More Government papers

[bufo marinus]

Hi all, was just wading through a few pages of links when I clicked on this one to the Commonwealth Government, Department of Health and Ageing

 

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/Pub...is-can_exec.htm

 

Looks like a report into cannabis policy by a bunch of uni qualified legal arena consultants, lawyers etc, financed by you and I. Looks like it was tabled 2004

In particular chapter 4(Dutch approach vs US approach) is very interesting, as well as Chapter7(Conclusion) and also the chapter on Medicinal Use, actually sheds some light on an easy way for the government to legislate for medicinal use and still meet it's obligations to archaic international treaties.

Actually the whole thing is chock full of good arguments and references and stuff to raise your blood pressure too.

[bufo marinus]

Ok no replies

I'll highlight the interesting bits then

If you liked the ABC radio show, please read what these academics advised the government on in 2004, it is very much worth the read and is more ammo for change. These guys reccommend the Dutch approach!

I have listed the authors at the end as well

 

Ch4

Conclusion - the USA approach

The US drug policy does not seem to have met many of the policy goals identified in the early part of this report. First, cannabis policy has not been separated from that of other drugs. Policy makers see only the larger 'drug problem' and have not recognised the need to have different policies for different drugs.

 

Secondly, in the USA the arguments for the total prohibition of all drugs are highly emotive; arguments about the consequences of drug use have not been separated from arguments about morals. Consequently, this has led to the idea that is implicit in much US drug policy, that all illicit drugs and consequently all drug users are inherently criminal and even evil. The conceptualisation of the drug problem in such uncompromising, black and white terms means that there is little room to make exceptions for arguably 'soft' drugs such as cannabis.

 

Thirdly, the goals of the 'war on drugs' are not realistic. Kleiman has argued that US drug policy amounts to a 'holy war' against drugs, and as such it is not surprising that the policy goals are far from realistic (Kleiman 1992). Those creating and implementing the US drug strategy do not talk of 'minimising the harm' arising from drug use (as in Australia's National Drug Strategy); rather they aim to completely eliminate drug use, a goal that many would consider to be unreachable.

 

Finally, in Chapter Two of this report, we have suggested that the harms caused by the drug control regimes themselves should not outweigh the harms prevented by them. With respect to cannabis use it has been argued that the harm caused by control regimes clearly outweighs the harm caused by the drug (Kleiman 1992). It has also been argued that those developing policy in the US have failed to make the distinction between the problems created by drugs and the problems created by prohibition (e.g. Wardlaw 1992). The USA has a number of severe social problems associated with drug use, including forcing users into the criminal milieu, demeaning the criminal law in the eyes of users, increasing the number of people with criminal records, increasing the level of imprisonment, and increasing the level of transmission of the AIDS virus. These problems, and the relatively limited achievements in reducing drug use and drug-related problems, have prompted ever increasing efforts in the 'war against drugs'. It is likely, however, that many of the social problems are created not by the drugs themselves but by the strategy of total prohibition.

Top of page

 

Conclusion - the Dutch approach

In a variety of ways The Netherlands drug policy meets many of the criteria outlined in Chapter 2. First, Dutch policy makers have recognised the need to have different policies for different drugs. The idea of separating 'drugs of unacceptable risk' and cannabis is based on the idea that the control regime that appears to be appropriate for one illicit drug need not apply to others.

 

Secondly, policy makers have managed to separate arguments about the consequences of drug use from arguments about morals. In fact, Dutch policy was intended to be 'non-moralistic' (Leuw 1991). It has been claimed that, in The Netherlands, drug use has never been seen as a 'moral' issue and it is argued that:

 

Political speeches elaborating on the abhorrence of illegal drugs have seldom been staged. They would appear as quite misplaced in Dutch political culture. Consequently there are no votes to be won or positions to be conquered by rallying an anti-drug theme (Leuw 1991).

 

Thirdly, this non-moralistic approach to drug policy has led to the development of realistic policy goals with respect to cannabis use. Leuw (1991) notes that in The Netherlands there has been no pledge of 'solving the problem' of drug use. Instead of attempting to eradicate drug use Dutch authorities have adopted the more pragmatic goal of minimising the risks and damaging effects of drug use.

 

Of concern to some observers, however, is the Dutch approach of formalising inconsistency between the provisions of legislation and its implementation. An argument can be advanced that this conveys confusing messages to the community. It is preferable, some would argue, for legislation and policy on implementation to be aligned so that both permit (or proscribe) the use of cannabis in certain circumstances. Having legislation creating an offence of cannabis use, along with policy declaring that it is inexpedient to prosecute such offences, seems to be acceptable in the Dutch context, although it would possibly be unacceptable in other cultures. We return to this apparent difficulty in the concluding chapter of this report.

Top of page

 

 

 

Conclusion - the total prohibition options

The Netherlands has been successful in terms of the goals identified by Dutch policy makers. Their policy has not resulted in the increased use of cannabis; indeed levels of cannabis use are markedly lower than those seen in the United States or Australia. There is little violence associated with the cannabis distribution system, cannabis users do not seem to progress to using more serious drugs and the drug is consumed in a manner whereby the risks of harm are minimised.

 

Dutch policy is also relatively successful in terms of many of the policy goals that we discussed above. The separation of cannabis from other drugs ensures that The Netherlands has a more manageable drug policy. The goals of policy are realistic and policy makers have not confused moral arguments with arguments about the consequences of drug use.

 

In contrast, the US drug strategy with respect to cannabis does not seem to be particularly successful. Despite considerable economic and social costs, cannabis use is far from being eradicated in the USA. Cannabis users may be consuming the drug in a particularly dangerous manner, the illicit drugs distribution system (of which cannabis is a part) is associated with violence, and law enforcement, criminal justice processing and the imprisonment of cannabis-related offenders costs American tax payers millions of dollars every year.

 

The USA has not emerged favourably in relation to the goals identified in the first part of this report. Apparently American policy makers have not recognised the need to consider different policy strategies for different drugs, leaving cannabis part of the larger, seemingly unsolvable 'drug problem'. Moral arguments have been confused with arguments about the consequences of drug use, and this has led to the development of unrealistic policy goals and a failure to recognise that the control regime imposed to deal with the problem of cannabis use may be causing more harm than the cannabis use itself.

 

Examples from the USA and The Netherlands demonstrate that the legislative option of total prohibition can be implemented in very different ways. The two countries have very different philosophical and pragmatic rationales for their policies and, unsurprisingly, the outcomes of the policies have varied considerably. In developing policy, international examples are of benefit to Australian policy makers. It should be remembered, however, that the relative success or failure of drug policies depend as much on cultural factors, existing patterns of drug use, and public views of drug use, as they do on the soundness of the policy.

Top of page

 

 

 

References

Boaz, D. 1990, 'The consequences of prohibition', in The Crisis in Drug Prohibition, ed. D. Boaz, Cato Institute, Washington DC.

 

Cohen, P. 1988, 'Building upon the successes of Dutch drug policy', The International Journal on Drug Policy, vol. 2, no. 2, pp22-24.

 

Downes, D. 1988, Contrasts in Tolerance: Post-war Penal Policy in The Netherlands and England and Wales, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

 

Driessen, van Dam & Olsen 1989, 'De ontwikkeling van het cannabisgebruik in Nederland, enkele Europese landen en de VS sinds 1969', Tijidschrift voor alcohol, drugs en andere psychotrope stoffen, vol. 15, pp2-15, cited in Leuw, E. 1991, 'Drugs and drug policy in The Netherlands,' in Crime and Justice: A Review Of Research, vol 14., ed. M. Tonry, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

 

Engelsman, E. L. 1989, 'Dutch policy on the management of drug-related problems', British Journal of Addiction, vol. 84, pp211-218.

 

Inciardi, J. (ed.) 1990, Handbook of Drug Control in the United States, Greenwood Press, New York.

 

Kleiman, Mark A.R. 1989, Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control, Greenwood Press, United States.

 

Kleiman, Mark A.R. 1992, Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results: Alcohol, Cocaine, Heroin, Marijuana, Tobacco, Basic Books, New York.

 

Kleiman, Mark A.R & Saiger, A.J. 1990, 'Drug legalisation: The importance of asking the right question', The Hofstra Law Review, vol. 18, 1989-90, pp527-565.

 

Leuw, E 1991, 'Drugs and drug policy in The Netherlands,' in Crime and Justice: A Review Of Research, vol. 14, ed. M. Tonry, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

 

Marshall, I E., Anjewerierden, O. & Atteveld, H.A. 1990, 'Toward an Americanisation of Dutch drug policy', Justice Quarterly, vol. 7, no. 2, pp391-420.

 

Nadelmann, E.A. 1991, 'Drug prohibition in the United States: Costs, consequences and alternatives', Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, vol. 5, no. 37, pp783-808.

 

National Institute on Drug Abuse 1991, Household Surveys as cited in US Bureau of Justice Statistics 1992, Drugs Crime and the Justice System, US Government Printing Office, Washington.

 

Reuter, P. 1987, 'What impasse? A skeptical view', Nova Law Review, vol. 11, no. 3, pp1025-1040.

 

Single, E. 1989, 'The impact of marijuana decriminalisation: An update', Journal of Public Health Policy, vol. 10, no. 4, pp456-466.

 

US Bureau of Justice Statistics 1992, A National Report. Drugs, Crime and the Justice System, US Government Printing Office, Washington.

 

van Vliet, H. 1988, 'Drug policy as a management strategy', The International Journal on Drug Policy, vol. 1, no 1, pp27-19.

 

van Vliet, H. 1990, 'The uneasy decriminalisation: A perspective on Dutch drug policy', Hofstra Law Review, vol. 18, 1989-90, pp717-750.

 

Wardlaw, G. 1992, 'Overview of national drug control strategies' in Comparative Analysis of Illicit Drug Strategy, Monograph Series no. 18, National Campaign Against Drug Abuse, eds M. Bull, D. McDowell, J. Norberry, H. Strang, & G. Wardlaw, AGPS, Canberra.

 

Wijingaart, Govert Frank van de 1991, Competing Perspectives on Drug Use: The Dutch Experience, Swets and Zeitlinger, Amsterdam.

 

Page last modified: 22 September, 2004

 

 

Ch7

Legislative options for cannabis use in Australia - Chapter 7 Conclusion

Chapter 7 National Drug Strategy Monograph 26

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

<< previous page | Contents | next page >>

 

 

This paper has addressed the legislative options available for cannabis in Australia, and has argued that choosing from among these options requires a process of policy evaluation. Accordingly, the paper first considered the policy frameworks within which decision-making occurs, emphasising the necessity for clarity in the goals that society seeks to attain through legislating in this area.

The paper places contemporary Australian cannabis legislation within its broader context: historical and international. Despite the work of numerous Royal Commissions and other official inquiries, much of Australia's legislation concerning cannabis reflects the dynamics of earlier times, when Australia tended to mimic other nations' policies without taking sufficient account of local circumstances. Our framework of legislative prohibition was put in place at a time when there was virtually no cannabis use in Australia. In the 1990s, when over four million Australians report having used the drug and nearly half of them report having done so during the last year, most jurisdictions maintain total prohibition as their legislative stance, even though only a tiny proportion of the offenders against their legislation will ever be prosecuted.

 

We have reviewed the range of legislative options available, classifying them as: total prohibition; prohibition combined with a civil penalty for personal use, etc; partial prohibition whereby personal use, etc., is not an offence, but trafficking and large-scale growing of cannabis remains prohibited; the legal availability of cannabis under various forms of regulation; and, finally, the option of unregulated, free availability. Each of these options is reviewed in terms of its rationale, experiences with it to date and its impacts.

 

The related topics of the diversion from the criminal justice system of people who come to the attention of the police for cannabis offences, and the compulsory treatment of cannabis users, have also been discussed. Experience to date suggests that well-resourced and managed diversionary programs can be effective, and desirable, alternatives to imprisonment for some offenders. Very few cannabis users will need treatment, as conceived of through a medical model, simply because of their cannabis use. Many users can benefit, however, from a helping intervention, the success of which may be potentiated by the crisis of a 'bust' for cannabis use or related offences.

 

Cannabis is used mainly as a recreational drug and this pattern of use has been the focus of this paper. For completeness, we have included in the appendixes information on the medical and industrial/agricultural uses of the cannabis plant and its by-products. In doing so, we remind readers that, in drug policies, we are not faced with 'all-or-nothing' choices. Within the range of available policy options lies the possibility of prohibiting the recreational use of cannabis while permitting its use for other purposes. (This occurs, of course, with opiates: the opium poppy is grown in Tasmania to provide raw material for the manufacture of pharmaceutical products.)

 

Australia's National Drug Strategy provides a policy framework within which new legislative approaches may be developed. Both existing and new approaches have the possibility of both enhancing and detracting from the achievement of the mission of the National Drug Strategy, that of minimising the harmful effects of drugs and drug use in Australian society. Our review of the policy options, set out in Chapter 4, demonstrates this.

 

No single 'best option' for cannabis legislation exists. What is most appropriate will depend upon what goals both policy makers and the community are seeking to achieve. It is not the role of researchers to dictate policy goals; rather we have drawn attention to their importance, outlined an approach to evaluating them and described the likely outcomes, in terms of policy goals, of the five broad categories of legislative options which are available now.

 

Our review suggests that two of the five legislative options discussed in Chapter 4 are inappropriate in contemporary Australian circumstances. They are the options which we have characterised as 'total prohibition' and 'free availability'. The arguments for rejecting these options will not be repeated here as they are detailed in Chapter 4. We point out, however, that the cultivation, possession and supply of cannabis remain an offence in all Australian States and Territories (and using it is an offence in most), even though cannabis use is commonplace and little evidence exists that cannabis itself causes significant harm when used in small quantities. Australian society experiences more harm, we conclude, from maintaining the prohibition policy than it experiences from the use of the drug.

 

Widespread interest exists in the Dutch approach to drug policies. We have categorised them, in this paper, under the heading of total prohibition, as that is the Dutch legislative position. However, as detailed above, the application of the principle that it is, in their terms, 'inexpedient' to prosecute people for minor drug offences (including selling cannabis in certain coffee shops) means that Dutch policy and practice (as contrasted to legislation) is closer to the regulatory option than the total prohibition option. The regulatory option is one of the approaches which we suggest is more appropriate to Australian circumstances than is total prohibition.

 

It could be argued that the Dutch approach is a product of a different culture and system of administration of criminal justice. If the Australian States and Territories resolve not to arrest and proceed against people using, possessing or supplying cannabis, by far the best approach is for this policy to be implemented through legislation, rather than through an administrative decision not to prosecute cannabis offenders. This is because the Australian system of legal justice is based upon the principle of legal clarity and consistency in the implementation of the law.

 

Nevertheless, the reality is that, for a variety of reasons, Australian governments may well prefer to implement the Dutch approach. A number of precedents exist whereby, especially in areas of moral contention, certain illegal activities, as a matter of policy, are excluded from the purview of the criminal justice authorities. In the Australian Capital Territory, for example, we understand that the Director of Public Prosecutions publicly announced that he would not conduct any prosecutions in the area of prostitution. Abortion and certain types of gambling (e.g. playing two-up on ANZAC Day) are or were similarly dealt with. Police general orders frequently remind officers of the desirability of exercising their discretion not to arrest or summons a person found committing only a minor offence. Warnings, formal cautions and referral to other agencies are encouraged despite the existence of legislation prohibiting the behaviour involved.

 

We suggest, then, that if governments agree that total prohibition is not the most desirable approach, but are unwilling or unable to legislate to enable a more preferable option to be implemented, then the Dutch approach is a desirable alternative. It would entail the government, the State/Territory Director of Public Prosecutions, or another appropriate authority declaring that, as from a certain date, no person would be prosecuted before the courts for specified (minor) cannabis offences. We suggest that this is a legitimate, but not optimal, pragmatic option currently available to Australian governments.

 

We also reject the legislative option found at the opposite end of the continuum from total prohibition, the totally unregulated, free availability of cannabis. Our society is one which accepts that governments and others have both the right and the responsibility to intervene in diverse ways to protect people from harm and to advance the common good. It would be unreasonable, we suggest, to argue that cannabis should be available in an uncontrolled manner: issues of quality control, protection of the young, road safety, etc., demand at least some degree of control over the drug's availability.

 

We conclude, then, that cannabis law reform is required in this country. Numerous options for policy, legislation and implementation processes exist within the broad categories of prohibition with civil penalties, partial prohibition and relatively free but regulated availability. We believe, on the basis of the available evidence, that widely acceptable social goals, well attuned to the needs of contemporary Australian society, will be attained through the adoption and implementation of policies which lie within these options.

 

Page last modified: 22 September, 2004

 

App 1 Medicinal Use

Legislative options for cannabis use in Australia - Appendix 1 The medicinal use of cannabis

Appendix 1 National Drug Strategy Monograph 26

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

<< previous page | Contents | next page >>

 

 

The medicinal use of cannabis in the ancient world has been well documented (Abel 1980). In the United States, cannabis was first mentioned as a medicinal drug in 1843 and by 1852 it was included in the US dispensatory list of medicines. It was thought to be beneficial in the treatment of 'neuralgia, gout, tetanus, hydrophobia, cholera, convulsions, chorea, hysteria, depression and insanity' (Wood & Bache 1854, cited in Abel 1980, p182). In Australia, tincture of cannabis was used in medicine until the 1960s, when it was declared a prohibited drug (Cartwright 1983).

Since the introduction of legislation prohibiting the recreational use of cannabis, its use for medicinal purposes has, in most Western countries, not been popular. However, recently the therapeutic benefits of cannabis have received close attention in the United States. In 1991, Doblin and Kleiman conducted an anonymous survey of the members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology measuring the attitudes and experiences of American oncologists concerning the use of cannabis to treat nausea in cancer chemotherapy patients. They found that, of those oncologists who replied to the survey (43 per cent), more than 44 per cent of them reported recommending the illegal use of cannabis for the control of nausea to at least one cancer patient. Some 48 per cent said that they would prescribe cannabis to some of their patients if it were legal (Doblin & Kleiman 1991).

 

Cannabis has been used as an anti-emetic in the treatment of AIDS patients and as a painkiller for those suffering from chronic pain (Grinspoon 1991). It has also been regarded by some medical practitioners as being effective in reducing intra-ocular pressure in glaucoma patients (Caswell 1992) and in treating epilepsy (Cartwright 1983), Huntington's chorea (Moss et al. 1989) and Parkinsonian tremor (Frankel et al. 1990).

 

Despite the attention that the medical use of cannabis has received in recent times, legislation in the United States does not permit the medical use of marijuana. In the Federal Controlled Substances Act, cannabis is categorised as a Schedule 1 drug, and as such is described as having a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use and no acceptable safe level of use under medical supervision. In 1989, organisations such as the (US) National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), the Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics (ACT) as well as various individuals,20 applied to have cannabis rescheduled so that it could be used for medical purposes. The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration rejected these claims and stated that:

 

It is clear that cannabis cannot meet the criteria ... for safety under medical supervision. The chemistry of cannabis is not known and reproducible. The record supports a finding that marijuana plant material is variable from plant to plant. The quantities of the active constituents, the cannabinoids, vary considerably. In addition, the actions and potential risks of several of the cannabinoids have not been studied ... (US Government, Federal Register, vol. 54, no. 249, 29 December 1989, p53,734).

 

This position has recently been restated by Robert C. Bonner, a later Administrator of the US Drug Enforcement Agency, when he responded to a subsequent petition lodged by NORML (US Government, Federal Register, vol. 57, no. 59, 26 March 1992, pp10,499-10,508).

 

Those in favour of rescheduling the drug argue that, for some, the denial of cannabis as a medicine is particularly cruel. Grinspoon argues that 'sick people are forced to suffer anxiety about prosecution in addition to their anxiety about the illness ... Doctors are afraid to recommend what they know to be the best treatment because they might lose their reputation or even their licence' (Grinspoon 1991).

 

The Australian medical community has not been as enthusiastic about the therapeutic benefits of cannabis although many argue that where the drug has been demonstrated to be effective its use should be permitted. A study done at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne found that THC (the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis) was an effective anti-emetic for some children undergoing chemotherapy (Cartwright 1983). Dr Lorna Cartwright, a lecturer in Pharmacology at Sydney University stated:

 

I think there are probably better drugs for medical uses. The point is, though, I think it should be allowed to be used for conditions in which it has been shown to have effect, such as for glaucoma, for children having chemotherapy and for epilepsy. I always feel that if something is good even for a small percentage of patients, it should be allowed to be used (cited in Caswell 1992, p498).

 

Another pharmacologist, Dr Greg Chesher, argues that cannabis clearly has therapeutic benefits but that research into the possible uses of the drug is being hampered by the fact that cannabis is a prohibited drug (cited in Caswell 1992).

 

The position in Australia is different from that in the USA in that in this country there is no legislation or binding administrative ruling specifically stating that no medical use exists for cannabis.21 Neither does the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, to which Australia is a party, specifically forbid the medical use of cannabis. In fact the Convention recognises that some otherwise illicit drugs may have medical purposes and states that cannabis use should be 'subject to the provisions of this Convention, to limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the...use and possession of drugs' (Article 4(1) ©).

 

Given that the United Nations Conventions do not specifically proscribe the medical uses of cannabis, introducing legislation that allowed the use of the drug for medical purposes in Australia would be relatively simple. Clauses authorising the therapeutic use of the drug could simply be inserted into relevant drug legislation and therapeutic products scheduling. Politically, however, such a change in policy could be difficult. As an illicit drug, cannabis has a negative image and is seen as an being an inherently dependence producing, damaging drug that has no possible benefits. Recognition of the medical benefits of the drug may challenge this dominant view of cannabis.

 

 

References

Abel, E. 1980, Marihuana: The First Twelve Thousand Years, Plenum Press, New York.

 

Cartwright, L. 1983, 'Marihuana', Current Affairs Bulletin, vol. 59, no. 10, pp19-31.

 

Caswell, A. 1992, 'Marijuana as medicine', The Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 156, pp497-498.

 

Doblin, R. E. & Kleiman, M. 1991, 'Marijuana as anti-emetic dedicine: A survey of oncologists experiences and attitudes, Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 9, pp1314-1319.

 

Frankel, J.P., Hughes, A., Lees, A.J. & Stern, G.M. 1990, 'Marijuana for Parkinsonian Tremor', Journal of Neurological Neurosurgical Psychiatry, vol. 53, pp436-442.

 

Grinspoon, L. 1991, 'Marijuana in a time of psychopharmalogical McCarthyism' in Searching for Alternatives: Drug Control Policy in The United States, eds M.B. Krauss & E.PLazear, pp379-389, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, California.

 

Moss, D.E., Manderscheid, P.Z. & Montgomery, S.P. 1992, 'Nicotine and cannabinoids as adjuncts to neuroleptics in the treatment of Tourettes Syndrome and other motor disorders', Life Science, 1989, vol. 44, pp1521-1525.

 

Page last modified: 22 September, 2004

 

And the authors

 

Legislative options for cannabis use in Australia - Appendix 3 The authors

Appendix 3 National Drug Strategy Monograph 26

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

<< previous page | Contents | next page >>

 

David McDonald

David McDonald is a Senior Criminologist at the Australian Institute of Criminology. He holds the degrees of BA, DipSocWk (Syd), MA (Alta), and GradDipPoplnHlth (ANU).

Mr McDonald's research interests lie in the areas of custodial health, policing and drug and alcohol policy. Prior to joining the Institute in 1992, Mr McDonald held a research appointment in primary health care at the ANU's National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health. He has wide experience in research, program development and evaluation in the drug and alcohol field, having established the Northern Territory's drug and alcohol services and served, for two years, as Director of the NCADA's National Drug Abuse Information Centre. His publications are mainly in the fields of alcohol and other drugs, correctional health, primary health care and Aboriginal health.

 

 

Rhonda Moore

Rhonda Moore is a Researcher in the Politics Department at the University College (UNSW), Canberra. She holds a BA from Sydney University and a Postgraduate Diploma of Librarianship from UNSW. She has worked as a contract researcher in the UK, Canada and Australia, primarily in the fields of criminology and political sociology, and since 1987 has done research on drug use in Australia.

 

Jennifer Norberry

Jennifer Norberry BA(Hons), LLB(Hons), Dip Lib is a lawyer employed at the Australian Institute of Criminology. Her research interests include illicit drugs policy, HIV/AIDS and prisons and environmental crime.

 

Grant Wardlaw

Grant Wardlaw BA, MA(Hons), PhD (Auckland), BA(Soc Sci) (Deakin), Grad Dip Intl Law (ANU). Dr Wardlaw is Director of Wardlaw Consulting Pty Ltd and currently acts as a consultant to the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department and a number of other government agencies. Prior to this, he held senior research positions in the Australian Institute of Criminology (1976-1991) and worked as a clinical psychologist with the New Zealand Department of Justice (1974-76).

Dr Wardlaw has published widely in the areas of drug policy, drug law enforcement, and epidemiology of drug use. He is a member of the Commonwealth's Drug Abuse Research and Education Advisory Committee, and a number of other advisory boards. Dr Wardlaw has led a number of major drug research projects funded by the Australasian Police Commissioner's Conference, the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse, and the US Department of Defence.

 

 

Nicola Ballenden

Nicola Ballenden BA(Hons) was employed as a research officer on the project. She is currently completing her Masters at the University of Melbourne. Her research interests include mental health law, drugs and medico-legal issues.

Page last modified: 22 September, 2004

[freddie]

You've really got to wonder just what happens to reports like this. Does the government just ignore them because they don't conform to their war on drugs agenda? Politically, at the moment mental health seems to be the greatest impediment to law reform and i didn't see it mentioned here which is interesting. Governments at the moment believe to be seen as being "soft on drugs" is political death. That is why they ignore reports like this.

[DownUnderDoper]

Sorry Bufo,

 

I have been and read that report.. didn't realise I had to submit a book review

 

like many other reports by their own experts the politicians once again ignore the recommendations for fear of being seen as soft on drugs (well the drugs they don't make money from anyway) by the supposed moral majority..

 

our only hope is to start getting more of these reports into the public eye and publicly questioning the politicians why they are ignoring the very people they are paying for their opinions.

[bufo marinus]

hehe yes I'll be asking questions later so study up DownUnderDoper.

freddie you are on the money, they only care about their own false image in the hope it will get themselves re-elected

I really wanted to highlight the professional advice these elected farking nobodies, usually with limited qualifications in their ministerial field are given.

Here it is again in black and white from experts at the highest level that current drug policy is doing society more overall harm than overall good but still it is ignored

[67Special]

Thanks for the link bufo