CANNABIS PLAN RAISES DISQUIET

THE great unknown about the State Government's proposed cannabis law reform
is what its effects will be on the level of use of the drug.

That is why there is potentially an explosive political risk attached to
the Government's decision to go easier on people found in possession of
amounts of cannabis within set limits. If it could be shown down the track
that cannabis use increased, the G overnment would have a political problem
on its hands.

It would then be accused off creating legal settings that encouraged the
use of cannabis - or, as the Opposition would have it, of being soft on
drugs. Given the deleterious effects that cannabis can have on users, any
move that might increase the number of users or the rate of use is risky.

Of course, the anti-drug lobby already has declared that such increases
will be inevitable, and those in favour of easing cannabis law have said
that the proposed changes will not lead to increased drug use. But the
only prediction that can be made with confidence is that adult habitual or
occasional users of cannabis will be relieved that they will not be treated
as criminals under the proposed laws.

To a significant extent, the Government's reform proposals amount to an
acknowledgment of reality - cannabis use by otherwise law-abiding people in
WA is widespread and has a degree of acceptance in some sections of the
community. The key elements of the proposals came from last year's
Community Drug Summit and have been filtered through the working party on
drug law reform.

There has been broad agreement that criminal convictions for offences
associated with personal use of cannabis should not be allowed to blight
people's lives by damaging their jobs and other prospects. It is a
reasonable proposition that people should no t be made to carry a criminal
record for what might amount to no more than an indiscretion or a foolish
experiment.

However, the Government's proposed new regime would accommodate habitual
users because there is to be no limit set on the number of times an
individual can be fined for cannabis possession associated with personal
use. The police are to have discretionary powers to lay criminal charges,
but this could lead to unequal application of the law.

Again, juveniles could be cautioned or referred to a juvenile justice team
if caught with amounts of cannabis consistent with personal use, but it
appears that repeat offenders could face the prospect of charges. The law
should not discriminate against the young.

Also, the amount of cannabis people would be able to have without
attracting charges is too high at 30g or two plants. The original proposal
was to set the limit at 25g or two plants. In both cases, the objection is
that a person could be in possession of more cannabis than he or she might
use - leading to trading. And, of course, there can be a significant
discrepancy between 30g and the much bigger amounts that could be harvested
from two plants.

Regardless of how the Government wants to represent its proposals, one of
their key effects would be to remove the potential deterrent force of the
possibility of criminal charges in some cases. It therefore should accept
a compelling moral obligation to do what it can to ensure that people -
particularly the young - are informed about the potential dangers of
cannabis use.