Page 363 - Week 01 - Thursday, 13 February 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that increased penalties will decrease drug use and reduced penalties will increase drug use. However, in the original analysis (2011), and an updated version (2017), no simple association can be found between legal changes and the prevalence of cannabis use (among 15–34-year-olds in the EU).”
5. See answers to Questions 4 and 6.
6. The ACT Government has consistently been clear in its public messaging that this change is not about condoning cannabis use but rather focussed on reducing the harm associated with the criminalisation of cannabis users. From an evidence-based perspective however, the concept of ‘condoning’ cannabis use has limited value compared to research on how changes to cannabis penalties affect cannabis use in real world settings.
Diversion from the criminal justice system for minor drug offences has been part of the ACT Government approach to drug policy since 1989 when Simple Cannabis Offence Notice commenced. Cannabis use has declined substantially in the ACT since that time.
Nevertheless, the Government agrees that the legislation should not be interpreted as suggesting that cannabis use is ‘harmless’. The Government is preparing communications on how the laws have changed, including the health risks of cannabis and how people can seek support to address these. The Government does not believe that cannabis is a ‘harmless’ drug.
Communication will be delivered in stages, commencing with information on why the legislation is changing and what the change means for Canberrans. The second stage will provide information on the health impacts of cannabis use and let Canberrans know where they can access drug and alcohol help and support services.
Mental health—facilities
(Question No 2842)
Mrs Dunne asked the Minister for Mental Health, upon notice, on 29 November 2019:
(1) What is the status of the work to (a) upgrade the Keaney Building and (b) relocate the adult mental health unit, at Calvary Public Hospital Bruce (CPHB).
(2) Is the work in part (1) progressing according to (a) budget and (b) timeline; if no (a) why and (b) to what extent.
(3) Has the work in part (1) reduced the temporary capacity of the Adult Mental Health Unit at CPHB; if so (a) by how much and (b) for how long.
(4) What is the progress of the refurbishment of Brian Hennessy House and is it progressing according to (a) budget and (b) timeline; if not, (i) why and (ii) what extent.
(5) What progress has been made in relation to the gazettal of Calvary Hospital emergency department to allow it to take emergency detention or correctional patients.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video