Hague Kevin: Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hague Kevin: Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4860] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to stand today and speak in favour of Metiria Turei’s Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill. I hope that other members of the House regardless of their views on the separate issue of decriminalisation of cannabis will also feel able to support it. 
Members may be aware that I worked for the New Zealand AIDS Foundation for 10 years including 5 years as its executive director. During that time I became very aware that many people who are living with HIV and AIDS possibly most had found that cannabis was an effective medicine for them whereas other medicines had failed. Those people used it for that purpose often with the blessing either explicit or tacit of their doctor. I also have a lot of experience with people with spinal injuries and exactly the same situation applies. Many other members of this House will also know people with chronic and debilitating conditions who have used cannabis in the same way and for the same reasons. In my AIDS Foundation role I was lobbied by people living with HIV and AIDS to do more to try to achieve access to cannabis for medicinal purposes. I very much regret that I was not able to do more to advance the issue from that role. 
The principal reason given for the illegal status of cannabis generally is that it poses health risks to the user and that point goes to those arguments made by the previous speaker Rahui Katene. The HIV and AIDS field has seen us have the need to advance our thinking on many fronts and one of those is in the idea of catastrophic rights. It is obvious really that in the case of people facing very serious consequences of their illness such as those to whom this bill would apply the normal rules we have to protect them from harm should be suspended. This doctrine is normally applied to allow such patients to access new drugs that are still in experimental phases and have not yet been proven to work or to have no harmful effects. But it applies even more to cannabis where the risks are known and are known to be relatively minor. 
I was in California last year and was very struck by the green pharmacies now dispensing medicinal cannabis which I had not seen even a few years ago. That reflects a growing international consensus that cannabis should now be available as a medicine. Now it seems we also have a growing consensus in New Zealand on the benefits of cannabis for medicinal purposes. I sit on the Health Committee as do Paul Hutchison and Ruth Dyson who have previously spoken. We recently reported on Chris Fowlie’s petition. The Ministry of Health told the select committee that evidence supports the medicinal use of cannabis for the treatment of serious medical conditions when traditional medicines have failed providing a broad spectrum effect. The ministry said that toxicity associated with excessive doses is unlike that for other analgesics currently prescribed for chronic pain and disease in that it has a wider safety margin with fewer short-term side effects and minor long-term effects compared with current drug regimens. The ministry also told us that medicinal cannabis appears effective and safe in all age groups. That is on the basis of the ministry’s literature review not on the basis of the single study that Paul Hutchison mentioned. 
The remaining question then given there is consensus of benefit is how best to provide access for patients. The committee has recommended that pharmaceutically derived THC derivative Sativex is brought under the Medicines Act to allow general practitioners to prescribe it without specialist endorsement. That would be a good step forward. It also opens the door for it to be considered for subsidy by Pharmac. It would be great to hear from Government members today on how the Government will progress the select committee’s recommendation but I have not heard that yet. The select committee also expressed concern that as things stand with no subsidy costs could restrict access for some patients. 
It may be that it was not appropriate for the committee to take things to the next logical step but it would be appropriate for this House to do so. If there is clear evidence of benefit and improved quality of life for seriously ill and dying patients and it has less risk than the currently available treatments—which are also less effective but cost is a barrier to the version produced by pharmaceutical companies—then for goodness’ sake let us allow those who meet the criteria to access the natural product. In the minds of members on this issue logic will be grappling with fear. Logic says “Support the bill.” Please be brave.