❓ A WA parliamentary question probes the Health Minister on the Cannabis Control Act 2003's statutory review, specifically regarding the impact of the cannabis infringement notice scheme on cannabis sourcing and home cultivation.
AnsweredQoN 513Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
CANNABIS CONTROL ACT 2003 — STATUTORY REVIEW
I refer to recommendations 2 and 10 of the statutory review of the Cannabis Control Act 2003. (1) Is it still one of the central goals of the cannabis infringement notice scheme to shift the cannabis market away from dealers who often sell other drugs and whose cannabis supplies are dominated by high-potency hydroponically cultivated cannabis? (2) Is the minister aware that research findings arising out of two random surveys of more than 800 members of the Western Australian public in 2002 and 2007 — (a) showed that of the people who used cannabis in the previous year, the proportion who grew at least some of their own cannabis increased from 11 per cent in 2002, before the CIN scheme came into effect, to 25 per cent in 2007, after the scheme came into effect; and (b) suggested that the CIN scheme in its current form has successfully reduced contact with dealers for a significant minority of cannabis users? (3) How will excluding cultivation of up to two non-hydroponic cannabis plants from the CIN scheme not increase the likelihood that these cannabis users will source their cannabis from dealers? (4) Is the minister aware that recommendation 10 on its own effectively streamlines the CIN process for police, but that excluding the cultivation of two non-hydroponic plants from the scheme will remove only 2.7 per cent of CINs? (5) If the review found that the CIN scheme reduces cannabis-related harm, why is recommendation 2 not being implemented? Hon SUE ELLERY
I refer to recommendations 2 and 10 of the statutory review of the Cannabis Control Act 2003. (1) Is it still one of the central goals of the cannabis infringement notice scheme to shift the cannabis market away from dealers who often sell other drugs and whose cannabis supplies are dominated by high-potency hydroponically cultivated cannabis? (2) Is the minister aware that research findings arising out of two random surveys of more than 800 members of the Western Australian public in 2002 and 2007 — (a) showed that of the people who used cannabis in the previous year, the proportion who grew at least some of their own cannabis increased from 11 per cent in 2002, before the CIN scheme came into effect, to 25 per cent in 2007, after the scheme came into effect; and (b) suggested that the CIN scheme in its current form has successfully reduced contact with dealers for a significant minority of cannabis users? (3) How will excluding cultivation of up to two non-hydroponic cannabis plants from the CIN scheme not increase the likelihood that these cannabis users will source their cannabis from dealers? (4) Is the minister aware that recommendation 10 on its own effectively streamlines the CIN process for police, but that excluding the cultivation of two non-hydroponic plants from the scheme will remove only 2.7 per cent of CINs? (5) If the review found that the CIN scheme reduces cannabis-related harm, why is recommendation 2 not being implemented? Hon SUE ELLERY
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The cannabis infringement notice scheme is primarily about raising the awareness that cannabis users have of the harms associated with cannabis use, providing support to change behaviour, and preventing the adverse social and economic costs from convictions for minor cannabis offences while maintaining a formal consequence for offenders. (2) Yes. (3) Most users of cannabis who grow their own cannabis also source cannabis, and possibly other drugs, from dealers. Any increased contact with dealers is likely to be minor and would affect relatively few people. This has to be balanced with other important considerations, such as the significant negative and conflicting perception that this provision creates for the wider community. In addition, there is the possibility that home-grown cannabis merely supplements cannabis use and therefore encourages an elevated level of consumption. Furthermore, depending on how cannabis is harvested, individuals may be found to be in possession of quantities in excess of the limits prescribed by the Cannabis Control Act and thereby face more serious charges. (4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
(1) Is it still one of the central goals of the cannabis infringement notice scheme to shift the cannabis market away from dealers who often sell other drugs and whose cannabis supplies are dominated by high-potency hydroponically cultivated cannabis? (2) Is the minister aware that research findings arising out of two random surveys of more than 800 members of the Western Australian public in 2002 and 2007 — (a) showed that of the people who used cannabis in the previous year, the proportion who grew at least some of their own cannabis increased from 11 per cent in 2002, before the CIN scheme came into effect, to 25 per cent in 2007, after the scheme came into effect; and (b) suggested that the CIN scheme in its current form has successfully reduced contact with dealers for a significant minority of cannabis users? (3) How will excluding cultivation of up to two non-hydroponic cannabis plants from the CIN scheme not increase the likelihood that these cannabis users will source their cannabis from dealers? (4) Is the minister aware that recommendation 10 on its own effectively streamlines the CIN process for police, but that excluding the cultivation of two non-hydroponic plants from the scheme will remove only 2.7 per cent of CINs? (5) If the review found that the CIN scheme reduces cannabis-related harm, why is recommendation 2 not being implemented? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The cannabis infringement notice scheme is primarily about raising the awareness that cannabis users have of the harms associated with cannabis use, providing support to change behaviour, and preventing the adverse social and economic costs from convictions for minor cannabis offences while maintaining a formal consequence for offenders. (2) Yes. (3) Most users of cannabis who grow their own cannabis also source cannabis, and possibly other drugs, from dealers. Any increased contact with dealers is likely to be minor and would affect relatively few people. This has to be balanced with other important considerations, such as the significant negative and conflicting perception that this provision creates for the wider community. In addition, there is the possibility that home-grown cannabis merely supplements cannabis use and therefore encourages an elevated level of consumption. Furthermore, depending on how cannabis is harvested, individuals may be found to be in possession of quantities in excess of the limits prescribed by the Cannabis Control Act and thereby face more serious charges. (4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
(2) Is the minister aware that research findings arising out of two random surveys of more than 800 members of the Western Australian public in 2002 and 2007 — (a) showed that of the people who used cannabis in the previous year, the proportion who grew at least some of their own cannabis increased from 11 per cent in 2002, before the CIN scheme came into effect, to 25 per cent in 2007, after the scheme came into effect; and (b) suggested that the CIN scheme in its current form has successfully reduced contact with dealers for a significant minority of cannabis users? (3) How will excluding cultivation of up to two non-hydroponic cannabis plants from the CIN scheme not increase the likelihood that these cannabis users will source their cannabis from dealers? (4) Is the minister aware that recommendation 10 on its own effectively streamlines the CIN process for police, but that excluding the cultivation of two non-hydroponic plants from the scheme will remove only 2.7 per cent of CINs? (5) If the review found that the CIN scheme reduces cannabis-related harm, why is recommendation 2 not being implemented? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The cannabis infringement notice scheme is primarily about raising the awareness that cannabis users have of the harms associated with cannabis use, providing support to change behaviour, and preventing the adverse social and economic costs from convictions for minor cannabis offences while maintaining a formal consequence for offenders. (2) Yes. (3) Most users of cannabis who grow their own cannabis also source cannabis, and possibly other drugs, from dealers. Any increased contact with dealers is likely to be minor and would affect relatively few people. This has to be balanced with other important considerations, such as the significant negative and conflicting perception that this provision creates for the wider community. In addition, there is the possibility that home-grown cannabis merely supplements cannabis use and therefore encourages an elevated level of consumption. Furthermore, depending on how cannabis is harvested, individuals may be found to be in possession of quantities in excess of the limits prescribed by the Cannabis Control Act and thereby face more serious charges. (4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
(b) suggested that the CIN scheme in its current form has successfully reduced contact with dealers for a significant minority of cannabis users?
(4) Is the minister aware that recommendation 10 on its own effectively streamlines the CIN process for police, but that excluding the cultivation of two non-hydroponic plants from the scheme will remove only 2.7 per cent of CINs? (5) If the review found that the CIN scheme reduces cannabis-related harm, why is recommendation 2 not being implemented? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The cannabis infringement notice scheme is primarily about raising the awareness that cannabis users have of the harms associated with cannabis use, providing support to change behaviour, and preventing the adverse social and economic costs from convictions for minor cannabis offences while maintaining a formal consequence for offenders. (2) Yes. (3) Most users of cannabis who grow their own cannabis also source cannabis, and possibly other drugs, from dealers. Any increased contact with dealers is likely to be minor and would affect relatively few people. This has to be balanced with other important considerations, such as the significant negative and conflicting perception that this provision creates for the wider community. In addition, there is the possibility that home-grown cannabis merely supplements cannabis use and therefore encourages an elevated level of consumption. Furthermore, depending on how cannabis is harvested, individuals may be found to be in possession of quantities in excess of the limits prescribed by the Cannabis Control Act and thereby face more serious charges. (4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
(5) If the review found that the CIN scheme reduces cannabis-related harm, why is recommendation 2 not being implemented? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The cannabis infringement notice scheme is primarily about raising the awareness that cannabis users have of the harms associated with cannabis use, providing support to change behaviour, and preventing the adverse social and economic costs from convictions for minor cannabis offences while maintaining a formal consequence for offenders. (2) Yes. (3) Most users of cannabis who grow their own cannabis also source cannabis, and possibly other drugs, from dealers. Any increased contact with dealers is likely to be minor and would affect relatively few people. This has to be balanced with other important considerations, such as the significant negative and conflicting perception that this provision creates for the wider community. In addition, there is the possibility that home-grown cannabis merely supplements cannabis use and therefore encourages an elevated level of consumption. Furthermore, depending on how cannabis is harvested, individuals may be found to be in possession of quantities in excess of the limits prescribed by the Cannabis Control Act and thereby face more serious charges. (4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The cannabis infringement notice scheme is primarily about raising the awareness that cannabis users have of the harms associated with cannabis use, providing support to change behaviour, and preventing the adverse social and economic costs from convictions for minor cannabis offences while maintaining a formal consequence for offenders. (2) Yes. (3) Most users of cannabis who grow their own cannabis also source cannabis, and possibly other drugs, from dealers. Any increased contact with dealers is likely to be minor and would affect relatively few people. This has to be balanced with other important considerations, such as the significant negative and conflicting perception that this provision creates for the wider community. In addition, there is the possibility that home-grown cannabis merely supplements cannabis use and therefore encourages an elevated level of consumption. Furthermore, depending on how cannabis is harvested, individuals may be found to be in possession of quantities in excess of the limits prescribed by the Cannabis Control Act and thereby face more serious charges. (4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The cannabis infringement notice scheme is primarily about raising the awareness that cannabis users have of the harms associated with cannabis use, providing support to change behaviour, and preventing the adverse social and economic costs from convictions for minor cannabis offences while maintaining a formal consequence for offenders. (2) Yes. (3) Most users of cannabis who grow their own cannabis also source cannabis, and possibly other drugs, from dealers. Any increased contact with dealers is likely to be minor and would affect relatively few people. This has to be balanced with other important considerations, such as the significant negative and conflicting perception that this provision creates for the wider community. In addition, there is the possibility that home-grown cannabis merely supplements cannabis use and therefore encourages an elevated level of consumption. Furthermore, depending on how cannabis is harvested, individuals may be found to be in possession of quantities in excess of the limits prescribed by the Cannabis Control Act and thereby face more serious charges. (4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
(1) The cannabis infringement notice scheme is primarily about raising the awareness that cannabis users have of the harms associated with cannabis use, providing support to change behaviour, and preventing the adverse social and economic costs from convictions for minor cannabis offences while maintaining a formal consequence for offenders. (2) Yes. (3) Most users of cannabis who grow their own cannabis also source cannabis, and possibly other drugs, from dealers. Any increased contact with dealers is likely to be minor and would affect relatively few people. This has to be balanced with other important considerations, such as the significant negative and conflicting perception that this provision creates for the wider community. In addition, there is the possibility that home-grown cannabis merely supplements cannabis use and therefore encourages an elevated level of consumption. Furthermore, depending on how cannabis is harvested, individuals may be found to be in possession of quantities in excess of the limits prescribed by the Cannabis Control Act and thereby face more serious charges. (4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
(2) Yes. (3) Most users of cannabis who grow their own cannabis also source cannabis, and possibly other drugs, from dealers. Any increased contact with dealers is likely to be minor and would affect relatively few people. This has to be balanced with other important considerations, such as the significant negative and conflicting perception that this provision creates for the wider community. In addition, there is the possibility that home-grown cannabis merely supplements cannabis use and therefore encourages an elevated level of consumption. Furthermore, depending on how cannabis is harvested, individuals may be found to be in possession of quantities in excess of the limits prescribed by the Cannabis Control Act and thereby face more serious charges. (4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
(3) Most users of cannabis who grow their own cannabis also source cannabis, and possibly other drugs, from dealers. Any increased contact with dealers is likely to be minor and would affect relatively few people. This has to be balanced with other important considerations, such as the significant negative and conflicting perception that this provision creates for the wider community. In addition, there is the possibility that home-grown cannabis merely supplements cannabis use and therefore encourages an elevated level of consumption. Furthermore, depending on how cannabis is harvested, individuals may be found to be in possession of quantities in excess of the limits prescribed by the Cannabis Control Act and thereby face more serious charges. (4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
(4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
(5) See answer to part (3).
(1) Is it still one of the central goals of the cannabis infringement notice scheme to shift the cannabis market away from dealers who often sell other drugs and whose cannabis supplies are dominated by high-potency hydroponically cultivated cannabis? (2) Is the minister aware that research findings arising out of two random surveys of more than 800 members of the Western Australian public in 2002 and 2007 — (a) showed that of the people who used cannabis in the previous year, the proportion who grew at least some of their own cannabis increased from 11 per cent in 2002, before the CIN scheme came into effect, to 25 per cent in 2007, after the scheme came into effect; and (b) suggested that the CIN scheme in its current form has successfully reduced contact with dealers for a significant minority of cannabis users? (3) How will excluding cultivation of up to two non-hydroponic cannabis plants from the CIN scheme not increase the likelihood that these cannabis users will source their cannabis from dealers? (4) Is the minister aware that recommendation 10 on its own effectively streamlines the CIN process for police, but that excluding the cultivation of two non-hydroponic plants from the scheme will remove only 2.7 per cent of CINs? (5) If the review found that the CIN scheme reduces cannabis-related harm, why is recommendation 2 not being implemented? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The cannabis infringement notice scheme is primarily about raising the awareness that cannabis users have of the harms associated with cannabis use, providing support to change behaviour, and preventing the adverse social and economic costs from convictions for minor cannabis offences while maintaining a formal consequence for offenders. (2) Yes. (3) Most users of cannabis who grow their own cannabis also source cannabis, and possibly other drugs, from dealers. Any increased contact with dealers is likely to be minor and would affect relatively few people. This has to be balanced with other important considerations, such as the significant negative and conflicting perception that this provision creates for the wider community. In addition, there is the possibility that home-grown cannabis merely supplements cannabis use and therefore encourages an elevated level of consumption. Furthermore, depending on how cannabis is harvested, individuals may be found to be in possession of quantities in excess of the limits prescribed by the Cannabis Control Act and thereby face more serious charges. (4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
(2) Is the minister aware that research findings arising out of two random surveys of more than 800 members of the Western Australian public in 2002 and 2007 — (a) showed that of the people who used cannabis in the previous year, the proportion who grew at least some of their own cannabis increased from 11 per cent in 2002, before the CIN scheme came into effect, to 25 per cent in 2007, after the scheme came into effect; and (b) suggested that the CIN scheme in its current form has successfully reduced contact with dealers for a significant minority of cannabis users? (3) How will excluding cultivation of up to two non-hydroponic cannabis plants from the CIN scheme not increase the likelihood that these cannabis users will source their cannabis from dealers? (4) Is the minister aware that recommendation 10 on its own effectively streamlines the CIN process for police, but that excluding the cultivation of two non-hydroponic plants from the scheme will remove only 2.7 per cent of CINs? (5) If the review found that the CIN scheme reduces cannabis-related harm, why is recommendation 2 not being implemented? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The cannabis infringement notice scheme is primarily about raising the awareness that cannabis users have of the harms associated with cannabis use, providing support to change behaviour, and preventing the adverse social and economic costs from convictions for minor cannabis offences while maintaining a formal consequence for offenders. (2) Yes. (3) Most users of cannabis who grow their own cannabis also source cannabis, and possibly other drugs, from dealers. Any increased contact with dealers is likely to be minor and would affect relatively few people. This has to be balanced with other important considerations, such as the significant negative and conflicting perception that this provision creates for the wider community. In addition, there is the possibility that home-grown cannabis merely supplements cannabis use and therefore encourages an elevated level of consumption. Furthermore, depending on how cannabis is harvested, individuals may be found to be in possession of quantities in excess of the limits prescribed by the Cannabis Control Act and thereby face more serious charges. (4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
(b) suggested that the CIN scheme in its current form has successfully reduced contact with dealers for a significant minority of cannabis users?
(4) Is the minister aware that recommendation 10 on its own effectively streamlines the CIN process for police, but that excluding the cultivation of two non-hydroponic plants from the scheme will remove only 2.7 per cent of CINs? (5) If the review found that the CIN scheme reduces cannabis-related harm, why is recommendation 2 not being implemented? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The cannabis infringement notice scheme is primarily about raising the awareness that cannabis users have of the harms associated with cannabis use, providing support to change behaviour, and preventing the adverse social and economic costs from convictions for minor cannabis offences while maintaining a formal consequence for offenders. (2) Yes. (3) Most users of cannabis who grow their own cannabis also source cannabis, and possibly other drugs, from dealers. Any increased contact with dealers is likely to be minor and would affect relatively few people. This has to be balanced with other important considerations, such as the significant negative and conflicting perception that this provision creates for the wider community. In addition, there is the possibility that home-grown cannabis merely supplements cannabis use and therefore encourages an elevated level of consumption. Furthermore, depending on how cannabis is harvested, individuals may be found to be in possession of quantities in excess of the limits prescribed by the Cannabis Control Act and thereby face more serious charges. (4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
(5) If the review found that the CIN scheme reduces cannabis-related harm, why is recommendation 2 not being implemented? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The cannabis infringement notice scheme is primarily about raising the awareness that cannabis users have of the harms associated with cannabis use, providing support to change behaviour, and preventing the adverse social and economic costs from convictions for minor cannabis offences while maintaining a formal consequence for offenders. (2) Yes. (3) Most users of cannabis who grow their own cannabis also source cannabis, and possibly other drugs, from dealers. Any increased contact with dealers is likely to be minor and would affect relatively few people. This has to be balanced with other important considerations, such as the significant negative and conflicting perception that this provision creates for the wider community. In addition, there is the possibility that home-grown cannabis merely supplements cannabis use and therefore encourages an elevated level of consumption. Furthermore, depending on how cannabis is harvested, individuals may be found to be in possession of quantities in excess of the limits prescribed by the Cannabis Control Act and thereby face more serious charges. (4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The cannabis infringement notice scheme is primarily about raising the awareness that cannabis users have of the harms associated with cannabis use, providing support to change behaviour, and preventing the adverse social and economic costs from convictions for minor cannabis offences while maintaining a formal consequence for offenders. (2) Yes. (3) Most users of cannabis who grow their own cannabis also source cannabis, and possibly other drugs, from dealers. Any increased contact with dealers is likely to be minor and would affect relatively few people. This has to be balanced with other important considerations, such as the significant negative and conflicting perception that this provision creates for the wider community. In addition, there is the possibility that home-grown cannabis merely supplements cannabis use and therefore encourages an elevated level of consumption. Furthermore, depending on how cannabis is harvested, individuals may be found to be in possession of quantities in excess of the limits prescribed by the Cannabis Control Act and thereby face more serious charges. (4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) The cannabis infringement notice scheme is primarily about raising the awareness that cannabis users have of the harms associated with cannabis use, providing support to change behaviour, and preventing the adverse social and economic costs from convictions for minor cannabis offences while maintaining a formal consequence for offenders. (2) Yes. (3) Most users of cannabis who grow their own cannabis also source cannabis, and possibly other drugs, from dealers. Any increased contact with dealers is likely to be minor and would affect relatively few people. This has to be balanced with other important considerations, such as the significant negative and conflicting perception that this provision creates for the wider community. In addition, there is the possibility that home-grown cannabis merely supplements cannabis use and therefore encourages an elevated level of consumption. Furthermore, depending on how cannabis is harvested, individuals may be found to be in possession of quantities in excess of the limits prescribed by the Cannabis Control Act and thereby face more serious charges. (4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
(1) The cannabis infringement notice scheme is primarily about raising the awareness that cannabis users have of the harms associated with cannabis use, providing support to change behaviour, and preventing the adverse social and economic costs from convictions for minor cannabis offences while maintaining a formal consequence for offenders. (2) Yes. (3) Most users of cannabis who grow their own cannabis also source cannabis, and possibly other drugs, from dealers. Any increased contact with dealers is likely to be minor and would affect relatively few people. This has to be balanced with other important considerations, such as the significant negative and conflicting perception that this provision creates for the wider community. In addition, there is the possibility that home-grown cannabis merely supplements cannabis use and therefore encourages an elevated level of consumption. Furthermore, depending on how cannabis is harvested, individuals may be found to be in possession of quantities in excess of the limits prescribed by the Cannabis Control Act and thereby face more serious charges. (4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
(2) Yes. (3) Most users of cannabis who grow their own cannabis also source cannabis, and possibly other drugs, from dealers. Any increased contact with dealers is likely to be minor and would affect relatively few people. This has to be balanced with other important considerations, such as the significant negative and conflicting perception that this provision creates for the wider community. In addition, there is the possibility that home-grown cannabis merely supplements cannabis use and therefore encourages an elevated level of consumption. Furthermore, depending on how cannabis is harvested, individuals may be found to be in possession of quantities in excess of the limits prescribed by the Cannabis Control Act and thereby face more serious charges. (4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
(3) Most users of cannabis who grow their own cannabis also source cannabis, and possibly other drugs, from dealers. Any increased contact with dealers is likely to be minor and would affect relatively few people. This has to be balanced with other important considerations, such as the significant negative and conflicting perception that this provision creates for the wider community. In addition, there is the possibility that home-grown cannabis merely supplements cannabis use and therefore encourages an elevated level of consumption. Furthermore, depending on how cannabis is harvested, individuals may be found to be in possession of quantities in excess of the limits prescribed by the Cannabis Control Act and thereby face more serious charges. (4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
(4) Yes. (5) See answer to part (3).
(5) See answer to part (3).
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.