Page 3813 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 25 September 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The AMA does not condone the trafficking or recreational use of cannabis. The AMA believes that there should be vigorous law enforcement and strong criminal penalties for the trafficking of cannabis.
Importantly, the AMA states:
The personal recreational use of cannabis should also be prohibited.
The current laws, as they work, are effective. There is no great crowd of people being locked away for cannabis use. Based on the advice that we have received, the only people really engaged with the criminal justice system are people who have not paid their SCON, their simple cannabis offence notice. We are changing these laws today to resolve a problem that by and large does not exist. In doing so, we are creating a whole range of other problems for the police and for the community.
The AFPA and others in the legal profession have called out the inconsistencies and conflicts in these laws. Let me quote from a Canberra Times report this week on this legislation:
… the devil has always been in the detail.
And, even as the bill looks set to pass within days, there are still many questions that remain unanswered … it’s still not clear how the bill will interact with existing drug-driving laws.
That has not been resolved. There is also the fact that the premise of this bill, allowing people to possess a drug—cannabis—in small amounts still assumes the existence of a black market in the first place. That still remains illegal. Where does an individual obtain seeds to grow the plants in the first place? How can they be sure of their provenance? That is not resolved; it is still illegal.
The bill also fails to address the very real health risks associated with the heavy use of cannabis and the way police interact with regular users and the health system. The CPO made it very clear today: this is not going to alleviate a whole lot of work for his members. It is not going to make any change. In fact, it is just going to make it more complex for them on the ground. As the Canberra Times editorial makes very clear, the evidence is clear about mental health.
I was disappointed—was I surprised?—to again hear the Minister for Mental Health say, “Oh, there is lots of evidence out there. We are going to ignore the AMA and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.” Let me be very clear: the compelling evidence out there is that this is bad for your mental health. The people who claim otherwise are in the anti-vaxxer camp. That is where you live; that is where you belong. If you think that there is not an impact—
Ms Stephen-Smith: Ha!
MR HANSON: Minister Stephen-Smith laughs. If you think that there is not a mental health impact arising from the use of cannabis, you are wrong. It is very clear that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video