Gore Vidal makes the observation that sin and punishment are the real agenda, and that the state has taken on that role on behalf of the churches. In South Australia, as one constituent has observed to me: 'it is far easier to build a campaign (or a political career) based on what one is 'against' (and the people one despises and vilifies for all the evils of society) than it is to build one based on what is good, ethical and needs to be done for the 'little individual good' (the one that counts)'. He is right: it is far easier to take a moral and judgmental approach towards people about what substances they introduce into their own bodies.

I intend to take this bill to a vote at the end of year, so I ask members to make their decisions not on sin and punishment, not on trying to see who can be the toughest on crime, but on the science. And the science is there to show that the approach advocated in this bill is thoroughly justified.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.