Our previous article, “Unimpaired Medical Cannabis patients can lawfully drive in Tasmania“, along with many other credible sources, explains a defence available to medical cannabis patients who get behind the wheel in Tasmania whilst THC may still be present in their system. However, recent court cases reveal a stark contrast between the perceived legality and the current enforcement of the law, creating significant challenges for patients relying on this medication.
While our article touched upon the general principles, two recent news articles paint a clearer, and more concerning, picture for Tasmanian patients. These cases highlight a crucial distinction that wasn’t fully addressed in initial analysis: the origin of the medicinal cannabis prescription.
As reported by The Mercury on January 23, 2025, a 60-year-old woman, Marta Znebejanek, was convicted of drug-driving despite holding a legitimate medicinal cannabis prescription. Her barrister, Greg Barns SC, pointed out the critical flaw in the current legislation: “In an era of telehealth, and the fact that people who are on medicinal cannabis in Tasmania often receive prescriptions from interstate doctors, the law needs to be broadened so that anyone who has a legitimate use for this medication can avail themselves of the defence.” Znebejanek’s NSW-issued prescription was not recognized as valid under the Tasmanian driving defence due to wording in the Poisons Act 1971, leaving her without a legal defense.
This case underscores the “illogical” nature of the current system, as described by Mr. Barns, where patients can legally obtain and use medicinal cannabis, but are then penalized for driving with it in their system, even when unimpaired.
Further complicating the situation, a Devonport case, reported by The Examiner on January 27, 2025, solidified this interpretation. Magistrate Duncan Fairley ruled that “a prescription from an interstate practitioner is not sufficient” for a Tasmanian driver to legally drive with medicinal cannabis in their system. This decision hinged on the interpretation of the Poisons Act 1971, which, according to Magistrate Fairley, requires the prescribing doctor to be “present in Tasmania and acting in the course of medical practice in Tasmania.” The case involved a driver, Nathan John Marshall, who had a Victorian prescription for medicinal cannabis. Despite consuming the cannabis for sleep and not being deemed impaired, he was found guilty because his prescription was not issued by a Tasmanian-based doctor. As the magistrate stated, “the substance that caused the THC in Marshall’s system was not obtained and administered in accordance with the Poisons Act because it was not a prescription obtained from a medical practitioner present in Tasmania.”
These cases demonstrate a significant discrepancy between the understanding of medicinal cannabis legality and its practical application in driving situations. While patients may believe they are acting within the law, the requirement for a Tasmanian prescription creates a significant hurdle, especially for those relying on telehealth services or specialists located interstate.
The current legal framework appears to penalize patients who have legitimately obtained medicinal cannabis, even if they are not impaired, simply due to the location of their prescribing doctor. This situation clearly calls for legislative review and clarification to ensure that Tasmanian patients are not unfairly penalized for using legally prescribed medication.
Until then, Tasmanian drivers using medicinal cannabis prescribed by doctors on the mainland should be acutely aware of this legal nuance and seek prescriptions from Tasmanian-based practitioners to avoid potential prosecution.
Based on the new understanding of this legislation, patients visiting from interstate would not have a driving defence available to them.
