Reducing the harms caused by cannabis use: the policy debate in Australia

The debate about cannabis policy in Australia has revolved around the harms that cannabis causes to users and the community, on the one hand, and the harms that are caused by the prohibition of its use, on the other. This paper assesses evidence on: (1) the harms caused to users and the community by cannabis use (derived from the international scientific literature) and (2) the harms that arise from prohibition (as reflected in Australian research). The most probable harms caused by cannabis use include: an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents; respiratory disease; dependence; adverse effects on adolescent development; and the exacerbation of psychosis. The harms of the current prohibition on cannabis use policy are less tangible but probably include: the creation of a large blackmarket; disrespect for a widely broken law; harms to the reputation of the unlucky few cannabis users who are caught and prosecuted; lack of access to cannabis for medical uses; and an inefficient use of law enforcement resources. Cannabis policy unavoidably involves trade offs between competing values that should be made by the political process. Australian cannabis policy has converged on a solution which continues to prohibit cannabis but reduces the severity of penalties for cannabis use by either removing criminal penalties or diverting first time cannabis offenders into treatment and education. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

How the NHMRC got its fingers burnt

On 20 December 1996, Justice J Finn of the Federal Court of Australia handed down his judgment in the case of the Tobacco Institute of Australia (TIA) Ltd and others v the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and others. Justice Finn concluded that, in developing its recommendations for control of environmental tobacco smoke, the NHMRC's Working Party on Passive Smoking erred significantly in regard to the consultative procedures that it employed. As the following discussion shows, the legal decision has profound implications for the NHMRC and the provision of expert advice to Australian governments on matters of health and health policy. The discussion has been prepared by three members of the NHMRC Working Party, but reflects their personal views and not necessarily those of the Working Party as a whole or those of the NHMRC.

Damages for wrongful conception : moving away from policy considerations?

The House of Lords addressed the issue of damages in a wrongful conception case, in McFarlane and Another v Tayside Health Board - decision provides a strong indication that damages will be awarded for pain and suffering associated with childbirth but not for the costs of maintaining the child until adulthood - no case involving a claim of raising a child in a wrongful birth case has yet come before the High Court of Australia.

The Tampa decision : refugee rights versus the executive's power to detain and expel unlawful non-citizens

In Ruddock and Others v Vadarlis and Others the Federal Court had to balance two fundamental but competing rights, the right of the state to secure its frontiers and the rights of individuals not to be subjected to unlawful detention - Court's task was hampered by intense public debate over the illegal refugee crisis - in the wake of 11 September 2001 and the Tampa crisis, the Federal Government has rushed through several amendments to migration laws and border protection legislation.

McCabe v Goliath: The case against British American tobacco Australia Services Ltd

Significance of the decision in McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd - ramifications for the possibilities for success of future litigation of this nature in Australia and overseas - ethical and public policy issues regarding the duties of lawyers to the courts and to their clients - whilst a lawyer's implication in the destruction of documents to prevent a fair trial ultimately involves stricter duties, it exposes a need for vigilance against the possibilities for corporations to act outside the public interest, if not the justice system.

Ali v Hartley Poynton Limited

The decision in Ali v Hartley Poynton Limited has significant implications for the stockbroking industry and investment advisors - likely to encourage brokers to adopt a more cautious understanding of their obligations to clients - illustrates the ability and willingness of small investors to challenge the quality of service being provided by their stockbroker.

Re McBain; ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops Conference

The case of Re McBain; ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops Conference sought to make an order under s 76 of the Constitution that the decision of the Federal Court was incorrect in law - decision was made on the basis of constitutional and procedural issues - High Court consolidated the definition of 'matter' in sections 75 and 76 of the Constitution - writ of certiorari considered - role of the Attorney-General in proceedings in which he had granted a fiat - case reiterated the role of the judiciary in Australia.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd

Principle issues considered in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd - whether it was necessary to show a cause of action for an interlocutory injunction to be granted - whether a right to privacy existed - whether the ABC was protected in this case by an implied constitutional freedom - majority rejected a wide interpretation on grounds upon which an interlocutory injunction could be granted - recognition of the possibility of a tort of invasion of privacy under Australian law by five of the six judges.