Drug Equality Alliance

[Dragonfan]

DEA UK

[a very looooooong read, but very interesting none-the-less]

 

A Statement from the Drug Equality Alliance (DEA)

We believe the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 c.38 (“the Act”) is being administered in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner based on historical and cultural factors that lack a consistent and objective basis contrary to Article 14 and within the ambit of other convention rights. This denies equal protection to persons engaged in property activities with “controlled drugs”, s2(1)[a], with respect to persons engaged in identical property activities with the drugs alcohol and tobacco.

 

At the outset, it is vital to bear in mind these facts about the Act:

· The Act seeks to reduce or eliminate the harmful effects, to society and individuals, which may occur via the misuse of “dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs”.

· In seeking to reduce or eliminate these harmful effects, the Act provides for the flexible regulation of property rights re “dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs”.

· All drugs capable of being misused are within the Act’s ambit.

· The Act is not fettered to any regulatory regime or policy option; however, any regulatory regime or policy option is fettered by the Human Rights Act 1998.

· The Act is kept “under review” by a statutory Advisory Council with the duty to advise on any exercise of the powers provided in the Act and any “alteration of the law”, s1(2), thought necessary to meet the Act’s aims.

· The Act extinguishes property rights in “controlled drugs” by default, s2(1)(a); but, the Secretary of State may make any regulations he considers necessary, s31, to achieve the Act’s aims after consultation or on the advice of the Advisory Council.

With these facts in mind, let us now examine the alleged discrimination.

 

An Artificial Divide in Drug Law Administration

On May 22nd 2002 , having concluded a wide-ranging enquiry into Government drug policy, the Third Report from the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Session 2001-2002 HC-318 The Government’s Drug Policy: is it working? declared:

“Legal drugs, such as tobacco and alcohol, are responsible for far greater damage both to individual health and to the social fabric in general than illegal ones”.

The Home Affairs Committee continued:

“Substance misuse is a continuum perhaps artificially divided into legal and illegal activity”. (Introduction paragraphs 8 & 9, emphasis added)

And, on July 31st 2006, after a rigorous enquiry into the use of scientific advice and evidence in the classification of drugs under the Act, the Introduction to the Fifth Report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Session 2005-06 HC 1031 Drug classification: making a hash of it? declared:

“With respect to the ABC classification system, we have identified significant anomalies in the classification of individual drugs and a regrettable lack of consistency in the rationale used to make classification decisions. […] we have concluded that the current classification system is not fit for purpose and should be replaced with a more scientifically based scale of harm”. (Emphasis added)

Vindicating the Committees’ assertions above, on September 14th 2006 , the statutory Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (“the ACMD”) published Pathways to Problems: hazardous use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs by young people in the UK and its implications for policy. This commanding report declared unequivocally that the current artificial divide in the drugs use continuum lacks a consistent and objective basis:

“We believe that policy-makers and the public need to be better informed of the essential similarity in the way in which psychoactive drugs work […] At present, the legal framework for the regulation and control of drugs clearly distinguishes between drugs such as tobacco and alcohol and various other drugs which can be bought and sold legally (subject to various regulations), drugs which are covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) and drugs which are classed as medicines, some of which are also covered by the Act. […] these distinctions are based on historical and cultural factors and lack a consistent and objective basis”. (Overview, paragraph 1.13, emphasis added)

Faithful to this, the ACMD went on to admit that they had neglected their duty under the Act and, in doing so, had discriminated upon the ground of “legal status”:

“Although its terms of reference do not prevent it from doing so, the ACMD has not considered alcohol and tobacco other than tangentially. The scientific evidence is now clear that nicotine and alcohol have pharmacological actions similar to other psychoactive drugs. Both cause serious health and social problems and there is growing evidence of very strong links between the use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs. For the ACMD to neglect two of the most harmful psychoactive drugs simply because they have a different legal status no longer seems appropriate”. (Introduction, p14, emphasis added)

Crucially, the ACMD recommended to all relevant government departments that:

“A fully integrated approach should be taken to the development of policies designed to prevent the hazardous use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs”. (p.11)

A month later, on October 13th 2006 , in The Government Reply to the Fifth Report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Session 2005-06 HC 1031 Drug classification: making a hash of it? Cm 6941, HM Government confirmed inequitable administration of the Act on the grounds of “historical and cultural precedents”:

“Government [believes] the classification system under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is not a suitable mechanism for regulating legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco. However, it should not be imputed that Government takes the harms caused by these drugs any less seriously”. […] “The distinction between legal and illegal substances is not unequivocally based on pharmacology, economic or risk benefit analysis. It is also based in large part on historical and cultural precedents. A classification system that applies to legal as well as illegal substances would be unacceptable to the vast majority of people who use, for example alcohol, responsibly and would conflict with deeply embedded historical tradition and tolerance of consumption of a number of substances that alter mental functioning […]. Legal substances are therefore regulated through other means. […] However, the Government acknowledges that alcohol and tobacco account for more health problems and deaths than illicit drugs”. (Introduction paragraph 7 & p24, emphasis added)

Whilst we believe the entire Command Paper Cm 6941 demands strict scrutiny, here are a few thoughts and questions about this excerpt::

· Inherent within “historical and cultural precedents” is subjectivity, arbitrariness, prejudice and irrationality. Cf. slavery, racism, sexism, and homophobia.

· No drug or substance is “legal” or “illegal”, rather the Act regulates human action.

· Possibly ignorant of ss7, 22 & 31, HM Government fails to explain how the Act is “not a suitable mechanism for regulating [human action re] alcohol and tobacco”.

· Possibly ignorant of ss7, 22 & 31, HM Government ostensibly believes that classifying a drug under the Act mandates the permanent extinction of property rights in that drug; otherwise, why would it be “unacceptable” to apply the Act to “the vast majority of people who use, for example alcohol, responsibly”?

· HM Government acknowledges that responsible use of drugs which “alter mental functioning” is both possible and commonplace.

· If “a deeply embedded historical tradition and tolerance of consumption of a number of substances that alter mental functioning” exists, why is this tolerance not extended to so-called “illicit” drugs?

· If HM Government does not take the greater harms caused by alcohol and tobacco “any less seriously”, then why are those who engage in property activities re alcohol and/or tobacco not equally deprived of their liberty and property?

 

Our longstanding belief that HM Government’s administration of the Act is arbitrary and lacks a consistent and objective basis was confirmed by a paper published March 24th 2007 in The Lancet entitled ‘Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse’. Authored chiefly by Professor David Nutt, the incoming ACMD Chairman, and Professor Colin Blakemore, the former Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council, this paper describes the first scientific ranking of the relative harmfulness of the most commonly used drugs. This fatally undermined HM Government’s administrative rationale set out in Cm 6941. It said:

 

“The current classification system has evolved in an unsystematic way from somewhat arbitrary foundations with seemingly little scientific basis. […] Our findings raise questions about the validity of the current Misuse of Drugs Act classification, despite the fact that it is nominally based on an assessment of risk to users and society. […] Our results also emphasise that the exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the Misuse of Drugs Act is, from a scientific perspective, arbitrary. We saw no clear distinction between socially acceptable and illicit substances. The fact that the two most widely used legal drugs lie in the upper half of the ranking of harm is surely important information that should be taken into account in public debate on illegal drug use. Discussions based on a formal assessment of harm rather than on prejudice and assumptions might help society to engage in a more rational debate about the relative risks and harms of drugs”. (The Lancet 369: 1047-1053, emphasis added)

 

When viewed collectively, the Science and Technology Committee report Drug classification: making a hash of it?, the ACMD report Pathways to Problems, and the Lancet paper Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse have thoroughly eviscerated HM Government’s administrative rationale for classification and regulation distinctions made under the Act. Together they found that:

· There is no clear distinction between socially acceptable drugs, like alcohol and tobacco, and the drugs controlled under the Act.

· The exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the controls of the Act is arbitrary.

· Psychoactive drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, are used worldwide in the pursuit of pleasure, solace and acceptance.

· HM Government’s artificial distinction between drugs like alcohol and tobacco and the drugs controlled under the Act is based on historical and cultural precedents that lack a consistent and objective basis.

 

Disrespecting all of this, on September 27th 2007 , an HM Government response to the Cabinet Office Better Regulation Executive reiterates a persistent reliance on an historic artificial divide in their discriminatory administration of the Act:

 

“The Government’s policy is to regulate drugs which are classified as illegal or controlled through the 1971 Act and to regulate the use of alcohol and tobacco separately. This policy sensibly recognises that alcohol and tobacco do pose health risks and can have anti-social effects, but recognises also that consumption of alcohol and tobacco is historically embedded in society and that responsible use of alcohol and tobacco is both possible and commonplace”. (Emphasis added)

 

Accordingly, we request that HM Government explain how “historical and cultural precedents” and “unacceptability” are rational and objective justifications for treating people concerned with alcohol and tobacco significantly less seriously than those people concerned with equally or less harmful “controlled drugs”.

 

In our view, human rights challenges to the Act have been given short shrift in the Courts with an (over)reliance on inferences drawn from HM Government’s subscription to the various United Nations drugs Conventions. Cf R v Taylor [2001] EWCA Crim 2263 at 14 & 31. And, Lord Hoffman stated in R v Secretary of State for the Home department, ex p Simms [1999] UKHL 33, that:

 

“Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights. […] But the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost. Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words. […] In the absence of express language or necessary implication to the contrary, the courts therefore presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic rights of the individual”.

 

Decisively, the Conventions are not incorporated into United Kingdom law; hence neither the Act nor the powers conferred by it on the Secretary of State are fettered to the United Nations drug control regime. Indeed, the June 10th 1998 Political Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly, UN A/RES/S-20/2, stated that drug strategies require an:

 

“integrated and balanced approach in full conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, and particularly with full respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of States and all human rights and fundamental freedoms”. (Emphasis added)

 

And more than a decade ago the 1997 United Nations World Drug Report recognized the inconsistency inherent in “cultural and historical justifications” under the heading of The Regulation-Legalization Debate:

 

“The discussion of regulation has inevitably brought alcohol and tobacco into the heart of the debate and highlighted the apparent inconsistency whereby use of some dependence creating drugs is legal and of others is illegal. The cultural and historical justifications offered for this separation may not be credible to the principle targets of today’s anti-drug messages – the young”. (Emphasis added)

 

In making the international comparison, it is imperative that interested parties do not lose sight of the fact that the Act does not declare that its intent or purpose is to give further effect or specific performance to the United Nations drug Conventions. Said another way, since the Conventions are not incorporated into United Kingdom law, neither the Act nor its powers are fettered to the UN drug control regime.

 

Thus, we ask whether HM Government is able to provide an objective, reasonable and proportionate justification for their discriminatory administration of the Act. If not, is it not then unlawful under ECHR Article 14?

 

I. The discrimination or difference of treatment

 

We believe HM Government’s historical and culturally based administration of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 disregards fundamental notions of human dignity and equality before the law. This has had a disparate impact on those who, as a class, are concerned with controlled drug property which, analogous to alcohol and tobacco, alters mental functioning.

 

As such, approximately 4 million persons in the United Kingdom, are severely criminalised by the Act and forbidden from enjoying property rights vis-à-vis drugs, which they have interests in, while the vast majority of persons who use the equally or more harmful drugs, alcohol and tobacco, are entitled to autonomy, self-determination, free and informed choice, freedom of thought, freedom of contract, consumer protection, and privacy in the consumption of drugs that, according to HM Government, “alter mental functioning”.

 

II. ECHR Article 14 – Prohibition of Discrimination

 

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides:

 

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any grounds such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

 

Interested parties will note that Article 14 does not provide a free-standing prohibition of discrimination by public authorities; Article 14 is restricted in three important aspects:

 

a] Article 14 prohibits discrimination only in “the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention”, i.e. Article 14 is not engaged unless the claimant can show that the discrimination complained of falls “within the ambit” of another Convention right.

b] Article 14 prohibits discrimination only on “any grounds such as” those enumerated in Article 14 itself; “any grounds such as” reflects that the grounds are “illustrative and not exhaustive”.

c] Article 14 prohibits only discrimination that does not pursue a “legitimate aim” found in the express limitations of the engaged Convention right and/or where there is no “reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised”.

 

III. ECHR Protocol 1 Article 1 – Protection of Property

 

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

 

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

 

The Act controls the exercise of property activities with respect to “dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs” property, i.e. importation/exportation, s3; production, manufacture, extraction, preparation, supply, s4; possession, possession with intent to supply, s5; cultivation of Cannabis, s6; operation of premises where drugs property activities take place, s8; smoking Opium, s9, etc. These controls on the use of drugs property are within the ambit of ECHR Protocol 1 Article 1.

 

As applied, and by default, though subject to any regulation made under s7 by the Secretary of State, the Act extinguishes the right to the peaceful enjoyment of controlled drugs property for non-professional persons. Hence, we believe the Act:

· denies all meaningful use of controlled drugs; and conversely denies the right of the people to the peaceful enjoyment of safer alternatives to alcohol and tobacco.

 

This blanket prohibition of property rights, irrespective of the harmfulness of a drug, cannot be reasonably incidental to the Act’s legitimate aim of reducing the harmful effects to society and individuals that may occur via the misuse of “dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs”. Hence, we believe that if such restriction on property rights can be justified as objective, reasonable, proportionate and in the public interest then Government is denying the public equal protection by allowing the exercise of property rights in relation to the equally or more harmful drugs alcohol and tobacco.

 

IV. ECHR Article 8 – Right to Respect for Private and Family Life

 

1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the protection of health and morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

 

The Act aims to reduce or eliminate the harmful effects, to society and individuals, which may arise via the misuse of “dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs”. The current administration of the Act prohibits, under severe criminal penalty, the exercise of all non-scientific and non-medical property activities re “controlled drugs” regardless of the actual risk to society and/or individuals from their misuse. Yet, even where personal conduct poses a danger to health or, arguably, where it is of a life-threatening nature, ECHR case-law regards State imposition of compulsory or criminal measures as impinging on the private life of the applicant. Thus, the Act’s criminal measures are within the ambit of ECHR Article 8 and require justification.

 

And since the ability to conduct one’s life in a manner of one’s own choosing includes the opportunity to pursue activities perceived to be of a physically or morally harmful or dangerous nature for the individual concerned, we believe that as applied the Act:

· denies the right to autonomy, self-determination and free and informed choice in the consumption of drugs that alter mental functioning.

· impairs the individual’s right to freedom of contract.

· denies the right of those with interests in controlled-drug to be reasonably secure in their persons, papers and possessions from unreasonable interference.

 

We believe that if such restrictions on Article 8 rights vis-à-vis controlled drugs can be justified as objective, reasonable, proportionate and in the public interest then Government is denying the public equal protection from the equally or more harmful drugs alcohol and tobacco by respecting people’s Article 8 rights in relation to them.

 

V. ECHR Article 9 – Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion

 

1) Every one has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes the freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2) Freedom to manifest one’s religion shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interest of public safety, for the protection of public order, health and morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

 

The Act controls the exercise of property activities re psychoactive drugs. It is accepted that people consume psychoactive drugs to change the way they think, feel or behave. And, HM Government has declared that there is “a deeply embedded historical tradition and tolerance of consumption of [… drugs] that alter mental functioning” (Cm 6941). Thus, the Act’s regulation of human activity re drugs that alter mental functioning engages ECHR Article 9.

 

We believe that as applied the Act:

· impairs the right of those who use controlled drugs for sacramental purposes to practice their respective religion’s or belief system’s observances.

· impairs the right of those who use controlled drugs for medicinal purposes, which are often if not always prescribed by their belief system or religion.

· impairs the right of those who use controlled drugs to alter mental functioning.

 

VI. Article 5 – Liberty

 

1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (sections omitted)

4) Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

 

Since the right to personal liberty is among the most fundamental of the rights protected by the European Convention, any restriction of it must be closely scrutinised to ensure that no restriction involves a violation of democratic or constitutional principle. In this manner, Article 5 secures the right of individuals in a democracy to be free from arbitrary detention at the hands of the authorities.

 

Evidence suggests that HM Government is administering the Act’s drug classification system in an arbitrary fashion along an artificial divide based on historical and cultural precedents that lack a consistent and objective basis. This ultimately results in arbitrary deprivations of liberty contrary to Article 5. More, with reference to both ordinal and cardinal proportionality, sentences of imprisonment for offences under the Act, especially conjunct arbitrary discrimination, may be severe enough to engage Article 3, the prohibition against “Inhumane and degrading treatment”.

 

VII. Article 2 – The Right to Life

 

1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law.

 

The blanket prohibition of the exercise of property right in controlled drugs might be thought the best method to reduce or eliminate the harmful effects, to society and individuals, which may arise via the misuse of “dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs”. However, in 37 years, blanket prohibition has been wholly incapable of achieving that aim.

 

Instead, the (un)intended consequences of prohibiting access to a demanded commodity have given rise to a thriving black market for controlled drugs. This black market in controlled drugs is driven most often by profit rather than by the principle of harm-minimisation and has resulted in a dramatic increase in illegal activity, including unsafe black market production, organized crime, and widespread non-compliance with the Act.

 

Thus, blanket prohibition of some but not all drugs not only undermines public health efforts to reduce controlled drug harm – by diverting budgets to enforcement and stigmatising the most vulnerable problem users with criminality – it actually increases harms associated with dangerous drug use by stifling access to accurate safety information, ensuring that dangerous drugs are of unknown strength and purity and encouraging high risk behaviours, eg injecting and sharing needles.

 

We believe that HM Government’s refusal to even countenance more suitable, targeted and proportionate measures, such as licensed regulation akin to alcohol and tobacco has directly caused the deaths of thousands of persons. And whilst the law of causality exculpates HM Government from criminal liability, we believe that in denying individuals who are intent on using controlled drugs the right to consumer protection, including quality control, appropriate labelling, and safe places of consumption and supply, the state is failing to protect the individual’s right to life.

 

VIII. The Analogous Comparator

 

Article 14 only protects where there is an analogous comparator. Property rights in alcohol, tobacco and other drugs “in common use” are exercised by mankind with the same intent – to alter mental functioning and so produce pleasurable and sought-after effects. Thus persons engaged in property activities with “controlled drugs” are in a substantially analogous situation with respect to persons engaged in identical property activities with the drugs alcohol and tobacco.

 

IX. The difference of treatment is grounded in “property” and “legal status”

 

As applied, the Act discriminates between drugs property, not according to harmfulness to the individual or society when used or misused, i.e. rational and objective factors, but instead according to the specific property used, preferred or tolerated by the “vast majority” (Cm 6941). Thus the drugs property used, preferred or tolerated by the “vast majority” is excluded from the Act’s controls, whilst other drugs property used, preferred or tolerated by diverse minorities is included. This confers “legal status” to the exercise of property rights in drugs property used, preferred or tolerated by the electoral majority and “illegal status” to the exercise of property rights in the controlled drugs property used, preferred or tolerated by diverse minorities.

 

X. The difference of treatment is neither objective, reasonable, nor necessary

 

In Cm 6941, HM Government admitted basing their discriminatory administration of the Act “in large part on historical and cultural precedents” and not primarily on objective factors such as “pharmacology, economic or risk benefit analysis”. Likewise, in September 2006, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs stated unequivocally that the difference of treatment, precipitated by the artificial distinction between alcohol and tobacco on one hand and controlled drugs on the other, is “based on historical and cultural factors and lack a consistent and objective basis”. And, the 2007 Lancet paper entitled Development of a Rational Scale to Assess the Harm of Drugs of Potential Misuse confirmed the arbitrariness, from a scientific perspective, inherent in basing the administration of the Act on historical and cultural precedents.

 

Finally, it cannot be reasonable to discriminate between consumers, traders and producers of equally harmful drugs “in large part on historical and cultural precedents”. These are irrelevant factors unrelated to the 1971 Act’s legitimate aim of reducing harm. Ultimately, HM Government’s policy of arbitrary discrimination in the administration of a neutral law cannot be necessary in a democratic society.

 

XI. In the public interest, we request that a thematic inquiry into this alleged contravention of the Human Rights Act 1998 is undertaken without delay

 

We believe that the maladministration of the Act contravenes Human Rights (and the common law headings of fairness, rationality and legality), and that this arises via the concerted actions of the Secretary of State and the ACMD. Each of their respective roles demands strict scrutiny by a suitably empowered independent body.

 

XII. We make the following Recommendation:

 

We recommend that a Royal Commission is charged with the remit of investigating the drug phenomenon with reference to drug discrimination and Human Rights, in both a global and domestic context, particularly investigating alternative ways, including the possibility of legalisation and regulation of the exercise of property rights in controlled drugs for non-professional use purposes so as to minimise harm from the global and domestic drugs phenomenon.

 

XIII. At the Heart of the Matter

 

We believe that HM Government under-regulates the conduct of the majority, who exercise property rights in alcohol and tobacco, and over-regulates the conduct of disparate minorities, who exercise property rights in equally or less harmful controlled drugs. This should be thoroughly investigated.

 

We believe that were the classification and control system under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 administered in a substantially similar manner to the Medicines Act 1968, where each drug starts out heavily controlled and over time – as evidence of efficacy and safety in responsible use becomes available – the restrictions ease, we could go a long way to solving the intractable problem of effectively integrating the responsible use of dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs into our society. This does not require new primary legislation; it can be accomplished within the existing provisions of the Act; and, it should be implemented as soon as possible.

[WantDaChronic]

that was a very interesting read, however i dont see all drugs being studied again in order to reclassify them and have their users treated equally if that were to happen tobacco and alcohol would be removed from the market almost overnight, home brew kits and stuff like that would have to be treated like meth lab starter packs and unfortunately for us, politicians have too much invested in tobacco and alcohol to ever make them illegal. some politicians have money invested, others just see the stream of tax revenue come rolling in, but either way you look at it there is a bucket load of money that will be lost by the higher ups and while alot of alcohol induced violence will stop, im sure those crazy drunks will get equally angry having to drink their prison pop to get wasted and will still start fights for no good reason

 

i think we need to appeal to our leader's fear and greed. the economy is screwed and only appears to be getting worse and there is literally billions of dollars stuck in the black market due to the drug trade. if cannabis was made legal until the economic crisis was over i think it would not only save australia'seconomy, prohibiting the drug afterwards would be next to impossible all that would need to be done is have it taxed and available where ever cigarettes are sold and because this crisis will last years people will get used to being able to legally buy pot. come the conclusion of the crisis when prohibition returns we would need to show people getting tazered, thrown to the ground, cars torn apart, children put in foster care, etc. basically the injustices we illegal drug consumers unfairly experience and the public will demand a stop be put to it....unfortunately we are still seen as a minority by the public so they dont give a shit about us, but if they show many normal, hard working citizens getting their lives destroyed it would be a totally different matter