Chapter 2Key issues

2.1Submitters and witnesses expressed a range of views in relation to the legalisation of cannabis for adult recreational use. There was support for and opposition to the objective and key proposals in the Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023 (the Bill).

2.2This chapter examines some of the arguments, including:

the objective of the Bill;

the functions of the Cannabis Australia National Agency (the Agency or CANA);

the regulation of cannabis, including offences and decriminalisation;

licences for regulated cannabis activities, including Cannabis Cafés;

economic opportunities from a legal recreational cannabis market;

the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961; and

constitutionality and incompatibility with states and territories.

Objective of the Bill

2.3Many submitters and witnesses supported the legalisation of cannabis as proposed in the Bill, including due to its alignment with the National Drug Strategy 2017–26 (National Drug Strategy). This strategy outlines a national commitment to harm minimisation through the balanced adoption of effective demand, supply and harm reduction strategies.[1]

2.4The Penington Institute submitted:

Cannabis prohibition doesn’t work: it fails to control supply, leaves the market in the hands of criminals, and costs billions of dollars in enforcement, all while hindering a public health-led approach to managing the health harms that are associated with problematic cannabis use.[2]

2.5Professor Nicole Lee, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of 360Edge, said:

Australia's National Drug Strategy is based on the principle of harm minimisation. What that means is that the policy's No. 1 aim should be to minimise health, social and legal harms associated with both legal and illegal drugs. But there's no evidence that banning drugs minimises harms. There is actually evidence that it increases harms. Laws that are based on prohibition and a prohibition approach are harmful and also contrary to the intent of our official drug policy.[3]

2.6360Edge argued that the Bill takes a ‘sensible’ approach to cannabis regulation and would ‘significantly minimise the risks associated with cannabis use and benefit public health, in line with the [National Drug Strategy]’. Its submission added that the Bill has learned from international approaches to cannabis use:

The proposed Bill offers a regulatory framework that strikes an optimal balance between the commercialised private market approach of the US, the ‘hybrid’ approach of Canada (promoting public health through regulations but allowing the participation of large corporations in the cannabis market) and the highly restrictive approach of Uruguay in which consumers must be registered. The Bill negates the risks of commercialisation, learning from the private market experience of some US states and Canada, while also avoiding overly restrictive regulation that poses supply problems and drives cannabis users back to the black market, such as in Uruguay.[4]

2.7Similarly, the Penington Institute described the Bill as ‘important step forward’ and supported:

…a balanced model that facilitates a steady nationwide shift to legal, regulated cannabis while also taking decisive steps to minimise the health harms that cannabis can cause. We applaud the introduction of the Legalise Cannabis Bill 2023, but believe further debate and amendments can help the Bill strike a more effective balance between access and public health.[5]

2.8Representatives from Plant Playground Pty Ltd (Plant Playground) and Ganjika Pty Ltd (Ganjika) reflected the views of some individual submitters when they argued that the Bill should be supported, as it would promote safety, education and personal choice.

2.9Plant Playground’s director, Ms Sasha Lai, said, for example:

Allow licence holders to educate and promote healthy adult cannabis use. Allow Australians the right to choose what they put into their bodies. Weknow people will consume cannabis regardless of what the law says, solet's change our cannabis laws to reflect current views, values, and science.[6]

2.10Ms Malini Sietaram from Ganjika called for the destigmatisation of cannabis use, which makes therapeutic users fearful of accessing the product:

Scientific research has shown that cannabis can improve the overall quality of life if people are suffering from chronic pain, endometriosis, anxiety, epilepsy, and other conditions. Yet most of my patients have told me how anxious they are when they speak to their doctors, feeling like they are doing something illegal.[7]

2.11Ms Lai added that it is important for people to understand what they are putting into their bodies but that information and education is not available in an illegal market:

You don't go to a bar and not understand what the alcohol percentage is in the cocktail or glass of wine you're having. The same goes for if you were to travel to anywhere in the world where cannabis is legal; you would be able to safely understand, through regulated products, what it is that you are consuming. This is incredibly important, as cannabis acts differently with everybody. The way that it interacts with our own individual endocannabinoid system is unique. It's integral to safe consumption. Knowing exactly how much dosage is in a product, when to take that product and how to take that product is part of the education that needs to happen through licence holders.[8]

Physical and mental health risks

2.12Other submitters and witnesses maintained that cannabis use can pose significant physical and mental health risks. The Australian Medical Association (AMA), for example, highlighted the following short and long-term health impacts:

People can experience immediate impacts to mental health such as reduced brain function, anxiety or panic attacks, paranoia, or memory loss. Cannabis users are more likely to develop psychoses or schizophrenia. Physical impacts can include impaired reaction time, balance, and information processing. Cannabis can be addictive and cause withdrawal symptoms. Long-term use can impair brain function, damage the person’s throat and lungs and cause bronchitis or cancer, cause cardiovascular system damage, and mental health conditions such as depression. Using cannabis while pregnant is associated with a lower birthweight of babies. Using cannabis is associated with alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use.[9]

2.13Professor Robyn Langham, Chief Medical Adviser in the Health Products Regulatory Group of the Department of Health and Aged Care (theDepartment), agreed:

…there are known issues with cardiovascular problems of the heart and pulmonary effects of the lungs; and also issues regarding acute use, chronic use and neuropsychiatric or mental disorders as well. There have been increasing reports of overdose and toxicity by minors with increasing use. …[T]here's the other perhaps less easy to measure aspect of use, which is the risks on driving and impaired driving.[10]

2.14The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) supported the AMA’s submission:

It presents an accurate description of the clinical and public health issues relating to cannabis use, in addition to accurately describing the health effects observed internationally following the deregulation of cannabis.[11]

2.15The Drug Advisory Council of Australia (DACA) submitted that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that cannabis use significantly harms physical, cognitive and mental health. Its submission referenced recent systematic reviews, including the following review:

Campeny and colleagues (2020) examined the results of 44 systematic reviews and found a clear association between cannabis use and psychosis, affective disorders, anxiety, suicide, suicide ideation, sleep disorders, cognitive failures, respiratory adverse events, including lung cancer, cardiovascular outcomes and gastrointestinal disorders.[12]

2.16The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) advised that there is strong evidence of cannabis harm to recreational users, particularly in susceptible groups (unborn children, young people and people with mental health disorders):

There are negative impacts of cannabis use on the developing brain, including increased risk of psychiatric symptoms associated with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products. It is associated with Substance Abuse Disorder and Cannabis Withdrawal Syndrome.[13]

2.17The DACA particularly commented on the risks associated with making edible products that are attractive to young people:

Farrelly and colleagues (2023) in their systematic review also found a range of other harmful outcomes for children following recreational cannabis legalization, including an increase in emergency department rates in children and young people which related primarily to poisonings (i.e.,unintentional ingesting of cannabis). The authors noted a particular concern regarding edible cannabis products, which come in forms that are attractive to children and can contain high amounts of THC.[14]

2.18Mr Robert Taylor, Manager of Policy and Engagement for the Alcohol and Drug Foundation (ADF), took a different position to the above submitters. Heexpressed the view that the risky use of cannabis is associated with cannabis harm, not necessarily all cannabis use.[15]

Increased risks due to legalisation

2.19Some submitters contended that legalising recreational cannabis would lead to increased consumption. The AMA considered that legalisation would signal to the Australian community that cannabis use is not harmful.[16] The DACA agreed:

There is high level consensus, that following recreational cannabis legalization, many people equate the legal status of cannabis with its safety, and start to use cannabis, or use cannabis more often (Athanassious et al, 2023, Farrelly et al, 2023, Hall et al, 2023).[17]

2.20These submitters argued that increased cannabis consumption would lead to increased physical and mental health risks, as well as consequent demand on health services.[18] On the latter point, the AMA’s Dr Michael Bonning, Chair of the Public Health Committee, said that Australia’s health system is under ‘huge and continuing levels of unprecedented demand’:

…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.[19]

2.21The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) submitted that the following facts suggest that there could be a concomitant increase in cannabis‑related mental health problems:

Around 10 per cent of cannabis users become dependent on the drug. Useof cannabis (especially regular use) can also induce psychosis (Darke, Lappin & Farrell 2019)...Weatherburn et al (2021) found that respondents who frequently use cannabis and/or who are suffering from mild, moderate, or severe psychological stress, were more likely to say they would use more cannabis if it was legal than those infrequently using cannabis and/or not suffering from such stress. Other studies have shown that cannabis use, particularly when combined with alcohol, increases the risk of a motor vehicle accident (Calabria, Degenhardt & Lynskey 2010).[20]

2.22Some submitters questioned whether cannabis use can be linked to motor vehicle accidents and highlighted that it is not currently possible to accurately test for impairment when cannabis has been consumed.[21] Some argued that, under state and territory criminal law, this inability has already led to discrimination against medicinal cannabis users.

2.23Mr Greg Barns SC, National Criminal Justice Chair at the Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA), illustrated these circumstances as follows:

What we're getting is people being penalised for drug driving when there is no level of impairment. Road safety legislation is designed to stop people who are impaired or who are at risk of being impaired with, for example, a 0.05 or more blood alcohol concentration from being on our roads. Todiscriminate against people and to ensure that they lose their licence and, potentially, their livelihood simply on the basis that they've got a trace of cannabis in their system is patently unfair.

I've done two cases now where that's been the case. In one of these cases, the person in question was, in fact, going to his chemist to get his medical cannabis prescription when he was pulled over by police. We sought to get the prosecution to exercise its discretion not to prosecute because it wasn't in the public interest; we failed. The magistrate we appeared in front of was shocked because, effectively, she said, 'The law is not keeping up with reality; I have to penalise a person in circumstances that do not accord with justice'.[22]

2.24On this point Ms Cadrie (Kady) Chemal from Astrid Dispensary and Clinic said that ‘the sole presence of [the THC molecule in cannabis] in the blood doesn’t equate to impairment’ but current laws ‘do not differentiate between presence and impairment’.[23]

2.25Mr John Venditto, Assistant Commissioner, Crime Services with the South Australia Police (SAPOL), confirmed that SAPOL tests for the presence of cannabis and cannot test for impairment.[24] However, Mr Venditto also noted that just because police cannot see an impairment, does not mean there is no impairment.[25]

2.26Professor David Heilpern AM, a long-serving former magistrate, gave evidence that ‘there is not a single coronial finding saying that medicinal cannabis caused a death on the road’ and there were only a ‘precious few’ that show recreational cannabis.[26]

2.27Returning to the issue of legal cannabis use leading to increased harms, theNDARC submitted that studies with stringent controls have found ‘quite modest’ increases in cannabis consumption following decriminalisation. Onesuch study estimated:

…4.2% of the population aged 14 and over (n = 882 708) who have never tried cannabis before would try it, while 2.6% of the population aged 14 and over (537 000) would use more cannabis if its use were made legal.[27]

2.28360Edge similarly queried the extent to which legalisation might increase cannabis consumption in Australia. Its submission noted that, in the National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2019 (NDSHS 2019), the vast majority (78.7 per cent) of Australians aged 14 years or older reported that they would not use cannabis, if it were legalised. Only 2.9 per cent of respondents (an increase of 1.1 per cent from 2016) would use cannabis more frequently.[28]

2.29Professor Lee explained:

…it's easy enough to access cannabis now, if you want it, through the black market. Most of the people who would want to use it are already using it and they're probably using it as frequently as they would want to. That's why, when jurisdictions have decriminalised or legalised cannabis, there hasn't really been much of a shift in the number of people using.[29]

2.30AMA representative Dr Bonning referred to the Canadian experience:

…there hasn't actually been any significant change in the upwards trajectory of use after the legalisation process. One would say that they are continuing to see increases in use. We would say to you that in most of these processes the simple fact is that people are using cannabis and that is not good for their health overall.[30]

2.31Some submitters and witnesses commented directly on children and young people’s access to and potential harms from cannabis use, which they argued would not increase under the Bill. Drug Policy Australia submitted, forexample:

Young people aged 18-24 are already the group most likely to use cannabis in Australia, and 16% of young people aged 14-17 have tried cannabis. Cannabis is already accessible to young people, and the Legalising Cannabis Bill includes some safe measures against minors accessing cannabis, including age restrictions for purchasing cannabis in line with alcohol and tobacco restrictions.[31]

2.32Dr Bonning highlighted, however, that the Bill would increase young people’s access to cannabis:

…the bill allowing people to grow up to six plants in their homes [see‘Growing cannabis plants’ below] normalises frequent cannabis use, especially in the fact that it doesn't then differentiate for the use of people under the age of 18 who may also live in said houses, making cannabis even more accessible to young people.[32]

2.33On this point, Professor Lee said that it’s hard to know whether home grow will increase children’s access to cannabis:

If I make an analogy with alcohol, many people, including me, have a bunch of bottles of alcohol on my shelf. My now 18-year-old, when he was younger, was not allowed to access those and he didn't…There is potentially an increased risk, but it is certainly up to parents, as it would be for alcohol, tobacco, sweets and lollies, to ensure that those products are out of reach of children. That needs to be part of the regulations as well.[33]

2.34Dr Bonning referenced a 2021 study which found that the Canadian legislation has not reduced cannabis use among youth:

Youth cannabis use remains common with use increasing from 30.5% in 2016/17 to 32.4% in 2018/19…High prevalence of youth cannabis use in this sample remains a concern. These data suggest that the Cannabis Act has not yet led to the reduction in youth cannabis use envisioned in its public health approach.[34]

2.35MrShane Varco, Executive Director of the Dalgarno Institute, also noted Canadian data that he said shows ‘the Canadian model is failing’:

There's recent data coming out of Canada that shows that now between 20 per cent and 25 per cent of young people are engaging in this because they see it as safe. And, of course, an addictive substance generates its own demand.[35]

2.36Professor John Toumbourou said that literature reviews examining the impact of cannabis legalisation over the last five years are ‘telling us that these models of cannabis liberalisation and legalisation are increasing adult use’. Heattributed this increase to perceived availability and a more favourable social norm.[36]

2.37Ms Stephanie Cairney, Assistant Director of Illicit Drugs Policy at the Attorney‑General’s Department (the AGD), advised:

We are generally always looking at what other countries are doing or other jurisdictions are doing in the space, just for our knowledge and understanding. My understanding from the international space is that a lot of the evidence is quite mixed. We are looking at Canada, Portugal and a number of different areas that have both legalisation and decriminalisation.[37]

2.38The AGD’s Mr Alex Engel, Assistant Secretary of the Transnational Crime Branch, highlighted that, while drawing lessons from international experience, it is important to bear in mind jurisdictional differences:

…it's very key when you look internationally that it depends on those jurisdictions and those environments. You can look at like-minded countries, but even with like-minded countries like Canada or the US, it can be vastly different in terms of the particular jurisdiction, the types of organised crime groups they may or may not have there, the different health systems and their impacts, and what programs are in place. So there are very geographically dependent factors where you can draw some lessons, but I guess just picking them up and looking in the Australian context is where the mixed part comes in.[38]

Criminal justice system harms

2.39According to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, there were 66285 cannabis arrests nationally in 2020–2021. ‘Consumer’ arrests, rather than ‘provider’ arrests, accounted for the greater proportion of arrests (90 per cent, Figure 2.1).

Source: Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, Illicit Drug Data Report 2020-21, p. 53.

2.40Some submitters and witnesses commented on the financial costs for law enforcement and the courts.[39] Mr Barns from the ALA said:

I have not met a magistrate or judge—and I've met many over the years—who thinks that the current system, whereby we, for example, ensure that alcohol is legal but cannabis is not legal, despite the fact that cannabis has less of a deleterious impact on the community, makes any sense. The average cost person in police and court activities…is around $2,000. That's around $62 million spent on courts around Australia dealing with possession offences.[40]

2.41Professor Patrick Keyzer agreed that, in addition to the costs of incarceration, arrest, charge and prosecution are time-consuming and costly activities:

…marijuana possession arrests and convictions are very commonly the first step that many people take into the criminal justice system. There are more than 180 prisons in Australia. Statistics clearly indicate that a significant percentage of the people in prison are there for illicit drug use offences. Before they arrive in prison, they, of course, have been arrested, charged, processed by the courts and sentenced. These are time-consuming and costly activities. There were 77,000 arrests for cannabis possession in Australia in 2020. There is no way that this volume of police activity would not be very costly indeed. Assuming that every arrest takes an hour, that's 77,000 police hours that could be expended doing other things, such as protecting women from family violence.[41]

2.42In his second reading speech, Senator David Shoebridge focussed on the harm to individuals, by stating that the Bill could ‘radically reduce harm, literally overnight, by saving some 80,000 Australians a year from being caught up in the criminal justice system for possession of cannabis’.[42]

2.43Many submitters and witnesses agreed that criminal charge, prosecution and conviction harms cannabis users. Some identified the impacts of stigmatisation, the curtailment of work and life opportunities, the sourcing of illicit drugs and the criminal justice process as personal harms.[43]

2.44360Edge reiterated that the objective of a harm minimisation framework—as in the National Drug Strategy—should be to achieve a net reduction in harm, however, the criminalisation of cannabis has caused some of the most significant harms:

The illegal status of recreational cannabis has created a thriving, unregulated black market, incurring substantial health and social costs. Thequality, safety and potency of cannabis circulating in the black market is unknown, substantially raising risks to users compared to if cannabis was regulated. There are no barriers preventing the sale of cannabis to minors. Because cannabis is illegal, the public is not properly educated on safe consumption and potential health risks. The stigmatisation associated with using an illegal drug deters people from accessing help for problematic use or health concerns. There is strong evidence that excessive expenditure on law enforcement has done little to contain the black market and its associated health harms, while incurring significant costs and subjecting vulnerable Australian populations to the harms of the criminal justice system...Thecriminalisation of cannabis use can significantly damage the lives of those who receive a criminal record, posing barriers to employment, housing and education and disproportionately affecting those from vulnerable communities.[44]

2.45The NDARC submitted that these types of harm could be ‘removed’ by ‘diverting drug users away from the criminal justice system’, while concurrently reducing ‘the amounts spent by Government arresting, prosecuting, and sanctioning illicit drug users’.[45]

2.46The Australian Greens consider that financial savings could be re-directed to other worthwhile policies and programs. However, some submitters did not agree that there would necessarily be any such savings.

2.47The Dalgarno Institute, for example, submitted that the decriminalisation of recreational cannabis use and possession might decrease one policing metric (arrests and prosecutions) but not others:

Unlawful or civic harming actions and activities as a result of use of a psychotropic toxin…will ensure the need for ongoing policing, not for ‘possession or use’, but for behavioural outcomes of such consumption. Even if one were to then continue removing statutes of community protection from the policing framework, [it] will not reduce the harms of these behaviours, only enable them with impunity. The fiscal cost, though more difficult to record, will not decrease, but it’s the psycho-social harms and all their attending healthcare demands that will only increase.[46]

2.48The Northern Territory Police Force (NTPF) concurred that the Bill could result in increased resource implications, including:

…increased incidents of trespass, thefts, robbery, and burglary associated with the theft of cannabis, increased complaints from the concerned community members; and potential increase in offences due to cultivation and harvesting of excessive cannabis. If this were to occur, the NTPF’s existing resources would be inadequate to effectively implement the Bill.[47]

2.49Aside from any financial savings, the DACA questioned whether the creation of a legal cannabis market would reduce the harms created by an illicit market. Itssubmission noted overseas experience which, it argued, has shown that illicit markets can continue to thrive following the creation of legal markets. InCanada:

Not only are more people using cannabis, many people are sourcing their cannabis from the illicit market. According to the Canadian Cannabis Survey (2021), for example, only 43% of cannabis consumers report always acquiring cannabis legally. Although it can be viewed as a positive that legal sourcing has increased over time. Concerningly, it is the frequent users who are more likely to purchase from the illegal market. Differences in prices and the amount of THC (the psychoactive component in cannabis) are the main reasons why people source their cannabis illegally. Wasisto and Jans (2022) report that in Canada illicit cannabis is 55% cheaper than legal cannabis.[48]

2.50Professor Jenny Williams, a cannabis researcher based at the University of Melbourne, agreed that, in Canada, the legal market has made substantial advances but not nearly succeeded in eradicating the illicit market:

[The Canadian Cannabis Survey (CCS) 2023] does NOT show that illegal cannabis accounts for less than 5% of the cannabis market in Canada; and (b) Canadian government data show that illegal cannabis market share is substantially larger than 5%...[W]hile it is most certainly the case that the legal market in Canada has been very successful at reducing the size of the illicit market, it remains a significant size, likely in the vicinity of 35-40%.[49]

2.51Professor Simon Lenton, Director at the National Drug Research Institute (NDRI), concurred that current examples of cannabis legalisation show that the legal market has not eliminated the black market.[50]

2.52Professor Williams explained:

…a cannabis market exists and is well established in Australia…[F]or the legal market to make an inroad into replacing the illicit one run by organised crime, you need the legal market to be more attractive to players on both the demand and supply side of the market. You need to lure people who are already operating in the illicit market into the legal market—buyers and sellers.[51]

2.53Professor Williams expressed concern about whether the Bill could achieve this objective. Among her concerns is the 15 to 25 per cent tax level canvassed by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) modelling (see Chapter 1) and the absence of any seed-to-sale tracking which would allow for ‘leakage’:

…from the seller's point of view there is that concern that there are high prices and they're not going to be able to compete with the illicit players. …[I]n this particular bill, there's an absence of any seed-to sale tracking. Seed-to-sale tracking tracks from the time that cannabis seed is planted and the plant grows. To make sure that there's no leakage from the system, it's tracked at every stage, from planting through to selling. It's quite clear to me, as an economist, that a legitimate seller is going to sell to the once-a-year kind of people at the front of their shop, and out the back they're going to be doing business with their more substantial clients, giving them cut prices with illicit product because there's no seed-to-sale tracking.[52]

2.54Ms Lai stated that a legal cannabis market has to be regulated and informed by overseas experience. She conceded that ‘a black market is still going to exist, but with proper regulations in place people are going to find it more attractive to enter into the legal cannabis market’.[53]

2.55In relation to overseas experience, Professor Williams noted that the Canadian approach was ‘very thoughtful, very well researched and very well informed’ with a careful roll-out:

…they didn't just holus-bolus let everything go straight away…[T]hat's really important…All kinds of risk mitigation strategies were built into the way they did it because they gave themselves the time and the opportunity to research it, do it carefully, take on board good advice, be able to observe what happened and then judge what's the next step and how to proceed.[54]

Safeguarding public health

2.56Other submitters—such as the AMA, the RACGP and OZ Medicann Group—suggested that the issue is not whether a legalised recreational cannabis market creates fewer harms than an illicit market. Instead, from a public health and safety perspective, they argued that it is far better for Australia to only legalise medicinal cannabis.

2.57OZ Medicann Group submitted that strict regulations and oversight—as provided by the current regulatory framework led by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)—plays an essential role in safeguarding public health:

Stringent regulations are crucial to ensure the quality, safety, and efficacy of medical cannabis products…[Experience from other jurisdictions] validates the effectiveness of our current regulations and emphasizes the importance of maintaining these safeguards.[55]

2.58Similarly, the AMA supported the TGA’s role in assessing the safety, quality, and efficacy of cannabis products for therapeutic purposes. In its view, if the Bill were passed, it could lead people to self-medicate without consulting a medical practitioner or the quality controls that come with product registration under the TGA’s Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods.[56]

2.59The Australian Lawyers Alliance National President Mr Shaun Marcus acknowledged that therapeutic solutions could be better approached through the existing TGA processes:

Our clients don't wish to take medications from the black market; they want to take a safe and reliable medication through the use of their doctor. I certainly have clients who have had to shop around to try to access, to test whether medicinal or therapeutic cannabis assists their long-term condition. We would support, obviously, this being done in a safe way. There's no advantage for people to be uncertain as to what they're taking or have to buy it on the black market; that just shouldn't be the case.[57]

2.60Some witnesses specifically noted contamination issues in black market cannabis that, they argued, would be controlled through strong regulation. DrAdele Stevens, committee member for Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform, said, for example:

When you buy something on the illegal market, you don't know what you're getting. Recently in the ACT we have had drug testing. We started off doing drug testing at Groovin the Moo events, and now the ACT government has drug testing where people can come in and get their illegal drugs tested. That's going to be very useful because it then shows that a small percentage of these drugs are quite contaminated and quite dangerous. But in a regulated system that wouldn't happen.[58]

2.61Dr Paul Kelaita, Postdoctoral Fellow for the Drug Policy Modelling Program at the Social Policy Research Centre (Drug Policy Modelling Program), stated that dangerous contaminants and variations in strength are harms that result from unregulated supply:

Some of the harms around unregulated supply specifically come from various contaminants that might be in the illicit supply, as well as variation in THC quantity in cannabis. You can't know how much THC is in cannabis bought on the illicit market. There is the same kind of problem around the ratio between THC and CBD in cannabis. There's also some emerging evidence that synthetic cannabinoids are found in unregulated supply, so various contaminants across the board are the main issues with unregulated supply specifically.[59]

2.62Dr Jake Dizard, Senior Researcher at the Penington Institute, stated that there are studies in other countries, not Australia, in relation to contaminants in the regulated and unregulated markets. Hereferenced a 2023 Canadian study:

It was quite revealing…This phenomenon of contaminants is often discussed in the abstract. I found those numbers yesterday showing that in Canada 92 per cent of the samples from law enforcement seizures from the illicit market had extremely high levels of pesticides and only six per cent of the samples from the legally sold cannabis had unregistered levels of pesticide at very low levels. I thought it was important to put some sort of substance on the bones of this very important point raised by our colleagues about contaminants…We know that mould and heavy metals are other contaminants that have often been found in studies in North America.[60]

2.63The AMA considered, however, that there is a ’limited evidence base for the use of medicinal cannabis products for several conditions’ and for most conditions:

...there will be more evidence-based treatments available through a doctor or allied health professional that patients should explore before self‑medicating on cannabis products.[61]

2.64Dr Bonning explained:

There is growing evidence for specific conditions and the use of medicinal cannabis. This has been shown by the number of special access scheme authorisations for the use of medicinal cannabis. In addition, many general practitioners and subspecialist practitioners are now authorised to apply for cannabis-based products for their patients. That has been increasing steadily over the last five years. There is genuine interest in continuing research, and in the use of cannabis where there is clear medical and clinical evidence for the use of it. As with all things, if there is good evidence to support it, from a clinical perspective, doctors are happy to assess that evidence and use it for the benefit of their patients…There may always be a gap between those people who think they should have medicinal cannabis and the evidence supporting that use.[62]

Availability, accessibility and affordability of medicinal cannabis

2.65Similarly, many submitters and witnesses advised that illicit cannabis is used for therapeutic treatments in circumstances where medicinal cannabis is unavailable, inaccessible or unaffordable.[63]

2.66The ALA’s Mr Marcus noted that, while medicinal cannabis is available through a highly regulated scheme, the number of people who have been able to access it is low compared to many other countries:

The current regulatory model makes it difficult for many people to access the system, and a new and fit-for-purpose framework is needed...[W]e know that many medical professionals will refuse to prescribe cannabis for medicinal use. As a result of the challenges in gaining access, patients often must resort to self-medication by using illicitly obtained cannabis.[64]

2.67Ganjika’s Ms Sietaram referenced 2022 data, which showed that, out of 47 000 doctors nationally, while 19 000 are interested in prescribing medicinal cannabis, only 843 doctors actually prescribe it for their patients: ‘the reason for that is the red tape and the lack of education these doctors have. They don’t feel comfortable prescribing it’.[65]

2.68Ganjika provided some information in relation to the costs of cannabis in Australia. In addition to being more expensive than in some international jurisdictions, there can be price variation among companies. In a ‘mystery shopping exercise’, the following comparative costing was obtained for a first consultation and script:

Source: Ganjika Pty Ltd, answer to question on notice, 21 February 2024 (received 15 March 2024), p. 2.

2.69On the cost of medicinal cannabis, Ms Lai commented: ‘people are going to look for their cannabis elsewhere, given the price that we have right now and the lack of competition’.[66] However, Professor Williams noted that the creation of a legal recreational cannabis market would create competition and drive down the cost of medicinal cannabis:

Of course, a substantial barrier to accessing medical cannabis is its cost, and the international experience is that introducing a legal recreational market reduces the cost of medical cannabis through the effects of competition. Inshort, those seeking to use cannabis for medical purposes can often find a product in the recreational space to suit their needs, and will purchase in the recreational market if it is cheaper. This forces down prices in the medical cannabis sector. So, a recreational market for cannabis will make medical cannabis cheaper and therefore more accessible.[67]

2.70Ms Sietaram suggested that the price problem might be compounded by the absence of pharmaceutical benefits support:

If you talk to your doctor, you cannot claim that consult on Medicare. You make it very expensive for Australians to access this. There are some really good Australian companies now that are providing concession rates. However, what they do is that, instead of using the premium quality of the flower, they are using the left-over buds. So it's still effective but they are lower-quality products that are then sold at concession prices.[68]

2.71Professor Langham acknowledged that the TGA administers the Special Access Scheme, which provides access to unregistered therapeutic products. Mostmedicinal cannabis products in Australia are not registered, that is, ‘they’ve not been presented to the TGA for evaluation of safety, quality and efficiency…Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme…funding is only available to therapies that have been registered on the [Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods]’.[69]

2.72Professor Langham indicated that PBS funding would require legislative reform or a sponsor of a drug to bring the medicinal cannabis product to the TGA for evaluation for safety, quality and efficacy.[70]

Functions of the CANA

2.73As noted in Chapter 1, the Bill proposes the creation of a new regulatory body—the CANA—whose functions would include regulating regulated cannabis activities in the broader public interest (proposed paragraph 35(a)).

2.74Submitters and witnesses commented on this proposed provision, as well as the proposals to prevent the alcohol, tobacco and part pharmaceutical sectors from participating in a legal recreational cannabis market and to waive application fees for First Nations people.

‘Broader public interest’

2.75The Penington Institute’s Dr Dizard considered proposed paragraph 35(a) to be an appropriate key function for the CANA. He gave evidence that ‘a lot of it is about balancing the trade offs’ and noted that, in Canada, the legislation sets out eight priorities to assist in achieving an effective balance.[71]

2.76Ms Michala Kowalski, Research Officer for the Drug Policy Modelling Program, highlighted that ‘public benefit’ can be construed in interesting ways, as seen in the alcohol industry: ‘it is very useful to define in concrete terms what that public interest means’.[72]

2.77The Drug Policy Modelling Program described the Bill’s approach to the public interest as ‘dynamic’, however, it indicated that the Bill should be more explicit about what might constitute the public interest:

…further stipulation within the legislation on what is not included as part of the public interest, who carries the onus of proof that they are acting in the public interest, and who should be excluded from defining the public interest (such as people involved in and connected to the cannabis industry) would be in accordance to examples of best practice in this policy arena.[73]

2.78The Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) submitted that, in considering the Bill, ‘the health and safety of Australians should be the paramount priority’.[74] The DACA noted the economic arguments proposed in favour of the Bill but concurred with the PHAA:

Even if cannabis markets have potential to make billions of dollars in revenue, there are obvious ethical problems associated with governments encouraging business success that we all know will result in more cannabis use disorders, poorer public health, and much more human suffering…[D]rugs policy should be shaped in terms of human rights, with consideration given to a hierarchy of rights…[D]rawing from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)…the right to life, health and safety are particularly important rights and should be prioritized by governments.[75]

2.79The SAPOL similarly argued that forecast revenue must be balanced against the likely harms to the Australian community:

Evidence regarding the experience of other jurisdictions, like Colorado and Washington in the United States (US), indicates the legalisation of cannabis will place further strain on an already strained health system, impact the life outcomes of younger people and contribute to fatal and serious injury road crashes. This will have both human and economic impacts.[76]

‘Excluded person’

2.80Multiple submitters agreed with the Bill’s proposal to exclude the alcohol and tobacco industries from participating in a legalised recreational cannabis industry. The PHAA submitted, for example:

These sectors have demonstrated over many decades a predominant commitment to profit, market share, and market domination where possible, and have engaged in practices of influence over government that have been seriously damaging to public health. It is a paramount policy goal that the culture of these industries not be imported into any legalized cannabis industry.[77]

2.81The Drug Policy Modelling Program endorsed strong regulation to restrict commercial interests:

The clash of commercial interests with public health principles is an area of key concern regarding a legalised regulated cannabis industry (Caulkins & Kilborn, 2019; Fischer, Lee, et al., 2020; Shanahan, 2011). Research into corporate interests influencing alcohol and tobacco policy, including our own work (Kowalski, Wilkinson et al., 2023; McCambridge et al., 2019; McCambridge et al., 2018; Miller et al., 2021; Miller et al., 2023; Savell et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2013), and emerging cannabis policy (Adams et al., 2021), suggest explicit exclusions and constraints around cannabis commercialisation and monopolisation would be beneficial (Fischer, Bullen, et al., 2020)...Industry influence should be restricted at all points in a legalised cannabis market, from a seat at the table of the regulatory agency itself to supply and retail arrangements.[78]

2.82The Alcohol and Drug Foundation (ADF) shared these concerns:

In other industries where harmful products are provided by for-profit organisations, there is a conflict between the incentives of for-profit organisations and public health outcomes. For-profit entities will invariably seek growth and profit as their key driver, without consideration of public health outcomes. The example of the tobacco industry demonstrates how for-profit business can actively work against the public good. It has taken decades of hard-fought regulation to contain the power of the tobacco industry in the developed world. Similar challenges exist in the alcohol and gambling spaces in Australia today. The ADF would therefore recommend that any model of cannabis legalisation be done with the role of commercial entities minimised, particularly at the point of retail sale.[79]

2.83The Drug Policy Modelling Program suggested that the health portfolio should administer legislation associated with recreational cannabis:

In the absence of detailed additions regarding pricing restrictions (e.g. minimum unit price) (Englund et al., 2017; Freeman & Lorenzetti, 2020), maximum THC levels (Freeman & Winstock, 2015; Hall et al., 2023), and mandated THC/CBD ratios (Freeman et al., 2019), locating CANA within the Health portfolio would formalise the agency functions to maximise safety and minimise harm associated with regulated cannabis activities.[80]

2.84However, the Department of Health and Aged Care representative Ms Sukanya Lingaratnam advised that ‘recreational use is not within our remit. We regulate therapeutic goods’.[81]

Exemptions from the payment of fees

2.85According to the Bill’s Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights:

The Bill advances Human Rights to Equality and Non-discrimination, and to Work, as it addresses, to the extent possible provided by its content, historical and ongoing injustices towards Indigenous peoples…Special measures are introduced by the Bill—including positive action by CANA in considering applications by Indigenous persons to apply to register a strain of cannabis or for a licence—to address historic injustices towards Indigenous peoples as a result of decades of over-policing of cannabis related laws and to address significant ongoing barriers for Indigenous peoples to enjoy their right to work.[82]

2.86Some submitters supported the provisions in the Bill whose stated aim is to address historic injustices and to provide employment opportunities to First Nations people. PlantPlayground, for example, submitted:

…we support a free license scheme for First Nations people in recognition of the unfair impact of the war on drugs on their communities. It is our belief that such a scheme can contribute to rectifying historical injustices and providing economic opportunities to First Nations communities.[83]

2.87However, other submitters argued that this approach is antithetical to promoting positive health outcomes for First Nations people. The AMA referenced sub-clause 13(3) of the Bill, which would provide that no fee is payable for an application to register a cannabis strain, if the applicant is an Indigenous person or a body corporate controlled (within the meaning of section 50AA of the Corporations Act 2001) by one or more Indigenous persons.[84]

2.88The AMA argued that this sub-clause would have unintended consequences in First Nations communities:

Discounting cannabis product licenses in these communities may further proliferate cannabis use rates, adding further complexity to a population already facing inequitable health issues. Decriminalising personal cannabis use…and raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14 would be a more effective method of reducing the disproportionate incarceration rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and its associated health and social impacts.[85]

2.89The Penington Institute agreed that there are better solutions than those proposed in the Bill:

We endorse consideration of preferential conditions for Indigenous Australians or members of disadvantaged communities, but we suggest deeper consideration of barriers to business development (including access to capital and networks of expertise), building preferences into the licensing system (e.g., by including consideration of community as part of the application evaluation process), ensuring expiation of past cannabis convictions, and allocating a portion of revenue from cannabis sales toward reparative investment in those communities.[86]

2.90The SAPOL agreed with the AMA that legalising cannabis would likely have negative impacts and do harm in Indigenous, vulnerable and remote communities. Its submission referenced 2018–19 Australian Bureau of Statistics’ data, showing that the most commonly reported illicit substance used by Indigenous people over the age of 15 years is cannabis:

The report advised that 24% of Indigenous people had used cannabis; anincrease from the previous study undertaken in 2012–23 (20%). This is likely to increase with the legalisation of cannabis with a rise in the number of Indigenous people coming into contact with the criminal justice and health systems.[87]

2.91The NTPF referred to a 2007 Northern Territory Parliament inquiry into the issue of substance abuse in the community:

It found that there were very high rates of cannabis use in remote communities, which was causing significant social, physiological and psychiatric harms, compounding from poverty and unemployment. Anecdotal information was also provided that indicated a link between cannabis misuse and suicide. One of the key recommendations…was to reduce the illicit supply of cannabis to minimise these negative outcomes. The decriminalisation of cannabis would have the opposite effect of this, and result in disproportionately worse outcomes for Aboriginal communities when compared to non-Aboriginal communities.[88]

2.92In this regard, the DACA concurred that the Bill would not promote Closing the Gap Target 1: Everyone enjoys long and healthy lives. Its submission argued:

Given the large body of evidence showing the gap between Indigenous and non-indigenous life expectancy and range of other health outcomes, it is crucial for governments to do all they can to close the gap by bringing in laws that will promote the health, safety and wellbeing of Indigenous people. It should go without saying that the Australian Government should not be introducing laws and policies that place Indigenous people’s health at greater risk…The proposition that legalizing cannabis will be good for Indigenous people frankly beggars belief.[89]

Regulation of cannabis

2.93Part 4 of the Bill deals exclusively with the regulation of cannabis, including proposed provisions in relation to offences and decriminalisation.

Offences in relation to cannabis

2.94Division 1 of Part 4 of the Bill would make it an offence for a person to engage in certain activities, except in permitted circumstances or if the activity is authorised by a ‘licence’ (as defined) issued by the CANA.

Importation and exportation of cannabis products

2.95Clauses 16 and 17 of the Bill would make it an offence for a person to import into Australia, or export from Australia, a ‘cannabis product’ (as defined), where the importation or exportation is not authorised by a licence.

2.96The Department of Home Affairs (Home Affairs) argued that there are established regulatory regimes for the import and export of cannabis, including offence provisions in Commonwealth laws (such as in Part 9.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995).[90]

2.97The Drug Policy Modelling Program expressed concern that the Bill might ‘inadvertently and mistakenly’ criminalise some activities. By way of illustration, it explained that clauses 16 and 17 are inconsistent with proposed subparagraph 10(j), which would provide that importing a cannabis product into Australia for the purpose of growing ‘cannabis plants’ (as defined) is a regulated licenced activity:

…importation and exportation offences included in the Bill have the potential to capture individuals sourcing seeds online for home-growing for personal use. This has impacts for personal growers and for biosecurity more generally if importation practices are designed to avoid detection.[91]

Growing cannabis plants

2.98Sub-clause 18(2) of the Bill would enable a person to grow up to six cannabis plants at the person’s private residence for personal or other non-commercial use only, provided that the plant is not accessible by the public.

2.99Multiple individual submitters agreed with this proposal on the basis that they would no longer have to source illicit and potentially dangerous cannabis or bear the unaffordable cost of medicinal cannabis:

I am currently holding a prescription for medical cannabis, but due to the expense am not able to afford all my prescribed amount. The ability to grow cannabis at home means my supply will be assured.[92]

2.100Plant Playground considered six plants to be a ‘balance between personal use and responsible cultivation’,[93] however, other submitters questioned the number of plants that would be allowed for personal grow. The AMA pointed out that six plants is more than is currently permitted in other jurisdictions (such as the Australian Capital Territory which allows only two plants per household).[94]

2.101The NTPF considered six plants as ‘manifestly excessive’, with potential for the commercialisation or distribution of excess personal use cannabis:

Based on the potential yield of a cannabis plant, a person growing six cannabis plants for personal use is manifestly excessive. This could potentially lead to commercial quantities of cannabis being grown and supplied (sold or otherwise) to others. It is recommended that one plant is sufficient for personal use, and that restrictions should apply to both the private residence and the individual.[95]

2.102The SAPOL submitted that sub-clause 18(2) would have implications for the policing of illicit cannabis. Its submission identified specific issues, including:

There will be greater opportunities for the black market to thrive with joint enterprises of cumulative private residents participating in the growing of the maximum number of legal 'cannabis strains', or the growing of illicit plants mixed with 'legal cannabis strains'. International experience has shown black markets have actually thrived following cannabis legalisation;

It would be difficult, if impossible, to determine that a 'legal cannabis strain' previously purchased was the one and the same as that in possession of a person and not a seed or seedling propagated from an original 'legal cannabis strain';

It would be difficult to police the growing of illicit cannabis plants (asopposed to legal cannabis strains) due to the costs and time for forensic analysis to determine which plants were legal and which were illicit, this would also have implications on police resources due to the significant increase in the growing of cannabis plants;

There is no mention/restriction of the size for which legal cannabis plants may grow. If cared for well, a cannabis plant may achieve a large bush/tree size;

When grown indoors under ultra-violet light and with regular feeding regimes, the plants may develop increased THC levels than anticipated which may be of greater harm;

There is likely to be increases in crime levels with increased thefts of plants from private residences, and increased offences against the person, and increased insecurity within the community as a result.[96]

2.103Drug Policy Australia suggested that the Bill could include more details about the permitted characteristics of homegrown cannabis: for example, the gender of the plants, the permitted size/maturity level, etc..[97]

Publishing cannabis advertisements

2.104Clause 23 of the Bill would create the following offence:

(a) the person publishes something, or authorises or causes something to be published; and

(b) the thing is a cannabis advertisement; and

(c) the cannabis advertisement is published in Australia; and

(d) either or both of the following apply:

(i) the cannabis advertisement relates to a cannabis product that consists of, or includes, a registered cannabis strain;

(ii) the cannabis advertisement is published in the course of, or for the purposes of, regulated trade or commerce.

2.105The PHAA endorsed the provisions in the Bill that would restrict advertising by a legalised cannabis sector. Itssubmission explained:

There has and continues to be widespread marketing of unhealthy products in Australia such as unhealthy food, alcohol, tobacco and vaping products. Especially of concern is how these industries often target young people. Should a wider cannabis industry become legal, legislatures and regulators should ensure that it is not given the unfettered opportunity to market products, especially towards younger individuals, in which negative effects are more likely to occur. Since most forms of product marketing lean heavily intoattracting consumption uptake by people early in life, this will be very problematic.[98]

2.106Dr Dizard supported ‘starting with a very strict approach to advertising’ and noted that plain packaging, no celebrity promotions and no broadcast advertising already feature in the Bill. However, he commented that there is a weak point:

…online sales can be a weak point. They don't have to be; it is not inevitable. They are a weak point especially if done through cannabis cafes or any sort of private model, rather than a government wholesaler, as is the case in Ontario. The regulator would have to be very proactive in policing all of the content that appears online, to determine whether it's promotional in nature, and be very strict about looking for violations of those content restrictions. As online sites proliferate, that becomes increasingly difficult.[99]

2.107The SAPOL noted sub-clause 23(2) of the Bill, which would enable the display of a ‘cannabis advertisement’[100] at or on a place where cannabis products are offered for sale to the public, as authorised by a licence and subject to regulatory requirements (see ‘Operating a cannabis café’ below):

Some advertising may occur within section 23 which may influence previous non-users to commence smoking/consuming cannabis; this influence has occurred in the US.[101]

Decriminalisation for possession of cannabis

2.108Division 2 of Part 4 of the Bill proposes that cannabis products can be possessed without criminal consequences in certain circumstances:

Clause 25 would provide that a person under 18 years of age and in possession of a cannabis product is not criminally responsible, if the possession is an offence under Commonwealth, state or territory law and one or more of the following applies:

(i) the cannabis product consists of, or includes, a registered cannabis strain;

(ii) the cannabis product consists of, or includes, a cannabis strain that is the subject of a licence;

(iii) the cannabis product is the subject of a licence.[102]

Clause 26 would set out a similar provision for a person aged 18 years or older.

Popular support for decriminalisation

2.109In the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS), public perceptions and behaviour in relation to cannabis have changed over time, including in relation to the criminalisation of cannabis possession.

2.110The NDSHS 2019 reported that fewer people think that possession of cannabis should be a criminal offence, declining from 26 per cent in 2016 to 22 per cent in 2019. Instead, the action most people supported was ‘a caution/warning or no action’ (54 per cent), followed by ‘referral to treatment or an education program’ (24 per cent).[103] These findings were consistent with the previous NDSHS (Figure 2.2).

Source: AIHW, National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2016, 2017, p. 131.

2.111The majority of submitters shared the views reported in the NDSHS.[104] TheAMA, for example, considered that ‘cannabis use should be treated first and foremost as a health issue instead of a criminal issue’:

…criminal penalties for personal cannabis use can add to the potential health and other risks to which cannabis users are exposed…[I]t is consistent with a principle of harm reduction for the possession of cannabis for personal use to attract civil penalties such as court orders requiring counselling and education (particularly for young and first-time offenders), or attendance at ‘drug courts’ which divert users from the criminal justice system into treatment. When cannabis users come into contact with the police or courts, the opportunity should be taken to divert those users to preventive, educational and therapeutic options that they would not otherwise access.[105]

2.112The ALA argued that decriminalising the possession and use of cannabis would allow for implementation of harm minimisation policies with better outcomes for users. Under the current approach:

We continue to see the criminal justice system carrying the major burden of drug policy in Australia. Funding for health and social services is diverted into law enforcement, prosecution and incarceration. As a result, significantly more public resources are expended on criminal law enforcement as opposed to health or treatment.[106]

2.113Dr Erin Lalor, Chief Executive Officer of the ADF, noted:

Regulatory approaches to any psychoactive substance sit along a continuum with prohibition at one end and an unregulated commercial market at the other. We know that harms are greatest at either end of that continuum. With prohibition, we’re seeing harms from stigma and contact with the criminal justice system, whereas at the other end we see greater health harms in a commercially driven market.[107]

Licenses for regulated cannabis activities

2.114Division 3 of Part 4 of the Bill would enable the CANA to issue licences that authorise regulated cannabis activities to be undertaken in accordance with the licence. These activities include the operation of a Cannabis Café.[108]

Operating a Cannabis Café

2.115Clause 30 of the Bill sets out the licence conditions that would apply to the operation of a Cannabis Café. For example, the licence holder must ensure that any consumption of cannabis products by smoking occurs in an outdoor area, does not unreasonably interfere with members of the public and complies with any other applicable state or territory law (proposed paragraph 30(1)(a)).[109]

2.116A large number of individual and other submitters supported legislative provision for the licenced operation of a Cannabis Café.[110] There was also support for licence holders, and any other person prescribed by the regulations, to undertake specified ‘approved RSC training’ (as defined), and for distinction between the cannabis and alcohol/tobacco industries.[111]

2.117However, other submitters raised concerns in relation to the establishment of Cannabis Cafés. Noting its concerns about the physical and mental health risks associated with cannabis, the AMA considered that Cannabis Cafés might ‘further normalise cannabis use and could reintroduce smoking in public settings when much progress has been made to reduce this in the context of tobacco smoking and vaping’.[112]

2.118The SAPOL referred to the licence conditions set out in proposed paragraph 30(1)(a) and suggested that the term ‘outdoor area’ should be clarified as the location of this area could affect non‑consumers: ‘there would be concerns if the 'outdoor' facility was on the footpath where by‑passers would be affected by cannabis smoke, particularly children’.[113]

2.119In relation to ‘vulnerable groups’, including children and young people, theAMA also expressed concern that the Bill does not restrict the location of Cannabis Cafés. It argued:

[This] may increase the risk of retailers targeting vulnerable groups for profit. For example, there are reports of stores opening to deliberately sell vapes close to schools, further increasing accessibility of vapes to children and young people. We cannot make the same mistake with cannabis products.[114]

Delegated legislation

2.120As noted in Chapter 1, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills (Scrutiny of Bills Committee) expressed concerns with the inclusion of significant matters in delegated legislation.[115]

2.121Some witnesses also commented on the Bill’s proposal to delegate certain decisions to the CANA. For example, Professor Williams argued that it would be better to fully investigate and resolve key regulation before creating a legal recreational cannabis market:

Rather than delegating decisions on the design, implementation and enforcement of a legal market for cannabis to a regulatory body, a better approach is for these issues to be investigated and resolved prior to proposing a Bill. The Bill, along with accompanying Ministerial orders, regulations or Memorandum of Understanding between the Federal and State governments should be presented to Parliament as part of the complete package describing what the legal market would look like, so that senators and ministers know what they are voting on. This is what occurred in Canada. And I believe this also occurred when Australia introduced the GST. And creating a new legal market for cannabis should be done with as much care in planning, and working through the details, as occurred when the GST was introduced.[116]

2.122Ms Liz Barrett from the Drug Policy Modelling Program stated that ‘it’s quite hard to put the horse back once its bolted’ and legislation need not be static:

It can be dynamic and it can be ever-evolving…[T]here's benefit in applying a precautionary principle and then reviewing the legislation to see if it works rather than doing it the other way around.[117]

2.123Dr Dizard acknowledged that dynamism and responsiveness is important, however:

…it is also important to consider that things being embedded directly in legislation sends a pretty strong signal about what are core priority components of the bill. That's No. 1. No. 2:…evidence across many policy domains suggests that the regulation level is more vulnerable to corporate capture or capture by interest than—it is particularly vulnerable in those respects, whereas the transparency of the bill itself—it has some benefits in terms of writing core tenets and core priorities right into the legislation. That's not to say that we have direct, prescriptive answers about which components need to be written into legislation. But I think it's worthwhile considering some of the really sensitive issues, whether it be potency levels or marketing and advertising issues or the range of products that's available or even things like social equity issues, a little bit of which is already in the bill—to really consider the gamut and think about which ones should be directly embedded in the legislation, at least in the form of more concrete directives to the regulator.[118]

2.124In relation to the Bill providing a framework, with the detail to be set out in regulations, Professor Lee said:

I think the more information that we have about things, the better decisions we can make. But also I think the actual model of legalisation and the ins and outs of it are quite complex. They may take some time to get agreement on, to get in place and to get right. So I'm super keen to see at least a framework set up that will move us towards regulation rather than prohibition.[119]

2.125Professor Williams noted that, in Canada, ‘they [clearly] legislated the things that, in this bill, you would like to hand over to CANA’.[120] She identified specifically some of the protections for children and young people that she considered should be in the primary legislation:

…you need to exclude foods and drinks that might appeal to children, which includes having no-sugar drinks, plain packaging, and child-proof packaging. You want product labelling standards about what is a dose. Different US jurisdictions give you information about what is considered to be a dose and how many doses are in a package. You want provisions excluding dangerous chemicals such as butane, used to create concentrates. You want to provide limits on the level of THC. Research shows that high levels of THC precipitate, with a higher probability and quicker speed, cannabis-use disorder and other mental ill-health consequences. There need to be quality controls around there being no contaminants and what products can be sold; we need to know that.[121]

2.126The ADF similarly supported additional factors being included in legislation. Inrelation to the establishment of cannabis outlets, they identified:

…[a] well‑established and generous community consultation period in legislation would be useful. It would really be useful to have in legislation cumulative impact assessments that look at the cumulative impact of new outlets within geographic areas and consider the needs of those communities.[122]

Economic opportunities

2.127Senator Shoebridge stated that the Bill provides the opportunity to create ‘tens of thousands of quality green jobs, new small businesses, enriched regional economies and the boon for tourism that will come with establishing a totally new legal industry’.[123]

2.128Plant Playground representative Ms Lai agreed that the Bill would benefit small businesses:

It would create jobs for small businesses, opportunities for us to enter into a thriving global industry that is really advancing technologies and aiding in medicine and science and botany. It would be incredible to be a part of that. …It is incredibly important that we highlight that cannabis is something that can be used for health and wellness, but it can also be used really successfully and safely for relaxation and socialising. That's not a bad thing.[124]

2.129Althea Group Holdings Ltd agreed with this assessment, submitting that its ‘unwavering’ support for the Bill is based on several compelling factors, including the potential for employment opportunities, significant tax revenues and economic growth, all of which have occurred in Canada following its creation of a legal recreational cannabis market.[125]

Projected revenue from taxation measures

2.130As noted in Chapter 1, the PBO has twice costed the Australian Greens’ proposal to legalise the production and sale of recreational cannabis in Australia.

2.131Some submitters and witnesses commented on the international experience of taxing legalised recreational cannabis. The Dalgarno Institute commented, forexample:

Predicted and now current realities have shown that promised revenues have not eventuated and what little has been generated has been consumed by growing public health issues and expensive bureaucracies, not to mention the escalation of drug use related crimes beyond the ‘possession and use’ issue.[126]

2.132Dr Michael Farrell, Director of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, gave evidence that, in relation to whether the tax revenue from the legalisation process would finance health interventions, ‘the experience to date has been that the tax yield has not been of a magnitude that can adequately support the development of these services’.[127]

2.133Drug Policy Australia referenced the Canadian experience with respect to pricing. Noting that almost of the cannabis consumers still purchase on the black market, its submission called for taxation that is ‘low enough to allow for competitive pricing to be able to compete with the black market’.[128]

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961

2.134The United Nations’ Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (theConvention) aims to combat drug abuse through coordinated international action. One form of intervention and control is ‘to limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs’.[129]

2.135The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s Illicit Drug Data Report 2020–21 notedthat cannabis remains one of the largest illicit drug markets globally, with the estimated number of cannabis users increasing from 192 million in 2018 to 200 million in 2019.[130]

2.136Home Affairs indicated that illicit cannabis continues to enter the country, with the Australian Border Force detecting non-legal cannabis on average 16 897 times each financial year since 2018–19 (mostly in the international mail environment).[131]

2.137While Home Affairs is responsible for the detection and seizure of prohibited and restricted goods, the Department of Health and Aged Care (Health and Aged Care) is the responsible policy agency. Heath and Aged Care must ensure compliance with the international conventions to which Australia is a party, including the Convention.

2.138Ms Danielle Chifley, Acting First Secretary of the Office of Drug Control at the Department of Health and Aged Care, reaffirmed the Commonwealth government’s position:

Australia is committed to the international drug control regime that's established by the United Nations international drug convention. In Australia, the medicinal cannabis scheme that was implemented in 2016 involves a licence and permit scheme under the Narcotic Drugs Act, which regulates the cultivation, production and manufacture of medicinal cannabis for medicinal and scientific purposes. The Office of Drug Control legislative framework also includes administering the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations as they relate to the import and export of prohibited drugs, including cannabis-based products.[132]

2.139Professor Keyzer said, however:

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs does not present a barrier to the down-scheduling of cannabis. If it does, it is a principle of Australian constitutional law that an international treaty or convention can be implemented in Australian law in whole or in part. Many other countries, including comparable countries like Canada, have legalised cannabis while remaining members of the single convention.[133]

2.140Home Affairs noted clause 6 of the Bill, which would provide that the Bill once enacted has effect ‘despite any other law of the Commonwealth’. Thedepartment submitted that the Bill would over-ride customs laws and other related Commonwealth laws.[134]

2.141When asked about potential clash of laws, Professor Keyzer said:

…obviously, there needs to be an advice from the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, drawing the attention of the people in his office to the implications of the legislation for the various instruments that have been identified by the Department of Home Affairs so that one can feel confident that the legislation would survive a High Court challenge.[135]

2.142Mr Tony Smith, Assistant Commissioner of Customs with the Australian Border Force, agreed that the full impacts of the Bill would have to be examined if the Bill is enacted:

Some of those relate to specific interactions with other laws. That would be something that we would work in partnership with our colleagues at the Attorney General's office on. Additionally, from the impact of the border in terms of the regulation of cannabis activities and the import and export of cannabis, we would work on how ABF officers would be able to determine if the proposed import or export cannabis is either licensed or registered, as referred to in the bill. Then, in relation to the offence provisions in relation to import-export of cannabis products, it's obviously existing in provisions in other Commonwealth laws, such as the Criminal Code, we would work on how that interacts with those laws. Those are the areas that we would identify as impacts that we would have to work through.[136]

2.143The AGD’s Ms Chifley commented similarly in relation to how the Bill might interact with Australia’s international obligations:

Any moves to legalise drugs in Australia would need to be considered in the context of Australia being a signatory to the international drug control conventions. But, in addition to that, in terms of the bill, noting that the intention of the bill includes establishing a new regulatory agency that will have oversight in relation to activities of growing, selling, manufacturing, licensing and various trading aspects, there would just need to be careful consideration to make sure that there's no duplication of responsibilities currently held by Therapeutic Goods Administration or the Office of Drug Control.[137]

Constitutionality and incompatibility with states and territories

2.144Senator Shoebridge informed the Senate that the Bill is based on legal advice that shows ‘legalisation in the manner proposed in this Bill, through the registration and licensing of cannabis strains, is constitutionally valid at the Federal level’.[138]

2.145The Australian Greens’ legal advice was provided by Professor Keyzer. Professor Keyzer gave oral evidence to the committee that the Commonwealth has power to enact the Bill on the following basis:

First, it could regulate importation and exportation under the trade and commerce power. It could regulate interstate trade in cannabis also using section 51(i). It could tax cannabis using section 51(ii) and section 90 of the Constitution. It could register and regulate cannabis plant variety rights under section 50(xviii) of the Constitution. It could regulate cannabis dispensaries under section 51(xx) of the Constitution. It could regulate the trading activities of cannabis dispensaries under section 51(xx), and it could authorise the territories to regulate cannabis under section 122.[139]

2.146However, Professor Keyzer was not able to produce the written advice he had provided to the Australian Greens to the committee, and suggested he may have lost it. Professor Keyzer indicated he was not aware of any other academic or constitutional lawyer that had taken the same view as he had in particular relation to cannabis plant variety rights, although he believed his view was based on propositions accepted by the High Court.

2.147Professor Keyzer stated that ‘it is a principle of constitutional law that, if a Commonwealth law says you can and a state law says you can't, the Commonwealth law would override the state law to the extent of its inconsistency [section 109 of the Australian Constitution]’. However, ‘it would be better and an ideal situation if there could be Commonwealth, state and territory cooperation’.[140]

2.148The ALA representatives would not be drawn on the constitutional validity of the Bill. Mr Barns conceded, however, that ‘without going through the statute books at some length, I would be surprised if there were [any other examples of Commonwealth law overriding something within the states’ criminal remit]’.[141]

2.149The NDRI submitted that ‘the main challenge…with the Bill, as drafted, is its framing around [the] registration of cannabis strains’.[142] It argued that this approach will be problematic:

This may be seen by some as a legally deft and convenient framing to make the Bill one that can be tabled in the Commonwealth Parliament which has jurisdiction over patent and such matters. However, in our view, the consequences of this make the Bill likely administratively cumbersome, possibly unworkable, and probably likely to produce enforcement challenges with regards to the activity of State and Territory police.[143]

Committee view

2.150The Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023 aims to legalise cannabis for adult recreational use in Australia.[144] The committee understands that, internationally and nationally, there is growing support for the legalisation of cannabis. However, this support is not universal and in Australia, it is not the majority view.

2.151The committee acknowledges that, overseas, there are multiple approaches to the legalisation of cannabis. The committee heard that this legalisation has resulted in variable outcomes, some of which are contrary to, or at least do not support, policy objectives. In any event, the committee accepts that these approaches would operate in a completely different context domestically.

2.152Taking the most comparable example, which stakeholders identified as Canada, the committee heard that the issue of legalisation was very carefully researched and considered, with staged rollouts to mitigate and compensate for adverse outcomes. The committee also heard that the legislation contained more detail, compared to the delegations provided for in the Bill. In the committee’s view, ifthere were to be a policy of legalised cannabis for adult recreational use, then such a policy should be grounded on consultations conducted with a wide range of stakeholders, including legal, medical and health experts, as well as cannabis researchers, in conjunction with an impartial assessment of the evidence base to date.

2.153The committee understands that a constitutional law advice was provided to the Australian Greens to support the policy underpinning the Bill. However, that advice was not made available to the committee. The committee is concerned that the Bill is not constitutional. However, if the committee accepts that a head of power could support provisions in the Bill, the committee still holds concerns about the impact on state and territory laws. The committee notes that it has long been accepted that criminal laws relating to drug use are, for the most part, matters of state and territory responsibility.

2.154Although the Commonwealth regulates the use of cannabis as a medicine, anational law that would decriminalise the use of cannabis for recreational purposes would be a significant change that would impact state and territory laws. While the committee understands that there are public policy reasons for considering decriminalisation as a harm reduction strategy, the federal Parliament should think carefully about enacting laws that would have the effect of subverting the right of the states and territories to make laws about the criminalisation or decriminalisation of recreational drug use. The committee is of the view that the decriminalisation of cannabis should remain a matter for States and Territories.

2.155There are also outstanding issues of how the Bill would interact with Australia’s international law obligations—such as under the Convention—as well as domestic laws, such as constitutional and intellectual property laws. Thecommittee also notes the advice of government departments and agencies that there would have to be a more thorough consideration of practical and operational matters.

2.156Ultimately, the committee is concerned that the legalisation of cannabis for adult recreational use would create as many, if not more, problems than the Bill is attempting to resolve. While endeavouring to do so, the Bill does not address several significant concerns, for example, ensuring that children and young people cannot access cannabis (particularly home-grow), managing risky cannabis use, and effective oversight of THC content.

2.157The committee notes that a near identical policy was first announced by the Australian Greens in 2018, at which time the Morrison Government rejected the proposal to legalise cannabis for physical and mental health reasons.

2.158For the committee, these public health concerns have not abated, with peak medical bodies identifying serious and well-recognised harms from cannabis use. Further, the committee acknowledges the current supply/demand issues within Australia’s health system that could foreseeably be impacted by the increased use of legalised cannabis.

2.159The committee does not think that this Bill gives enough consideration to the unintended consequences of allowing for the commercialisation of an addictive substance. Illicit cannabis or licit cannabis does have human health harms. Recreational usage will undoubtedly lead to the establishment of genuine for‑profit entities which will then invariably seek growth and profit as their key driver, which are inconsistent with successive government objectives to improve public health outcomes for the Australian population.

2.160The committee heard that cannabis has a legitimate role in medical treatment and is appropriately prescribed by medical practitioners, and regulated and oversighted by the TGA. There is no question that the use of medicinal cannabis within the established Special Access Scheme is supported. If there is a need to revisit this framework, then that is a discussion quite distinct from the legalisation of recreational cannabis.

2.161The committee recommends that the Senate not pass the Bill.

Senator Nita Green

Chair

Footnotes

[1]Commonwealth of Australia, National Drug Strategy 2017–26, 2017, p. 1, www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national-drug-strategy-2017-2026?language=en (accessed 4 January 2024).

[2]Penington Institute, Submission 13, p. 3. Also see: Mr Greg Barns SC, National Criminal Justice Chair, Australian Lawyers Alliance, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 3.

[3]Professor Nicole Lee, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, 360Edge, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 46.

[4]360Edge, Submission 12, p. 3. Note: the submission further argued that the Bill takes a public health‑oriented approach, by regulating product quality, strength and safety, promoting small scale, community‑based operations, and placing strict limitations on promotion: p. 5. Also see: National Drug Research Institute, Submission 11, p. [3], which stated that the Bill is ‘well intended and consistent with the developing research evidence[,]…expert advice and recommendations’.

[5]Penington Institute, Submission 13, p. 4. Also see: Althea Group Holdings Ltd, Submission 6, p. [2], which considered the Bill ‘a significant legislative step’; Dr Adele Stevens, Committee Member, Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 9.

[6]Ms Sasha Lai, Director, Plant Playground Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 28.

[7]Ms Malini Sietaram, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Ganjika Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, 21February 2024, pp. 28–29.

[8]Ms Sasha Lai, Director, Plant Playground Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 29.

[9]Australian Medical Association, Submission 16, p. 1.

[10]Professor Robyn Langham, Chief Medical Adviser, Health Products Regulatory Group, Department of Health and Aged Care, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 60.

[11]Department of Health and Aged Care, answer to question on notice, 21 February 2024 (received 20 March 2024), p. 2.

[12]Drug Advisory Council of Australia, Submission 5, p. 4.

[13]Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Submission 23, p. 1.

[14]Drug Advisory Council of Australia, Submission 5, pp. 4–5. Also see: p. 6; Penington Institute, Submission 13, p. 5, which urged regulatory caution concerning the strength, forms, packaging, and purchase limits for edible cannabis products.

[15]Mr Robert Taylor, Manager, Policy and Engagement, Alcohol and Drug Foundation, Committee Hansard, 10 May 2024, p. 30.

[16]Australian Medical Association, Submission 16, p. 1.

[17]Drug Advisory Council of Australia, Submission 5, p. 3. Also see: Dalgarno Institute, Submission 3, p. 3; K.N. Farrelly, J.D.Wardell, E. Marsden, M.L. Scarfe, P. Najdzionek, J. Turna and J. MacKillop, ‘The impact of recreational cannabis legalization on cannabis use and associated outcomes: asystematic review’, Substance abuse, Volume 17, May 2023, 10.1177/11782218231172054 (accessed 27 November 2023).

[18]See, for example: Drug Advisory Council of Australia, Submission 5, p. 6; Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Submission 23, p. 1; Police Federation of Australia, Submission 24, p. 2. Incontrast, see: Mr Greg Barns SC, National Criminal Justice Chair, Australian Lawyers Alliance, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 5, who said that people who use cannabis do not present to mental health services or hospitals; Ms Malini Sietaram, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Ganjika Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, 21February 2024, p. 34.

[19]Dr Michael Bonning, Chair, Public Health Committee, Australian Medical Association, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 25.

[20]National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Submission 2, pp. 2–3. Also see: Drug Advisory Council of Australia, Submission 5, p. 5, who submitted that systematic studies reveal a link between cannabis use and motor vehicle accidents; Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Submission 23, p. 1.

[21]See, for example: Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Submission 23, p. 1; PoliceFederation of Australia, Submission 24, p. 2.

[22]Mr Greg Barns SC, National Criminal Justice Chair, Australian Lawyers Alliance, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 2.

[23]Ms Cadrie (Kady) Chemal, Chief Operating Officer, Astrid Dispensary and Clinic, Committee Hansard, 10 May 2024, p. 19.

[24]Mr John Venditto, Assistant Commissioner, South Australia Police, Committee Hansard, 10 May 2024, p. 11.

[25]Mr John Venditto, Assistant Commissioner, South Australia Police, Committee Hansard, 10 May 2024, p. 11.

[26]Professor David Heilpern AM, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 10 May 2024, p. 6.

[27]National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Submission 2, p. 2. Also see: D. Weatherburn, S. Darke, E. Zahra and M. Farrell, ‘Who would try (or use more) cannabis if it were legal?’, Drug and Alcohol Review, 2021, Volume 41 Issue 2, pp. 386–395, https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.13360 (accessed 27November 2023).

[28]360Edge, Submission 12, pp. 4–5. Also see: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2019, 2020, p. 78, www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/77dbea6e-f071-495c-b71e-3a632237269d/aihw-phe-270.pdf?v=20230605184325&inline=true (accessed 8 January 2024); Professor Nicole Lee, Founder and Chief Executive Office, 360Edge, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 47.

[29]Professor Nicole Lee, Founder and Chief Executive Office, 360Edge, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 47. Also see: 360Edge, Submission 12, pp. 4–5, which argued that a regulated market would lead to reduced health harms, compared with a lower rate of use in an unregulated market.

[30]Dr Michael Bonning, Chair, Public Health Committee, Australian Medical Association, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 22.

[31]Drug Policy Australia, Submission 26, p. [5].

[32]Dr Michael Bonning, Chair, Public Health Committee, Australian Medical Association, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 21.

[33]Professor Nicole Lee, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, 360Edge, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 48.

[34]Dr Michael Bonning, Chair, Public Health Committee, Australian Medical Association, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 23. Also see: A.M.E. Zuckerman et al, ‘Trends in youth cannabis use across cannabis legalization: Data from the COMPASS prospective cohort study’, Preventive Medicine Reports, Vol. 22 June 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101351 (accessed 1 April 2024); Australian Medical Association, answer to question on notice, 21 February 2024 (received 18 March 2024), p. 1

[35]Mr Shane Varcoe, Executive Director, Dalgarno Institute, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p.41. Also see: Dalgarno Institute, answer to question on notice, 21 February 2024 (received 27 February 2024), p. 2; Dalgarno Institute, answer to question on notice, 21 February 2024 (received 7 March 2024), p. 1.

[36]Professor John Toumbourou, personal capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p.42.

[37]Ms Stephanie Cairney, Assistant Director, Illicit Drugs Policy, Attorney-General’s Department, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 62.

[38]Mr Alex Engel, Assistant Secretary, Transnational Crime Branch, Attorney-General’s Department, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 62.

[39]See, for example: Drug Policy Australia, Submission 26, p. [3].

[40]Mr Greg Barns SC, National Criminal Justice Chair, Australian Lawyers Alliance, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 1. Also see: pp. 6–7, where Mr Barns noted the amount of time police and courts spend on ‘these petty matters’.

[41]Professor Patrick Keyzer, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 50.

[42]Senator David Shoebridge, Senate Hansard, 10 August 2023, p. 27.

[43]See, for example: Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform, Submission 25, pp. 10–13; Mr Greg Barns SC, National Criminal Justice Chair, Australian Lawyers Alliance, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 3; Dr Adele Stevens, Committee Member, Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 10.

[44]360Edge, Submission 12, p. 3. Also see: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Submission 2, p.3; Australian Lawyers Alliance, Submission 8, p. 3; Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform, Submission 25, p. 2.

[45]National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Submission 2, p. 3.

[46]Dalgarno Institute, Submission 3, p. 4. Also see: Australian Medical Association, Submission 16, p.3; Dalgarno Institute, answer to question on notice, 21 February 2024 (received 7 March 2024), pp. 2­–3, which cited studies that had found increased crime rates following legalisation.

[47]Northern Territory Police Force, Submission 7, p. 2.

[48]Drug Advisory Council of Australia, Submission 5, p. 7. Also see: Dalgarno Institute, answer to question on notice, 21 February 2024 (received 27 February 2024), pp. 3­–4, which noted the explosion in cartel activities following legalisation in America.

[49]Professor Jenny Williams, answer to question on notice, 21 February 2024 (received 15 March 2024), pp. 2 and 17. Also see: Professor Jenny Williams, personal capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 14.

[50]Professor Simon Lenton, Director, National Drug Research Institute, Committee Hansard, 10 May 2024, p. 27. See also: Dr Michael Farrell, Director, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Committee Hansard, 10 May 2024, p. 27.

[51]Professor Jenny Williams, personal capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 12.

[52]Professor Jenny Williams, personal capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 12.

[53]Ms Sasha Lai, Director, Plant Playground Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 32. Alsosee: Ms Malini Sietaram, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Ganjika Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, 21February 2024, pp. 33–34, who cautioned against a regulatory vacuum in a legal cannabis market.

[54]Professor Jenny Williams, personal capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 14. Also see: p. 16.

[55]OZ Medicann Group, Submission 10, p. [2].

[56]Australian Medical Association, Submission 16, p. 2. Also see: OZ Medicann Group, Submission 10, p. [2], which argued that, if required, the existing framework could be expanded to expand access to medicinal cannabis.

[57]Mr Shaun Marcus, National President, Australian Lawyers Alliance, Committee Hansard, 21February 2024, p. 5.

[58]Dr Adele Stevens, Committee Member, Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 10. Also see, for example: Professor Nicole Lee, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, 360Edge, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 47.

[59]Dr Paul Kelaita, Postdoctoral Fellow, Drug Policy Modelling Program, Social Policy Research Centre, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 38.

[60]Dr Jake Dizard, Senior Researcher, Penington Institute, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 38. Also see: Professor Patrick Keyzer, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 50.

[61]Australian Medical Association, Submission 16, p. 2. Also see: Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Submission 23, p. 1, which supported the use of medicinal cannabis products for a limited number of specific conditions.

[62]Dr Michael Bonning, Chair, Public Health Committee, Australian Medical Association, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 26.

[63]See, for example: Dr Adele Stevens, Committee Member, Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 9.

[64]Mr Shaun Marcus, National President, Australian Lawyers Alliance, Committee Hansard, 21February 2024, p. 1.

[65]Ms Malini Sietaram, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Ganjika Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, 21February 2024, p. 30. Also see: Ms Sasha Lai, Director, Plant Playground Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 30, who noted that not everyone wants to consult a doctor to be told what they can/cannot consume in their own home.

[66]Ms Sasha Lai, Director, Plant Playground Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 31.

[67]Professor Jenny Williams, answer to question on notice, 21 February 2024 (received 15 March 2024), p. 9.

[68]Ms Malini Sietaram, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Ganjika Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, 21February 2024, p. 32.

[69]Professor Robyn Langham, Chief Medical Adviser, Health Products Regulatory Group, Department of Health and Aged Care, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 61.

[70]Professor Robyn Langham, Chief Medical Adviser, Health Products Regulatory Group, Department of Health and Aged Care, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 61. Also see: p. 63.

[71]Dr Jake Dizard, Senior Research Officer, Penington Institute, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 39.

[72]Ms Michala Kowalski, Research Officer, Drug Policy Modelling Program, Social Policy Research Centre, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 39.

[73]Drug Policy Modelling Program, Social Policy Research Centre, answer to question on notice, 21 February 2024 (received 15 March 2024), p. 3.

[74]Public Health Association of Australia, Submission 22, p. 4; Astrid Dispensary and Clinic, Submission 15, p. 1.

[75]Drug Advisory Council of Australia, Submission 5, p. 9.

[76]South Australia Police, Submission 18, p. 1.

[77]Public Health Association of Australia, Submission 22, p. 6. Note: the submission cautioned also against the development of undue influence over public policy decisions by a recreational cannabis industry. Also see: Bill, cl. 7 (‘excluded person’); National Drug Research Institute, Submission 11, p. [3].

[78]Drug Policy Modelling Program, UNSW, Submission 19, pp. 1–2. Also see: Penington Institute, Submission 13, p. 5, which suggested that the Cannabis Australia National Agency could be empowered to inquire into whether a licence applicant is a ‘fit and proper’ person.

[79]Alcohol and Drug Foundation, Submission 9, p. 2. Note: the submission highlighted the emergence of commercial actors in the medicinal cannabis market as a significant concern, where, it suggested, the cannabis is being inappropriately prescribed: pp. 3–4.

[80]Drug Policy Modelling Program, UNSW, Submission 19, p. 2. Note: the submission suggested also increased transparency, reporting requirements and density limits would be beneficial in focussing on harm reduction and public health.

[81]Ms Sukanya Lingaratnam, Policy and Reforms Adviser, Department of Health and Aged Care, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 62.

[82]EM, Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights, p. 12.

[83]Plant Playground, Submission 17, p. 2.

[84]Also see: Bill, sub–cl. 27(3), which would provide that there is no fee for a licence authorising the undertaking of regulated cannabis activities.

[85]Australian Medical Association, Submission 16, p. 2.

[86]Penington Institute, Submission 13, p. 6.

[87]South Australia Police, Submission 18, p. 2. Note: the submission highlighted international research showing links between cannabis and behavioural violence, assault and homicide.

[88]Northern Territory Police Force, Submission 7, p. 1. Also see: NT Parliament, Legislative Assembly, Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community, Substance Abuse in Remote Communities: Confronting the Confusion and Disconnect, 2007, https://parliament.nt.gov.au/committees/previous/substance-abuse (accessed 7 December 2023).

[89]Drug Advisory Council of Australia, Submission 5, pp. 8–9.

[90]Department of Home Affairs, Submission 14, p. 4. Note: the department added that it is not clear how Australian Border Force officers would determine whether imported or exported cannabis is licenced or registered in accordance with the Bill.

[91]Drug Policy Modelling Program, UNSW, Submission 19, pp. 2–3.

[92]Andrew Thompson, Submission 167, p. 1.

[93]Plant Playground, Submission 17, p. [1].

[94]Australian Medical Association, Submission 16, p. 2. Also see: Penington Institute, Submission 13, p.4, which noted that Canada established a limit of four plants per household.

[95]Northern Territory Police Force, Submission 7, p. 2.

[96]South Australia Police, Submission 18, p. 3. Also see: Penington Institute, Submission 13, p. 6, which commented on the need to clarify the path to legalisation of all cannabis, due to the difficulty of identifying by visual inspection a legal or illegal cannabis strain.

[97]Drug Policy Australia, Submission 26, p. [6].

[98]Public Health Association of Australia, Submission 22, p. 6.

[99]Dr Jake Dizard, Senior Research Officer, Penington Institute, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 39.

[100]Note: the term ‘cannabis advertisement’ is defined in clause 8 of the Bill.

[101]South Australia Police, Submission 18, p. 5.

[102]Bill, para 25(1)(d). Note: for minors only, the cannabis product may be seized and destroyed by a police officer.

[103]AIHW, National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2019, 2020, pp. 78 and 82.

[104]See, for example: Penington Institute, Submission 13, p. 4; Public Health Association of Australia, Submission 22, p. 5; Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform, Submission 25, p. 1. Also see: Senator David Shoebridge, Senate Hansard, 10 August 2023, p. 27, who stated ‘it’s time to stop pretending that consumption of the plant…should still be seen as a crime’.

[105]Australian Medical Association, Submission 16, p. 2. Also see: p. 1; Dr Michael Bonning, Chair, Public Health Committee, Australian Medical Association, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p.21; Drug Advisory Council of Australia, Submission 5, p. 8, which noted that there is a ‘dire shortage’ of drug diversion programs.

[106]Australian Lawyers Alliance, Submission 8, p. 4. Note: the submission simultaneously argued that a ‘punitive criminalised approach to drug use has inhibited advances in research into the therapeutic and health benefits of cannabis use’. On this point, also see: 360Edge, Submission 12, p.2.

[107]Dr Erin Lalor, Chief Executive Officer, Alcohol and Drug Foundation, Committee Hansard, 10 May 2024, p. 26.

[108]Bill, cl. 10.

[109]Bill, para. 1(a).

[110]See, for example: National Drug Research Institute, Submission 11, p. [3]; Plant Playground, Submission 17, p. [1].

[111]Penington Institute, Submission 13, p. 4.Also see: Bill, cl. 7 (‘approved RSC training’) and proposed paragraph 29(1)(e); Dr Paul Kelaita, Postdoctoral Fellow, Drug Policy Modelling Program, Social Policy Research Centre, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 38; Dr Jake Dizard, Senior Researcher, Penington Institute, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 38.

[112]Australian Medical Association, Submission 16, p. 2.

[113]South Australia Police, Submission 18, p. 5.

[114]Australian Medical Association, Submission 16, p. 2.

[115]Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest No. 10 of 2023, 6 September 2023, p.13. Also see: Bill, subcl. 27(1) and 27(2) and cl. 31.

[116]Professor Jenny Williams, answer to question on notice, 21 February 2024 (received 15 March 2024), p. 5.

[117]Ms Liz Barrett, Research Officer, Drug Policy Modelling Program, Social Policy Research Centre, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 40.

[118]Dr Jake Dizard, Senior Research Officer, Penington Institute, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 40.

[119]Professor Nicole Lee, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, 360 Edge, Committee Hansard, 21February 2024, p. 49.

[120]Professor Jenny Williams, personal capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 15.

[121]Professor Jenny Williams, personal capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 18. Also see: Ms Malini Sietaram, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Ganjika Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, 21February 2024, p. 35.

[122]Dr Erin Lalor, Chief Executive Officer, Alcohol and Drug Foundation, Committee Hansard, 10 May 2024, p. 27; Mr Robert Taylor, Manager, Policy and Engagement, Alcohol and Drug Foundation, Committee Hansard, 10 May 2024, p. 34.

[123]Senator David Shoebridge, Senate Hansard, 10 August 2023, p. 27.

[124]Ms Sasha Lai, Director, Plant Playground Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 29. Alsosee: p. 33 (benefits of cannabis tourism).

[125]Althea Group Holdings Ltd, Submission 6, p. [2]. Note: for details of the Canadian experience, seepp. [2–3]. Also see: Astrid Dispensary and Clinic, Submission 15, p. [2]; Ganjika Pty Ltd, Submission 21, pp. 1 and 4.

[126]Dalgarno Institute, Submission 3, p. 4.

[127]Dr Michael Farrell, Director, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Committee Hansard, 10May 2024, p. 29.

[128]Drug Policy Australia, Submission 26, pp. 4–5.

[129]United Nations, Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, art. 4.

[130]Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, Illicit Drug Data Report, 2020-21, p. 47, www.acic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-10/cannabis_iddr_2020-21_forweb.pdf (accessed20January 2024).

[131]Department of Home Affairs, Submission 14, p. 4.

[132]Ms Danielle Chifley, Acting First Secretary, Office of Drug Control, Department of Health and Aged Care, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 65.

[133]Professor Patrick Keyzer, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 50. Also see: pp.51–52 (copyright, patents and trademark power).

[134]Department of Home Affairs, Submission 14, p. 4.

[135]Professor Patrick Keyzer, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 55.

[136]Mr Tony Smith, Assistant Commissioner, Customs, Australian Border Force, Committee Hansard, 21February 2024, p. 59.

[137]Ms Danielle Chifley, Acting First Secretary, Office of Drug Control, Department of Health and Aged Care, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 65.

[138]Senator David Shoebridge, Senate Hansard, 10 August 2023, p. 27.

[139]Professor Patrick Keyzer, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 50. Also see: p.56.

[140]Professor Patrick Keyzer, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 52. Also see: Professor Jenny Williams, answer to question on notice, 21 February 2024 (received 15 March 2024), p. 11, who commented that it is imperative for there to be agreement and coordination between the federal and state governments.

[141]Mr Greg Barns SC, National Criminal Justice Chair, Australian Lawyers Alliance, Committee Hansard, 21 February 2024, p. 8.

[142]Bill, Part 3.

[143]National Drug Research Institute, Submission 11, p. [3].

[144]Bill, Explanatory Memorandum, p. [2].