HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SUMMARY OFFENCES (DRUG PARAPHERNALIA) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 November 2007. Page 1309.)

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (20:04): This bill builds on the Controlled Substances (Sale of Equipment) Amendment Bill 2006 which was also introduced by the Hon. Ann Bressington, except that this version is even more draconian. In her original bill, the fines were set at $2,000 for the sale of what is termed drug paraphernalia in this bill. In this bill the penalties will be increased to an amazing $10,000 or imprisonment for two years for an individual, and for a body corporate a fine of $50,000.

The Hon. Ms Bressington says that the bill is aimed to put out of business shops in South Australia that sell such equipment. Clearly, with those penalties she will succeed. The question to be asked, and to be answered rationally, is whether this will produce better outcomes. I wonder about the effective closing down of these businesses as compared to businesses that specialise in selling paraphernalia for brewing beer or making wine.

What this bill does is to alienate users, and in putting out of business the small number of retail outlets that currently sell such equipment the government will obliterate the supply of implements that have been purposefully designed. These shops, whether or not the member wants to recognise it, do play a role in providing positive information to users. One proprietor informed me by email that he would be happy to work with the government to educate users along the lines of the sorts of campaigns that have been used in regard to tobacco. He observed that 'the industry is the gateway to the end user, but we are never consulted'.

While the Hon. Ms Bressington's earlier bill referred to water pipes, cocaine kits have now been included. The bill defines 'cocaine kit' as follows:

A cocaine kit is constituted by two or more of the following items packaged as a unit apparently for use for the purposes of preparing for introduction, or for introducing, cocaine into the body of a person:

(a) a razor blade;

(b) a tube;

(c) a mirror;

(d) a scoop;

(e) a glass bottle;

(f) any other item apparently for use together with any item referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e) to prepare for introduction, or to introduce, cocaine into the body of a person;

I know that from time to time there are jokes about what women carry around in their handbags, but I always carry a mirror in my handbag and from time to time I carry a small paper knife with a retractable blade. If that retractable metal blade is taken out of its plastic holder it would, no doubt, be able to be classified as a razor blade. So, I have two of these items in my handbag that are deemed to make up a cocaine kit, but I guess I am safe because I am not selling or supplying them.

All of the items listed in the definition are easily purchasable from a variety of different shops: hardware stores, supermarkets and chain stores. It would appear that, provided they are not together in the same plastic bag, people will not get caught by it. From that perspective alone, it demonstrates that this is a bill that makes the law an ass. Also in the definitions we have a definition of water pipe:

'Water pipe' means—

(a) a device capable of being used for smoking by means of the drawing of smoke fumes through water or another liquid; or

(b) components that, when assembled together, form such a device; or

(c) a device that is apparently intended to be such a device but that is not capable of being so used because it needs an adjustment, modification or addition,

and includes, without limitation, devices known as bongs, hookahs, narghiles, shishas and ghalyans.

My observation is that the banning of the sale of such equipment will not stop people making them or using them. On the internet there are thousands of entries that you can access that will tell you how to make your own bong. One of the things that I have seen on a number of these sites is the recommendation to not use wood, aluminium or plastic in making them. The wood, I assume, because of the risk of it catching alight; aluminium I am not sure about, but perhaps it has a low melting point; and plastic because of some of the monomers that can be released that are carcinogenic.

In banning the sale of bongs and such equipment, this bill will increase the chance that more drug users will resort to the homemade variety, and a whole lot of them will be made of such materials. In checking the internet to find instructions about how to make a bong, I have made a list of some of the suggested utensils or materials to assist one in doing so. Plastic buckets, soft drink bottles, the tops of plastic soft drink bottles, the cardboard core of the toilet paper roll, aluminium foil, the casing of a ballpoint pen, used chewing gum, electrical tape, copper pipe offcut, a teapot and incandescent light bulbs are some of the materials recommended for making a homemade bong.

One of the sets of instructions I saw gave the warning, 'Beware of lighting your hair on fire when you light this thing.' There are warnings on some websites about the toxicity of the plastic—especially PVC—should it melt whilst being used, but a lot of internet sites do not give that warning. There are health and safety risks, and this bill will result in more users taking this pathway to make their own drug delivery equipment. Previously in this place, I have referred to the Lancet article of March this year, and I am sure I will do so again until members get it. This article ranked a number of drugs, both licit and illicit, based on their harm. I remind members that on that list alcohol was fifth, and eleventh was marijuana, which is one of the substances that this bill is clearly targeting.

The Hon. D.G.E. Hood interjecting:

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: No, that's not how it was done. I recommend that you look at the article. Making illegal the purchase of these currently legally purchasable drug delivery systems would be akin to making it illegal to buy glasses in which to drink your alcohol. Any sane person would see the stupidity of that, yet members fail to see that it is equally stupid to do the same with an illicit drug, particularly when its effect will be to force users to make their own equipment, some of which will have unintended health consequences.

Illicit drugs carry with them a culture, just as licit drugs do. Human beings create comfort zones and tend to fear what is beyond their experience, and fear is not a sound basis for devising effective legislation. When we know that some people self-medicate with illicit drugs, including some people with mental health problems, it is foolish to add another physical health problem on top of that. This is more of the tough on drugs approach that this government and opposition favour, and there is a real irony in that approach.

As supplies of cannabis have been driven underground, the organised crime that has emerged has responded to the tougher legislation by ensuring that they get a higher financial return on their investment to justify the risk. That has meant that hydroponics and selective breeding have been used to provide a drug that apparently will deliver more THC. I would hardly call that a great outcome. Get tough on drugs and the drugs that are supplied as a consequence deliver a greater hit: surely an illogical outcome for policy makers.

In the US, Paul Armentano of the NORML Foundation responded to drug enforcement administration warnings about the increased potency of cannabis by suggesting that staff of the DEA should wear T-shirts with the message, 'I have arrested millions, and all I got was stronger pot'. Looking at the bill again, probably the one thing that I would support is the insertion of new section 33GA (in the schedule), relating to the sale of equipment to children for use in connection with consumption of controlled drugs. I suspect that, if I look a little bit closer, it is probably covered in existing law anyhow but, even if it is not, that one particular section in itself is not enough to convince me to vote for this bill in its entirety.

As members know, I have campaigned strongly over many years against the licit drugs, alcohol and tobacco, and I will continue to do so. However, I have never, ever argued to prevent the sale of glasses to drink the alcohol or cigarette papers for 'roll your owns'. We need to have a rational debate about all drugs and their harms, but this bill will not stop people using illicit drugs; rather, it will change the nature of it to unsavoury, unsanitary and unsafe drug use. For those reasons, the Australian Democrats do not support this bill.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (20:16): I thank all members for their contribution to this bill.

Bill read a second time.

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