|
HANSARD DEBATE DECEMBER 2 -4TH The following is the text of the debate (if you can call it that) in which Labour, Liberal and Family First politicians attempted to send SA Cannabis growers and users back to the Dark Ages. The only exceptions the Democrats led by former Democrat MLC and long-time drug law reform advocate Mike Elliott who in his political swansong, courageously spoke up and pointed out some of the flaws in their arguments. Mike has now retired from politics and we wish him well for his future and thank him sincerely for his support over the years for our cause.
|
|
Monday 2 December 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1592 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (CANNABIS) AMENDMENT BILL Second reading. The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to remove cannabis plants grown by artificially enhanced methods (commonly referred to as Œhydroponically¹) from the cannabis expiation scheme set up under section 45A of the Controlled Substances Act 1984. This bill is in the same terms as one introduced by the Liberal government in October 2001. It passed through the House of Assembly but had not passed through the Legisla-tive Council when the parliament was prorogued before the state election. I seek leave to have inserted the balance of the second reading explanation in Hansard without my reading it. Leave granted. In 1987, the cannabis expiation scheme was implemented in South Australia, following the passage of the Controlled Substances Act Amendment Act 1986. The scheme provides for adults coming to the attention of the police for a Œsimple cannabis offence¹ to be issued with an expiation notice and given the option of avoiding criminal prosecution and conviction by paying the specified expiation fee. ŒSimple cannabis offence¹ means possession of a specified amount (up to 100 grams) of cannabis for personal use; smoking or consuming cannabis in private; possessing implements for the purpose of smoking or consumption; or cultivation of a number of cannabis plants within the expiable limit. The rationale underlying the expiation scheme was that a distinction should be made between private users of cannabis and those involved in production, sale or supply of the drug. The distinction was emphasised at the time of introduction of the expiation scheme by the simultaneous introduction of more severe penalties for offences relating to the manufacture, production, sale or supply of drugs of dependence and prohibited substances, including offences relating to large quantities of cannabis Cannabis is the most commonly used illegal drug in South Australia and can cause a number of significant health and psychological problems. Contrary to common public perception, it is illegal to possess or grow any amount of cannabis. The expiation scheme did not make it legal to possess or grow small amounts‹it provides a mechanism for a person to pay an expiation fee and avoid a criminal prosecution and conviction and the adverse consequences arising from a criminal conviction. If the person fails to expiate, then the matter may proceed to court. The Australian Illicit Drug Report 1999-2000 indicates that the most notable trend in the preceding 10 years was the increase in hydroponic indoor production and a decrease in extensive outdoor cultivation. While the dictionary refers to hydroponic cultivation as Œthe art of growing plants without soil and using water impregnated with nutrients¹, cannabis cultivators predominantly use a variation of this technique. They grow their plants in pots with the plant root systems in a fine gravel-like base substance, with the enhanced water running through the base. One of the other key factors in the cultivation is the application of strong artificial lighting and heat to the plants. This is by far the most common form of cultivation. Within the cannabis cultivation industry, hydroponic retailers, and the police, this method of cultivation is identified as being Œhydroponic¹. Police information is that one hydroponically produced cannabis plant is now capable of producing (conservatively) about 500 grams of cannabis and it is possible to produce 3 or 4 mature crops per year. It is estimated that a daily user of cannabis is likely to consume 10 grams of cannabis per week. If one hydroponically grown cannabis plant yields an estimated 500 grams of dried cannabis, this would meet the consumption needs of a daily user for one year (Clements, K & Daryal, M(1999) The Economics of Marijuana Consumption. Perth: University of Western Australia). As the expiable limit applies at the time of detection, a grower is able to grow the expiable number of plants as many times a year as possible, provided they are only in possession of the expiable number at the time of police intervention. Given the potential cash yields, the ability to produce in excess of personal requirements within the expiable limit provides the opportunity to become involved in commercial production and distribution within the wider community. It provides the opportunity for small time producers to link to organised crime syndicates, with much of the Œbackyard¹ product finding its way to the Eastern States in bulk quantities and being exchanged for cash or powder drugs for distribution in this State. Police intelligence when 10 plants was the expiable limit was that criminal syndicates were using the 10 plant limit to foster commercial cannabis enterprises by hydroponically cultivating crops of 10 plants at different sites. While the reduction in the expiable limit from 10 plants to 3 did reduce the amount of profit within the expiable limit, police information was that people were still commercially cultivating within that limit. In September last year, the Liberal Government amended the Controlled Substances (Expiation of Simple Cannabis Offences) Regulations to further reduce the number of cannabis plants for expiation purposes from 3 to 1.This decision was consistent with the advice of the Controlled Substances Advisory Council. The intention of the cannabis expiation scheme was to reduce the impact of the criminal law on those persons who possess cannabis for their own use. However, the expiation scheme was not intended to encourage distribution of cannabis within the community. As a community, we should not tolerate exploitation of the expiation scheme by hydroponic producers, which results in syndicated production or single profiteering. Removing the capacity to produce cannabis hydroponically will reduce the volume of the drug being produced, which will in turn reduce the incentive for the assaults, and often violent home invasions, associated with hydroponic crops. We should not stand by while the scourge of our society‹the producers, the profiteers, the traffickers‹wreak their havoc on families and individuals. The Bill therefore removes the cultivation of cannabis plants by artificially enhanced means (commonly referred to as Œhydro-ponically¹) from the expiation system. This Bill is not an attack upon the legitimate hydroponics industry which is, very rightly, keen to dissociate itself from the cultivation of illegal substances. I welcome the intimation of the Premier that the Government is examining a negative licensing regime which will ban certain persons from involvement in the sale or distribution of hydroponics equipment. We look forward to the results of that examination and to the Government¹s proposals flowing out of the recommendations of the Drug Summit. I urge members to support the bill. Explanation of Clauses Clause 1: Short title This clause is formal. The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO secured the adjournment of the debate. 1700 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Wednesday 4 December 2002 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
(CANNABIS) AMENDMENT BILL The Hon. A.L. EVANS: The purpose of this bill is to remove cannabis plants grown by artificially enhanced methods from the cannabis expiation scheme set up under section 45A of the Controlled Substances Act 1984. The cannabis expiation scheme came into force by an amendment to the act in 1987. The rationale for the scheme was straight-forward: if an adult was found to be in a situation that came within the meaning of a simple cannabis offence, they could avoid criminal prosecution by simply paying a fine. However, the technology to grow plants using hydroponics was not a consideration when the 1987 amendment was passed. In a controlled environment, one plant is capable of producing 500 grams of cannabis. This is a concern. Not only does it create an opportunity for cannabis to be grown with the intention of a commercial gain but also this method increases the content of THC in the plant as opposed to cannabis grown using more traditional methods. While a more concentrated level of THC in cannabis will give users a big Œhit¹, the down side is that it increases the harmful side effects on a person¹s physical and mental well-being. I am told that at the moment one kilogram of cannabis will sell in South Australia for $2 800 to $3 200. Interstate, more profit could be made, as one kilogram of cannabis will sell for between $4 000 and $5 000. This sort of return represents a huge inducement for a person to grow cannabis using hydroponics. For this reason, I support the removal of cannabis plants grown by artificially enhanced methods from the cannabis expiation scheme set out in section 45A of the Controlled Substances Act 1984. That being said, I would like to touch on a few statements made by the Hon. Carmel Zollo yesterday. In her speech, she reiterated the position of the government on cannabis, which is that it is an illegal drug and will remain a prohibited substance in South Australia. Family First believes that the law in this state relating to the production of cannabis does not go far enough. Given all that we know about the dangers of cannabis and its harmful effects on a person¹s physical and mental health, I believe that South Australia should have zero tolerance concerning the growing of cannabis. As it stands today, the law in South Australia leaves open the door for the growing of cannabis in this state under regulation 5(3) of the Controlled Substances Act regulations. The issue of drugs, in particular cannabis, is a key policy issue of my party. Unfortunately, this bill was introduced in this council only two days ago. This short time frame has meant that I have not been able to prepare a speech which comprehensively and clearly outlines the reasoning behind our party¹s position of zero tolerance. With this in mind, I say that I have done a considerable amount of research on the harmful effects of cannabis and it is a drug which should be strongly and absolutely criminalised in this state with regard to cultivation. I am aware that the issue of drugs is a matter that the government will deal with next year. In light of this, I look forward of speaking further on this matter in the New Year. The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: When I vote on this bill, I will not be voting on whether or not I think people using cannabis is a good thing. I will not be voting on whether or not I consider that cannabis has serious health effects. I will not be voting because I think that we are sending the right or the wrong messages to people. I will be voting on this bill because of what I see are its consequences. I do not think it does us any good to vote with the noblest of intentions if the consequences make things worse. I contend, very strongly, that the consequences of the passage of this bill will be to make things worse, and I will explain that. I heard of a recent example where things done for the best of reasons in the drug area had negative consequences. In Roxby Downs, they started testing workers for drugs. Anybody who knows anything about drugs and the testing for drugs knows that cannabis resides in the body for a consider-able period of time because it is fat soluble. It also finds its way into the hair and can be found in hair samples months after the last time a person has consumed it. So, the people working in Roxby Downs who use drugs‹and let us not make a judgment about whether they should or should not: the fact is that some people use drugs‹realised that, if they used cannabis, they were guaranteed to be caught. What has happened is that Roxby Downs now has the highest rate of injectable amphetamine use in Australia. That is the conse-quence of a rule that was intended to protect the company and the workers but, in fact, the consequence is that they have the highest rate of injectable use of amphetamines in one community in Australia. That is an example of people having done things for the noblest and right reasons, but the conse-quence, in fact, has been far more severe than was intended and, indeed, made the situation worse. It reminds me of a situation a couple of years ago in Hawaii where the government successfully cracked down on cannabis use. They did a number of major busts and managed to disrupt the supply. On an island, it is easy to do that for a short time. As I understand, within three days of cutting down the supply, they had an outbreak of violent incidents because people had taken to smoking amphetamines as an alternative. Again, this was done, one assumes, for the noblest of reasons, but the consequence was that it made things worse. I contend that the consequences of the passage of this bill will be to make things worse in two respects. I do not believe, for a moment, that banning hydroponically grown cannabis (a) will stop people from growing cannabis hydroponically, or (b) will stop people from using cannabis. What will change is who does the hydroponic growing and the selling. There are two suppliers of cannabis in the market at this stage: organised crime, and what could be fairly described as disorganised crime. Organised crime is what the government carries on about and says that it is trying to stop‹the bikie gangs, etc. They say that they have been using the hydroponic rules as a loophole. However, almost every bust does not involve three plants, which is what the rule was‹in fact, it has been less than three plants for a while now. Hydroponic busts have continually involved bigger crops. The fact is that, when they do get the people who are growing one, two or three plants, they are getting people growing not just for personal use but also who were probably selling to a small group of customers or friends. That is what I describe as disorganised crime. They are breaking the law, and people would say, ŒLet them suffer the consequences.¹ But what are the consequences if we manage to shut them down? Organised crime will pick up the market share that has been taken from disorganised crime. So, the first consequence for the government, and the opposition which is supporting this bill, is that they will enrich organised crime. The second consequence follows directly from it. Organised crime not only sells cannabis but also other drugs, whereas the people who are involved in disorganised crime grow only a few plants and sell a bit to friends‹a bit like people who make a bit of wine and sell it to their friends. The Hon. Diana Laidlaw interjecting: The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: For example, let us put it on the record that the Hon. Diana Laidlaw has been making some wine with her father and, a bit like some cannabis growers, has been selling some to friends. The Hon. Diana Laidlaw interjecting: The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: No, let me finish‹the difference being, of course, that the sale of alcohol is quite legal; the sale of cannabis is not. I can guarantee that if and when the Hon. Diana Laidlaw sells out of her wine, she will not say, ŒLook, don¹t worry. I¹ve got some amphetamines, or some LSD, or something else instead.¹ The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: Certainly not! The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: No, that¹s right. But that is exactly what happens with organised crime: they manipulate markets. Not only will they say to people, ŒNot only have we got cannabis but we¹ve got this other stuff,¹ but they will also say, ŒSorry‹today we can¹t get hold of cannabis, but we¹ve got this other stuff.¹ A lot of the buyers are young people, because the evidence clearly shows that most people who use cannabis smoke into their early twenties and then stop because they get bored with it, and they are being offered a smorgasbord of drugs, not only cannabis. I am not saying that it is a good thing to be offered cannabis, but I am saying that, realistically, they will obtain it one way or another. Now these young people are being offered amphetamines, LSD, heroin and whatever else organised crime can get its hands on. In fact, the heroin drought that we saw recently was manipulated by organised crime to a significant extent. For a long time, government tried to claim that they had success-fully shut the markets down, but it does not realise that the major heroin cartels in South-East Asia have now gone into amphetamine manufacture, and they are exporting ampheta-mines to Australia. They have manipulated the market: they cut the heroin down for a while, and they have been pushing the amphetamines harder. Amphetamines happen to be trendier.However, these days, people are injecting them, so they can be moved back to heroin later on. The stepping-stone theory about cannabis is wrong insofar as people assume that, having used cannabis, the individual will then move to the next stage; that is not true. The danger with cannabis is that, if it is being bought in the same market in which other things are being offered, it becomes a stepping stone insofar as you are introduced to other substances. Cannabis is not something to which you will build up a significant resistance over time. Even were the government to be successful in somehow cutting down the supply of cannabis, what would people do? Would they say, ŒOkay, my drug days are finished¹? No; they would look for something else. If cannabis were to disappear tomorrow, those using cannabis would look to use something else. I do not think that will happen. I do not believe that the supply will change in any significant sense. The only thing that will change is the suppliers. As I said, members may support this bill for the best of reasons, but I predict very strongly that there will be negative consequences. The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: Can you tell me what the equivalent is of the original 10 plants that this parliament approved, compared to three hydroponically‹ The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Do you mean in terms of THC content? The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: No, the quantity; parliament initially approved 10 plants. The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: That¹s right. I think that it has been cut back four times: it has gone from 10 to five, to three, to one. The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: So, one or three hydroponical-ly grown plants, compared to 10‹ The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It depends who you listen to. If you were to listen to the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, you would swear that you would need a chainsaw to cut them down. Yes; they are bigger, because they have ideal growing conditions. One of the reasons that I resisted the cutback was that I could see that they would not stop; that they were not entering into the major argument about the real problems. If people were to look at some of my speeches, they would see that I would have supported cutting back the number of plants had some other changes, that attacked the issue in a compre-hensive way, happened at the same time rather than doing it piecemeal. The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: Is one hydroponically grown plant equivalent to 10 naturally grown? The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It depends whether they are 10 male plants, 10 female plants, or 10 mixed plants. When people plant seeds, they do not know the gender of the plant. A male plant is next to useless (as women think about many men). The high THC levels are largely contained in the flowering heads of the female plant. So, a person who puts 10 plants in the ground is taking potluck: they might get lucky and have seven or eight female plants; they might get only two or three. When the number of plants is cut back to three plants or even one, when the plant gets to a certain height the grower may discover that it is not even the right sex and is totally useless. So, it is not a simple question. A reason that a lot of seeds are planted initially is that it is potluck in terms of what they will produce. Unless there are more questions by way of interjection, Mr President‹ The PRESIDENT: I do not think there should be any more of those, Mr Elliott. The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I think they were construc-tive. The PRESIDENT: I am sure that there will be more at the committee stage. The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: As I said, it was never my intention to debate the merits or otherwise of cannabis. Even if one were to assume that cannabis is harmful, and even if one were to believe that it is significantly harmful (although I believe strongly that it is not as harmful as tobacco or alcohol), if you look rationally at this bill in isolation, you realise that it will make the situation worse. For that reason, the Democrats and I will be very strongly opposing this bill. The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS secured the adjournment of the debate. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (CANNABIS) AMENDMENT BILL Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion). The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I thank honourable members for their contribution to this bill which will remove from the expiation scheme, in relation to cannabis offences, the cultivation of material that is grown hydroponically. This is an important measure and I thank, first, the government for its indication of support for this measure, originally moved in the other place by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. I thank the Hon. Andrew Evans for his contribution, as well as the government. I note that the Democrats will not be supporting this measure, but, notwithstanding their reservations, we believe that this is a much needed and overdue reform. The Hon. Mr Cameron did ask me to indicate his support also for the passage of this bill. I particularly want to thank members for allowing the bill to be expedited through this council. The usual seven days, which is conventionally allowed for members to consider and prepare contributions, was not observed on this occasion, and reluctantly so. However, the position is that a bill in this form was originally introduced in 2001, and it was still on the Notice Paper at the conclusion of parliament in November 2001. If it had not been debated tonight it would have remained to be considered in 2003. I am most grateful to members for their agreement to debate the matter quickly, even though some of them will not be supporting it. The council divided on the second reading: Wednesday 4 December 2002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1703 AYES (14) Dawkins, J. S. L. Evans, A. L. Gazzola, J. Holloway, P. Laidlaw, D. V. Lawson, R. D. (teller) Lucas, R. I. Redford, A. J. Roberts, T. G. Schaefer, C. V. Sneath, R. K. Stefani, J. F. Stephens, T. J. Zollo, C. NOES (3) Elliott, M. J. (teller) Gilfillan, I. Kanck, S. M. Majority of 11 for the ayes. Second reading thus carried. In committee. Clauses 1 and 2 passed. Clause 3. The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I want to say something that I meant to mention during the second reading stage but forgot. Some people in supporting this legislation seem to be under the impression that they are going along with the recommendations of the Drugs Summit. I was one of those people who spent the full week at the Drugs Summit. This issue was raised, it was voted on and it was overwhelmingly‹ and I stress that‹rejected. One of the unfortunate things that happened at the Drugs Summit was that, in a break about an hour before the meeting voted on this matter, the Premier held a press conference at which he announced that the government would bring in a ban on hydroponic cannabis. He pre-empted the conference by an hour. I think he tried to anticipate the result and the Drugs Summit, having sat for a week listening to all the experts, voted overwhelmingly against a ban on hydroponic cannabis. Too many people are operating on gut instinct and not taking the time to get right into the problems and to under-stand what is really going on in the drugs area, and simplistic answers are very dangerous. I stress that the Drugs Summit, which was promised by the Premier and which was a great initiative, has been ignored by the Premier and this parliament, which it has a right to do, but people should appreciate that a great deal of time and effort went into that summit from a lot of people from all over the state. Clause passed. Clause 4 passed. Title passed. Bill reported without amendment; committee¹s report adopted. Bill read a third time and passed. |