PUFFED-UP LAWS LACK SUBSTANCE

Dr GEORGE O'NEIL, a pioneer in treating drug addiction, has grave
misgivings about the Government's proposed cannabis law changes:

SUSAN, an intelligent, attractive 18-year-old, presents to our clinic
desperate for help with her opiate dependence.

She is in the impossible situation of being unable to control this serious
physiological disease that started harmlessly enough, but is now way beyond
her family, friends or even herself to control. In a five-year period
there have been 5000 similar cases requesting help at our clinic.

Like thousands of others, Susan admits that her drug use started with
casual marijuana use in her early teenage years. Her regular marijuana use
began at 13 and progressed to amphetamines within two years. Recent
studies show not only a link but causative effects predisposing young
cannabis users to heroin and often "harder" drug use.

Tom is 30 and working with help and support from family, friends and
counselling to recover a normal lifestyle. He has been free for two years
of his amphetamine and heroin dependence. However, he is still marijuana
dependent to a level that he is unable to gain functional control of his
life. He is one of the one-in-three "regular" marijuana smokers who
progress to long-term severe physical and emotional dependence.

Like the United States and many other Western countries, we are seeing an
increasing number of hospital admissions of young and sometimes older)
Australians living a disorganised lifestyle associated with marijuana
use. The National Institution of Drug Abuse in the US confirms that 92 per
cent of hospital admissions of marijuana users are patients who began their
habit before the age of 19. It is of critical importance that this age
group is targeted with marijuana-use education, counselling and
rehabilitation resources.

These facts should be of immediate concern to our community and
Government. Is the intent of the current proposed legislative changes
aimed at encouraging a reduction in marijuana use among those 18 and
under? Is there a commitment by the Government and the community to reduce
exposure of those 18 and under to marijuna? Is there a commitment to
treating those young (or older) patients severely addicted to
marijuana? The question remains completely unaddressed and unanswered.

Could these legislative changes increase the exposure of those under 18
years? Decriminalisation certainly will be associated with a general
increase in society's acceptance of cannabis smoking. NIDA reports
indicate that community acceptance of drug use is directly associated with
a rising percentage of young people using drugs. Young people use drugs to
experiment as part of growing up and the "becoming independent" process, to
escape depression due to unemployment or family disputes, or merely for
such reasons as peer pressure. Societal acceptance of the drug in question
will only raise the likelihood of what a teenager will now see as "a
harmless experiment".

The Government's working party on cannabis has a strong commitment to
decriminalisation - and a seemingly conflicting resolve to, at the same
time, decrease the exposure of teenagers to marijuana use. Unless the
Government shows resolve to decrease acceptance of cannabis by those aged
under 20, the proposed legislative changes will add to the problems that
our teenagers are already experiencing.

The risks of long-term cannabis dependence - decreased socialisation
skills, damaged education, increased psychosis and increased unemployment -
are well-established risks that occur in a community. Long-term cannabis
dependence increases the risk of psychosis three times, according to recent
studies in the Netherlands, where the drug is freely available.

The members of the working party advising the Government are not meeting
Sue or Tom or the thousands of others who have passed through our doors in
the past five years. The block for heroin, naltrexone, has proved useful
in controlling heroin addiction and dependence with a 98 per cent success
rate. The cannabis blocker, SR141716A, has huge potential to help
cannabis-dependent patients and we hope that the Australian Government will
fund this vital research now and over the next few years.

Changes to legislation risk increasing the current marijuana-use problem,
particularly in the young, and if the Government makes these highly risky
legislative changes, major effective measures must be put in place to
monitor and protect those aged under 20.

There is an urgent and continuing need for public health and research
investment to reduce cannabis dependence. The community and government do
not have the resolve, the clinical knowledge or the budget available to
have a positive impact in this area at present. If increases in cannabis
use follow legislative changes, the State Government will find itself
having to alter the legislation in the same way the South Australian
Government is. Legislation should not change to sanction cannabis use
without the associated budget and spending necessary to protect the teenage
population.

Legislative changes moving towards decriminalisation occurred in South
Australia in 1987. Since then the young people and families in South
Australia have been exposed to a message that "cannabis is relatively legal
and harmless". The South Australian Government has responded by reducing
the allowed number of plants from 10 the three, and then to only one in
2001. Why are we starting with two plants?

South Australian families are in a strong position to argue that their
children and young adults have been exposed to inappropriate risks. Those
who have already been recruited into long-term marijuana dependence will
continue to have social, educational and financial performances below their
intelectual capabilities on a long-term basis. This is measurable. We do
not have efffective or readily available treatments for those individuals
affected.

The associated increased risk of other drug use, depression, suicide and
psychosis is now being well documented. A series of well-planned trials
from Holland, Australia, New Zealand and the US have recently been, or are
in the process of being, published and these will potentially provide
further strong evidence for class actions against governments making
mistakes in legislation in this sensitive area.