Page 3780 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
putting ethnic radio on the back burner again. I think it has been on the back burner long enough. I think it should be put onto the front burner, and I think these people should be given this right - long before 1993.
Amendment (Mrs Grassby's) agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
DRUGS OF DEPENDENCE (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
MR COLLAERY (11.02): Mr Speaker, I present the Drugs of Dependence (Amendment) Bill 1991. I move:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
This Bill and the Liquor (Amendment) Bill (No. 2), which will follow shortly, form a double package. They were originally listed for introduction on 18 September 1991, but were not reached due to an unusual listing of private members' business. Since that time, the Assembly's HIV, Illegal Drugs and Prostitution Committee has provided an interim report to the Assembly on the marijuana issue.
Whilst the committee's recommendations may be a call for optimal reform, it is evident that the only realistic chance for this Assembly to support reform in this area is to adopt the South Australian regime. Regrettably, to proceed with a more general relaxation as recommended by the committee will feed reactionary forces and ultimately weaken reformist numbers in this Assembly. The enlightened amendments to the Motor Traffic (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 suggested by the committee require community, including law enforcement, comment. They may well complement this package at a later stage.
The Drugs of Dependence (Amendment) Bill and the Liquor (Amendment) Bill, which will follow, consolidate the experience gained in South Australia, where small amounts of cannabis used only for personal use were made no longer the object of criminal sanction in 1987. Let me say at the outset that the term "decriminalisation" suggests an open go regime. Nothing can be further from the truth. Decriminalisation in the South Australian context simply removes the criminal sanction. It does not do away with the offence. In simple language, it creates an on-the-spot fine.
I have long held the view that there is a double standard in our society: Whilst young people are treated as criminals, adults freely indulge in alcohol abuse, which is costing our community $6 billion a year. Criminal sanctions against marijuana mean that young people detected with a small amount of cannabis for personal use can be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .