Since its legalization, there have been many unanswered questions about the regulation and best practices for managing prescription cannabis in Tasmania.

The Magistrates Court of Tasmania recently published an interesting decision which discusses the legalities of prescription cannabis for the purposes of the Road Safety (Alcohol & Drugs) Act 1970 (Tas) (the Act), and potentially in other contexts.

The defendant, Mr Marshall, faced charges of operating a motor vehicle with THC, the psychoactive component of cannabis, present in his system, contrary to s 6A of the Act.

Mr Marshall did not dispute that he had consumed THC prior to driving but asserted that it was obtained legally, pursuant to a prescription from a registered medical practitioner in Victoria, and dispensed from a pharmacy also in Victoria, carried by Australia Post to his Tasmanian address.

• During cross-examination, Mr Marshall said he was unaware that medicinal cannabis could be obtained from a Tasmanian based medical practitioner.  Further, that he had sourced his information concerning the legalities around medicinal cannabis use and driving from an internet chat forum. He said it was his belief that it was lawful to drive after using medicinally prescribed cannabis so long as he was not “under the influence”.

The primary defence advanced by Mr Marshall was that the defence provided by s 6A(2) of the Act applied to the circumstances of his case, that being, that a person does not commit a drug driving offence if the prescribed illicit drug was obtained and administered in accordance with the Poisons Act 1971 (Tas) (Poisons Act).

• Magistrate Fairley did not agree, and determined that in order for THC, or another prescribed illicit drug, to have been “obtained and administered in accordance with the Poisons Act”, prescription for that drug must have been obtained from a medical practitioner in Tasmania. 
• His Honour arrived at that conclusion following a review of the Act, and the Poisons Act, of which he said, “The effect of those provisions is that a medical practitioner may prescribe cannabis for use by a patient only if that practitioner is present in Tasmania and acting in the course of medical practice in Tasmania and has made the appropriate application to the Secretary in accordance with the legislation”.
• It was therefore not obtained and administered in accordance with the Poisons Act 1971 and the defence provided by s 6A(2) of the Act did not apply.  Further, his Honour rejected that the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact was available to Mr Marshall given his knowledge of medical cannabis prescriptions and use had been obtained from internet chat forum, rather than from a legal practitioner or other proper authority

This case underscores the complexities associated with prescription regulation in Tasmania, and the highlights the importance for individuals looking to obtain such a prescription to do so from a local medical practitioner.

It also provides useful guidance in other contexts, such as for employers seeking to enforce or introduce a “zero tolerance” Alcohol & Drugs policy or employment condition, without inadvertently discriminating against employees who have lawfully obtained a medical prescription.