HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (PALLIATIVE USE OF CANNABIS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 September 2008. Page 184.)

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (00:18): I rise today to speak on this bill, which has been put before us by the Hon. Sandra Kanck. Its content is of no surprise, nor is its real intent. It is a mischievous bill and, if it were not sending such a dangerous message to our youth, it would also be quite laughable.

I am always amused when either the Greens or the Democrats move motions in this place (as the Hon. Mark Parnell intended to do today) to recognise international conventions for the environment, to call for world peace or to address breaches of human rights, etc., but then, on the issue of drug policy, they are more than happy to ignore the international conventions we are also signatories to.

I think an accurate description of their view on international politics is selective, to say the least. Of course, in my mind, this displays for all to see a shallow, if not meaningless, approach to all those most serious global issues we must be involved in for the world to be a better place for our children and grandchildren.

We are compromised when we begin to pick and choose which international conventions we support. When we put forward legislation where the debate encourages our children to believe that marijuana is not only harmless but, in fact, has the potential actually to improve their life, we are guilty of abusing our position and of what I believe is absolute irresponsibility.

We are irresponsible to the majority of people who want to care for and protect their children, and we are irresponsible to ourselves and the purpose of this parliament. For no other substance used in the treatment of any condition would it be acceptable to leave the determinations of efficacy and safety up to legislators who, with all due respect, have a hard enough time developing efficient and meaningful policy let alone making judgments on so-called medical treatments. I cannot speak for other members in this place, but I imagine that, with the lack of medical expertise in here, it is a burden that none of us would want to bear.

It simply is not the role of government, as I see it, and that only reinforces that this bill is not about treatment but about legalisation. I have mentioned before the legal opinions of Athol Moffat, who was a New South Wales Supreme Court judge for 24 years. For 10 of those years he was president of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. Also during that time, he served two years as the first royal commissioner of Australia when he inquired into organised crime in the US and its infiltration of Australia. In 1985 he wrote a book titled Quarter to Midnight on that subject. With half a lifetime of judicial objectivity behind him, he participated in setting before the Australian people an objective examination of the many issues that our drug problem raises, including government responsibility and liability should legalisation in this country ever become a reality—just as Athol Moffat had insight into the future that Australia and Australians would face if we were unable to convince governments to reclaim control of the legislative agenda on drugs that had been hijacked by the legalisers who are able to infiltrate our health policies, become government advisers and undermine what could have been an effective three-pronged approach to harm minimisation.

Before he passed away, and for some 20 years prior, he wrote numerous legal discussion papers for governments to consider where and when any move to legalise would arise. I guess that length of time is indicative of the persistence of the legalisation movement, and it is also indicative that it will continue until governments in this country and others are able to see through the flawed and contradictory arguments that are presented and the numerous fronts this group of misguided people are prepared to fight in this so-called war on drugs. That term 'war on drugs', as I have said before, was coined by the legalisation movement, knowing all too well that average people are intrinsically opposed to war and, if given the choice, would prefer to live with just one less battle, and this is how the perception of the Australian people has been manipulated.

The legalisation movement would argue that drug abuse is a medical and social issue and not a law enforcement issue, and, as such, they have argued their skewed proposals on that front. This has led to a soft approach on drugs with a tough on drugs rhetoric that most governments embrace, hence the conclusion that the so-called war on drugs is unwinnable when in actual fact it merely takes the application and enforcement of the law to make the difference between winning and losing. When we win everyone wins. Parents are able to inform their children of the harms of drugs and will be believed because the information that is circulated will reflect the position that drugs in our society is unacceptable.

Is there anyone in this place who truly believes that their children or grandchildren would be better off using drugs, would be better off having easy access to drugs and would be better off if they must first reach the point of addiction before anyone would or could intervene? I believe that there are basic principles that, for the average Joe in the street, do not change; but, of course, over the course of nearly 30 years of undermining, the legalisation movement to some degree has managed to change public perception about drugs and create and sustain a discourse—an exact replica of the discourse created by the tobacco companies when the harms of nicotine were first discovered.

The tobacco companies set out, in their own words, to create doubt in the minds of their consumers in order to preserve a future market for their product, and they did their job well. It took almost two decades before we saw acceptance of the medical evidence of the harm caused by nicotine. It took almost two decades before it was publicly proven that the tobacco industry had marketed its product knowing full well that it was both addictive and harmful. What was the one and only driving force of its determination and commitment to continue to peddle its poisonous products? The answer is simple: greed.

As I said in my speech on the bill that the Hon. Mr Ridgway introduced to ban cigarette smoking in council locations, we have seen a zero tolerance approach to tobacco and it has been successful in reducing the number of smokers. We have seen smokers demonised—for their own good, of course—and, might I say, legalisation gone mad to encourage them to restrict their use of their drug of choice. The Hon. Sandra Kanck has led that charge and has made no apologies about her level of concern for those people who would choose to partake in a legal, albeit harmful, activity.

We hear day in and day out about the harm caused by alcohol. We are told that the harm done by tobacco and alcohol combined is so much more than the harm done by illicit drugs. Has the penny not dropped yet that the two drugs causing the most harm are the two that are legal and readily available? Public acceptance of the use of alcohol and tobacco has challenged governments for over a decade to come up with strategies and messages that would eventually seep through the denial of the users and have them face up to the fact that they are literally killing themselves.

Again, the Democrats and Greens have fully supported those initiatives without hesitation or apology. The irony and hypocrisy of their diligence on the alcohol and tobacco front is only outstripped by the messages they continue to send to our children—to your children and to my children—and they undermine a parent's ability to have a positive influence in their children's lives where illicit drugs are concerned.

I hear no-one propose that, because nicotine is such an addictive drug, we should just give up and allow people to exercise their right to choose to use. I hear no-one suggesting that the government provide nicotine replacement therapies for free. I hear no-one proposing that the government provide a quantity of alcohol free for alcoholics because they are hopelessly addicted. And I hear no-one proposing that the government hand over one dollar coins to poker machine addicts because they too are hopelessly addicted.

Yet the Greens are on the record (in March 2004) as wanting to decriminalise methamphetamines and cocaine so that users do not face a gaol term. I would challenge the Greens and Democrats to come up with figures that show users are gaoled simply for using. The decriminalisation aspect with respect to cannabis has seen the judiciary being very lenient indeed when sentencing cannabis crop growers. That is what decriminalisation does: it changes the perception of the legality or illegality of drugs. Both parties know this, and they hide behind humanitarian concerns to undermine the responsibilities of our police force and our parliament.

Ms Rhiannon stated in 2007 that they did not have a 'soft on drugs' approach and that the Greens wanted to see people diverted into treatment and rehabilitation programs rather than going to gaol. Well, breaking news: even those who are breaking the law are rarely sentenced to significant gaol terms. We have heard the Hon. Dennis Hood make that point in this place time and again.

The problem, of course, is adequate funding for drug treatment programs that assist people to stop using. We all know that there are very few programs that do not apply safe use and recreational use advocacy for addicts which, according to addicts themselves, does as much harm as not being in treatment at all. When do we start to listen to those who have recovered, respect their experiences and also respect that they are the people to whom we should be listening? All the others who advocate for anything less than recovery, the 'drug elites', as Bronwyn Bishop referred to them, the users who do not want to stop, have an agenda, and that agenda is legalisation, regardless of the collateral damage.

This is not about the fact that people do not have the right to their opinion and that I do not want people to disagree with me. It is about whether or not governments and political parties actually listen to the science. If they choose not to do so, we could save millions—perhaps billions—of dollars on research that is funded by taxpayer dollars. We do not ignore the research on breast cancer, leukaemia or any other illness that causes serious harm or death yet, for some reason, the topic of addiction, a medically and scientifically proven central nervous system disorder, is questioned and discredited by those who, for whatever reason, believe that some good could come out of making these dangerous drugs more readily available.

Let us look at recent history—the history of tobacco and alcohol—and learn our lessons. Legalisation promotes use, and this bill, whether the honourable member would own it or not, is about attacking the drug legalisation efforts at ground zero. Cannabis is a valuable currency in the drug trade. It is used as a drug of recruitment and it is then traded interstate for other drugs such as heroin, ecstasy, crack cocaine and meth. Legalise this drug for medical use and it opens the floodgates. Justice Athol Moffit wrote in the discussion paper 'The Medical Use Pretence' (remember that this was written in about 1998):

This old device is now re-emerging in the United States. It has been resurrected by the permissive policy lobby to manipulate the medical purposes exception of the conventions, starting with cannabis and heroin. The lobby is seeking amendments of the law to permit drugs to be prescribed or supplied for medical purposes, purposes which are defined in broad and loose terms. For example, the Californian initiative includes the general power to prescribe for any illness for which marijuana provides relief.

The medical purpose device has been advocated for some time in Australia by the permissive policy lobby as a way around the conventions. An example appears in the harm reduction model of controlled drug availability, and was published by the Redfern Legal Centre in December 1996. It advocates the controlled supply of all illicit drugs by medical prescription, neither limited nor defined by the medical profession, and their pharmaceutical supply, without prescription, by specially trained and licensed pharmacists. I will discuss how this has worked for California in detail a little later.

Justice Athol Moffit went on to say:

At the turn of the 20th century the medical prescription of opiates, cocaine and other now illicit drugs was permitted, and this soon led to gross over prescription and very large increases in the use of illicit and dangerous drugs. This situation boasted the first drug epidemic and made rich the medical practitioners who owned clinics and exploited the system. People are easily enticed by any claims of medical benefits from drugs.

In the name of public safety and health we are also quick to condemn alternative therapies, such as vitamins and those supplements as uncontrolled and possibly harmful, yet the information about the harms of illicit drugs is almost non-existent, and the efforts of the legalisation movement and the pro-drug lobby to continually break down the information about the harms of those drugs are very persistent.

I have spoken many times about the shortfalls of the application of our current drug policy, the need for more rehabilitation options for those wanting to recover from addiction, the need for improvements to the current education delivered in schools and, more broadly, the need to increase penalties and policing to rein in supply—essential issues that are in direct conflict with this bill before us today.

Prior to contrasting the realities and science with the specifics in this bill and the claims made by the honourable member when introducing it in this place, for the benefit of members in this chamber I will address the international experience with so-called medical marijuana and the origins of the ideology underpinning medical marijuana initiatives. As mentioned previously in a quote from Athol Moffit, the American state of California was the first in the US to legalise the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes—not specific medicinal purposes but any medicinal purposes.

Confirming the involvement of pro-marijuana proponents from the start, the Californian legislation was not worded to ensure that patients were protected and only prescribed cannabis when its safety and efficacy had been demonstrated, but instead it was worded to allow a doctor to recommend cannabis if they believe it may alleviate the symptoms of an illness, any illness, that a patient may present with. During what can only be described as a propaganda campaign, Californians were led to believe that crude cannabis was the panacea of enlightened times, was safer than paracetamol and would be prescribed by all self-respecting doctors if only the big mean government would let them. Largely relying on anecdotal accounts and emotive language, an imagery of genuinely ill people suffering, Californians were told that this all could be alleviated if only they would vote in favour of proposition 215, and succumb they did.

Early in 1997 doctors in California began prescribing crude cannabis. As with all bad legislation, it was not long before the majority's unintended consequences became apparent. Cannabis was being recommended in unspecified amounts on 12-month certificates. Dispensaries dedicated to the sale of cannabis and offering all manner of strains and THC-containing products, even including chocolate-covered pretzels, began to appear across the state, and today dispensaries now outnumber Starbucks cafes in California's capital.

The result of the flawed provision allowing doctors to recommend crude cannabis for any condition was vividly demonstrated by the American version of 60 Minutes in a story that aired last year. Using borrowed footage, 60 Minutes showed a waiting room full of young people joking about what they would tell their doctor their ailment was in order to get a 'medical marijuana' certificate. I quote from the transcript, which states:

The doctor, James Eisenberg, saw four healthy people sent by KCBS. He rejected a 17 year old for being under age. But, after having a brief consultation and paying $175, the other three got their papers. One complained of dry skin, another of hair loss, and the third said high heels hurt her feet.

She was given a medical certificate for marijuana because high heels hurt her feet. Other such abuses have been uncovered by local television networks. KNSD-TV in March 2007 aired a story in which a local high school was forced to send warnings home to parents as students had been found under the influence of cannabis and in possession of doctor recommendation certificates. To quote the transcript found on the website of the organisation Educating Voices, it states:

Officials at the Grossmont Union High School District have sent letters home to parents, notifying them that a number of students have been caught on campus with medical marijuana cards. District official Catherine Martin said they are concerned over the growing trend and the apparent ease with which teens are able to obtain the cards.

Revealing just how much of a joke 'medical marijuana' has become in California, even owners of marijuana dispensaries have dropped the pretences and openly flaunt their wares in alternative papers, as do doctors who will give you a quick once-over and, for a price, a permit to buy. Such abuse has led many who had previously supported 'medical marijuana' on compassionate grounds to lament their involvement. Reverend Scott Imler, who was integral to California's ballot campaign, has since stated:

We created [proposition] 215 so that patients would not have to deal with black market profiteers. But today it is all about the money.

When asked by the 60 Minutes presenter if people are simply using 'medical marijuana' to get high, Reverend Imler responded:

I think there's a lot of that. And I think you know, a lot of what we have now is basically pot dealers in store fronts.

Later in the story, Reverend Imler adds this:

Most of these cannabis centres are buying their marijuana off the black market. They're dumping millions of dollars into the criminal black market. Some of these places sell hashish, which comes in from the Becca Valley in Lebanon.

The presenter Morley Safer then states:

What you're suggesting is that the traditional black market, or part of the traditional black market, is now legal?

Reverend Imler replies:

Yeah. That's essentially what's happened.

The point needs to be made that California's medical marijuana initiative has not only increased the laundering of illicit cannabis sourced internationally by providing a legal point of sale, but it has also increased the incentive for domestic production for those so inclined.

Since 1997, the US Forest Service has eradicated 7 million pounds of cannabis grown on Californian national forest land. The US Forest Service estimates the street value of cannabis planted on national forest land in California to be in excess of $US1 billion each year and, despite the best efforts of forestry and law enforcement agents, California's national parks have attracted a reputation of being no-go zones to hikers and hunters due to many being confronted with the barrels of a shotgun when stumbling upon a cannabis crop. I seek leave to conclude my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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