Page 3746 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 27 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
advertising, everyone will stop smoking.” Nobody looked at Russia, where they did not have booze and cigarette advertising under the communists, but they drank themselves to death and smoked like it was going out of style. They were not sure how that all happened because there were no ads.
The fact of the matter is that these things are complex; they are multifaceted, and I believe you need to work on all fronts. I believe in the importance of drug rehabilitation. I will bet you I am the only person in this place who has gone to the federal government to get funds for the naltrexone clinic in WA. I have been into it, and I have seen the horrific sight of a crowded area of drug addicts, because my friend who had lost his son to heroin wanted me to see it. One has to tackle these issues on all fronts.
My friends say that tobacco is a gateway to their children to getting into drug addiction. Tobacco harm minimisation or controls are important. I still do not think the main issue in tobacco has ever been tackled by any government. But the fact of the matter is that I do not believe that we ought to be taking a softly, softly approach to illicit drugs. Nothing will convince me that this is an appropriate way to go. If you take the argument, “Well, they might go underground or use other material,” why not say, “Well, let’s make all the drugs legal, because we won’t have illegal drugs sold at nightclubs and around the countryside around schools”? That is the rationale; that is the logic behind saying that if you make something illegal it might go underground.
As I say, Dr Foskey relied on RiotACT. It was one of the more pathetic speeches I have heard given in this place. If she can do no better than that, I think her contributions are of little value to the community at all. A series of anonymous quotes from a website is the best she could come up with. Of course, my bill does not deal with the issue of needle exchange, and that is intentional. I have spoken on the importance of that elsewhere on other occasions. The fact of the matter is that it does deal with specific matters and equipment in relation to illicit drug usage.
As is very clear, I have no sympathy for soft policies on these matters. I do not think that Mr Seselja stands condemned on this matter, as the health minister said; I think that it showed some courage on the part of the opposition to stand up. These are not always popular things to do. I can tell you that I am not surprised that RiotACT is saying what a terrible idea it is. But the fact is that most people I have talked to think these things are sensible. I have not one single letter that has gone in the other direction. I have been assured by people that they think these are good measures, and I certainly do not treat this issue lightly.
Rehabilitation is important. We do not condemn people who are addicted to drugs, but I certainly also think that, as Mr Seselja pointed out, there is a significant disconnect between the message that we are sending here where the health minister wants to get up and tell us about the awful risks of having tobacco products on display but the government is not willing to say the same thing about having products to use illicit substances on display. Nobody in their right mind can embrace that as a sensible issue.
Ms Gallagher trotted out the popular line amongst the apologists for legalising drugs. I have heard Alex Wodak; I have sat on a committee with him. He is always saying that drugs are not a big issue and that it is all alcohol. Only two per cent of people die
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .