Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I rise to take a shortish call really to speak to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name SOP 167. The reason that I want to talk about this particular Supplementary Order Paper is that it follows on from some of what Dr Webb and Miss Swarbrick and Dr Craig have been talking about—the research the evidence what we actually really ought to be doing in the field of synthetic drugs or psychoactive substances—and it fits with a compassionate response to treating addiction as a health issue not as a criminal issue.The particular Supplementary Order Paper recognises that people who use drugs often supply drugs on the side as a minor side matter and that very often the drugs that are found on a person are in fact for the person's personal use. The worry is that if someone is found with a sufficient quantity of drugs but they're for personal use they might be characterised as holding those drugs for the purpose of supply—Chlöe Swarbrick: It's a presumption.Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: That's right—that's right. And under Mr Brown's proposed bill that person even though the drugs were there for the person's own personal use would nevertheless be charged with supply and end up with an eight-year penalty. That is disproportionate.Leaving aside worries about two years versus eight years and the like this particular Supplementary Order Paper proposes that For the purposes of subsection (1)(c)"—of section 70 of the principal Act—"where a person is an individual who frequently uses a psychoactive substance the court should presume that any psychoactive substances possessed by the person are intended for personal use only." So we start by presuming that the drugs are for the person's own use. Now of course that can be defeated. It can be shown that the drugs are in actual fact for commercial supply. It can be shown that the person is intending to make money off them by preying on vulnerable people by selling drugs themselves but it also asks us to remember that people who use and deal drugs at the same time are themselves vulnerable users. So we want to start with that presumption—that the person whom the drugs are found on is actually a user themselves that because they are a user they are a vulnerable person and that they are entitled to some consideration in respect of that.So what it means is that if you show that the psychoactive substances are intended for personal use only then I believe that under the Act as it stands the penalty that would apply would be a $200 fine. That's absolutely consistent with a lot of what we do elsewhere in the laws in this country where we have something that sits between a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket and incarceration which is a severe penalty. We actually do use fines substantially in order to kind of reach that space where a person is not engaged in criminal activity or is not engaged in anything that demands a heavy penalty but nevertheless perhaps needs a reprimand of some sort. So by starting with the presumption that a person is a user and therefore a vulnerable person we just start at the level of an infringement. That presumption can be defeated and in that case the penalties for supply would stand if the person was convicted. That does seem to be an appropriate way to sort of wend our way through the difficulties of this matter.So I would very much appreciate it if Mr Brown would address this particular issue and address the issues that have been raised by people who are expert in this area: Dr Webb Dr Craig and Miss Swarbrick."