15 September 2011
Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — I am delighted to have the opportunity this morning to support this initiative of the Minister for Mental Health — an initiative that implements election commitments that were made as far back as January 2010.
This bill is intended to ban the display, sale and supply of cannabis water pipes — or bongs, as I will refer to them from now on — and also to ban the display, sale and supply of bong components, bong kits and other similar paraphernalia. It will also limit the display of ornamental hookahs to a maximum of three at one time.
Cannabis water pipes, as the name suggests, are appliances used to aid in the consumption of an illicit drug. If we are prepared to ban the possession and consumption of this drug, as we have in Victoria, then surely it follows that we should take similar action to remove from the marketplace the accessories that assist in a particular method of consumption of this drug. In considering the bill we probably also need to consider whether in fact the Parliament should continue to support the ban we have in place on this particular substance.
This is a subject I know a little bit about, having served on the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee throughout the last Parliament. The very first inquiry we conducted related to the misuse and abuse of benzodiazepines — essentially opiates.
In that inquiry my colleagues on this side of the house were the Leader of the House and the now Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. While cannabis was not a primary interest in this inquiry, the one thing that became very clear, very early on, was that most if not all users of things like benzodiazepines were poly‑drug users as well. In many cases that other drug was alcohol, but frequently that other drug was cannabis, and it was the initial consumption of cannabis that led to further difficulties.
Cannabis is the most widely used drug in Victoria. The statistics have been quoted many times in this debate, but it is worth repeating them.
At least 30 per cent of Victorians have at some time in their life used the drug on one or more occasions. In the last 12 months something like 9 per cent of the population has used the drug; not surprisingly, many of those people are in the 18–29 age group.
Up to one‑third of the people who consume the drug may develop some form of dependence, whether on this drug or on another drug.
Another statistic that has been quoted frequently in this debate but is worth repeating is the fact that in 2009–10 there were some 887 ambulance attendances related to the use of cannabis.
There are significant risks associated with the use of cannabis. In 2009–10 cannabis‑related hospital admissions rose by 21 per cent. In 2008–9 there was a 3 per cent increase in cannabis‑related arrests, which is significantly higher than population growth.
There is the potential for increased risk in the development of mental health problems, whether or not there is a family history of mental illness. There is an increased risk of experiencing psychosis: I believe there is a 40 per cent increase in that risk if you have ever used cannabis, and potentially for those who are frequent users that risk can increase by up to 200 per cent.
We know cannabis clearly plays a causal role in the development of schizophrenia and psychosis, and for young people there is significant risk of the development of depression, psychosis and anxiety, particularly if they develop usage habits early in their lives. Following on from that is the potential for educational difficulties, disengagement, social isolation and all those sorts of things.
Something that the members of the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee in the last Parliament frequently considered was some statistics that are produced biennially, I think, by the Australian Institute of Criminology monitoring drug use, particularly in prisons and overnight lock‑ups — certainly out at Footscray.
Almost half the male detainees in those situations tested positive to cannabis; 45 per cent of them had been detained for violent offences and 48 per cent for property offences. So there is a significant link between drug use and inappropriate behaviour bordering on and progressing to criminal activity.
On the basis of that information, in my view the ban on cannabis needs to be retained, and it follows from that that the sale of associated paraphernalia such as bongs should also be banned.
There is no doubt that the current arrangements send a very mixed message.
Why should you be allowed to sell an implement that assists in the consumption of a drug and the sole purpose of which is for the consumption of cannabis when the substance itself is banned?
There is no doubt that anything we can do to reduce the uptake of cannabis use — and outlawing bongs will certainly assist in that — will have an impact in terms of reducing the social cost of drug use.
The social costs are significant for those who consume the drugs and for their families and friends, and there is an impact, which is clearly not as significant, on the wider community as well.
We need to get the message across: cannabis is not a legal drug. If you use it, you can seriously damage yourself either directly in terms of the health effects or by secondary impacts such as educational effects and so on. As I said earlier, the ban proposed by this bill will make the sale of bongs, kits and parts — that is, bongs in any form — illegal from 1 January next year. It is a ban that will be reinforced by Victoria Police.
I think it is worth referring to the offences that are created by the bill, which are: displaying a cannabis water pipe, bong component or bong kit in retail outlet, selling the same items and supplying the same items in the course of carrying out other commercial activities.
These offences will attract significant penalties — 60 penalty units for an individual and 300 penalty units for a body corporate. There is also the capacity in the bill for the issuing of infringement notices, which attract lesser penalties but are still reasonable — 12 penalty units for an ordinary person and 60 penalty units for a body corporate. There is also provision for the implements to be seized in that context.
There has been some discussion during the debate on this bill about the cultural impacts of this legislation, and that is precisely why it draws a distinction between a bong and a hookah. Clause 4 of the bill clearly defines the physical differences between the two implements in terms of the number of hoses and so on that are normally attached.
The bill will bring us into line with other states — Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia — all of which have banned the implement.
This is the implementation of yet another Baillieu government promise. It is a sensible addition to the armoury; it is only one part of it, but it is a sensible addition. It underlines our commitment to bringing in practical measures to reduce the incidence of drug abuse.
I congratulate the minister on her initiative, and I commend the bill to the house.
Legislative Assembly 13 September 2011
Printer Friendly Version...