Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Drug Law Reform - Beyond Prohibition


Recommended Posts

Author: The Australia Institute

Date: March 2006

Source: The Australia Institute Web Site / Triple J

Copyright: Summary Report Attached. Full version is available (for a fee).

 

The Australia Institute have published a new paper "Drug Law Reform - Beyond Prohibition".

 

It's based on a bunch of reaearch showing that prohibition of MJ (an other drugs) just isn't working.

 

The bloke who wrote the paper was interviewed on Hack on Triple J today. The audio is not available yet but you can probably download it next week.

 

Tak

DP83___summary.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yo people i just sent this email to all the Senators and MPs of Australia. I encourage you all to do the same just copy the list of them into your To: section of your email service, The name of this thread into the Subject:

and the content into the Text: box

Peace

CN

edit : as i cannot put the email addresses in here i have uploaded a .txt file you can get them down the page

:xcited: email these people for anything.

 

Dear Elected,

A piece I feel you all should read as current legislation is destroying many many lives.

Thankyou for your time.

Yours sincerely

An Australian.

 

http://www.tai.org.au/

 

THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE

Drug Law Reform

Beyond Prohibition

Andrew Macintosh

Discussion Paper Number 83

February 2006

 

Summary

Harm minimisation has been the stated objective of the National Drug Strategy since

1985. This goal is supposed to ensure that the focus of drug policy is on minimising the

damage that drugs have on society rather than simply minimising drug use. Although

this objective has received widespread support, the way in which it has been pursued

has been highly contentious, particularly since 1997 when the Howard Government

launched the National Illicit Drug Strategy, ‘Tough on Drugs’, which saw a renewed

emphasis on prohibition and drug law enforcement.

A schism emerged between the public position adopted by governments and the policies

they pursued. Governments talked tough in public about drug issues and extolled the

virtues of prohibition, while tolerating proven and accepted harm reduction initiatives

like needle and syringe exchange programs and methadone maintenance treatment. This

inconsistent approach has prevented the reform of drug laws and halted the

implementation of several innovative harm reduction programs (for example,

prescription heroin trials and drug consumption rooms), but it has saved Australia from

some of the more extreme consequences of a US-style ‘war on drugs’.

It now appears that this compromise is unravelling and that the Howard Government

wants to align national drug policy more closely with its ‘tough on drugs’ rhetoric. In

2005 new laws were passed giving the Commonwealth unprecedented powers to

intervene in drug issues that have traditionally been the sole domain of the states. This

was followed by a concerted media campaign to ‘reveal’ the dangers of cannabis, which

was backed up by the announcement that the Prime Minister wanted to end the civil

penalty regimes that apply to minor cannabis offences in South Australia, Western

Australia, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory.

The shift in emphasis is not confined to the Federal Government. In early February

2006, the Premier of New South Wales, Morris Iemma, took the Prime Minister’s cue

and pledged to introduce new ‘hardline’ cannabis laws that would result in up to ten

years imprisonment for people found growing as few as five hydroponic cannabis

plants. The leader of the opposition in New South Wales, Peter Debnam, has promised

to shut down the safe injecting room in Kings Cross if his party is elected to

government. Similarly, in South Australia, the Liberal Party has suggested that police be

allowed to enter schools with sniffer dogs without obtaining a warrant, while the

Tasmanian Liberals are reported to be calling for ‘tougher drug laws’.

The evidence indicates that any move away from harm minimisation toward a stricter

form of prohibition will worsen the social outcomes from drug policies. Analysis of

alternative options suggests that the existing legal and policy framework is already in

need of liberal reform. Tightening drug laws and placing even great emphasis on drug

law enforcement is likely to undermine some of the gains achieved by harm

minimisation strategies and send Australia down a path that history demonstrates can

only end in failure.

The information that is available proves that prohibition has been an abysmal failure at

addressing illicit drug problems.

viii

The Australia Institute

Costs of prohibition

The direct costs of prohibition are immense. In 1998/99, almost $1.5 billion was spent

by Australian governments on drug law enforcement; productivity losses associated

with drug offences were estimated at an additional $500 million. There is little doubt

these costs have grown significantly since then.

Possibly of greater concern than the direct costs of prohibition are the indirect effects it

has on illicit drug markets and drug use. The evidence indicates that strict drug laws

encourage users to take more potent drugs and consume them in unsafe ways. Research

has also found that prohibition makes drug users reluctant to seek treatment when

problems arise. Further, it often forces young and otherwise law abiding individuals to

associate with deviant subcultures, which can lead to increased drug use and crime.

Studies have also shown that drug law enforcement causes employment and relationship

problems that can aggravate substance misuse disorders.

For those drug users who suffer from a mental illness, the costs of prohibition are even

more severe. Pressures applied by the criminal justice system can exacerbate mental and

substance misuse disorders and create additional barriers to treatment. As the Federal

Government has been at pains to emphasise, drug use can cause or exacerbate mental

health problems, but harsh drug laws risk making the situation worse. In short,

prohibition is the cause of a significant proportion of the health costs associated with

illicit drug use and it hinders the achievement of the objective of harm minimisation.

Strict drug laws are also responsible for increased violence, corruption and property

crime. Countless government inquiries have identified illicit drug markets as a major

cause of corruption. So long as drug markets are the exclusive domain of criminals,

corruption will remain a prominent feature of many institutions, including domestic

police forces.

Benefits of prohibition

To balance the ledger against the extensive list of drug law-related harms, advocates of

prohibition would have to demonstrate that it is substantially better at reducing drugrelated

harm than the more liberal alternatives. The evidence presented in this paper

suggests that it is not.

Illicit drug use is reasonably widespread and shows no signs of abating. In 2004, over

30 per cent of the population reported having tried cannabis, a rate that jumps to almost

60 per cent in the 20 to 39 age group. There has been some positive news in recent

times with the decline in heroin use in the early 2000s, yet methamphetamine and other

stimulant use has increased dramatically over the same period and is now providing a

range of new challenges for law enforcement and health officials alike.

The heroin drought experienced in Australia since the early 2000s has become a central

plank in the defence of the existing prohibition-focused drug policies. Previous research

found evidence that supply-side drug law enforcement at the international and national

levels played a major role in causing the drought. However, more recent evidence has

cast doubts on this conclusion. It now seems more likely that the primary cause of the

drought was a decision by heroin producers and distributors to switch to

methamphetamines and possibly to divert heroin supplies to alternative markets in

China. The role of law enforcement in the heroin drought appears to have been limited.

ix

Drug Law Reform

The available data indicate that the introduction of more liberal drug laws may result in

a slight increase in drug use (which, if it occurs, is likely to be temporary), but that it is

unlikely to increase and may even decrease drug-related heath costs. Provided the

changes are appropriately designed and implemented, any potential adverse effects are

likely to be relatively small. The risk of unwanted side effects could also be mitigated

by the expansion of prevention and treatment programs.

Prevention and treatment

Drug prevention and particularly treatment programs have been proven to be costeffective

at reducing drug use and drug-related harm. Despite the wealth of evidence on

their benefits, these programs are currently grossly under-resourced and constrained in

their reach. This shortfall in services is leading to illness and a loss of life that could

easily be avoided.

There is an urgent need to expand and improve the range of treatment services offered

to drug users. In recent times, the Federal Government and others have advocated

abstinence-based treatment, but the evidence shows that it is often the pharmacological

maintenance programs that are most effective in reducing drug-related harm. Existing

methadone, buprenorphine and other pharmacological maintenance services should be

made more readily available to opiate users, and further research needs to be undertaken

on ways to treat disorders related to amphetamines and methamphetamines.

Drug law reform

The starting point for drug law reform should be cannabis. Experience in Australia and

overseas indicates that lessening penalties for demand-side cannabis offences, or simply

not enforcing them, does not result in a sustained increase in cannabis consumption or

any notable increase in cannabis-related harm. In addition, liberal cannabis regimes

usually cost less to enforce and generate fewer adverse impacts on users and society.

The case for drug law reform in relation to harder drugs is also compelling, yet

governments have been less willing to trial alternatives. This has resulted in a lack of

evidence on the likely consequences of more liberal regimes. However, the available

evidence indicates that liberal reforms are likely to produce significant benefits. These

include reductions in drug-related harm and the economic, social and personal costs

associated with drug law enforcement. At the very least, governments should stop

enforcing demand-side hard drug offences and establish broad diversion programs for

low-level supply offences, particularly where the offences are motivated by a desire to

finance a drug habit.

These pragmatic and evidence-based reforms are unlikely to appeal to the current

Federal Government or to most state and territory governments. The trend is in the

opposition direction; that is to stricter drug laws and law enforcement, tempered by

diversion programs aimed primarily at users. While diversion programs are an

improvement on previous policies, they are no solution to the flaws in prohibition. They

are costly, can be counterproductive and, in so far as they include compulsory or

coerced treatment, are generally unproven.

Governments need to admit the deficiencies of prohibition and pursue the changes that

the evidence shows will produce better outcomes rather than trying to manipulate drug

issues for political purposes.

 

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Natio...1493535832.html

 

Australia's drug policy 'has failed'

 

March 5, 2006 - 12:04PM

 

 

Australia's policy on illicit drugs has failed and the emphasis should be shifted from law enforcement to treatment and prevention, an Australia Institute study has found.

Edited by Coed Nos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found an excerpt of the Show from the Triple J website (Hack).

 

Here is the "Australian National Council on Drugs" (2.8Mb Mp3)

 

Link for Monday's whole Hack Episode:

Real Player Stream

 

Windows Media PLayer Stream

 

MP3 Download (10Mb)

 

Monday 6th February, 2006

 

Monday on Hack: Author Richard Brionowski discusses Howard's nuclear intentions; Andrew Macintosh from the Australia Institute claims that the government's approach to minimising drug use doesn't work; Alice Brennan asks if the new pictures on cigarette packets will work; Steve Cannane talks to Robert Fisk.

 

0-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0

 

Enjoy. :xcited:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the community in any way you agree to our Terms of Use and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.