Tanczos Nandor: General Debates 
Tanczos Nandor: General Debates 
[Volume:610;Page:7927] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Like the Hon Peter Dunne I intend to speak about the Health Committee report on cannabis. Unlike him I intend to talk about what the report actually states because it is a very very useful report and it gives us a clear answer to a number of questions that have been confused for some time. 
First of all the report deals with the question of how dangerous cannabis is. It states very clearly that moderate use of cannabis carries low risk of harm and that heavy chronic and under-age use carries significant risk of harm. It also refers to the World Health Organization and the Institute of Medicine in the United States both of which state that cannabis use is less harmful than tobacco or alcohol. It states that the most effective public health strategy to deal with the harms associated with cannabis is a harm-minimisation approach and it is quite critical of the punitive approach taken by many schools in relation to suspensions for cannabis. It states clearly that the aim of cannabis legislation should be to focus on preventing under-age use. It also states that policy should avoid criminalising non-problematic cannabis users. It is very critical of prohibition. It states that prohibition does not reduce cannabis use; that it makes targeting education more difficult facilitates the black market and potentially exposes cannabis users to harder drugs. Given the significant problem we have in this country with the increased use of methamphetamine Parliament should take that issue very seriously. 
The report also makes recommendations about how progress can be made. Some of the issues included are the things that can happen without legislative change in the present Parliament such as medicinal use increased diversion and the possibility of reclassification of cannabis. It also suggests ways of keeping the momentum for legislative change going by asking the Justice and Electoral Committee to recommend an appropriate legal status for cannabis. Of course this is in line with an international tide of cannabis law reform. We see it happening in Canada Britain Australia Switzerland Germany—a number of places. Those in this House who oppose sensible cannabis laws are like King Canute trying to hold back the tide because the evidence that cannabis prohibition does not reduce use but creates significant problems of its own is very very clear. 
I finish my speech with a challenge to the Hon Peter Dunne in the House today. For a so-called sensible moderate man with family values Mr Dunne has subjected me to an extraordinarily high level of vicious personal abuse in the media. Over the last few years Mr Dunne has made a number of vicious personal attacks. His most amusing one was saying that I am involved in a seemingly obsessive campaign to make dope smoking retrospectively compulsory. I am wondering whether he was suggesting we go back in time and force people to smoke cannabis because that would seem to be the implication of his statement. It is crucial that we have an honest open debate in this country on cannabis policy. It has to be based on facts and on the evidence and it has to be conducted in an adult fashion. I challenge Mr Dunne to front up in the House today—if he really believes what he has said—and debate the issue of cannabis law reform with me publicly. I will do that in his own electorate. I challenge him in this House to take up the challenge and put up the evidence in order to allow the people to decide. I believe it is time to stop the personal abuse on this issue. It is time to grow up and to start playing the ball rather than the man. 
Most people in this country agree that we need a sensible policy on cannabis. We all agree that we need to discourage under-age use because there are serious significant problems associated with it. We all agree that we need to provide better education and treatment both to prevent and delay use of cannabis and to provide help for those few people who do have significant problems. Most people agree that prohibition does not work as a policy. As I have already said the evidence is very clear that prohibition does not reduce levels of cannabis use but causes significant problems of its own. Legislation should never create more harm than the behaviour it is trying to stop. That should be a fundamental policy. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.