Additional Comments by Senator Paul Scarr
1.1I agree with the recommendation in the majority report that the Senate not pass the Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023 (the ‘Bill’). The health risks posed by legal access to cannabis for recreational purposes are profound. The health system is not presently coping with the current health needs of Australians, including in relation to mental health services. The purpose of these additional comments is to expand upon some of the reasons provided in the majority report. Inparticular, further comment is provided in relation to issues arising from the costings provided by the Parliamentary Budget Office (the ‘PBO’).
1.2In his second reading speech, Senator Shoebridge argued:
It’s time to seize the many opportunities that legalisation poses. Thisincludes $28 billion in public revenue, with provisions for a 15% Cannabis Sales Tax that can be initiated in the Lower House, that the Parliamentary Budget Office has told us legalisation can bring in in the first 9 years of operation.[1]
1.3The costings undertaken by the PBO are referred to in paragraph 1.12 of the majority report (there is additional commentary at paragraph 2.53 in relation to an expert’s response to the costings).
1.4I make a number of observations in relation to the costings.
1.5The PBO raises a number of qualifications with respect to the analysis. Theresults need to be considered in the context of the caveats provided by the PBO, namely:
There is a high level of uncertainty in this costing as there is limited information available in Australia to estimate the production in cannabis cultivation and the consumption of recreational cannabis, in particular its market price.
There is also uncertainty around how production, consumption and price would change over the period to 2032-33.In particular, the behavioural responses as a result of the proposal, such as the take-up by new users after legalisation as well as the proportion of existing consumers who would switch to a legal source, are highly uncertain.
Assumptions are based on recent research in Australia and evidence in Canada where legalisation on recreational cannabis has recently occurred.The actual outcomes may differ significantly due to differences in policy specifications and market characteristics between Australia and overseas.The costing estimates could vary significantly with changes to the assumptions.[2]
1.6As the PBO indicated in the extract quoted above, the costing estimates may vary significantly with changes to the assumptions and depending upon the behavioural response to implementation of the legal regime proposed in the Bill.
1.7The Bill provides for both legalisation of:
(a)the growing of no more than six cannabis plants at a personal residence for personal use or for other ‘non-commercial’ use; and
(b)the sale of cannabis produced by such plants for an amount of $50 or less in a 24-hour period.[3]
1.8The question arises as to how many people will avail themselves of the opportunity to grow cannabis plants and to sell amounts under the threshold provided by the Bill. How does this impact upon the costings provided by the PBO?
1.9In his second reading speech, Senator Shoebridge argued:
As we consulted on this reform we heard loud and clear that many people want the option of being able to grow a small amount of cannabis at home for personal use.That is why this bill permits the growing of up to 6 plants in a household for personal use without needing a license or paying any taxes or fees.[4]
1.10The above approach should be contrasted with the position with respect to tobacco plants where:
It is illegal to grow tobacco in Australia without the appropriate excise licence. There have been no licenced tobacco growers since 2006.[5]
1.11Hence, it is clear from the above that: (a) there is a strong demand from users to have the ability to grow their own cannabis (in his consultations, Senator Shoebridge heard it: ‘loud and clear’); (b) a reason for this: ‘strong demand’ is to avoid the obligation to obtain a license or to pay taxes or fees (quite understandable drivers of behaviour); and (c) in addition to the foregoing, aperson would be able to sellup to $50 per day of cannabis produced from their own plants.
1.12There is no indication in the analysis undertaken by the PBO costing that any material allowance has been made for the fact that users may grow their own product. The impact on revenue is unknown. Further, the assumptions for the PBO costings do not include the second element of the proposed ‘personal use’ regime; namely, the ability to sell up to $50 per day of cannabis produced from a person’s own plants.
1.13It is impossible to predict with any certainty the impact of Australians being able to grow their own cannabis plants and thereby (lawfully and understandably) being able to avoid having to buy cannabis at a market price which reflects the cost of license fees, GST, excise duty and all the other costs reflected in the ‘market’ price. The PBO costing does not provide an answer. The PBO costing also does not appear to consider the impact of users being able to sell an amount of cannabis produced for so-called personal use to other users.
1.14There is no provision for the increase in health costs associated with the health system having to manage an increase in cannabis usage. The PBO costings acknowledge that there would be an increase in cannabis usage. Quoting from the analysis:
Legalising cannabis would result in a 15% increase in demand for cannabis products in the first year of the policy and would then grow in line with adult population growth.[6]
1.15However, no adjustment has been made with respect to the additional health costs which would be incurred by government arising from increased usage of cannabis. Moreover, the PBO costings actually provide for savings in relation to MBS Benefits on the basis that:
The impact of this proposal on MBS Benefits were calculated by multiplying the average MBS benefit per visit [to secure medicinal cannabis for health reasons], the assumed switch ratio from medicinal cannabis in Australia to recreational cannabis of equivalent medicinal benefit.[7]
1.16This statement is problematic for two reasons. First, why are savings being forecast for the health system when the evidence is that cannabis use leads to a range of health risks and would necessarily impose additional costs on the health system? I expand upon this below. Second, it is deeply concerning that those seeking the benefit of medicinal cannabis to treat indicated medical conditions would cease to see a medical professional to procure products for medical use and would resort to the recreational market.
1.17The evidence received by the committee is that there are recognised indicated medicinal uses of cannabis. However, this should be supervised by medical professionals rather than users accessing the recreational market (whether legal or illicit). There were legitimate concerns raised by stakeholders who seek access to medicinal cannabis. These include access and cost issues. Those concerns warrant additional consideration by government. However, in my view, those concerns do not support the establishment of a market for recreational use. Surely it is preferable for people using cannabis products for medical purposes to do so under the supervision of medical professionals. To the extent such supervision is being prevented due to access or cost issues, then those matters should be the subject of further consideration by government and relevant stakeholders representing the medical profession.
1.18In relation to the potential negative health effects of cannabis use, the evidence from the experts is clear.Refer to paragraphs 2.12 to 2.18 of the majority report. I do note that in response to questions on notice, further evidence was provided to the committee by a number of expert witnesses. Refer to the responses to questions on notice provided by:
Professor John Toumbourou, Professor and Chair in Health Psychology, Deakin University who provided additional references for the latest research into the health impacts of cannabis use;[8]
Professor Robin Langham, Chief Medical Adviser, Health Products Regulatory Group, Department of Health and Aged Care who provided examples of ‘well documented acute and long-term adverse effects of cannabis use’, including cannabis induced psychosis (the risk of which rises with the potency of the cannabis), cannabis use disorder, adverse neonatal outcomes;[9] and
the Australian Medical Association (who were represented by Dr Michael Bonning, Chair of the Public Health Committee), including an increase in presentations to emergency departments arising from acute adverse effects of cannabis use by adults and children.[10]
1.19The above responses provide detailed information with respect to the potentially disastrous health consequences that can arise from recreational cannabis use. There is good reason why the National Drug Strategy 2017–2026 has as one of its priority actions:
Develop new and innovative responses to prevent uptake, delay first use and reduce…drug problems.[11]
1.20Under an excise rate of 15 per cent on GST inclusive sales, the PBO costings estimate $28 billion of revenue for the Commonwealth (comprising principally the aggregate of cannabis excise at 15 percent, company tax) and $7.7 billion of revenue allocated to the states under GST arrangements over a nine-year period. Thishighlights the opportunity (or incentive) for organised crime to continue to engage in the industry and leverage off the opportunity to sell product unlawfully without paying excise, GST, company tax, licensing fees or any of the other related costs which would be incurred by lawful operators.
1.21The issue of the illicit tobacco market in Australia is an example of how an illicit market endures in parallel with a legal market.[12]
1.22The persistence of illegal activity is recognised in the costings. The PBO costings state:
The Australian Federal Police would retain the current cannabis related resources to combat the black market and associated crimes after legalisation, noting that most resources currently directed at cannabis law enforcement lie within state level jurisdictions. Hence, there would be no savings to the AFP under the proposal.[13]
1.23However, it is also assumed in the PBO costings that:
52% of recreational cannabis users would purchase cannabis from a legal source in [the first year of operation of the market] (based on the take-up rate in Canada after legalisation) and this would grow to 95% over 5 years.[14]
1.24It is noted that the PBO costings were completed on 12 January 2023. Hence, the PBO did not have the benefit of the most recent analysis undertaken in relation to the Canadian cannabis market. This analysis puts into question the assumption contained in the PBO costings that the market would transition over the medium term to one in which 95% of recreational users would access their cannabis on the legal market.
1.25Clearing the Smoke: Insights to Canada’s Illicit Cannabis Market is a study into the Canadian market undertaken by Deloitte and Neobi.[15] The analysis was based on data sourced from 624 legal private recreational cannabis stores and 57 illicit online stores between May and June 2023. In introductory comments, the report states:
Estimates for illicit players’ share of the market are substantial ranging from 25% to 52% in various government sources.[16]
1.26The report then provides detailed analysis of the legal market and illicit market in different cannabis products.
1.27Another recent source for the continuation of the illicit market in Canada is the review of the Canadian legislation commissioned by the Canadian government.That review made a number of important observations in relation to the illicit market.[17] Given the relevance, I quote at length:
We see that considerable progress has been made in achieving some of the important objectives of the Act. It is clear that consumers who wish to access legal and regulated products can do so, and we are encouraged by the evidence regarding the dismantling of the illicit market.
As we described in our What We Heard Report, there was a 95% reduction in the number of cannabis possession charges between 2017 and 2022. We are encouraged that legal access to cannabis reduced the negative impacts of prohibition arising from interactions with the criminal justice system.
However, we are concerned about the criminal activity that persists. Activities related to organized crime and criminal networks (which often include trafficking in other substances and firearms, the use of firearms and the use of cannabis products to finance other criminal activities serious) are of particular concern. [my emphasis]
The diversion of cannabis by certain individuals registered with Health Canada to produce cannabis for medical purposes as a source of illicit supply, the proliferation of unauthorized retail stores on First Nations reserves (i.e. stores operating without community approval or provincial or territorial authorization) and the relative ease with which unauthorized online sellers operate are also areas of concern.
We are also struck by the limited law enforcement measures against these criminal activities. We have been provided with examples of large-scale investigations leading to charges and convictions, particularly for the importation and exportation of cannabis. Overall, however, implementation of the regime does not appear to be a priority. Weunderstand that law enforcement agencies do not have unlimited resources to combat criminal activity and must prioritize their efforts; however, the integrity of the cannabis regime depends on deterring criminal activity.
The absence of consequences, or any fear of consequences, will incentivize criminal actors to continue their activities, causing harm to individuals and communities. We have also heard that the lack of enforcement leads some consumers to believe that illicit cannabis poses no health or safety risks, or that illicit cannabis is in fact legal. In this chapter, we present recommendations to improve consumers' ability to distinguish between legal and illicit cannabis, as well as a series of observations relating to key law enforcement issues related to cannabis.
The evidence we have indicates that there has been a significant dismantling of the illicit market. While there are different approaches to assessing the scale of rollback and some particular estimates spark debate, it is clear that significant progress has been made in the first 5 years of nationwide legalization. For example, according to the latest estimate from Statistics Canada, in the third quarter of 2023, 73% of household spending on cannabis for non-medical purposes came from legal sources, while the latest findings from the Canadian Cannabis Survey indicate that 79% of cannabis users reported always or mostly obtaining cannabis from legal sources.
However, these takedown reports and surveys rely on self-reported data, and some participants in our review cautioned that they are withholding certain information, which could lead to an underestimate of the size of the illicit market. Some respondents may not be truthful about the source of their purchases, for example, or believe they purchased cannabis legally, given the efforts some illicit sellers go to to make their products and presence appear legitimate.[18]
1.28The fact that the report commissioned by the Canadian government implicitly indicates (by way of corollary) that 27 per cent of spending on recreational cannabis related to product on the illicit market and that 21 per cent of users do not ‘always or mostly obtain cannabis from legal resources’ underlines the enduring issues with the illicit market. Again, the assumption in the PBO Costings that 95 per cent of users would access cannabis from legal sources after five years appears extremely optimistic. Again, with due respect to the PBO, itis noted that they did not have the benefit of the latest research. Moreover, questions arise with respect to the ability of law enforcement to effectively police the illicit market if there are, potentially, thousands of individual users growing their own product.
1.29It is also noted that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police state the following in relation to organised crime and the cannabis trade:
Half of the national high-threat organized crime groups are involved in the illicit cannabis market. These groups operate across Canada in all aspects of the cannabis distribution chain. Their criminal activities may expand beyond cannabis to include fentanyl, cocaine, firearms, and tobacco.[19]
1.30The issue of organised crime being involved in the cannabis market is not unique to Canada. Similar issues have occurred in California.
1.31The LA Times has run a series of articles with respect to the involvement of organised crime in the Californian cannabis market. To quote from one recent article published on 30 January 2024:
In the last year alone, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department said its marijuana enforcement teams served 411 search warrants for illegal marijuana grows. They found 14 “honey oil” labs, 655,000 plants and 74,000 pounds of processed marijuana. Eleven search warrants were executed in the immediate area where the slayings took place.
“The plague is the black market of marijuana and certainly cartel activity, and a number of victims are out there,” Sheriff Shannon Dicus said.
A Times investigation last yearuncovered the proliferation of illegal cannabis in California after the passage ofProposition 64 which legalized the recreational use of marijuana in the state. Although the 2016 legislation promised voters that the legal market would hobble illegal trade and its associated violence, there has been a surge in the black market.
Growers at illegal sites can avoid the expensive licensing fees and regulatory costs associated with legal farms. Violence is a looming threat at these operations, authorities said, because illicit harvests yield huge quantities of cash to operators who can’t use banks or law enforcement for protection.[20]
1.32Overseas experience indicates that organised crime will continue to be involved in the cannabis market even if a legal regulated market were introduced. This puts into question the revenue projections made in the PBO Costings and raises issues for law enforcement and public safety in relation to product quality.
1.33As stated above, the PBO Costings assumed that there would be an increase of 15 per cent in demand for cannabis products in the first year of the policy. Demand would then increase on a proportionate basis with population growth. However, there is another element to the equation. How many more Australians would partake in cannabis products if a legal recreational market were established in Australia?
1.34There was discussion in relation to this issue in the Canadian context.Inparticular, Senator Shoebridge and the representative of the Australian Medical Association had an exchange in relation to the issue.[21] However, there is compelling Australian evidence of the possible increase in Australians partaking in cannabis if the recreational market is legalised. This is based on their own responses to surveys.
1.35In paragraph 2.27 of the majority report, there is a reference to an article issued by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of New South Wales which is concerning (the ‘Weatherburn Article’). The findings of the Weatherburn Article are even more concerning when considered in the context of the most recent results of the Australian National Drug Strategy Household Survey (the ‘NDSHS’).
1.36The NDSHS is a national household survey of Australians aged 14 and over.The Weatherburn Article considered results for the years 2013, 2016 and 2019.The survey contains a question with respect to whether or not the respondent would use cannabis if it became legal:
If marijuana/cannabis were legal to use, would you:
not use it, even if it were legal and available;
try it;
use it about as often as you do now;
use it more often than you do now; or
don’t know.
1.37Following the analysis, the authors found:
We estimate that 4.2% of the population aged 14 and over, who have never tried cannabis before, would try it if use of the drug were legal and that 2.6% of the population would use more cannabis if it were legal. Theproportions in both categories have grown significantly since 2013.
On this estimate, 924,543 Australian residents aged 14 and over would try it if the sanctions for use and possession were completely removed.
There is a clear relationship between psychological distress, age and willingness to try or use more cannabis, with those who are young and experiencing high levels of distress most likely to try cannabis if they have not tried it already and they are more willing to use more cannabis if they have previously used the drug.
An estimated 35% of the Australian population aged 14 and over have used cannabis at least once. On this estimate, 1,280,061 people would increase their current cannabis consumption if cannabis use were legal.That figure would be lower (1,170, 321) if cannabis use were decriminalised only for those aged 20 and older but, again, only if those aged under 20 were unaffected by the decriminalisation of cannabis use for older age groups.
The current findings nonetheless have significant public health implications. Almost half of the population aged 16-85 will experience a mental disorder at some time in their life…Whilst the vast majority of people may be unaffected by any change in the legislative status of cannabis use, small changes in the number of heavy users of cannabis could have significant effects on demand for treatment and drug related harms. This is especially true when, as in the present case, vulnerable adolescents and teenagers are among those most likely to use more cannabis if it is decriminalised.
1.38The above findings require deep consideration, especially in a context where mental health services are not meeting the heavy demand under current policy settings. This is a major public health issue. It is even more concerning when one considers the outcomes of the most recent NDSHS.
1.39In the 2022–23 NDSHS, there has been a material increase in the percentage of respondents who say they would try cannabis if it were made legal. Thenumber has increased from 5.3 per cent in 2010 to 12.8 per cent in 2022–23.Moreover, in the last three years there has been a statistically significant increase from 9.5 per cent in 2019 to 12.8 per cent in 2022–23. There has also been an increase in the percentage of people who say they would use more cannabis if it were made legal. The increase has been from 1.2 per cent in 2010 to 2.9 per cent in 2022–23.[22]
1.40Hence, if the analysis undertaken in the Weatherburn Article were updated for the most recent data, there would be an even greater number of Australians who would either try cannabis for the first time or increase their use of cannabis.
1.41The Weatherburn article quotes research indicating that approximately 1 in 10 of those who use cannabis will develop dependence. When one considers this in the context of the above numbers, adoption of the Bill is likely to result in more than 100,000 Australians developing a dependence on cannabis which they do not currently have. Based on the analysis undertaken in the Weatherburn Article, many of these would be young people suffering high levels of distress – some of our youngest and most vulnerable Australians.
1.42Some might argue that revenues raised from a legal and regulated industry may be directed to treating those who become dependent or suffer negative physical or mental health outcomes from the well documented health risks arising from cannabis use. However, the experience overseas indicates that such services are not provided or are inadequate.Refer to a recent article in the Washington Post in relation to the experience in Portugal.[23] Would Australia be any different?
1.43The issue should be considered in the context of Australia’s health services being currently overwhelmed, including in relation to substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment. This is clear from evidence received by the committee during the course of this inquiry.
1.44Professor Jenny Williams based at the University of Melbourne advised:
I agree: our mental health system isn't great; substance use treatment in Victoria is awful and in a terrible state. So I agree. That's why all of the money that other jurisdictions get is mostly spent in the health sector, including community health—not just substance use treatment, but setting up community health and, in the US context, providing insurance for people who don't have insurance.[24]
1.45Dr Michael Bonning of the Australian Medical Association (AMA) addressed the mental health treatment challenges faced in Australia:
Senator SCARR: I want to go to the provision of mental health services. From my perspective, I talk to families who are trying to get access to mental health services, in particular for young people, sons and daughters, potentially between the ages of 14 and 21, and they have extraordinary difficulty accessing mental health services. The AMA touches upon this in your submission, and you actually refer to 'a concern about further strain on already limited and underfunded mental health and drug rehabilitation services'. What is the particular concern of the AMA in relation to this policy proposal in the context of provision of mental health services in particular for young people?
Dr Bonning: Since research from overseas found those significant increases in ED visits and hospitalisations associated with cannabis—that is only limited data; we recognise that—the issue will always be that our health system, especially our acute sector, our hospitals, are under huge and continuing levels of unprecedented demand. We can cite any number of ambulance ramping issues in Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and New South Wales; also, wait times in emergency departments, lack of access to beds, and especially limitations on—we are seeing this in New South Wales—the amount of public service psychiatrists, mental health nurses, full-time positions for those individuals, and increasing health system costs. In all of those things, the people who get left out, more often than not, unfortunately, are those who enter our system through a drug pathway. That is often because of the complexity of their care; also, the needs for that care often have multidisciplinary team approaches—initial engagement with psychiatry and long-term engagement with people in the ATOD space— alcohol, tobacco and other drug space—alongside social work and youth-appropriate mental health services in ways that can deliver education alongside peer support. All of those systems are highly strained and are quite limited. I would think about services like Headspace. Only fairly recently in the provision of health services did we recognise the importance of youth-specific mental health services.[25]
1.46These comments by the AMA were also reiterated in its submission:
The AMA does not support the Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023. The AMA is concerned that if cannabis were legalised for recreational purposes, it may increase health and social-related harms. This in turn may increase demand on an already overstretched healthcare system.[26]
1.47Mr Shane Varcoe of the Dalgarno Institute stated at a public hearing:
…when it comes to the mental health issue, that's a real concern because you're dealing with a psychotropic toxin that's incredibly addictive, despite some of the evidence coming out of certain sectors, particularly for the young and the developing brain. I think the AMA have got this completely correct. Professor John Toumbourou is a chair of psychology at Deakin and understands that principle pretty well.[27]
1.48Consider the following exchange with Mrs Jan Kronberg, National President of the Drug Advisory Council of Australia:
Senator SCARR: Mrs Kronberg… One of the issues that have been raised is whether or not there are adequate mental health services and rehabilitation services available to respond to the issues we've got in society at the moment, and then, if a policy such as this were introduced, what would be required in terms of additional mental health services and rehabilitation services to address the demand for such services. Do you have any views with respect to that?
Mrs Kronberg: I have strong views about this because of my lived experience. As a lecturer within the TAFE system, I had many drug affected students. As a parent I had to interface with my children at school and their school communities. And my eight years as a member of parliament gave me an exposure to all forms of the human condition—much of it suffering, directly and firsthand. It was with a great degree of chagrin that we saw that, in the state budget handed down here in Victoria on Tuesday night, the government cut funding for 35 proposed mental health clinics. We were looking to have those clinics to absorb the patient load and provide people with mental health problems with adequate care, and now we don't even have those 35 centres because the funding has been cut.[28]
1.49In response to a similar question, Professor Simon Lenton of the National Drug Research Institute at Curtin University stated:
I'd make the point that there's an obvious case for expanding resources for mental health services in Australia, irrespective of what happens with this bill and what happens with drug use. That's an absolute given, no question about that. Secondly, as Michael Farrell has alluded to, we know that some of the worst aspects of what's happened in North America has been that the price has fallen through the floor for legal cannabis, potency has gone up and the proportion of cannabis that's high potency—above 70 per cent THC, as opposed to 12 to 13 per cent THC—has grown as commercial entities try to make a profit and compete with each other to get the biggest share of the profit. That's clearly not a model you'd want from a mental health perspective and a public health perspective.[29]
1.50On the basis of the evidence received by the inquiry, there are great risks involved in introducing a legal market for recreational cannabis use. Based on Australian survey results, analysis indicates that over a million additional Australians would try cannabis if a legal recreational market were established.The fact that the percentage of Australians who have indicated that they would try cannabis if a legal market were introduced has substantially increased over the last 14 years requires urgent policy consideration. Clearly, the potentially disastrous health consequences of cannabis use are not fully understood by the Australian public, including young Australians who are suffering emotional distress and are particularly vulnerable. This deserves an urgent policy response from government.
Senator Paul Scarr
Deputy Chair
Footnotes
[1]Senator David Shoebridge, Senate Hansard, 10 August 2023, p. 3685.
[2]Parliamentary Budget Office, Policy Costing: Legalise Cannabis Nationally, 12 January 2023, p. 2.
[3]See clauses 18 and 19 of the Bill with offences relating to growing cannabis plants and manufacturing cannabis products.
[4]Senator David Shoebridge, Senate Hansard, 10 August 2023, p. 3686.
[5]Australian Taxation Office, ‘Extinguishing the illicit tobacco trade’, www.ato.gov.au/about-ato/tax-avoidance/the-fight-against-tax-crime/news-and-results/case-studies/illicit-tobacco-case-studies (accessed 30 May 2024).
[6]Parliamentary Budget Office, Policy Costing: Legalise Cannabis Nationally, 12 January 2023, p. 3.
[7]Parliamentary Budget Office, Policy Costing: Legalise Cannabis Nationally, 12 January 2023, p. 5.
[8]Dalgarno Institute, answers to questions on notice, 21 February 2024 (received 7 March 2024).
[9]Department of Health and Aged Care, answers to questions on notice, 21 February 2024 (received 20 March 2024).
[10]Australian Medical Association, answers to questions on notice, 21 February 2024 (received 15March 2024).
[11]National Drug Strategy 2017-2026, 18 September 2017, p. 18.
[12]Economic Consulting Team, Oxford Economics, ‘Economic impact of illicit tobacco in Australia’, 14December 2021, www.oxfordeconomics.com/resource/economic-impact-of-illicit-tobacco-in-australia/ (accessed 31 May 2024).
[13]Parliamentary Budget Office, Policy Costing: Legalise Cannabis Nationally, 12 January 2023, p. 4.
[14]Parliamentary Budget Office, Policy Costing: Legalise Cannabis Nationally, 12 January 2023, p. 3.
[15]Deloitte, ‘Clearing the Smoke: Insights to Canada’s Illicit Cannabis Market’, www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ca/Documents/ca-23-8380872cannabis-pov-en-v6-aoda.pdf(accessed 31 May 2024).
[16]Deloitte, Clearing the Smoke: Insights to Canada’s Illicit Cannabis Market, p. 2, www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ca/Documents/ca-23-8380872cannabis-pov-en-v6-aoda.pdf (accessed 31 May 2024).
[17]Government of Canada, Legislative Review of the Cannabis Act: Final Report of the Expert Panel, March 2024, www.canada.ca/fr/sante-canada/services/publications/drogues-medicaments/examen-legislatif-loi-cannabis-rapport-final-comite-experts.html (accessed 31 May 2024).
[18]Government of Canada, Legislative Review of the Cannabis Act: Final Report of the Expert Panel, March 2024.
[19]Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Organized crime and illegal cannabis, 30 May 2024, https://rcmp.ca/en/cannabis/organized-crime-and-illegal-cannabis (accessed 30 May 2024).
[20]‘A massacre that killed 6 reveals the treacherous world of illegal pot in SoCal deserts’, LA Times, 30January 2024, www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-30/massacre-adds-to-grim-toll-of-illegal-pot-violence-in-the-desert (accessed 30 May 2024).
[21]Australian Medical Association, answers to questions on notice, 21 February 2024 (received5March2024).
[22]Table 11.17: Likely usage of cannabis if it was legalised, people aged 14 and over, by gender, 2010 to 2022–2023 (col per cent).
[23]‘Once hailed for decriminalizing drugs, Portugal is now having doubts’, Washington Post, 7 July 2023, www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/ (accessed 31 May 2024).
[24]Professor Jenny Williams, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 16.
[25]Dr Michael Bonning, Chair, Public Health Committee, Australian Medical Association, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, pp. 24–25.
[26]Australian Medical Association, Submission 16, p. 3.
[27]Mr Shane Varcoe, Executive Director, Dalgarno Institute, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p.41.
[28]Mrs Jan Kronberg, National President, Drug Advisory Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 10May 2024, p. 3.
[29]Professor Simon Lenton, Director, National Drug Research Institute, Committee Hansard, 10May2024, p. 29.
An inquiry into the Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023.
Senate
House of Representatives
Get informed
Bills
Committees
Get involved
Visit Parliament
Website features
Parliamentary Departments