Imagine having to choose between taking your legally prescribed medication and going to work, doing the school run or getting the shopping that week. Yes, week.
This is the stark reality for many Australian medicinal cannabis patients because of the discriminatory drug-driving laws that still exist in most states. Current laws penalise the mere presence of THC, not the driver’s impairment. The situation is compounded by the fact that THC can be detected through roadside drug tests for days after use. Consequently, many Australian medicinal cannabis patients find themselves having to skip their medication for multiple days before driving or risk legal repercussions.
To be clear, we wholly support measures to keep our roads safe, but penalising presence rather than impairment is patently unfair. No other legal prescription medications are treated in this manner.
Kindness, patient support and removing barriers to access are core parts of our brand, so for us, it’s a very simple matter of principle. We need to support our patients and advocate for their rights and wellbeing.
The path to reparation requires a two-pronged approach. First, we must advocate for legal reform that redefines the standards for determining a medicinal cannabis patient’s fitness to drive. Second, legal assistance should be provided to those patients who have been wrongly charged.
If our industry is to thrive, we must ensure that our patients enjoy the same rights and treatment as they would with any other legally prescribed medication. This is precisely why initiatives like #DriveChange are so important. I hope to see more of our industry peers rallying behind these crucial causes. Change is the only way forward.
If your prescribed medicine prevents you from driving and working, what does that mean for your human rights?
The UK’s Cannabis Industry Council released a report this week into workplace issues for medicinal cannabis patients who are regarded as disabled under UK work, health and safety laws. Despite its specificity, it is a worthwhile read for us in the Australian space.
When it comes to the British colonies of the Australian mainland and adjacent islands, Workplace laws ought be clarified to explain that when an employee asks for reasonable adjustments to be made on the basis of a temporary illness/permanent disability requiring them to take a medication outside of work hours that all medications ought be treated the same. As a Uno card, that’s a Draw Two right there. Problem being that employer medico-legal advisors flag unknown risks due to the current lack of an impairment proxy for THC. They need to cover their backsides and record that they advised their clients to exercise caution. The takeaway for many employers is “don’t hire the stoner, hire the other lady.” in work, health and safety terms, that’s a probable Draw Four.
Am sure that those who monitor the MC socials noted an uptick in hospo workers reporting pre-screener issues when a medicinal cannabis prescription is disclosed. These people are doing the right thing. As is usually the case when legal medicinal cannabis butts up against prohibitionist-era-oriented legal and social institutions, these people doing the right thing get punished for doing so.
How do we get this clarification that MC ought be treated the same as other prescription medicines? A few ways. With a series of sensible workarounds likely to be discussed in the upcoming Victorian LCA’s review/committee/process to have an adult discussion about fixing this so that the hospitality industry (at-least) doesn’t come to a screeching halt.
Another way is for clarification to be expedited by way of a matter/case with good facts and NO whiff of non-medicinal cannabis use going through various courts and tribunals. That will certainly provide guidance.
For readers who know him, it won’t come as a surprise that Veteran advocate Derek Pyrah is already aiming up at a Human Rights angle for all veterans to received subsidised MC, even on MH-only grounds. An opinion via a senior HR counsel is in the works but it will take some time. Derek’s arguments are also applicable to the MC and workplace and driving issues.
Ultimately it’s a question of whether Adequate Medical Care in Article 25 of UN Declaration of Human Rights means whatever The Literature says or whether there is scope for a human rights angle in circumstances where a person can demonstrate that harms were caused by an unwise and voluminous combination of prescription drugs over many years?
The DSM says that Derek received nine years of the best mental health care that any system could offer. Five of them separated from Missy as a result of being on psych wards. Everything from antidepressants, antipsychotics, sleeping pills and opioids. But all at once and in large amounts. You try lifting your head on 1800mg of quetiapine.
Is there a court on earth that would believe Derek’s subjective opinion on whether CBD:THC is more safe and effective for him than whatever the prevailing wisdom of the prestigious Medical Colleges and prevailing expert psychopharmacologists say? Would any of those academics accurately be able to tell you which picture of Derek below is the guy who vapes (but used to smoke) cannabis and which is the guy taking his many different prescription medicines as directed?
For workers faced with the conundrum of going back to the meds that didn’t work and/or harmed them, the immediate gut feel of adverse action being taken them is that their human rights are being violated. In some Australian jurisdictions this is worth a closer look when it comes to the nature of their work and the actions taken against them.
If a worker being prescribed THC oils or flos for nighttime/bedtime/non-work days only for:
Specific indications “ABC/XYZ”; and
As a harm reduction measure from many years of using tobacco spin and combustion + lowering overall THC consumption.
If you’re a doctor scratching your head wondering how you’re going to frame a letter to an employer for this class of patients then please get in touch.
Drive Change’s David Heilpern got some great soundbites in last Saturday morning and ABC News ran them on the hour, every hour, all day. This is the benefit of having elected reps in Victoria, WA and NSW bringing on topical parliamentary debates on cannabis law reform. Journalists will ring us to discuss this News, interview us and then items are broadcast as News because debates on the floor of parliament are News.
Now for for another novel workplace situation from this past week. Doug (not his real name and three situations merged into one here) was always shy and withdrawn. Spends a lot of time online. Occasional bouts of sadness due to isolation and feeling out of place in the world. Conventional cookie cutter mental health services and the DSM had the guy on the SSRI-benzo conga line from the age of 16-36. Doug didn’t have many good days in that time.
After 18 months on CBD daily and THC at bedtime (and tapering down to half dose of an SNRI). Doug has started reporting this new thing. Good days.
Doug’s job is to sit behind a computer and purchase things by mouse-click and do his bit in a supply chain. Good worker. It’s a good job, good crew. Everyone’s matey. Outside of his online world, these work friendships are key keeping Doug socialised.
People noted he was a different (better) guy the last 18 months and commented on him coming out of his shell and smiling a bit more. Poor Doug fell victim to the human tendency of confiding in the people we share our workdays with.
Noelene from Accounts: Did you hear?
Nelly from Marketing:About Doug, yeah. Good on him. He seems to be doing better and he’s happier. His work certainly hasn’t suffered.
Noelene: No, because it’s the medical cannabis with THC in it they stood him down pending a big chat between doctors and lawyers.
Sure enough, HR bundled him off home and had their own expert medical advisors look into this medical cannabis stuff. Doug got good letters and support from his MC prescriber. Doug didn’t have a list of high THC flos prescriptions longer than a Leonard Cohen song (to quote the fictional Malcolm Tucker). Doug has a CBD isolate oil by day, a dedicated night time flower with a vanilla and not-rasta-sounding product name for bedtime. Strain/Chemovar names are what they are. They are the inchoate property marker hangover from the prohibition era when breeders of cannabis phenotypes couldn’t exactly defend rights in their creations in the courts but those creations needed names and many of those names are derived from the unique terpene bouquet given off by that chemovar.
Some employer-side advisors grasp this and can gloss over the product being prescribed having [insert whacky strain name] and focus more on:
What are the conditions being treated?
What is the ratio of cannabinoids + dose being used to achieve a therapeutic benefit? What times of day/night are doses taken?
Is there reasonable basis to claim that all conventional meds have failed to achieve the same benefit and overall improvement in quality of life?
Guess what? Common sense prevailed. Doug will be welcomed back to full duties after a 4 week stand down.
But there are other ways employers can move people on and MC patients will always feel extra vulnerable in uncertain economic times. This means the R word (redundancies) but it can also mean adverse action via means that are hard to challenge, esp for gig economy delivery workers who need their licenses.
Last week, the Road Transport Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis – Exemptions from Offences) Bill 2021, was voted down by the Liberal-National and Labor parties.
Those in favour of drug driving law reform were defeated in a 29-6 vote.
Prior to last night’s debate, Drive Change wrote to all Members of the Law and Justice Committee, highlighting that medicinal cannabis remains as the only prescribed medicine that does not have a legal defence for driving.
At the end of the vote, a snide comment was passed by one of the Members (the Hon. Mark Latham MLC) to “pass the bong,” with the Road Ministers laughing at this remark. This childish antic is one in a string of out-of-line
Such appalling behaviour should be called out. There have been over 250,000 approvals for medicinal cannabis in Australia, and this sort of language is disrespectful to the thousands of patients with lawful approvals. Australians who have been approved for medicinal cannabis, but particularly to patients who have had their license taken away, lost their job, their livelihood, and quality of life due to these drug driving laws.
In reducing the stigma around (medicinal) cannabis, it is important that we curb the use of insensitive language.
Such language and remarks from Mark Latham highlights the stigma, discrimination and criminalisation around this medicine.
In order to change this, we need to remember to make sure Australians who are treated with medicinal cannabis are spoken of respectfully. There needs to be a shift in our perceptions, a change in how we speak, and most importantly, we need the laws to change. With the most recent Parliamentary defeat, the law remains discriminatory against these patients.
You can view the debate below:
Share your story and write a letter to the Chair of the Law and Justice Standing Committee (the Hon. Christopher Rath) office.rath@parliament.nsw.gov.au
The goal of Drive Change is and always has been about advocating for new driving laws where medicinal cannabis patients and doctors get fairly treated. To achieve this goal, we’re doing all that we can to have the discriminatory drug driving laws changed to protect all those legally opting for medicinal cannabis. Without our ambassadors and donors, we wouldn’t be able to do this.
You can read more about the backwards science of the laws here.
We believe it’s important for our current and future ambassadors and donors to know how their money is put to work. Here is a round-up of everything Drive Change did to push for drug driving law reform in the past year:
Nationwide Petition
We worked with doctors, scientists, and medicinal cannabis patients to gather the information we needed to present a petition asking the community to show their favour for drug driving law reform. The goal, this petition, is a vital tool in the fight.
The petition remains live with over 24,000 signatures. You can sign it now or share the link and help us reach 25,000 (and beyond).
Showing Parliament the people in support of medicinal cannabis reform, by the numbers, helps strengthen our cause to have change enacted.
Ask Me Anything
Hosted by industry experts, this event invited the public to virtually attend a panel where they could pose any question they had regarding drug driving laws and medicinal cannabis. We were honoured to have a panel of experts including Dr Teresa Towpik, Dr Thomas Arkell, former police chief Mick Palmer, and MP Fiona Patten.
Events like this are important to connecting patients and doctors in the community with leaders in the industry who can be teachers and advocates for the medicinal cannabis industry as a whole.
This closed-forum meeting welcomed government and industry leaders to discuss the current laws regarding science, industry, and overall health and safety of our roads and community members. In doing so, we are creating time and space for law reform to be a serious discussion amongst those who have the power to create the change.
Our network of supporters and ambassadors include several of these industry leaders and members of Parliament. If you are interested in joining them on our team of ambassadors, please email hello@drivechangemc.org.au for details.
‘Letters to Local Members’ campaign
Drive Change believes that getting the voice of the community heard is integral to the process of drug driving law reform. That’s why we organised the ‘Letters to Local Members’ campaign.
Through this work, we made it easy for the community to send letters to their local members urging them to consider amending drug driving laws to protect medicinal cannabis patients.
It also served as a way for the community to urge their local representatives to join the Government Roundtable and become part of the discussion.
Getting in touch with your local representative is one of the best ways to fight for change. You can still write a letter sharing with them your own reason for wanting change. Find out how: Write a Letter to My Local Member
Submissions to Parliament
Shortly after writing letters to local members, Drive Change set up community members with the chance to lodge a submission in support of the NSW Road Transport Amendment Bill.
Introduced by Cate Faerhmann and up for debate this year, community support for this bill is integral to pushing for change. As with every other opportunity to see drug driving law reform, Drive Change worked diligently to make sure the community’s voice was heard in this matter and all others.
Nimbin/Mardi Grass Drug Driving Symposium
Rounding out all of our efforts this year, Drive Change leader and former Magistrate David Heilpern appeared at the Australian Medicinal Cannabis Symposium. He spoke about the discriminatory drug driving laws and how they are harming patients, public health, and economic growth.
What’s Next?
Support from the industry and community is essential to the continuation of our work at Drive Change.
For industry leaders and product suppliers: Support patients and doctors who rely on you to access medicinal cannabis. Email us at hello@drivechangemc.org.au to find out how to become an ambassador.
For community members: every little bit from you helps us fight for fair and equal drug driving laws. We thank you for your support.
Lawyer Mat Henderson shares his reflections on possible ways around the drug driving law impasse and his experience defending a professional driver (and die-hard Storm fan) who was penalised for medicinal cannabis.
“It’s the attainment of justice and fairness that gives lawyers their buzz.”
So said The Hon Michael Kirby during one of the dozen visits to UTS Law School during the 00’s. The truth is, there is little to no buzz for a lawyer doing pro-bono work for medicinal cannabis cases. After five years of this sort of work, I can attest to that. What it really is is a grind of hearing heartbreaking patient stories and organising of doctors’ letters, which all feels more like shoveling sand against the tide than it does practicing law.
The lack of buzz stems from an inability to “change the law” in the time-honoured way by approaching courts, arguing the distinguishing facts of your case, setting a precedent, and changing the law (a gross over-simplification).
It doesn’t matter if “Granny Scroggins” is a cancer patient who last consumed her prescribed THC a month ago but then stopped being able to afford it. If it is detected in a roadside oral fluid drug test, she’s breaking the law. These laws seems to suggest that presence is presence and criminality is criminality. Even if you never thought of yourself as a criminal, as Granny Scroggins never did. If THC is detected in your system, you are.
In every Australian jurisdiction (bar Tasmania), it remains illegal to operate a motor vehicle with any detectable level of THC in your oral fluids.
Don’t even sit in the driver’s seat of stationary car if you had your THC-containing medicine today. It’s a zero tolerance approach to any presence of THC. This law persists, despite the increasing number of international jurisdictions which are adopting a per se approach, i.e picking a measurement of THC-in-blood and only making it a criminal offence to drive if that level is detected.
Whether it’s Granny Scroggins or your cousin Cody, the unjust drug driving laws can have serious consequences for medicinal cannabis patients.
The basis of our road laws are inherently flawed
A zero tolerance approach focused on saliva testing is fraught with accuracy issues. The current police practices take your saliva sample and sends it off to a lab. There, it winds up in a whizz-bang machine that looks for evidence of THC in your fluid, regardless of how long ago it was consumed. THC consumed days or even months ago can show up through this method. Whether it reads a faint positive or false positive, the law doesn’t care. What this machine spits out is essentially the live or die results of your driving priveleges.
Australians don’t want unruly and impaired recreational consumers of THC on our roads. Nor do we want people impaired by their lawful THC meds to get behind the wheel when they bloody well should not. These are a given.
Australians also trust each other to be responsible when it comes to taking any prescribed impairing medicine (as directed) and to not operate cars, mix the medicine with booze or use heavy machinery if they feel impaired.
Common sense dictates that most folk apply the ‘next day rule’ to impairing drugs. This should also be a given when it comes to medicinal cannabis but law makers appear to be blocked by law enforcers. This is not how the separation of powers is meant to work.
How Parliament is Working to Change the Law
If you got this far, you may or may not know about the Parliamentary developments in Victoria and NSW.
For those who need to be caught up, the decision was: “More research required.”
Over the last ninety years, police have professed to be experts in determining whether or not a person is affected by cannabis/THC. Now we’re essentially told that such rudimentary policing skills are beyond them and that whiz-bang machines are more reliable.
Righto then. Below is my personal account of what will likely continue to happen whilst the research progresses.
Mat Henderson’s Tricky Tale of Defending a Medicinal Cannabis Patient
Two years ago, I took a call from a friend who works in the locally-licensed medicinal cannabis space.
A doctor had just called them about a patient on a 50:50 product who consumed 0.25 of a ml of oil (approx. 2.5mg CBD and THC) at 8am and then got pinged by a roadside drug test at 4pm. The patient is a professional driver with a bad spinal injury and felt no adverse impairment that day at any time during the day of offending.
“His name is Will, “he’s a Storm fan and he’ll make sure you’re aware of it.”
More about Will later though. First Let me firstly give you a flavour of the factors you need to weigh up when working with a person about their history of prescribed THC, traffic history, and logistics around the day of offending.
Any reasonable person would be able to understand there was no impairment from medication on Will’s part. But that doesn’t matter; what matters is how the law is written.
The way the laws are currently written, unless you have a reasonable explanation for how the THC got into your saliva passively (and possibly without your knowledge), a court is in no position to do anything other than apply the law and mark your actions as criminal.
Detection of any amount of THC results in the minimum penalty 3-6 months loss of license.
If you’re given a fine and purport to contest it on any grounds other than passive/unknowing ingestion of THC, you’ll find yourself in a legal cul-de-sac without a defence that a court is able to spend any time listening to. Best you don’t go speculating on how reasonable your reasonable explanation is without seeking formal legal advice. This blog post is not that.*
When I do offer legal counsel to clients, I commonly hear the same story:
“I am a lawful medicinal cannabis patient”
“I take my medicine lawfully.”
“I’m not some scallywag kid driving when stoned.”
Sadly, none of these remarks are a good defence as the law remains as it is. Having detectable levels of THC in your saliva is a punishable offense, and patients ought to think twice about blurting out this knowledge after returning a positive roadside THC test.
If you know how the THC got there (and it was from consumption of your prescribed medicine), please don’t expect the police to use that information to apply leniency and wave you on.
However, if you’ve thoroughly educated yourself on the futility of arguing a medicinal defence and understand that if you contest the fine, you’ll inevitably end up pleading guilty, then you may wish to seek leniency in sentencing. If so, keeping your story consistent in any dealings with the police and the courts is always wise.
Always consult your doctor if you return a roadside THC positive.
Ask nicely and your doctor should write a supportive letter to the court outlining what conditions you’re diagnosed with, what medications you’re on and their brief opinion as to the efficacy of those medicines and any overall symptom relief and improvement in your quality of life.**
With such harsh and unjust laws, what could any leniency look like?
Well, perhaps you may not have conviction recorded or face an unsettlingly large fine.
Like I mentioned at the start, there’s no justice buzz for lawyers here. Not when every THC detection matter feels like nailing jelly to the ceiling, fighting a retreat with the British at Dunkirk or fighting against them at Ruapekapeka, massively outgunned but most certainly not out-witted. On most facts, a scrappy draw is the best result you can ask for.
The preservation of a future career working on the Canadian ski fields is a lifeline for some people. A criminal conviction in Australia tips poutine all over plans like that. However, if a person has to revert to previous medications like opioids and benzodiazepines which may well kill them in order to avoid offending in the future, then it’s hard to interpret that as anything other than a loss.
Losing all the time sucks.
Despite knowing this, I still wanted to speak to Will…
This was back during the first lockdowns of the pandemic and there was a strong public interest in ensuring food supply networks remained functional. Lawyers chasing the fairness buzz, like good reporters, are always looking for good facts. Surely such facts warranted a letter being sent to the prosecution to seek withdrawal of charges that Will was facing on public interest grounds.
Either way, after a long chat with Will, it was clear he had a unique factual matrix worth exploring and even if there was no joy to ultimately be had in court, there was the prospect that the case may have communal learnings for all in the drug law reform space.
Coincidentally, it was also around this time that Drive Change was founded, and David Heilpern was roped in to consult pro-bono. Greg Barns SC was instructed to appear and graciously agreed to do so pro-bono as well.
This is where things start getting lawyer-ly
Everything about Will’s circumstances warranted a request for some prosecutorial discretion. Through endless lockdowns, delays, illnesses, and adjournments, this approach was initially taken twice. First with the police prosecutors at the Magistrate’s Court. They stated the prosecution would proceed. Secondly with the top Victorian prosecutor at the Office of Public Prosecution where, in April of this year, they also stated that the prosecution would proceed.
Excerpts from those reps drafted by me and settled with David and Greg below.
On 11 August, Greg appeared for Will at Heidelberg Magistrate’s Court. In the absence of a defence as to how the THC got into his system, Will pleaded guilty.
In being deferential to the presiding judicial officer, we shan’t regurgitate their words verbatim, less to say that the court was moved by Will’s supporting letter from his doctor and his attempts to have a more functional life beyond opioids. There was no fine payable and no conviction recorded but the court was compelled by law to suspend Will from driving for 6 months. Will was given the lowest possible penalty just as Greg wrote submission that Will is “ultimately a victim of the Victorian legislature’s failure to keep abreast of the development of medicinal cannabis as a legitimate form of pain relief.”
Will has had some time to plan around the inevitability of a license suspension but still, it’s hard. He tells me a McDonald’s has opened in walking distance from his new place. He can bang out some hours there to keep some funds coming in.
He shouldn’t have to work at Maccas for 6 months because of being a lawful medicinal cannabis patient who drove whilst unimpaired. Yet with detectable levels of THC in his saliva, that’s what he’s faced with. All medicinal cannabis users ought to be afforded the right to drive provided they aren’t impaired by THC (to Maccas even).
The best approach to testing for THC
Due to the vagaries of THC and human metabolism, it’s not looking mega-likely that sampling your saliva or blood and reverse calculating the timeframe in which you *may have* last consumed THC is going to be possible anytime soon.
Sure, there’s cannabis breathalysers in the R&D pipeline but thus far they are capable of detecting smoked and vaporised cannabis, not orally or sublingually ingested THC.
Suppositories? Forget about it. Even if there was a device on the market that purported to test for ingestion of cannabis via anal suppository, I imagine that both the police unions and civil libertarians would unite to oppose its use.
Basically it seems as if The Man is unwilling to budge on the issue of THC detection until such time as someone in a white coat provides them with the equivalent of “0.05 on the Willie Nelson Dial” (as they see it) and the means to conduct the test within in a roadside mouth-swab oriented environment.
The law, in my humble opinion, as it stands in this area, is an ass.
We have a set of laws on our statute books that unfairly target a growing swathe of the population with the unnecessary stain of criminality. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Given the outcomes of the recent Parliamentary reviews referred to above, it is a status quo that will continue for however long it takes for the research to be done, then peer reviewed and published.
Q. How long will that take?
A. Probably five years and as Bowie sang in Five Years, my brain hurts a lot.
I wish this article contained a happier call-to-action beyond sit down, shut up and wait for the scientists to finish whatever it is they do behind their velvet curtain.
Where to from here?
When the callout comes for trial participants, best we spread the word far and wide. How about a temporary statutory defence (for THC detection) being afforded to participants registered in the studies recommended and supported by the Victorian parliamentary review and similar studies (seemingly) endorsed by the NSW review and soon to be debated on the floor of Parliament?
The more people who don’t have to put their regular lives on hold in order to wind back the mysteries and wonder of cannabinoid science, the faster the damn research is going to get done.
The biggest hidden hold up to the research is securing clinical trial participants for a THC and driving study. A study which would prevent them from driving whilst the research is being carried out. If parliamentarians allow absurdities like this to stand then our grandchildren are on track to living in an idiocracy where sugary electrolyte drinks are what plants crave.
Instead of being quiet and patiently waiting for Bunsen and Beaker to turn in their paper, we in NSW and Victoria can ensure our votes go to candidates with some chance of setting up a balance of power in upcoming state elections. The Queensland government are about to announce a parliamentary review into drug driving laws and medicinal cannabis. Maybe that review will involve some genuine consideration of the practicalities involved with implementing an interim regime based on best practices from Norway, New Zealand, Canada and Ireland. Perhaps the per se limit of 3ug/L THC in blood as is used in the Netherlands could be a good starting point. If you consumed THC within the last 15 hours, you’ll likely get pinged.
Any researchers who wish to assail me on the accuracy of that, please provide your own estimates of when the average male and female who are daily consumers of, say 20mg of THC would ordinarily be safe to drive after their last puff on the Mighty Medic. The Dutch have gone with 15 hours, based on what we know of vaporised ingestion of THC, is there any chance of bringing that non-drive time down under 10 hours? 4-6 even?
Internationally, blood draws are common.
The logistics for increased use of blood draws in Australia are many, complex but not insurmountable. Anyone suspected of impaired driving can be sent off for bloods under current laws. It’s just that if we sent every person who returned a THC positive in saliva off for a blood draw – it would cost lots of money that governments don’t wish to spend and involve police time that the police would prefer to invest elsewhere.
Any relief against the current zero tolerance regime will be welcome, even if that is by way of a very broad legal limit of THC in blood that doesn’t yet have a strong correlation to being unsafe to drive, yet serves the purpose of deterring people from consuming THC and driving within timeframes where they may be impaired. Hopefully, researchers can narrow that window down further from 15 hours but until they do, perhaps this is where the compromise lies.
Until such an interim compromise is reached, outcomes for people like Will only serve to undermine the rule of law.
What do those words actually mean?
It’s problematic for faith in our courts if growing numbers of people feel that the rule of law is not there to protect them but is seemingly out to harm them by removing their right to drive a vehicle and participate in as functional a life as possible. The more people who feel that way, the more that the laws are ignored and violated to the point where they’re still “good law” but they are becoming increasingly ineffective as laws-to-be-obeyed because knee-jerk adherence to the rule of law is undermined by the unjustness of it all.
When punishment that is solely punitive (and not at all remedial) is handed down by courts to people that the overwhelming majority of the population don’t deem to have acted like criminals – that’s when you can say the rule of law has been undermined. When judicial officers step down (thank you David) rather than continue to apply such laws, that’s the alert signal that the undermining is happening right now.
Please continue to forward your hard luck medicinal cannabis and driving matters onto me. The facts will come and the law must change.
—
Mat Henderson is the principal lawyer of Reparation Legaland legal lead for Drive Change. Writing on Gadigal Lands and Waters. Always was, always will be. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou.
*Although ostensibly an article about THC and drug driving law reform, nothing herein is intended to be construed as legal advice. Everyone’s circumstances are unique to them and unique to the idiosyncratic processes by law enforcement in every state/territory. If you need that advice, then by all means contact me.
Don’t print this off and wave it in front of a police officer’s face as if it’s the Magna Carta because it isn’t.
**If your medicinal cannabis prescriber does not wish to provide a letter to the court or if they wish to charge you for the privilege, then also please contact me. If your doctor is seeking guidance on how to write such a letter, have them get in touch with Drive Change.
This post will give you the details you need to know about NSW Parliament’s latest inquiry into drug driving law reform and how you can lodge your submission. In doing so, you are expressing your unequivocal support of updated drug driving laws that include protection and defences for medicinal cannabis patients.
Lodging a submission can help restore freedom, support, and job security to the lives of thousands of medicinal cannabis patients in Australia.
What is a submission and why does it matter?
When the Government conducts an inquiry into an area of law–in this case, they’re revisiting the drug driving laws surrounding medicinal cannabis–the public has the opportunity to present a submission.
This submission is an opportunity to make your opinion known regarding the law in question.
Lodging a submission can be a powerful tool for advocacy in changing these laws. Government officials will consider these documents as they reformulate their thoughts or views on an issue.
Essentially, this submission is a tool to help you express your support of fair and equal drug driving laws.
What is the purpose of the Drive Change submission?
Written by ex-magistrate and director of Drive Change, David Heilpern, this submission expresses support for the Road Transport Amendment Bill.
In a nutshell, the Drive Change submission says:
All road safety data shows that there is not risk of increased road trauma from medicinal cannabis.
The current laws are discriminate against prescription medicinal cannabis users.
There is evidence to suggest those using other prescription drugs as an alternative to medicinal cannabis rose a greater risk to road safety.
The Tasmanian model and other international examples exemplify that the Bill’s proposed amendments are tried, tested, and safe.
The submission includes sources to scientific research and international law that supports the need for updated drug driving laws. Due 1 May 2022, the community has the chance now to essentially cast a vote and state the reasons for wanting change.
The Road Transport Amendment Bill would mean equal rights to medicinal cannabis patients who drive. That includes granting legal defence to patients who test positive in roadside tests for amounts of THC that are too low to cause impairment or are present in support of a prescription. The only state that currently grants this protection to medicinal cannabis patients in Tasmania.
Many medicinal cannabis patients are labourers who rely on their driver’s license to keep a job and support their families. The current laws discriminate against these patients and have the potential to upheave lives.
What if I don’t live in NSW?
You can still submit a submission if you do not live in NSW.
Getting the laws updated in the country’s most populous state would create an ideal model that other states and territories can emulate. Your own submission could become a catalyst for change country-wide.
A win for NSW is a win for all of Australia.
How do I lodge my submission?
1. Access the pre-written submission by copying and pasting from below or downloading the pdf from this link. You can also craft your own. Feel free to use ours as a template or guideline for your own.
2. Once you have the submission saved or downloaded, follow this link to access the submissions page for the “Road Transport Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis-Exemptions from Offenses) Bill 2021” on the Parliament of NSW website.
3. Log your submission:
Make sure the “Submissions” tab is selected. Then, click the button that says “to lodge a submission, click here.”
Select “submit as an individual,” and fill out your details.
Lodge your submission either by downloading the pre-prepared PDF or crafting your own submission. Feel free to use our document to help craft your own.
Finally, attach the downloaded file into the submissions page and submit.
All submissions for the Road Transport Amendment Bill are due 1 May 2022. Lodge yours now.
That’s it! Lodging these submissions allow you to speak directly to Parliament regarding the active conversation for updated drug driving laws. This is the perfect opportunity to voice your opinion and help make change happen.
Getting in touch with your local MP is one of the best ways to speak out in favour of the change you want to see in your community. Medicinal cannabis patients particularly have something that they should be speaking out about the discriminatory drug driving laws. We’ve organised a Letters to Local Members campaign to make it easy to get in touch with the representative for your area and be a voice for change.
Your letter to local members should share your personal experience with medicinal cannabis, how the discriminatory laws impact you, and why drug driving law reform is long overdue. By speaking directly to your local MP, you’re giving them a personalised reason to work toward drug driving law reform. We’ll give you everything you need to write a letter, identify your local MP, and send off your letter. All you need to do is tell your story.
The more patient stories and facts that representatives receive, the more likely they will become a voice for change in government. It all starts with telling your story. Your letter to a local member should be based on facts, but should also give them insight into the way the laws personally impact you. Get personal, speak from the heart, and give MPs a good reason to act in favour of drug driving law reform.
Your email or letter offers an opportunity to act immediately by signing up for the Drive Change Government Roundtable on Tuesday, 29 March. The Roundtable, open to government officials only, will provide a chance to gather for a discussion on the facts, science, and community call for drug driving law reform. Even if they can’t make be there, you should encourage them to sign up so they receive the recording.
A constituent voice–your voice–asking them to attend will make a difference.
The details of this event are provided in the letter for you.
What does this mean for you?
Your goal is to share your story. Easy as.
By writing your letter, you’re speaking out for the rights you deserve, and then giving MPs an opportunity to take action. Since the Government Roundtable will take place on 29 March, it’s the perfect chance for them to show up and prove they are doing something about the community’s needs.
Why should you write a letter to local members?
Your local MP is responsible for representing you in government and standing up for your rights. To do that, they need to know what you want.
By writing your story and citing scientific facts, you’re voicing a need for reform of the discriminatory drug driving laws. Sharing your experience can help catalyse change, so remember to let them know how the discriminatory laws are impacting you.
What it all comes down to is one simple fact: medicinal cannabis patients face discrimination. Speak out about your experience and then urge your local member to act on it by attending the Government Roundtable on 29 March.
What should the letter say?
This is your chance to get personal. Your letter needs to share your experience as a medicinal cannabis patient, and describe to your MP how the discriminatory laws impact your life, health, and livelihood.
The important thing to mention is how the discriminatory driving laws, and the restrictions on driving, negatively impact your life.
As an example, you may mention that your life-changing legal medicine is unreasonably at odds with the law. The only legal alternatives to medicinal cannabis are medicines like benzodiazepiness and opioids, etc. which are far more detrimental to your health and well-being.
Some other points to consider for your letter:
What is your medical diagnosis?
What was your health and well-being like before medicinal cannabis?
Why did you switch to medicinal cannabis?
How did cannabis change your life/health for the better?
How are the current discriminatory drug driving laws negatively impacting you?
Drug driving law: facts and figures
Medicinal cannabis patients face discrimination because the current laws don’t match the science. As you write your letter, it will be important to draw from the science to make solid arguments.
Browse the links below to gain an understanding of the studies and politics surrounding the drug-driving laws. You’ll find plenty of helpful stats and quotes within that will strengthen your letter.
Check back in this space regularly as we add more studies and resources.
Time to tell your story: here’s how
Once you review the science and are ready to tell your story, it’s time to write.
You can do this two ways:
To write an email, head to do-gooder to formulate your email and send it directly to your local MP. The templated paragraph included has details about the Roundtable ready to go along with your personalised story.
To write a physical letter, visit our Better Letters page, which is also set up with the information you need to spread the word about the upcoming event. When you select the tab “Write Your Letter”, choose the “Drive Change Template” from the dropdown menu under the Letters option.
If you don’t know who your local MP is, don’t worry. All you need to do is enter your address where prompted and it will send the email to your local rep.
Writing your letter to a local member is an integral part of taking steps toward change.
How else can I share my story?
Our plan for this campaign is to give the community a voice in the matter, and hopefully get the Government in favour of a change. The more ways we are able to reach out, the better. Sending a letter in the mail and as an email will make sure your story is heard.
Also, consider sharing your story with us! We are an authority for drug driving law reform and always welcome personal statements and patient stories. Email hello@drivechangemc.org.au with the title “Patient Story” and a photo of yourself (if you’d like) to let us know that you’d like to be featured.
Cody is sharing his experience as part of our “Personal Stories” series, inviting medicinal cannabis patients to share with the community how drug driving laws are impacting their quality of life. If you’d like to share your story, please email us at hello@drivechangemc.com.au
Hi, my name is Cody. I’m 30 years old living with my partner and two beautiful kids in the northern suburbs of Adelaide. I have been a medical cannabis patient since April 2021, but my journey began around 7 years ago.
In 2013 whilst serving in the Royal Australian Army, I suffered an acute knee injury that transformed into chronic pain. I have had multiple surgeries and countless hours of physiotherapy, none of which solved the problem. While I was dealing with this chronic pain, mental health issues began to develop. As a result, I was medically discharged in 2015. I had served 6 1/2 years.
Cody relies on a driver’s licence to keep his job and provide for his family. The drug driving laws pose a threat to his livelihood and his wellbeing.
Somewhere along the way, I had also developed a terrible relationship with alcohol, abusing it to numb both my body and mind. This lasted five years. I’m sober now, having not touched a drop since December 2020, but I attribute much of that success to my amazing family and psychiatrist.
In the past, I sought conventional drugs to cope with my struggles. Antidepressants and strong opioid-based medications have been regular medications for me since 2014. As time progressed, I began taking benzodiazepines and sleep aid medication.
In my experience taking these drugs over the years, I’ve had a handful of unintentional overdose experiences. It’s very concerning how easily this can happen. This ranged from skin itches and rashes to becoming violently ill and losing consciousness.
It would be safe to say that I’ve had my fair share of traditional prescription medication.
In an attempt to relieve me of my dependence on these troublesome drugs, I obtained a legal prescription for cannabis. It quickly became clear that there were benefits of cannabis on both my physical and mental state. I had no adverse effects from cannabis, leaving me stumped as to why medicinal cannabis wasn’t more widely accepted.
Starting to medicate with cannabis has been the best medical choice I have ever made. At least 90% of my medication is cannabis. As a result, my dependence on both opioids and benzodiazepines has plummeted.
However, the biggest problem I have with medical cannabis is the unfair and discriminatory drug driving laws across the country, specifically in my current state of South Australia.
Like a lot of people, I work and need a licence to do so. However, every time I get behind the wheel I run the risk of testing positive for THC at a roadside drug test, even several hours after the impairing effects have worn off.
It makes you feel like a bit of a criminal. Unfortunately, this is a common feeling amongst the medical cannabis patient community.
Medicinal cannabis patients shouldn’t have to choose between medicating or keeping a driver’s license and job. If someone is prescribed medicinal cannabis and they’re not driving impaired then they should not be guilty of an offence.
These laws need to change immediately, the current legislation is discriminatory, outdated, and maintained purely through ignorance.
I have seen and also personally experienced such a positive outcome that medical cannabis has to offer, I beg everyone involved in the legislation of this: please reform these unfair laws now.
You can help be an agent of change for these unjust laws by signing our petition.
