Marijuana Laws

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.45]: I move:

That the following important matter of public interest should be discussed forthwith:

The Government's policy to retain existing laws on marijuana.

I believe this matter to be of public importance and urgent. In the past week the Australian Capital Territory Government has seen fit to relax laws with regard to marijuana within the Territory. This decision by a Labor Government of the Territory, which is so closely linked to New South Wales, has raised questions about the New South Wales Government policy on those laws. Equally, it raises questions about the policy on marijuana laws of the Australian Labor Party Opposition in this State. For example, recently an Opposition member, the Hon. Ann Symonds, released a report calling for softer laws in this State. The Hon. Ann Symonds and others in this State will have gained comfort from the decision taken by the Australian Capital Territory. The purpose of my raising this matter of public interest is to discuss the Government's policy to retain existing laws with regard to marijuana use. The people of New South Wales have a right to know where their elected representatives stand on this matter. For that reason I decided that today this important Legislature should, as a matter of public importance, discuss those very things. I put the matter to the House as an urgent matter of public importance.

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.48]: I thank honourable members for their co-operation. This matter of public importance has gained added urgency over the past week following the decision of the Australian Capital Territory Government to relax laws against marijuana. The Australian Capital Territory has now joined South Australia - both Labor jurisdictions - in decriminalising that very harmful drug. Not unsurprisingly, I, as police Minister, have been asked by many members of the media whether the New South Wales Government has any intention of following suit. My response was - and I repeat it for the record in this Chamber today - "Over my dead body". The Government believes that marijuana is an illegal drug. The use, possession, cultivation and trade of marijuana is illegal in this State, and will remain so while I am a Minister of the Crown. The New South Wales Police Service is committed to that policy, and the Drug Enforcement Agency has had great success in reducing the marijuana trade in New South Wales. Since its inception in April 1989, the Drug Enforcement Agency has seized more than 45,000 cannabis plants, 793 kilograms of cannabis resin and 578 kilograms of cannabis leaf. This Government has a firm policy

Page 5732
on marijuana, and I can assure the people of New South Wales that it is not about to be changed. On behalf of the people of New South Wales I ask the Australian Labor Party whether it supports this policy. Honourable members certainly know the views of the Hon. Ann Symonds. If she had her way, marijuana would be available tomorrow over the counters of coffee shops.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: Rubbish! The Minister should read the report.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: The Hon. Ann Symonds should not say "Rubbish!" I have made a statement of fact. But what of other members opposite? For example, what does the Hon. P. F. O'Grady think? What of their colleagues in another place? Does the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales support the decriminalisation of marijuana, as it does in the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia? At least one Labor colleague of the Hon. Ann Symonds has already made his thoughts extremely clear on this subject. I refer to the honourable member for Bulli, Mr Ian McManus, who, on 13th August, was reported in the Daily Telegraph Mirror as being offended by the views of the Hon. Ann Symonds. Mr McManus described her comments as, "Offensive, morally unacceptable and stupid". Hear! Hear! However, I know the Hon. Ann Symonds has at least one ally in this House: that lover of all things green, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. Stacked up against the Hon. Ann Symonds, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and others outside this Parliament is the weight of the latest scientific medical and legal thinking on this subject.

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: Has the Minister read the New Scientist this week?

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: Does the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann want to speak in this debate?

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: Yes, I intend to.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: She will speak and I will listen to her. I have the right to speak without the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann interjecting every five minutes. She seems to be terribly excited about this subject.

The Hon. P. F. O'Grady: Members of the Opposition have the right to interject as much as they like.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: Perhaps the President will eventually do something about that. Earlier I described marijuana as a harmful drug. I used the word "harmful" advisedly. The latest medical research indicates that in the past both the short-term and long-term effects on health of marijuana use have been grossly understated. From a legal point of view, I am advised that in 1990 the American Bar Association rescinded an 18-year-old resolution supporting the decriminalisation of marijuana and, on the basis of updated medical research, issued new sanctions against the use of the drug. In explaining this decision to its members, the American Bar Association quoted the Chairman of the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, Mr Charles Rangel. He had this to say:

Decriminalisation would suggest that marijuana is not harmful, when research of recent years shows it is harmful to the reproductive, cardiovascular and respiratory systems.

The American Bar Association concluded:

Marijuana use, in fact, is one of our nation's most serious and growing public health problems.

Page 5733

The updated medical advice to which the American Bar Association referred is contained in the 6th April, 1992, edition of the Medical Journal of Australia. I refer to a paper in that edition entitled, "The Human Toxicity of Marijuana", by Dr Gabriel Nahas, Professor of Anaesthesiology at Columbia University.

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: Where?

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: Columbia University, which I understand is in the United States of America. That paper makes sobering reading for the pro-marijuana lobby. I advise the Hon. Ann Symonds and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to listen carefully to the following extract:

The immediate effect of this drug is the creation of a pleasant, dreamy state, with impairment of attention, cognitive and psychomotor performance.

Because of its lack of acute life-threatening effects cannabis has been called a soft drug, no more damaging than coffee or tobacco.

However, this designation should be revised in view of the drug's prolonged impairing effects on memory and learning and its long-term toxic effects on the lung and on immune defences, brain and reproductive function.

Several studies have also shown marijuana to have an adverse impact on human foetal development. Writing in the British Journal of Addiction, Dr Juan Negrete, Director of the Alcohol and Drug Dependence Unit at Montreal Hospital, said:

There is good evidence that cannabis adversely affects the course of pregnancy; false labour episodes and premature labour are significantly more frequent in cannabis-using mothers.

[Interruption]

The Hon. Ann Symonds obviously does not want to hear this.

The Hon. Elaine Nile: I want to hear it.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: The Hon. Ann Symonds obviously does not want the Hon. Elaine Nile to hear it. Dr Negrete continued:

The main finding as far as foetal consequences are concerned is a significantly lower weight at birth.

There is also an established link between marijuana and road accidents. It has been estimated that tetrahydrocannabinol, THC, an intoxicating substance found in cannabis, is 4,000 times more potent than alcohol in producing decrements in performance. A report issued in February 1990 by the United States National Transportation Safety Board dealt with 182 accidents involving 86 trucks in which 210 people were killed. One-third of the victims whose bodies were examined had recently used alcohol or drugs: 12.8 per cent had used marijuana; 12.5 per cent had used alcohol; and 8.5 per cent had used cocaine. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that medical opinion on cannabis is divided, and some experts believe it is not a harmful drug. Recently the ministerial council on drugs strategy, of which I am a member, decided to establish a working party to thoroughly examine the decriminalisation of cannabis. The kindest verdict that can be delivered on marijuana is that the jury is still out. I am sure the hypothetical jury would take into account a terrible killing at Umina Beach in August 1991. The circumstances
Page 5734
of that killing were recently detailed in the Newcastle Supreme Court. On 1st July the Central Coast Express reported that 20-year-old Wayne Hickey had been sentenced to three years' gaol for the manslaughter of his sister in a drug-induced attack. The newspaper report of that case said:

Newcastle Supreme Court heard evidence that Hickey had suffered hallucinations induced by his excessive use of marijuana . . . This was telling him to kill members of his family and other people, the court was told.

I find it utterly incomprehensible that in the face of evidence such as that, the Hon. Ann Symonds, or her supporters on the other side of the House, can state, "Cannabis is neither harmless nor very dangerous". Honourable members may not be aware that that quote is contained in the report of the Hon. Ann Symonds entitled, "Marijuana Law in New South Wales: A New Direction". I advise all honourable members to consider this report carefully. Without doubt it is one of the most intellectually flawed documents I have ever read. The Hon. Ann Symonds draws heavily on the experience in the Netherlands, where cannabis derivatives are literally available in coffee shops.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: Obviously the Minister has not read the document.

The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: In using the experience in the Netherlands to support her argument, the Hon. Ann Symonds makes the following statements. I quote these statements from the report, so she cannot claim I have not read it. She said, first, that in the Netherlands in the age group below 19 less than 2 per cent had used cannabis in the last month; second, that this contrasts with a United States figure of 20 per cent of high school seniors who had used illicit drugs in the last month; and, third, that in 1989, 16 per cent of 17-year-old males in New South Wales used marijuana in the previous week. She puts those three facts together - and I do not dispute the facts - as if they tell us something. Even the most cursory examination of those examples will show that the Hon. Ann Symonds is comparing apples with oranges. Does it really surprise anyone that only 2 per cent of all people in the Netherlands under the age of 19 used cannabis in the last month? I wonder how many one-year-olds, two-year-olds et cetera use cannabis? The answer would be self-evident to every member in the Chamber. To compare that figure with the percentage of 17-year-olds in New South Wales - a particular band of people - who have used cannabis is intellectually ridiculous. However, that is not the most ludicrous conclusion in this report prepared by the Hon. Ann Symonds. In an attempt to prove that decriminalisation has not led to increased consumption in South Australia, the Hon. Ann Symonds highlights in her report figures which show a 55 per cent reduction in marijuana-related court appearances in that State. What a surprise! Following that line of thinking, if I wanted to eliminate murder in the State of New South Wales, all I would have to do is make it legal and no one would be before the courts.

The intellectual pursuit in that report really and truly is mind boggling. I must say I am amazed there are any offences. The fact that there is only a 55 per cent drop is really a bit hard to understand. I am sure that when the Hon. Ann Symonds rises to defend the indefensible in this debate, she will say - as the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann has said all afternoon by way of interjection - that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, which are legal drugs. Whether or not that is true is, as I have said, a matter of ongoing scientific debate. However, that surely is irrelevant to the matter of public importance before the House. If we accept that alcohol and tobacco are harmful drugs - and I doubt anyone would argue against that - which cause major health problems
Page 5735
in our society, the obvious question to the Hon. Ann Symonds is: why decriminalise another harmful drug and make it more acceptable within our society? That is why the Hon. R. S. L. Jones could not defend himself when I debated this very matter with him recently on ABC radio. It is simply illogical to suggest that a harmful drug should be decriminalised because two other harmful drugs are legally available. The truth of that statement is reflected in community attitudes. The community - the ordinary mums and dads - are demanding that greater restrictions be placed on alcohol and tobacco. That is happening. Every day more and more restrictions are being placed on those substances by our society. As an example, in the Government party room today we discussed whether or not the Parliament should become a smoking-free zone. It is this fundamental fact that will defeat the Hon. Ann Symonds and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. [Time expired.]

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [3.3]: I support the Leader of the Government. The issue he raises has my strongest possible support. Honourable members will be aware that over the years some judges have commented on this aspect. I read from the Northern Star of 13th November, 1989:

A judge in the Lismore District Court has attacked the State's marijuana laws, saying that they smacked of hypocrisy and that State Parliament should consider changing them.

What a wonderful way for him to put it. In 1989 "smack" was not a problem; in 1992 it is a massive problem. Judge Phelan has made the same type of comment, most recently in March 1992. I quote from an article in the Northern Star of 2nd March, 1992:

A judge sitting in the Lismore District Court has warned the public against accepting `propaganda' that cannabis is not a harmful drug.

On two separate occasions Judge Gallen said that cannabis was a `harmful substance'.

He was hearing appeals by two local men against their earlier convictions in a lower court for offences involving cannabis.

The judge said the propaganda that cannabis was not a harmful drug is dangerous. His comments were made during a hearing in the District Court. He made the point that:

The man admitted in court that he had been a `heavy user' of cannabis -

[Interruption]

Mr President, I can hardly hear myself speak over the strident screams of honourable members opposite.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Ann Symonds is the next listed speaker. She would further this debate if she ceased interjecting until then.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I shall continue:

The man admitted in court that he had been a `heavy user' of cannabis and that his use of cannabis had played a large part in the offences.

Judge Gallen said it was an illustration of how dangerous cannabis can be. He went on to say:

Page 5736

Here is a man who behaved in a criminal fashion which was completely inconsistent with his previous standards.

The man carried out an assault on someone against whom he had no rational reason to bear any grudge.

It is the view of a very well-respected professional (consultant psychologist) -

He appeared in the court case:

- that the acts (of the man) were caused by his use of cannabis.

This case is a direct contradiction of the propaganda which one hears about cannabis causing no harm.

The judge went on to say:

There was a man in this court yesterday whose brain was affected by cannabis, who committed two offences which were completely out of character.

Do not accept the propaganda that cannabis is not a harmful drug.

It is a harmful drug . . . and the prohibitions against it must be enforced.

Those comments were made by a District Court judge. The following comments appear in an editorial in the Northern Star of 27th February commenting on the annual Operation NOAH:

They need to set out how it suddenly becomes "right" for us to blindly accept the woolly logic of the drug culture . . .

The modern challenge is not just to contain drug use and abuse, but to actually reduce them.

I have evidence, for any honourable member who would like to see it, of the huge number of drug busts that are being undertaken by police in enforcing this legislation. I believe such activity should continue. Cannabis dealers are given gaol terms. This was 19th February, 1992, and it happens every second or third week. We have people such as Mark Day writing in the Daily Telegraph Mirror of Tuesday 15th September following up a wonderfully supportive message from John Marsden, President of the Law Society of New South Wales - speaking, I assume, as President of the Law Society - whose article included the following comment:

Mr Marsden said he was not advocating the total legalisation of all drugs, hard and soft. "But emphatically I am committed to the view that there is no solution available along the simplistic lines of prosecute! prosecute! prosecute!"

This is a person who expresses the view that he is without hope and therefore we should do nothing. Mr Marsden suggested that the most immediate steps required were the registration of addicts and non-judgmental supply of heroin to addicts. This is not just a matter of legalising marijuana; it goes to the whole issue of legalising the supply of heroin by the State, so the State becomes a pusher of heroin. If the Hon. Ann Symonds wants to remain a member of the Labor Party in this Parliament and not join the crossbenchers, she would be wise to note the Labor Party's policy on this issue. The Leader of the Opposition in another place enunciated the Opposition's policy during debate on the Drug Trafficking (Civil Proceedings) Bill, which is recorded in Hansard of 16th May, 1990. He made it clear that the Labor Party does not stand for legalising the use of drugs. He was totally supportive of the strong stand being taken by this
Page 5737
Government through its Drug Trafficking (Civil Proceedings) Bill, which permits the seizure of property of people who make profits from this terrible trade. So that honourable members will understand why I support the Minister so strongly - it is not out of blind faith - I quote from a report in the Australian Dr Weekly of 24th April:

Marijuana designation as a soft drug should be revised in view of the drug's prolonged impairing effects on memory and learning and its long-term toxic effects on the lung and on immune defences and brain and reproductive function.

Professor Gabriel Nahas, of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University in New York, and Dr Colette Latour, of the Fernand Widal Hospital in Paris, said this after reviewing recently reported experimental observations in The Medical Journal of Australia (6 April).

They say other reported problems include a tenfold increased risk of leukaemia in babies born to marijuana-smoking mothers and a sixfold increased risk of schizophrenia among users.

"Because of its lack of acute life-threatening effects, cannabis has been called a ‘soft drug', no more damaging than coffee or tobacco," they said.

They said one researcher had reported 12 cases of advanced head and neck cancer in young patients with an average age of 26 years.

The Hon. P. F. O'Grady: On a point of order. I point out that the honourable member's remaining time for speaking appears to have been extended from three minutes to seven minutes.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The time shown on the clock was incorrect when the honourable member commenced his remarks.

The Hon. P. F. O'Grady: On a point of order. A member's time for speaking is 10 minutes. I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that the honourable member has been speaking for only three minutes.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The sessional order in my opinion is slightly ambiguous. It states that the Minister or member first speaking has 15 minutes and the first member speaking thereafter has 15 minutes. Therefore I have directed that the original timing of 10 minutes be extended to 15 minutes, the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti being the second member to speak. I concede that not only is the sessional order slightly ambiguous but also it works against the first member speaking against the proposition. Therefore I seek the indulgence of the House to grant to the first member opposing the proposition to have 15 minutes also.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: An extension of time for that ruling, if I may.

The Hon. P. F. O'Grady: On a point of order. Mr President, are you going to accede to the honourable member's request to have his time extended?

The PRESIDENT: Order! No point of order is involved.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The article continued:

Another researcher found that of 10 patients under the age of 40 with cancer of the

Page 5738
respiratory tract, seven had been smoking marijuana daily.

The doctors also noted a study of 204 pairs of children which showed a tenfold increased risk of leukaemia in the offspring of mothers who had smoked marijuana just before or during pregnancy.

"No other drug use during pregnancy (including tobacco, alcohol and pain-killers) could be associated with such a risk," they said.

They said babies born to mothers who smoked marijuana were also shorter, weighed less and had smaller heads at birth.

They also noted a 15-year study of 55,000 Swedish military conscripts, which showed the relative risk of developing schizophrenia among those who had used cannabis more than 50 times was six times greater than non-users.

On 17th April the Australian Dr Weekly reported:

The US Drug Enforcement Administration has rejected a new bid to allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes, saying advocates of the drug's therapeutic properties are perpetuating a cruel hoax.

"By any modern scientific standard, marijuana is no medicine," administrator Robert Bonner said in a 46-page decision that keeps marijuana classified as a "Schedule I" drug, subject to the most severe restrictions and available only for research.

"Beyond doubt, the claims that marijuana is medicine are false, dangerous and cruel. It is a cruel hoax to offer false hope to desperately ill people," he said.

In speaking about the Drug Policy Foundation the article continued:

The organisation has gone to the appellate court six times seeking to switch marijuana's classification to Schedule II, drugs that have a high potential for abuse but that also have a currently accepted medical use and thus are available for doctors to prescribe . . . He contended that "no responsible physician could conclude that marijuana is safe and effective for medical use".

To say that in a court of law unchallenged is good enough for me. There are many examples of interesting court rulings. I daresay that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones will raise the Rastafarian example, but that is quite a separate matter. The honourable member is aware that a series of letters to the Northern Star was prompted by the honourable member's acclamation that marijuana was great. I say to the honourable member that only dopes smoke drugs. The Northern Star published a series of articles in 1991 about the use of marijuana. One of the articles was about a poor cancer sufferer. It was the usual tactic. A photograph of the cancer sufferer appeared on the front page with the headline "Cancer victim speaks out". "I want to have the last time of my life without pain". Of all its wonderful properties, marijuana has never been proclaimed as a pain killer. I read this article with some interest. It said in part:

With marijuana, I can cope mentally and emotionally with this pain, and eventually get to sleep - what keeps me awake is lying there straight, just thinking thoughts I can't contain.

During the day I don't really need marijuana because I can find someone to talk to, either about something else entirely or about what I'm feeling.

Is this the evidence we need to make marijuana legal? Another important issue I wish to touch on is the use of drugs and their danger to other people. The Victorian Institute of Pathology undertook a study of 195 people who died in car accidents and it was revealed that 8 per cent of the drivers had taken marijuana and 33 per cent tested positive
Page 5739
to alcohol. The problem with marijuana is that it is not merely a matter of what is in one's body today. It does not disappear like alcohol, because it is highly fat soluble. Marijuana users may still feel the effects of marijuana three days after they have smoked it. If the Hon. R. S. L. Jones believes that smoking marijuana is responsible behaviour, he should certainly - [Time expired.]

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS [3.18]: I have been a member of this Chamber for about 10 years and admit that I have been disappointed on a number of occasions. This is the nadir of disappointments. For some time I have maintained a great deal of respect for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. That respect has disappeared entirely. I am absolutely appalled at the way the Minister has behaved - first, because of the manner in which he has brought this matter on and, second, because of the scurrilous and personal abuse style in which he conducted the so-called debate, which he pretended was a matter of major public importance to him and this Chamber. In the future I shall have to disregard all of the Minister's statements because of the way he brought this matter on.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: The honourable member is not being relevant.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: Mr Deputy-President, I ask you to contain the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. He had a reasonable time to speak. This matter is of major importance to our community. If the Minister had regarded it with the same importance, he would have done what I asked him to do; that is, returned the reference on illegal drugs to the Standing Committee on Social Issues so it could get a considered response. Any criticisms of my report would have been overcome by a proper research project which could have been conducted in the committee. The Minister refused to return the reference. He had no real interest in the policy. He is grandstanding on this issue today; he is trivialising an issue which is of major importance to the community and to me. I have been misrepresented and misquoted today. I am not in favour of the legalisation of marijuana.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What!

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: The honourable member is outrageous. He is a despicable member of this House.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! I caution the Hon. Ann Symonds on her use of unparliamentary language.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: I have been provoked beyond possible containment.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: That is understandable, but I still caution her.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: I am not in favour of legalisation of marijuana. I am strongly in favour of law reform. I have undertaken studies and believe that the prohibition approach has failed demonstrably. We cannot afford the cost of continuing this failed policy. In 1988, over one in four people - that is, 28 per cent of Australians - over the age of 14 used marijuana. Collins and Lapsley estimated that Australian law enforcement of illicit drug use in 1988 cost $250 million. In 1987, there were an estimated 61,440 recorded drug offences in Australia. That was an enormous use of police and court resources. At least 80 per cent of those offences related to cannabis. In New South Wales, 79 per cent of drug offences described as "obtain unlawfully"
Page 5740
related to cannabis and 62 per cent of supply offences involved cannabis. Among arrests for use, 66 per cent related to cannabis. In 1988 the black market income for cannabis alone was estimated to be $475 million. Does the Minister want this practice to continue? What are his objectives?

The Cleeland Report, a Parliamentary Joint Committee, estimated a direct cost of $123 million per annum for the prohibition of several drugs, including not only the operational costs of the law enforcement agencies, but also the costs of the prosecution and defence lawyers, the costs of court time and staff involved, et cetera. The single greatest risk encountered by users of marijuana is being apprehended as a common criminal. I am concerned that young people will come in contact with a criminal class and be much more likely to become involved in taking up drugs of an extremely dangerous nature. There is a high incidence of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome in our society. If there is no access to marijuana, users may be inclined to try something else - perhaps an injectable drug. I do not want that on my conscience. So far as I am concerned, we are not here to argue about the pharmacological nature of the drug. I do not deny that marijuana - like tobacco, alcohol, petrol and other drugs - is harmful. The drugs are harmful, not in themselves but in the way they are used. Dr John Ellard, an eminent psychiatrist, stated:

. . . the notion that a young man who grows a plant in his backyard and then smokes its leaves should be regarded as a criminal, and subject to punishment and the acquisition of a criminal record, is so widely perceived as absurd that there is no excuse for allowing it all to drag on.

This is the basis of the proposition I am putting in my document, a proposition which was forced upon me because of my desire to show some evidence that I had attempted to use the funds of this State in the best way possible. Why is the Government not influenced in any way by its economic rationalist colleagues in the United States, by people such as Milton Friedman who has spoken out against the current strategies of the war against drugs? He stated:

Drugs are a tragedy for addicts. But criminalizing their use converts that tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and non-users alike. Our experience with the prohibition of drugs is a replay of our experience with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages.

Illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials; illegality monopolises the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault.

I suggest that the Minister get an opinion from his law officers as to what their preferred method of action would be. If the Minister wants any further confirmation of the failure of the current criminal approach, rather than an educational and law approach, he should look at the most recent statement from the Senate Committee in the United States. On 10th September the Committee stated:

Attempts by United States President George Bush's administration to erase America's drug scourge was a $US 32 billion ($A44.67 billion) failure that lacked focus and victimised the people it was supposed to help.

Let us translate that into economic terms and what it is doing to our society. We simply cannot afford to pursue a policy that has failed. The only statement I make is that, if we are to eliminate the use of drugs and work to achieve harm reduction, we should take the

Page 5741
money out of the law enforcement sector and put it into the health and education sectors. That is the way in which we are likely to have some success. That approach has worked remarkably well in tobacco and alcohol campaigns. It is generally recognised across the world that the incidence of drug taking is being reduced. Drugs are not the scourge they were in the 1970s. Consumption has been reduced because people recognise the impairment and difficulties caused. It is education and health activities that have brought about this result and not the criminal approach that has been adopted. The criminal approach is a terrible waste of money. It is impossible to stop people growing marijuana, and it is impossible to stop people using it.

The Minister praises the activity of the authorities amassing marijuana, but he risks the importation of marijuana plants that have not been quarantined in any way whatsoever, putting the entire primary industry of this country at risk. The Minister would be forcing such criminality to continue. It is not the drug which constitutes the harm; it is the lifestyle of people using the drug that constitutes the greatest danger. This applies to the use of any drugs. Everybody acknowledges that petrol is freely available and that some people use it in a very dangerous way, but it would be absurd to suggest banning it. Every committee examining the cannabis issue without prejudice - I have not noticed a lack of prejudice today - concludes that cannabis must be treated differently from other drugs. For one thing, there is no recorded death from cannabis toxicity. The most extensive reports began to be produced from 1893. That British report of 1893 concluded the following:

. . . even the excessive consumer of hemp drugs is ordinarily inoffensive . . .

If the aim of the committee set up by the Government to examine this matter was to determine what policies should be pursued to benefit our children, clearly the approach of South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Dutch, which has resulted in a decline in the use of marijuana, must be the way to go. Is the drug a killer weed? I ask the Minister to consider very seriously the following: Mrs Phyllis May, an Aboriginal woman apprehended earlier this year for possessing a small amount of marijuana, did not die from smoking, or an intention to smoke, marijuana. She died because, as an Aborigine, she was incarcerated in a police cell. She has become another black deaths in custody statistic. If that woman had been apprehended for having marijuana in her possession in South Australia or the Australian Capital Territory, she would have attracted a fine - and her three children would still have a mother. The Government must face these issues if it is to consider seriously the matter of public importance.

It is time to change the laws on cannabis. The benefits to criminals must be ended and we must begin to educate, through health programs, people who have drug problems. If the Government believes in harm minimisation, of which I did not hear much discussion, it must support law reform and reject the current New South Wales legislation on marijuana. What is the purpose of continuing in the present direction? To state the obvious, no drug - legal or illegal - has as one of its pharmaceutical properties the capacity to turn people into criminals. Crime is a social construct. Drugs, like crime, are socially defined. I urge the Government to listen to those members of the community who have studied the issue seriously and even those who have simply given it some serious thought, for example, John Laws. He said:

Although I'm quite vigorously opposed to drugs in any form, I think the ACT idea has a lot of merit. Let's face it - an awful lot of people use marijuana. An awful lot of police work and court time is involved in prosecuting people who have a couple of joints in their possession. Those people then have a criminal record - which does seem out of proportion to the piddling nature of the offence. This way, they cop a fine.

It makes good sense to change the law. [Time expired.]

Page 5742

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [3.33]: I strongly support the Government's policy of maintaining the existing laws governing the use of marijuana. The attempt to trivialise the smoking of marijuana, as heralded by its decriminalisation in the Australian Capital Territory last week and by some recent calls for decriminalisation by some prominent persons in this State, provokes the need for a reassertion of the State Government's stance on this issue. It is attractively deceptive to call marijuana a harmless soft drug, as its proponents are wont to do. This misleading view should be put to rest by the now well-documented prolonged effects marijuana has on memory, learning and performance skills and its long-term toxic effects on the lungs, the immune system, the brain and the reproductive system. An article in the Medical Journal of Australia in April this year, written by Gabriel Nahas and Colette Latour and entitled "The Human Toxicity of Marijuana" -

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: The honourable member is quoting a fraud.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: It takes one to know one.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I was about to say that. I am quite prepared to believe what is written in the Medical Journal of Australia before I would believe the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. That article reported that the serious and undesirable toxic effects of marijuana include the following: long-term impairment of memory in adolescents; prolonged impairment of psychomotor performance; a six-fold increase in the incidence of schizophrenia; cancer of the mouth, jaw, tongue and lung in 19 to 30 year olds; toxicity to foetus; and leukemia in children whose mothers smoked marijuana just before or during pregnancy.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: It is damning.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It is damning. It is certainly not something to be taken lightly by any State Government. These disturbing results have serious implications for the health and future learning of children and adolescents. These reasons alone are sufficient for the Government to reject strongly and actively any change to the present state of the law. Other studies report that the consumption of marijuana more than once a week results in the storage in the body of tetrahydrocannabinol, the active agent in marijuana. Marijuana contains two to six times the tar of tobacco. Laboratory studies conducted in 1987 into the effects of THC found that it could be stored in body cells for up to 20 years and then spontaneously released, so marijuana users could find themselves spontaneously affected by the drug at any stage up to 20 years after having their last smoke. The implication of these findings on other people who find themselves dependent upon such persons is profound. Recent United States studies report that THC is 4,000 times more potent than alcohol in impairing performance ability. Incidents of work performance error by train conductors and truck and car drivers have been related to marijuana smoking. For instance, two major train disasters in the United States in 1987 and 1988, resulting in a devastating loss of life and injuries, were directly linked to marijuana smoking by a conductor and a signalman respectively. Indeed, the report of the United States National Transportation Safety Board in February 1990 has provided the most extensive evidence linking fatal accidents among truck drivers to marijuana. Further the long-lasting effects on pilots have not been fully documented. Pilots smoking marijuana experience difficulty landing planes using computerised landing simulations 24 hours after smoking marijuana.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: Pilots are not meant to take any drugs well before flying.

Page 5743

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: This is the point. Twenty-four hours after smoking marijuana pilots could not land the plane properly using computerised landing simulations. It is particularly pertinent that pilots themselves reported no awareness of any after-effects of marijuana on their performance, mood or alertness. They simply could not detect such after-effects. The conduct of more down to earth tasks, such as operating complicated equipment in the workplace, may also be susceptible to day-after marijuana effects. This acute impairment of mental performance cannot be glossed over or minimised. The safety of our roads, transport systems and, indeed, workplace must be protected from the potentially lethal effects of this drug.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: Is the honourable member speaking with authority?

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I am speaking with the authority of people who have carried out scientific studies. We do not need to encourage the use of this drug at a time when we have successfully reduced the road toll of New South Wales. Why would the Government need to change its policies? The Government should not condone the liberalisation of a drug which has such clear short-term and long-term detrimental effects on users and on other members of the public. Apart from this now well-documented expert opinion that marijuana is not the innocuous substance it was purported to be, the Government should also be mindful of its obligations under international drug treaties to which Australia is a signatory. Australia is currently a party to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and is soon to become a party to the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Hypertropic Substances. This convention maintains drug trafficking as a criminal offence and treats marijuana no differently from other narcotic substances. The 1961 convention rejects legalisation and restricts the use of drugs to medical and scientific purposes. It is proper that the New South Wales Government undertakes to honour and observe the provisions of those treaties.

The move last week in the Australian Capital Territory to decriminalise marijuana in small quantities for personal use, and by South Australia in 1987, flouts both the spirit and the provisions of these international treaties, as well as recent literature on the toxicity of this drug. There is really no such thing as decriminalisation. The effect in those jurisdictions is to legalise marijuana, amounting to a government sanction and encouragement of its use. Further, as now evidenced by the inconsistencies between the situation in the Australian Capital Territory and in South Australia, whatever test is adopted to decriminalise this sort of activity leads to arbitrary results. For instance, a person can possess 25 grams of marijuana or cultivate up to five plants in the Australian Capital Territory, but in South Australia a person can possess 100 grams of leaf or 20 grams of cannabis resin and up to 10 plants. Unlike South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory does not permit the possession of cannabis resin. So even in the parts of this country which have decriminalised the drug, very little common ground of legality exists.

I do not accept and the Government does not accept the notion that marijuana can be partially decriminalised and the community can still be protected from the very real and serious effects of this drug. I support the Government's clear and unequivocal rejection of such a course. I and all my National Party colleagues support the Government's policy of maintaining fundamental opposition to the legalisation of marijuana or, for that matter, other drugs, in the public interest. I maintain further that society in general does not support any liberalisation of the marijuana laws, no matter what John Laws or anyone else says. Proponents of legalisation cannot ignore the clear
Page 5744
change in community attitudes to cigarette smoking. Cigarette smoking is prohibited in all government departments, many private workplaces and public transport. Honourable members would also be aware of moves to prohibit smoking in restaurants and other enclosed public places following the successful outcome of the first passive smoking case. The Government is committed to maintaining community standards and ensuring that the best interests of all its citizens are protected. The Government would be setting a notorious and reprehensible example to the community if it condoned in any way the legalisation of this toxic drug.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.43]: I am extremely pleased that the Government, by proposing this motion, is restating its firm resolve to maintain existing marijuana laws in this State. It is to the credit of the Government that it is putting on record where it stands on this issue. It is demonstrating that it is not being swayed by the actions of the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory, which has progressively made Canberra the porn capital and now the pot capital. We do not want to see Sydney become the pot capital of Australia. The Minister, when speaking to the motion, said that it provides the Opposition with an opportunity to state where it stands on this important question, one that has caused divisions in the Opposition. Unfortunately, those who promote and support the use of marijuana in our society seem to blind themselves to the extensive scientific evidence being produced on the use of that substance. A new batch of evidence about the harmfulness of marijuana emerged even during the week when the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly made its decision.

Legalisation of marijuana would send a message to the youth of Australia that the drug is not as harmful as was thought or perhaps not harmful at all. If this House accepted the position of the Hon. Ann Symonds, a message would go out to the youth of Australia to ignore the evidence and believe that marijuana is not harmful or dangerous. The Daily Telegraph Mirror and other daily newspapers would run headlines stating that the New South Wales Parliament had decriminalised marijuana and gone soft on it. The message would go out to the youth of Australia that marijuana is a harmless drug. Such an action by this House would be irresponsible. Most useful evidence has been developed by Hardin Jones, Professor of Medical Physics and Physiology at the University of California, Berkley, and Helen Jones, who spent 12 years studying the effects of marijuana in studies and tests on students at that university, which many regard as the pot capital of the American university world. Their findings were published in a book entitled Sensual Drugs published by Cambridge University Press, of Cambridge, London, New York and Melbourne. That publishing house produces reliable publications of very high standard. I commend that book and the evidence contained in it to any honourable member who still has an open mind on the subject.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: The honourable member should read our evidence.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I have read it and continue to read it. Evidence such as that published in the book Sensual Drugs has not been made generally available. Evidence about the harmfulness of marijuana is increasing, not decreasing every day. There is evidence that the use of marijuana affects the brain, results in organic brain disease and irreversible brain changes, and if used for more than three years brings about a condition called OBS or organic brain syndrome.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: The source?

Page 5745

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: The source is a study by Kolansky and Moore published in 1975 in volume 222 of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Cambridge University Press deals only with authoritative scientific evidence and not with propaganda put out by the National Organisation for the Repeal of Marijuana Laws and other groups. The drug marijuana contains tetrahydrocannabinol, which creates the harmful problem by concentrating in the cell membranes - the fatty part of cells - and, in particular, the brain. Professor Ian Campbell, of London University - another authority on the subject - said that from his studies severe atrophy of the deepest proportions of the cerebral hemispheres occurred and that the decision-making processes of the brain were affected. This leads to what is described as the amotivational syndrome, changes in lifestyle and the dropout approach. Almost all marijuana propaganda on T-shirts and posters glories in marijuana being the dropout drug. Shops are selling T-shirts depicting the marijuana leaf and the slogan "Drop-Out". The propagandists glory in that being the major effect of the use of marijuana.

Available evidence suggests that marijuana use leads to disordered thinking. Thought formation becomes less meaningful and conclusions become meaningless. For those reasons professionals agree that marijuana is a gateway drug in that it renders users susceptible to suggestions about using other drugs. The attention span and ability to concentrate are reduced in users. Memory, especially short-term memory, is shortened. Conditioned social responses such as affection for parents and tolerance for their suggestions are impaired. That is why pot is called the drug of alienation. Marijuana is enthusiastically supported in this House by the alienated left members of the Labor Party. Alienation is one of their theme songs. Therefore, I suppose it is natural for the ALP left to be so pro marijuana.

Marijuana leads to a lack of concern for the consequences of people's actions. Concern for the rights and well-being of others may be largely absent. The people who use marijuana often say, "We do not want to be hassled". The drug affects the centre of their brain. Mild criticism or simple requests are seen by them as hassles. In discussions I have had with parents they have said that the slightest request to teenagers on marijuana receives the response, "Don't hassle me". An emotional conflict develops not because the teenager has a problem but because the drug has caused a problem in the teenager's mind. Marijuana is also a hypnotic drug. Therefore people using it are easily talked into many situations that might otherwise be avoided. Dr Jones in the United States said that he had evidence that organised crime willingly and generously supported any political candidate who was soft on marijuana and who supported decriminalisation or legalisation. Why? The argument of the pro-marijuana lobby is that organised crime is against reform and decriminalisation. Organised crime wants this to occur because marijuana taking produces a ready market of millions of young people for the hard, profitable drugs. They are susceptible to try heroin, crack and other drugs.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: It has not happened in Holland.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: It is happening in Holland. In Amsterdam I have seen dozens of young people lying in the main square around the fountain under blankets, their minds completely blown, dropouts, a loss -

The Hon. Ann Symonds: On marijuana?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Yes, on marijuana. All that potential energy, enthusiasm and youth has been lost.

Page 5746

The Hon. Ann Symonds: Did you speak to the Department of Health?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I spoke to the police and to the young people. One has to have eyes to see it.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: I spoke to the Department of Health.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: That is right. The Department of Health brought in the changes. It then says that the changes are positive. It is not going to criticise its own pro-drug policies. The Hon. Ann Symonds should know more about government departments than anybody else in this House. They snow people. The same situation has occurred in Denmark and other countries. Public servants defend policies they have introduced. They will not admit that they have made mistakes. They have made a mistake in Holland - a disastrous mistake. Marijuana also causes a deficiency of male hormones and therefore affects the sexual activity of young people. We must not become complacent about this drug. We must not put another drug on the market in addition to alcohol and tobacco. I am strongly opposed to the use of alcohol and tobacco and the use of marijuana. I am consistent. [Time expired.]

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.53]: Approximately 1.6 million people in New South Wales have tried cannabis in one form or another, including I suspect members on the Government benches. According to the available statistics, 500,000 to 600,000 of these people have used cannabis in the past month. There is no question that cannabis use is widespread in our community. A very significant proportion of the people of New South Wales have made the decision that they wish to use cannabis regularly as one of their drugs of choice. Likewise, approximately 1.8 million people in New South Wales used tobacco last month, including I suspect members on the Government benches, as one of their drugs of choice. Approximately 3 million people - or more - in New South Wales used alcohol in the past month as one of their drugs of choice. Certainly some members on the Government benches would be included. Comparatively few people used heroin, morphine or cocaine in the past month. Most of the users of the three main drugs would be well aware of the health problems associated with the use of these drugs. It is well known that up to 20,000 Australians die every year from tobacco use.

Of two males aged 30 years, one a smoker and the other a non-smoker, the smoker will die 18 years earlier than the non-smoker. This figure was calculated by actuaries in the United States of America. In spite of the serious health problems associated with tobacco, many people still use it, including several members of this Chamber. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti stands as a hypocrite talking about the problems of marijuana use when he is totally addicted to tobacco, as is our Premier, John Fahey. He is another drug addict - of tobacco. Alcohol causes several thousand deaths each year and it has been estimated that 20 per cent of all hospital admissions are associated with alcohol use. Alcohol is also responsible for domestic violence, violence in public and sexual assaults. Many members of this House drink regularly, some to excess, as I have noted. The National Drug Strategic Plan 1992-97 produced by the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse and published in draft form in June 1992 states:

The Drug Strategy recognises that alcohol and tobacco are responsible for by far the most widespread public health problems, together accounting for nearly 90 per cent of the estimated $14.3 billion cost of drug abuse. Tobacco accounts for $6.84 billion, alcohol $6.03 billion and illicit drugs for another $1.44 billion. About 30 per cent of male deaths and 20 per cent of female deaths can be attributed to tobacco, alcohol or illicit drug use.

Page 5747

The strategy also recognised the misuse of pharmaceuticals as a major cause of ill health for many thousands of Australians. No member of this House, with the possible exception of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile, would consider the suggestion that we impose criminal penalties on tobacco and alcohol use. Is that correct?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: We are looking at it.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is looking at making tobacco and alcohol use illegal. At least he is consistent in his attitude towards drugs. For that we must admire him: he is far less hypocritical than this Government, which is very soft on hard drugs such as tobacco and alcohol and fairly hard on soft drugs. The argument about the non-prohibition of tobacco and alcohol is that they are widespread in the community and it would not be feasible now to prohibit them. But we can be certain that if they were introduced today, as the Minister for Police and Emergency Services said, they would not be legally allowed on the market. This Government is very soft on the hard drugs. In fact, the Leader of the Government in this House introduced an amendment to the bill of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile that sought to ban the sponsorship of sporting events by tobacco companies to allow continued sponsorship by tobacco companies. The Premier, John Fahey, the drug addict, is also on the record as stating that tobacco company sponsorship of sport is -

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: On a point of order. I will not allow a member in this House to refer to the Premier of New South Wales as a drug addict. I ask the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to withdraw that statement.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: On the point of order. The Premier of New South Wales is in fact a drug addict. He is addicted to tobacco. That is well known and accepted. It is unfortunate, but it is the fact.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: On the point of order. I support the point of order raised by the Leader of the Government. Everyone knows that the term "drug addict" has a special meaning in our society. It is not applicable to people who smoke tobacco.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Further to the point of order. There are approximately 1.8 million drug addicts in this State. There is no question that being addicted to tobacco is a drug addiction. A doctor who is a member of this House has been unable to give up tobacco. He is in fact drug addicted. Another member on the other side of the Chamber - he is not far from me now - is a drug addict. They cannot give up their tobacco addiction. Tobacco is the number one deadly drug in our society and there are members of this House who are drug addicts.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Is the honourable member addressing me on the point of order?

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Yes, Mr President.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: Further to the point of order. If I might assist the Chair, Standing Order 80 is quite explicit. It reads:

No Member shall use offensive words against either House of the Legislature, or any Member thereof; nor against any Statute, unless when moving for its repeal.

Page 5748
There is absolutely no doubt that calling the Premier of New South Wales a drug addict is an offensive use of words against a member of another House. On that basis alone the honourable member should withdraw the term.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Further to the point of order. I am not maligning the Premier in any way. It is just a statement of fact that the Premier is a drug addict. He just happens to be addicted to a legal drug.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister has taken objection to the Hon. R. S. L. Jones referring to the Premier in another place as "a drug addict". I am of the opinion that this term has the connotations to which the Minister has objected, notwithstanding the explanation given by the honourable member. To facilitate the orderly functioning of the House, I ask the honourable member to withdraw that expression.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I withdraw the expression.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Pursuant to sessional orders, business is interrupted for the taking of questions.