DANGEROUS DRUGS

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 163, 30 September 1927, Page 16

DANGEROUS DRUGS

LAW TO SMASH TRAFFICKERS ONUS TO PROVE INNOCENCE (THE SUN’S Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Friday. THE operations of international gangs of drug smugglers should bo restricted by the enforcement of the Dangerous Drugs Bill, which passed through the committee stage in the House of Representatives this evening. The Hon. J. A. Young, Minister of Health, explained that the provisions of this measure should have the effect of making It impossible for these gangs to bring into the country, or to sell here, any dangerous drugs. The Government had to take precautions to see that the law was tight in this respect. Mr H. T. Armstrong, Christchurch East, agreed that in many cases it was difficult to get convictions, but that was no reason why methods should be adopted which were in direct opposition to what was recognised by British law. He thought the bill should have been submitted to the Health Committee before it was put through the final stages. Mr. J. McCombs, Lyttelton, objected |to the filling of the Statute Book with long Acts of Parliament, practically everyone of which contained a clause giving the Governor-General the right to legislate by Order-in-Council. Mr. J. A. I.ee, Auckland East, said that certain restoratives were soiu, which had a kick ten times as strong as alcohol. These preparations were commonly sold across the counter, and were held in large quantities by tradesmen. Surely the Minister would agree that it would be worth while to confiscate these stocks, and compensate the tradesmen who held them, rather than run the risk of supplying them to people whio wanted drugs. Mr. E. J. Howard, Christchurch South, said that the clause relating to Orders-in-Council simply meant that the powers of the Government were transferred to people behind the scenes, and under it a man could be declared a criminal overnight. Mr. G. W. Forbes, Leader of the National Party, said that the tendency of the Government toward legislation by Order-in-Council grew on it like a tendency to drink. Instead of using the drug in moderation, they had run wild, and it had taken charge of them. It was a drug, said Mr. Forbes, pursuing his metaphor, and the Government was a drug addict. The debate appeared to Ibe resolving itself into a discussion of merits and demerits of Orders-in-Council, when Mr. D. G Sullivan, Avon, moved to report progress, but the motion was lost on the voices. Labour members then called for a division on the Order-in-Council clause, but were defeated by 43 votes to 14. Twenty clauses then went through without discussion, but th«;re was another division on the clause providing that the onus of proof of innocent possession of a drug shall lie on the person charged, which Mr. Howard, declared was exceedingly dangerous. This time voting was 48 for theclausie and 9 against. There was no objection to the remaining clauses and the bill was passed.