HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-11-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (SIMPLE CANNABIS OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 October 2013.)

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (11:59): I am very pleased to be able to rise to support the Controlled Substances (Simple Cannabis Offences) Amendment Bill, and it is something I have been looking forward to doing for a couple of years now. It was, indeed in September 2010 that the Hon. Ann Bressington introduced this bill into the Legislative Council. It was a very important bill then, and I was very pleased to be part of the Liberal opposition supporting it at the time, and supporting its successful passage through the Legislative Council; and it is still important now. Parliamentary counsel advises that all the measures are still salient and, certainly, from a policy point of view, there is significant value in this bill.

The reasons are strong. Cannabis is an absolute scourge in our society, not just for the effects it has on the individuals who find themselves addicted to this substance but also for the broader effects on their families. The fact that there are still some people in society who argue the case that it is not a dangerous drug is part of the concern, and the government and parliament need to take a strong stand in ensuring that members of the community, and particularly young people, understand the dangerous consequences of cannabis use.

Only this week, The British Journal of Psychiatry published a paper called High Potency Cannabis and the Risk of Psychosis, dated 12 November 2013, particularly in relation to the form of cannabis called skunk, which has a high level of THC content. The paper identifies that:

Those who used high potency cannabis (skunk) not every day were 5 times more likely to suffer from drug induced psychoses and those who used it...every day were 12 times more likely to suffer from psychosis.

The oft-cited Degenhardt report, 'The relationship between cannabis use, depression and anxiety among Australian adults: findings from the national survey of mental health and well being', which is from about 2001—this is not new—identifies that:

Those who had drug use disorders, such as cannabis abuse, were between 3.5 to 10.7 times more likely to develop an affective disorder than those without drug use disorders.

Those members of the parliament who have personal experience of family members who have suffered from mental illness and psychosis (schizophrenia is one I am personally very attuned to) would be well aware of the devastating impacts and challenges this can pose in an individual's lives and those of their families. Regular use of cannabis increases by a huge factor the chance of somebody developing these issues. Irregular use of cannabis in a number of people, research shows us, also increases the likelihood.

The fact is that we know that through the 1980s, and even into the 1990s, there was a permissive approach to substances, particularly cannabis. We all remember the 10-plant rule that used to be the way. As a university student in the mid-1990s, I remember driving interstate and, if a police officer saw a young person on the road with South Australian plates, it was the expectation that you would be pulled over and the car searched for drugs. I note the Speaker is nodding. It was something that happened to me on about three occasions.

I only drove interstate about five times over the course of my university career for student conferences on this or that, and I am pleased to inform the house that I and my car were given a clean bill of health every time. That is beside the point. South Australia, in particular, had the reputation amongst law enforcement agencies across Australia as being a place where people were able to grow so much cannabis that it was exported in an incredible way. While that has been cut back, this bill will redefine the amount of cannabis that can be carried before it attracts the appropriate prosecution.

'Personal use' has been used as such a broad term. Ten plants was personal use and now it is less than that. This bill will reduce it to 25 grams from 100 grams, but 100 grams, as the Hon. Ann Bressington pointed out in moving this bill, amounts to 50 individual two-gram bags, and 100 grams of cannabis has a street value (and this is in 2010, according to the police) of $1,250, so a $300 fine is not really going to act as the disincentive that we are talking about. Reducing it to 25 grams is a much better reflection of personal use.

The old permissive approach, I think, was driven by a number of factors. There was a broader misunderstanding of the dangers of the drugs, and I referred to the Degenhardt report from 2001. The science has been very strong in the last 15 years, I know, since the early 1990s when there was a national approach from the ministers and a national body of research was accumulated. The national household survey started in the early 1990s on these matters, so that data is in and the dangers are better understood.

There was also the negative cultural influence of people who were pro drugs. They talked about 'party drugs' and 'recreational drugs' in order to change the language, to make people feel as if there were bad illicit substances and okay illicit substances. The party drugs and the recreational drugs were supposedly not so bad. I think it behoves all of us, when we are talking to our communities, not to use terms like 'party drugs' and 'recreational drugs' because that does lead to an acceptance and it leads to the sort of permissive approach that has been taken before.

I have read a lot of debate at the time, and there was a Legislative Council committee in this building that had findings that suggested the belief that antidrug measures and antidrug approaches by governments did not work. In 1996, the Howard government was elected and it did have a different approach. From the late 1990s through to the defeat of the Howard government in 2007, the holistic approach towards substance abuse, known as the 'Tough on drugs' measures, was incredibly effective. It dealt with it not just in terms of law enforcement and the zero tolerance towards pushers, which it was, but also on the levels of health education as well as law enforcement.

In the health sector, the Howard government spent $1.6 billion increasing support to non-government services providing drug and alcohol rehabilitation and treatment. It significantly made it more available for those with a substance abuse problem to be able to access the sort of treatment and rehabilitation that they needed. The Howard government also focused on education campaigns, not just in schools but also in communities, giving members of the public and parents the tools with which to talk to their families about drugs.

Those Talking to Your Kids About Drugs books, which were delivered to all families in Australia on two occasions, had a significant impact. In law enforcement, ministerial councils were not just about pushing zero tolerance of drug peddlers and increasing funding to customs. The federal government did everything they could do across the board.

The result of that was that between 1998 and 2007, there was in fact a significant decrease. Just to use cannabis as an example, the AIHW national drug household survey showed a decline from 17.9 per cent of the Australian population having used illicit drugs in the previous year to 9.1 per cent. They halved drug use in Australia. I seek leave to table this Table 2.1 of the AIHW household survey on drug use.

The SPEAKER: Can the member assure the house that it is a purely statistical table?

Mr GARDNER: It is a statistical table and I would suggest that perhaps Hansard could remove anything they do not consider to be statistical, if that is a concern.

Leave granted.

Table 2.1: Summary of recent (a) drug use, people aged 14 years or older, 1993 to 2010 (per cent)

Drug/behaviour 1993 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010
Tobacco 29.1 27.2 24.9 23.2 20.7 19.4 18.1 down
Alcohol 77.9 78.3 80.7 82.4 83.6 82.9 80.5 down
Illicit drugs (excluding pharmaceuticals)
Cannabis 12.7 13.1 17.9 12.9 11.3 9.1 10.3 up
Ecstasy (b) 1.2 0.9 2.4 2.9 3.4 3.5 3.0 down
Meth/amphetamines (c) 2.0 2.1 3.7 3.4 3.2 2.3 2.1
Cocaine 0.5 1.0 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.6 2.1 up
Hallucinogens 1.3 1.9 3.0 1.1 0.7 0.6 1.4 up
Inhalants 0.6 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 up
Heroin 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Ketamine n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.3 0.2 0.2
GHB n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.1 0.1 0.1
Injectable drugs 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4
Any illicit (d)excluding pharmaceuticals 13.7 14.2 19.0 14.2 12.6 10.9 12.0 up
Pharmaceuticals
Pain-killers/analgesics (c) 1.7 3.4 5.2 3.1 3.1 2.5 3.0 up
Tranquillisers/sleeping pills (c) 0.9 0.7 3.0 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.5
Steroids (c) 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 — — 0.1
Methadone (e) orbuprenorphine (f) n.a. n.a. 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 up
Other opiates/opioids (c) n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 up
Any pharmaceutical (g) n.a. 4.1 6.3 3.9 3.8 3.7 4.2 up
Any illicit (d)(g) 14.0 16.7 22.0 16.7 15.3 13.4 14.7 up
None of the above 21.0 17.8 14.2 14.7 13.7 14.1 16.6 up


(a) Used in the previous 12 months. For tobacco and alcohol 'recent use' means daily, weekly and less than weekly smokers and drinkers.

(b) Included 'designer drugs' before 2004.

(c) For non-medical purposes.

(d) Did not include GHB and Ketamine from 1993 to 2001.

(e) Non-maintenance.

(f) Did not include buprenorphine before 2007.

(g) Included barbiturates up until 2007; did not include methadone in 1993 and 1995; did not include other opiates from 1993 to 1998.

Note: some trend data were updated in 2010.

Mr GARDNER: The table demonstrates a significant decline in drug use, particularly cannabis, but in all drugs across the spectrum, with maybe one or two exceptions on the very low levels. Cannabis use reduced from 17.9 per cent to 9.1 per cent. The problem is not going away, however. In the last three years, the most recent data from 2007 to 2010, after the end of the Howard government, showed an increase from 9.1 to 10.3 per cent in cannabis use. It is the first time it has increased in the history of the 'Tough on drugs' policy, so it demonstrates that there is more to be done.

As a state government, as a state parliament, we need to do more. This sort of measure as outlined in this bill is part of it. Other measures that the opposition has suggested, include limiting the number of times an individual can be diverted to drug diversion programs to a maximum of two, so that on the third strike somebody has to be charged unless a magistrate decides that a third attempt at treatment will work. That will improve things.

There are people who have been going through these drug diversion programs 12, 13, or even 15 times in one instance. The secret is that you do not even need to show up to get the tick. If you are diverted, you are told when you can go to an education session, but not showing up will not actually lead to a charge. There are more things the state government can do to improve this and this bill will be an important measure.

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (12:10): I would like to speak briefly on some of the matters that this bill has brought before the house today. Certainly it is a complex area, but I think to start with I would like to talk about some of the history of drug policy in this parliament. The opposition has restored this bill because it believes that drug use is harmful; indeed, many of us in this house would not argue with that fact. The government agrees and wishes the opposition would devote as much of its time to targeting drug traffickers and commercial dealers as it does on targeting minor offenders.

However, the government has introduced two bills in this parliament to bankrupt drug traffickers. The first attempt was blocked by the opposition, and the opposition seems determined to avoid dealing with the second bill currently before the Legislative Council. The bill blocked by the opposition was the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill 2012. That bill, if passed, would have allowed the courts to bankrupt repeat drug offenders and commercial drug traffickers.

The Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill 2012 was introduced to the parliament by the Attorney-General on 14 February 2012. It passed this place on 15 February 2012 and then went on to be amended by the other place. The government ultimately removed the bill from the Notice Paper because it was simply pointless to pass the bill in the form that the opposition reduced it to.

The Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill 2012 was premised on the idea that all property of certain drug offenders (described in the bill as prescribed drug offenders) should be confiscated, whether or not it had any link to the crime at all and whether or not it was legitimately earned.

The bill created two categories of offenders, named prescribed drug offenders in the bill. The first is repeat offenders, and the second is the major offender, whether or not it is repeated. The repeat offender would have been caught if he or she was convicted on a third (or more) nominated offence within a period of 10 years. The nominated offences were: possession of a prohibited drug with the intent to sell or supply, manufacturing or preparing, or selling and supplying, or offering to sell or supply, a prohibited drug; possession of a prohibited plant with the intent to sell or supply, or selling or supplying, or offering to sell or supply a prohibited plant; attempting to commit these offences; and conspiring to commit these offences.

The major offender would have been caught if the person committed any one offence at any one time involving a prohibited drug or prohibited plant that exceeded the prescribed amount. Once a person became a prescribed drug offender, they were liable to be essentially bankrupted by the court. Under a similar scheme in WA and its counterpart in the Northern Territory, all of the declared drug trafficker's assets were subject to forfeiture—everything.

The government took the view that it would ameliorate the harshness of the scheme by providing that the prescribed offender forfeit everything except what a bankrupt would be allowed to keep. Despite this attempt to reduce the harshness of the policy, the opposition was still unwilling to support it. It is completely hypocritical for the opposition now to claim it is tough on drugs by supporting this bill, which targets minor offenders, and yet refuses to support a bill that will severely damage the Mr Bigs of the drug world.

There are a couple of other points, though, that I would like to make in my remaining time. As a health administrator and someone who grew up in Queensland, where plants flourish in warm tropical heat, I know that the actual evils of cannabis are not to be underestimated. In fact, I knew people at university who effectively fried their unique and precious brains through drug use, and it is a sad loss to society. Cannabis has been an illegal drug for many years, and it is derived from the Cannabis sativa plant. The main ingredient in cannabis is called delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, commonly known as TCH, as mentioned by one of the members opposite.

Cannabis can be used in three major forms: marijuana, hashish and hash oil. Marijuana is made from the dried flowers and leaves of the cannabis plant, is the least potent of the cannabis products and is usually smoked. Hashish is more of a resin, a secreted gum, of the cannabis plant, and it is dried and pressed into small blocks and smoked. It can be added to food and eaten. Hash oil, the most potent cannabis product, is a thick oil obtained from hashish, and it is smoked.

The harms from cannabis, which I have seen as a health administrator coding records in hospitals, are clearly available. The available evidence highlights the long-term effects of cannabis use as: increased risk of respiratory diseases associated with smoking, including cancer; dependence; decreased memory and learning abilities; and decreased motivation in areas such as study, work and concentration and caring for one's dependents if they are parents. Around one in 10 people who have ever tried cannabis will become dependent on it at some time in their lives, and people who use daily are most at risk, facing a one in two chance of becoming dependent. Young people are at even greater risk, because the use of cannabis on a daily basis at a young age, say, 15 to 17 years old, has greater risk yet again; and I will speak about that shortly.

Dependent users can experience a variety of psychological, social, and physical symptoms that include withdrawal symptoms of feeling irritable, depression, sleeping problems and decreased appetite. Some people experience the unpleasant effects of anxiety and panic when they use cannabis. In high doses, the drug can cause confusion, delusions and hallucinations. When I was at university, it caused a person I knew, who was a very bright person, to walk off a second-storey building.

Some people, particularly young people, or those with a family history of mental health problems, are most vulnerable because of the mental health effects of cannabis; and I will speak about that shortly. Although it is rare, some people may experience a short-term psychotic episode after a heavy session of cannabis use, and this can include delusions and hallucinations which place them and members of society at risk. Frequent cannabis use has been shown to increase the risk of psychotic illness and the development of depression. A similar table that was tabled before is something that I would use as evidence in the perils of this area.

I would like to particularly talk about the prevalence of cannabis use in some medically related studies that I obtained from the library. The Cochrane collaboration, which was released in 2011, goes through some of the prevalence of cannabis use in the world with connection to schizophrenia. As a proportion of population, these countries have incurred rates of schizophrenia related to cannabis use: Germany, in a study in 1993, 5 per cent; in Germany again in 2000, 13 per cent; in the UK, 18.9 per cent in a study for 2001; 23 per cent in the USA in the 1990 study; 40 per cent in the UK in 1998; 40 per cent in Australia in 1995; in the USA again, another study in 1994 was 41.8 per cent; 42 per cent in Ireland in a 2001 study; 43 per cent in Italy in a 2002 study; and 69 per cent in Sweden in a 1993 study.

People may say some of the studies are small quantities, but I have a plethora of articles that I have been given from the parliamentary library that outline the connection between cannabis use and cognitive functioning in patients with schizophrenia. They all go on for pages and pages about the connection and the effect it has on the white cells within the brain. One of particular relevance, I think, to this topic that members should be aware of says that abnormal brain development in utero is one of the genetic vulnerabilities that may cause people to have this. The second hit may come from altered brain development during adolescence caused by environmental factors such as cannabis use or psychosocial stress.

These two hits together would accumulate for the first psychotic episode, which is most often in late adolescence and early adulthood. The third may be a neurotoxic process which will cause a recurrent psychotic episode after mental illness onset. It has been hypothesised that this abnormal brain development can lead to disconnectivity between the brain areas, and from this the symptoms and dimensions of the cognitive dysfunction in schizophrenia arise. This is an area that we need to consider carefully, and I would urge the house to consider all the measures, but particularly to support the ones that affect the drug dealers, who should be bankrupted.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:18): When you are a member of parliament, you talk about many things in the public eye, but drugs are something I have never spoken about before. I am moved to speak, based not just on what I have read in the second reading contribution from the Hon. Ann Bressington, but also on what I have heard for the last seven or eight minutes from the member for Taylor and the contribution from the member for Morialta, where they talk about worldwide studies and what the impacts have been, and the schizophrenia and the health issues that it impacts upon.

I am a believer in the future of our society, but I am so concerned by drugs—and by that I am more conclusive on that; cannabis has in most cases been some form of start opportunity for people—and the impact they are going to have on our society. It is behoven upon me, and I think the parliament, to ensure that we do look very seriously at this bill and support it.

As I understand it, the intent is to reduce the amount that can be held by a person from 100 grams to below 25. When you look at what a value attached to 100 grams is and the potential revenue for some person, the absolute disgrace that they are, out there trying to sell it to people—if you look at what they can make out of it and what the expiation fee is for holding that, there is such a serious imbalance and a real need for this to be reviewed.

I am frightened by the fact that, having grown up in a country town, I recognise now that, indeed, drugs were around me even then, in the late 1970s and early 1980s. There was a person who I was very friendly with and I have since been told that they had to have it basically every morning as you and I would have breakfast. That is how they started the day. I begin to wonder how they managed to operate and do things from a work perspective and everything when they were influenced by it so much.

I remember in an early social life you would be out with people and I now know it was around me, but I had no obvious knowledge of the fact that cannabis was in use in these places and I never tried it, although obviously I must have inhaled it second-hand I suppose, because it was around me.

Mr Treloar: You didn't inhale.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Didn't inhale it—but there must have been other things that influenced my attitude sometimes because of what I did. I am now so disappointed to be told—in many cases a decade after the fact—who was doing what and all of that sort of stuff and that is why I think it is so important that the parliament look at this.

By benefit of the research that the member for Taylor has been able to undertake with the library, it enforces upon all of us the impact that it is having, and it is upon generations. I have seen television documentaries produced concerning the 40s and 50s, that talked about the impact of drugs and cannabis upon people and how it led to many other stages through their life and what the long-term impact has been. I have no doubt that many are able to control it and reduce it and get rid of it when they have sensed the difference it makes to their psyche. When the member for Taylor quoted one in ten becoming dependant upon it, it frightened the life out of me.

The legislation provides an opportunity—and it was not deliberate, I respect that very strongly—for people to be out there and to have a supply amount on them allowing them to onsell it and make a large amount of money out of it with little risk of an expiation fee being imposed. Because they will make a lot more than what they are going to be charged if they are caught with it, it is behoven upon the parliament to do it right.

Even in my country area I am aware of second-hand stories of it growing in scrub country down the bottom of Yorke Peninsula for example. People would clear a little patch out in the middle of the scrub—2,000 or 3,000 acres—and even if it was a kilometre away, they would connect up to a farmer's pipe that came from a windmill and went to a trough to feed their sheep so they would have a water supply for it. All of a sudden the farmer would come across it two years after the fact and everything was ripped up but it was so obvious about what had occurred there. No matter where you live, it is part of what occurs around you.

So I think we have to 'nip it in the bud'. We have a responsibility to try and control it and from what I have been able to read and hear from others, this bill is a step in that process that allows the police to ensure that when they catch these people, the penalty far outweighs what the benefit might be for them.

By association with that I think there is going to be a far lesser incentive for people out there to try and sell this stuff and a fewer opportunities for those people that might be somewhat weak-minded short-term to actually take up that opportunity, potentially impacting on their lives in so many ways in a negative way. I think it is behoven upon the parliament to say yes to this and it will bring in changes that actually influence the benefits that come from our society. It would give the police more opportunity to actually start getting these guys and women and catching them and making it much better.

I started off at the very beginning talking about our youth, and I am blessed that my own children have never done this—not that they would have ever admitted anything otherwise to me—but I believe that they have not done it. I am so positive about what I see—there are some fantastic young kids out there and it really is so sad to me to think that there is this absolute disgrace in our communities—people who go out and try and profit from innocence.

I think their innocence sometimes leads to being adventurous in the wrong way and this adventure leads to long-term promise for them. We have all heard stories of people whom we grew up with and those around us and those that live in our suburbs or our towns and how this has impacted upon them. This is one small way in which we can make a difference, and I commend the contributions that have been made so far and I hope that this is a measure that is supported by the parliament very strongly.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland—Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Small Business) (12:24): The Controlled Substances (Simple Cannabis Offences) Amendment Bill is a private members' bill originating in the Legislative Council and was restored to the Notice Paper as a lapsed bill on 31 October by the member for Morphett. I am glad to have the opportunity to talk about it today.

I have spent a reasonable amount of time in my life travelling around. My first job out of school was actually working on a cattle station in Queensland, but my second job was working in the snowfields up in Victoria. There was a woman who worked with me in the lodge that I worked at who also had a job working for the ski lift company. Her job with them was basically to get up first thing in the morning and de-ice the cables, which meant you ran the chair lift and hit the cable with a hammer, and the ice would fall off.

I was regularly woken at around 6 in the morning by the sound of a bong, because the first thing that this woman did when she got up in the morning was smoke a bong. I do not think that is recreational use, Mr Speaker; I think anyone who has to do that obviously had some level of addiction to that drug. That was not, of course, the only time that she would smoke during the course of the day. She would smoke a number of bongs over the course of any given day. At the end of work, she would go out, and that would usually involve some sort of drug use as well.

After that, I went to Cairns. It was a good year; I took a gap year off, but everywhere I travelled, I would see evidence of people who had varying degrees of cannabis use. For those who were heavy users, it seemed to me to be more than just casual use. When you have to have it first thing in the morning or before you do anything significant during the day, you have to make the assumption that it is more than casual use and that there is some element of addiction to it.

If you are going to accept that assertion, then you have to look at the consequences of that. A couple of my cousins across Australia have been heavy and regular users of cannabis. Both of them eventually suffered from schizophrenia. There is a link between cannabis use and schizophrenia. My understanding of the matter is that cannabis use triggers a latent schizophrenia. Now, I am obviously—

Mrs Vlahos: It is a recessive gene.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: A recessive gene; thank you. The member for Taylor tells me it is a recessive gene, and that is triggered by the cannabis use. The interesting thing about that is that, as far as I can tell, there is no known level of use that will trigger it; it could be the smallest amount, or it could be the largest amount, but sometimes the use of cannabis triggers that gene.

Schizophrenia is not a pleasant sickness to have. I have watched two of my cousins suffer from it. One of them was very heavily medicated, and he had a wife and two children. He struggled with his medication so much that he would be on it for a number of months and would settle down—it was not particularly pleasant to watch him medicated, because it sort of dulled him—but eventually he would get sick of taking the medication because he hated the effect that it had on him, so he would stop taking it and would descend, slowly spiralling down, into the worst symptoms of the schizophrenia.

It was terribly, terribly hard on his wife and children. The worst bit, of course, was that during this time when he was not on his medication he would sometimes still smoke. He could not hold down a job because of his mood swings and everything else, and eventually he committed suicide. I have always associated the death of my cousin with his cannabis use. Without even having known the people who were involved in selling it to him or anything like that, I have never forgiven them for that event.

When I subsequently went on to Flinders University, there was a very heavy culture, especially within the Tavern, of cannabis use in that environment. I was subsequently elected to the student union that owned and operated the Tavern, and I started to work to eradicate it. Basically, it was dealt openly in the Tavern, and one particular dealer would come in, lay out all his bags on the table and people would come up to him and buy and sell. There were some people on the campus using drugs heavily, and you could see first-year students come in and see those who became involved in that culture decline. Almost none of them finished their degree; they would drop out at various points in the course.

One of my mates at school—a tremendously smart person and brilliant at maths—got involved in the drug culture. He dropped out and never finished his degree, and what we lost as a society was someone who was an excellent mathematician and who, no doubt, in the ordinary course of events would have made a valuable contribution to society. I have lost touch with him. I do not know where he is now; maybe he has recovered from that, or maybe he is still involved, but he certainly lost out and we lost a number of years in that process.

My view on these things is that I have never treated cannabis or marijuana as something that is trivial or something that is just a recreational drug. Even the two acceptable recreational drugs, tobacco and alcohol, are very heavily regulated. I am always happy to see discussion about the regulation of cannabis and marijuana because I have had some experience, or at least some observation of the experience, of people who have been heavy users and possibly, I think, addicts in the true sense of the word, in that they feel that they cannot function without continual consumption of the drug.

I am very pleased that the member for Morphett has brought this private member's bill into the chamber and allowed people to speak about it because it is something that does need to be discussed. I do not think that we as a community can afford to stand by knowing that there are mental health effects and everything else from the use of this drug and not from time to time discuss how it might be better administered.

This bill, of course, proposes to amend section 45A of the Controlled Substances Act and deals with the expiation of simple cannabis offences. It proposes to increase expiation fees for possession of cannabis, less than 25 grams, and cannabis resin, less than five grams, from $150 to $300. It includes a requirement for the police officer giving the expiation notice also to provide prescribed information, if it is reasonably available, to an alleged offender. The information would cover the health risks and criminal penalties relating to cannabis consumption.

Often, those who use cannabis or marijuana are completely of the view that it has no particular effect on anything. There is no widespread knowledge of the contribution of cannabis and marijuana to mental illness to the effect on the recessive gene. There is no widespread understanding, especially among young people, of the health effects of its consumption, so requiring that provision of information is certainly not necessarily a bad thing.

A further provision removes the possession of cannabis, 25 grams or more but less than 100 grams, and cannabis resin, five grams or more but less than 20 grams, from the cannabis expiation notice scheme and make these non-expiable criminal offences. It also seeks to move the cut-offs for expiation and expiation fees from the Controlled Substances (Controlled Drugs, Precursors and Plants) Regulations 2000 into the Controlled Substances Act, so coming from the regulations into the Controlled Substances Act; therefore, these aspects will only be able to be changed through a comprehensive parliamentary process. Again, as I have said, I think it is a good thing that we find ourselves here today discussing changes that might be made to that act.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (12:35): I rise today to speak on and support the Controlled Substances (Simple Cannabis Offences) Amendment Bill. This has been restored into this house, and I congratulate the member for Morphett on bringing it back. It was originally introduced by the Hon. Ann Bressington MLC in the other place, of course, and it lapsed for a time. However, due to the good work of the member Morphett, and also the passion of the member for Morialta—who has, to some degree, been driving this within our party room—we are here debating it today.

I have listened intently to the contributions made thus far, and it is interesting that while marijuana or cannabis, and their resultant products, have obviously been around for many centuries, in the Western world at least it was really only from the 1960s onwards that it became more commonplace and more broadly used.

Given that time frame, the people who sit in this house and this parliament at the moment would all, at some point, either have had some exposure to it or been in a situation where its use was occurring. Indeed, the member for Newland has so intimately shared his rather sad tale of the death of one of his cousins which, he believes, was as a direct result of drug use. In essence, that is the ultimate price you pay for drug use, and society is being asked to pay that price more and more often.

This is a good bill. It seeks to reduce the amount of cannabis or marijuana that can be carried on one's person, from the current 100 grams to 25 grams. Effectively, what it does is preclude dealing from taking place in a somewhat legitimate way. With 100 grams being the current allowable level, that is exactly what happens: people are able to deal relatively openly in a rather large amount of marijuana or cannabis. Of course, it is the most effective pyramid scheme that has ever been invented. The reality is that a dealer can make quite a haul, in fact, from 100 grams of marijuana by dividing it into smaller and smaller amounts for sale.

This bill looks to reduce the permissible amount of cannabis to less than 25 grams and increase the expiation notice for possession above that to $300. It brings South Australia more in line with the other states. As the member for Morialta quite rightly pointed out, for a long time this state was amongst the more permissive jurisdictions in the world, certainly in Australia, in regard to drug use. I notice that the member for Taylor did some wonderful research and took us through the origin of the plant and the various forms it can take. She mentioned marijuana, hash, hooch, weed, Buddha, dope. It is known by many terms, and of course there are many others I am not familiar with.

During the second half of the 20thcentury and the first decade or so of this century there has been any amount of drug paraphernalia come into use, and some weird and wonderful contraptions have been invented for the inhalation or ingestion of drugs. In fact, it was not too long ago that we had shops here in Adelaide that actually sold and dealt in paraphernalia rather than the drug itself. It had got to a point where for a certain section of society it was acceptable behaviour. As I said, it is a well-intentioned bill, and it does bring us more in line with other states.

Drug use is interesting because, as I said, many of us have been exposed to it in one form or another through busy and interesting lives, no doubt. However, there are other drugs that are quite legal, as the member for Newland pointed out. Alcohol, of course, is a legal drug and, for the most part, socially acceptable in our society. Cigarettes are a legal drug. They are less socially acceptable these days, although sentiments have changed over the last 20 or 30 years. There was a time when it was much more socially acceptable to smoke a cigarette almost anywhere, including in this place, I would suggest. Even tea and coffee, which are very much a part of our everyday life, have a mild effect on one's body and mind, and people fail to remember that from time to time I think.

Dare I say it, there are probably much worse drugs than cannabis going around. Amphetamines certainly seem to have hit the streets of our cities and towns—Adelaide, in particular—and my sense is that a lot of the increase in violence that we see late at night on the streets of Adelaide is, in fact, due to in a big part, not just alcohol but also the use of drugs, particularly amphetamines at this time. That will be dealt with I am sure at another time. As for today we are dealing with cannabis.

I support the bill. It is a good bill. It precludes the opportunity for many people to deal. It does not preclude the opportunity for those who, for whatever reason, want to make use of a small amount of cannabis, and there are reasons for that. Occasionally there are medical reasons, occasionally there is recreational use. We do not shy away from that but the fact is that we do not want profiteering, dealing and the impacts to be significant on the broader community.

I know that the speakers from the government side who have contributed so far have hinted that they think the bill is a good one, and I hope that during the time between the sitting weeks the government takes a positive view of this bill because, ultimately, their rhetoric has always been about being tough on law and order, and tough on crime, and I think this bill in particular sits very nicely with that rhetoric, and I think it would be an opportunity for the government to show that it is more than just rhetoric.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:42): I rise, too, to support the Controlled Substances (Simple Cannabis Offence) Bill and note it was initially introduced in the other place by the Hon. Ann Bressington. It is about introducing a tougher line in the control of cannabis and advocating the reduction and the permissible amount of cannabis to less than 25 grams and increasing the expiation notice to $300 for possession. That would bring South Australia into line with other states and argues the importance of providing information to those who are convicted.

I think pretty well everyone in society comes into contact at some stage in their lives with people who are using illicit and illegal drugs, and certainly in regard to cannabis and marijuana it seems to be a favoured place in parts of my electorate to grow this drug. It has had some quite deadly effects, quite frankly, on some of the people who have been involved in the growing of illegal drugs, as we have seen recently at Sandalwood. Two people were shot down by someone who was allegedly affected.

Apart from the actual effect of the drug itself, it obviously can have a terminal effect in a real hurry on people who are mixed up in the illegal cultivation. It is interesting talking about illegal cultivation, as people are finding out more and more how easy it is to track down whether someone is growing a drug crop in the scrub on their property. This has happened at Yumali, in my electorate, and down towards Coonalpyn as well, because with the price of water these days, at $3.45/kilolitre for the industrial rate, you soon notice if there is a substantial amount of water being used.

What I understand generally happens is that these people go out to a property and tap into a water line. Also, from what I understand, these crops take a reasonable amount of water, so it is soon found out that something is going on. Sadly, sometimes, these crops are only just cleaned up and no-one is arrested, but at other times there is excellent work done and the people growing these illegal crops are caught and held to account, as they should be.

I just want to talk about some of the effects of cannabis and what it does to people. Obviously, the effect it can have varies from person to person and it depends on many things, including size, weight and health, whether a person is a user who has used the drug continuously and whether they are taking other drugs simultaneously. Obviously, it also depends on the amount of the drug that is taken at any time.

As my information disclosed to me, there is no safe level of drug use. I think we should get that message out more and more to society, especially to our youth. Certainly, as the father of a couple of young boys, I think that message needs to go out to our children and our youth as they are growing up so that they understand that there can be fatal outcomes from drug use.

Digressing slightly but still talking about drugs, it has come to light only recently the case of a 55-year old gentleman who accidentally drank, I think it was, crystal methamphetamine in a bottle that had been posted to the wrong address. I assume it was just in a sports drink bottle and, inadvertently, his daughter gave it to him, he drank it and realised suddenly that he was in major strife and made the comment, 'I'm dying, I'm dead,' and that is exactly what happened. What a terrible tragedy. That was the end point of what happens in some of these distribution rings of these harder drugs.

Obviously, the use of any drug carries some risk and the immediate effects of cannabis use are loss of inhibition, spontaneous laughter, a quiet and reflective mood, affected perception (including sound, colour and other sensations), confusion, altered thinking and memory, anxiety, mild paranoia, altered vision, reddened or bloodshot eyes, relaxation, sleepiness, reduced coordination and balance, increased heart rate, low blood pressure and increased appetite.

It is noted that low to moderate doses of marijuana or cannabis can produce effects that last two to four hours after smoking and, obviously, the effects of ingested (eaten) cannabis usually start within one hour. In higher doses, it can have much more dramatic effects on the individual. Some of these include confusion, restlessness, excitement, hallucinations, anxiety or panic, detachment from reality, decreased reaction time and paranoia.

Some of the long-term effects of cannabis use can impact certain organs of your body, including the brain, with impaired concentration, memory and learning ability; and the lungs, with sore throat, asthma and bronchitis. Cannabis can also affect hormone production. Research shows some cannabis users have a lowered sex drive, and irregular menstrual cycles and lowered sperm counts have also been reported. There is some concern that cannabis smoking may impair the functioning of the immune system.

In terms of mental health—I think this is a big one—heavy and regular use of cannabis can be linked to a condition known as drug-induced psychosis, or cannabis psychosis. There is certainly some evidence around the place that regular cannabis use increases the likelihood of psychotic symptoms in people who are already vulnerable due to a personal or a family history of mental illness. Cannabis also appears to make psychotic symptoms worse for people with schizophrenia, and using cannabis can lower the chances of recovery from a psychotic episode.

I think the real tragedy is when you witness some of these effects on people you have known. I know that, in this place, I have talked about a bloke I have known pretty well all my life. He had a very good job, a fantastic job; he was a bit of a mover and shaker. Apart from moving off the farm after he left school, he had some training up here in his line of work. He worked interstate and was very good at his job, and he even had high ideals on what he may be able to do internationally.

Sadly—and I have not seen this person for a year or two now—they are just a shell of their former self and I certainly believe that drug use has played a major part in affecting the future of just this one individual who, as I said, I have known pretty well all my life. It is just such a tragedy to see a person who would be only 52 but barely has the energy to get out of bed in the middle of the day. I think there will be far too many cases of that and far too many unseen cases we do not see.

There are also the tragedies that happen on our roads through people who are affected by drugs, as well as the tragic situations that can happen—the schizophrenia that can be induced, the mental health issues that I believe can be induced. It is just a true tragic tale that this illicit drug use goes on and society pays a huge price. It is not just an individual price for the people affected but, as we have heard in other contributions today, society as a whole pays a huge price. As with other members on this side of the chamber, I commend the bill and hope for its speedy passage through the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT