2012/08: Should low-level, personal drug use be decriminalised?
What they said...
'The evidence suggests this "war" - a drugs crackdown initiated by then prime minister John Howard more than a decade ago - has worked'
Herald Sun columnist, Andrew Bolt
'Prohibition isn't working; the Americans dismissed prohibition of alcohol because it didn't work. Why do they think prohibition of illicit drugs will work any better?'
Professor Peter Baume, a former minister in the Fraser government
The issue at a glance
On April 3, 2012, Australia 21, an independent think tank, released a report urging politicians to reconsider the politically taboo subject of drug control. The report recommends a massive re-think to tackle the illegal drug trade.
The report includes the views of former federal law enforcement officers, health ministers, and premiers, including Foreign Minister Bob Carr, former NSW health minister Michael Wooldridge and former West Australian premier Geoff Gallop.
Bob Carr's support for the decriminalisation of low-level, personal drug use has been rejected by Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.
Background
(Most of the following information is summarised from the Wikipedia entry titled 'Drug liberalization'. The full text of the entry can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_liberalization#Drug_decriminalization)
Drug decriminalisation calls for reduced control and penalties compared to existing laws. Proponents of drug decriminalisation generally support the use of fines or other punishment to replace prison terms, and often propose systems whereby illegal drug users who are caught would be fined, but would not receive a permanent criminal record as a result. A central feature of drug decriminalisation is the concept of harm reduction.
Drug decriminalisation is in some ways an intermediate between prohibition and legalisation, and has been criticised as being "the worst of both worlds", in that drug sales would still be illegal, thus perpetuating the problems associated with leaving production and distribution of drugs to the criminal underworld, while also failing to discourage illegal drug use by removing the criminal penalties that might otherwise cause some people to choose not to use drugs. However, there are many that argue that the decriminalisation of possession of drugs would redirect focus of the law enforcement system of any country to put more effort into arresting dealers and big time criminals, instead of arresting minor criminals for mere possession, and thus be more effective.
Portugal is the first country that has decriminalised the use of all drugs, meaning anyone caught with any type of drug for personal or private consumption will not be imprisoned. Spain and Italy have recently followed Portugal's example.
Drug liberalization movements in specific countries
Australia
Some Australians have been advocating for the legalisation of cannabis since the early 1970s with the Cannabis Research Foundation of Australia, established in Victoria. Other active groups in the later 1970s included the Australian Marijuana Party and the Marijuana Petition Organisation. During the 1980s an independent Australian chapter of NORML was established and became the main force in the Cannabis Campaign until the early 1990s.
In the 1990s, HEMP (Help End Marijuana Prohibition) was established and continued the fight for law reform. In 2010, HEMP qualified as a political party intending to field candidates in elections where possible. In 2011 the Cannabis Campaign seemed to experience a renaissance in Australia with many new groups appearing in different States.
Since 1985 the Federal Government has run a declared 'War on Drugs' and while initially Australia led the world in the 'harm-minimisation' approach, they have since lagged.
Australia 21
In September 2011, Australia 21 (a contemporary issue and lobby group) appointed a steering group that included a number of Australian experts on illicit drug policy. Their task was to work towards an Australian review of the policy of prohibition instigated in 1953, which would also explore what might be involved in moving to a different approach to illicit drugs in Australia.
The group recommended a high level exploratory roundtable on the topic "What are the likely costs and benefits of a change in Australia's current policy on illicit drugs?"
The one day roundtable discussion hosted by the University of Sydney on 31 January 2012 included 24 former senior state and federal politicians, experts in drug policy and public health, young people, a leading businessman, legal and former law enforcement officers.
The report on this discussion was launched on Tuesday, 3 April at a press conference in Parliament House Canberra.
Argentina
In August, 2009, the Argentine Supreme Court declared in a landmark ruling that it was unconstitutional to prosecute citizens for having drugs for their personal use - 'adults should be free to make lifestyle decisions without the intervention of the state'. The decision affected the second paragraph of Article 14 of the country's drug control legislation (Law Number 23,737) that punishes the possession of drugs for personal consumption with prison sentences ranging from one month to two years (although education or treatment measures can be substitute penalties). The unconstitutionality of the article concerns cases of drug possession for personal consumption that does not affect others.
Brazil
In 2002 and 2006 the country went through legislative changes, resulting in a partial decriminalisation of possession for personal use. Prison sentences no longer applied and were replaced by educational measures and community services. However, the 2006 law does not provide an objective means to distinguish between users and traffickers. A disparity exists between the decriminalisation of drug use and increased penalties for selling drugs, punishable with a maximum prison sentence of five years for the sale of very minor quantities of drugs. Most of those incarcerated for drug trafficking are offenders caught selling small quantities of drugs, among them drug users who sell drugs to finance their drug habits.
Canada
The cultivation of cannabis is currently illegal in Canada, with exceptions only for medical usage. However, the use of cannabis by the general public is tolerated to a certain degree and varies depending on location and jurisdiction. A vigorous campaign to legalise cannabis is underway nation-wide.
In 2001, the Globe and Mail reported that a poll had found that 47% of Canadians agreed with the statement, 'The use of marijuana should be legalised' in 2000, compared to 26% in 1975. A more recent poll found that more than half of Canadians supported legalisation. However, in 2007 Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government tabled Bill C-26 to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to create a more restrictive law with higher minimum penalties for drug crimes. Bill-26 died in committee after the dissolution of the 39th Canadian Parliament in September 2008, but the Bill has subsequently been resurrected by the Canadian government twice.
Czech Republic
On December 14, 2009, the Czech Republic adopted a new law that took effect on January 1, 2010, and allows a person to possess up to 15 grams of marijuana or 1.5 grams of heroin without facing criminal charges. These amounts are higher (often many times) than in any other European country, making the Czech Republic the most liberal country in the European Union when it comes to drug liberalization (apart from Portugal).
Latin America (Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia)
In April 2009, the Mexican Congress approved changes in the General Health Law that decriminalised the possession of illegal drugs for immediate consumption and personal use, allowing a person to possess up to 5g of marijuana or 500 mg of cocaine. The only restriction is that people in possession of drugs should not be within a 300 meter radius of schools, police departments, or correctional facilities. Opium, heroin, LSD, and other synthetic drugs were also decriminalised. Their possession will not be considered as a crime as long as the dose does not exceed the limit established in the General Health Law. Many question this, as cocaine is as much synthesised as heroin, both are produced as extracts from plants. The law establishes very low amount thresholds and strictly defines personal dosage. For those arrested with more than the threshold allowed by the law this can result in heavy prison sentences, as they will be assumed to be small traffickers even if there are no other indications that the amount was meant for selling.
Guatemalan President Otto P‚rez Molina and Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos proposed the legalisation of drugs in an effort to counter the widely perceived failure of the War on Drugs, which was said to have yielded poor results at a huge cost.
The Netherlands
The drug policy of the Netherlands is based on two principles: Drug use is a public health issue, not a criminal matter and a distinction between hard drugs and soft drugs exists.
Cannabis remains a controlled substance in the Netherlands and both possession and production for personal use are still misdemeanours, punishable by fine. Cannabis coffee shops are also illegal according to the statutes.
However, a policy of non-enforcement has led to a situation where reliance upon non-enforcement has become common, and because of this the courts have ruled against the government when individual cases were prosecuted.
Portugal
In 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession. In addition, drug users were to be targeted with therapy rather than prison sentences. Research commissioned by the Cato Institute and led by Glenn Greenwald found that in the five years after the start of decriminalisation, illegal drug use by teenagers had declined, the rate of HIV infections among drug users had dropped, deaths related to heroin and similar drugs had been cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction had doubled. However, Peter Reuter, a professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Maryland, College Park, while conceding that Portuguese decriminalisation met its central goal of stopping the rise in drug use, suggests that the heroin usage rates and related deaths may have been due to the cyclical nature of drug epidemics.
Norway
On June 14, 2010, the Stoltenberg commission recommended implementing heroin assisted treatment and expanding harm reduction measures. On 18 June 2010, Knut Storberget, Minister of Justice and the Police announced that the ministry is working on new drug policy involving decriminalisation following the Portugal model, which will be introduced to parliament before the next general election. Later, however, Storberget has changed his statements, saying the decriminalisation debate is 'for academics', instead calling for coerced treatment.
United States
Throughout the United States there has been pressure for the legalisation of marijuana use and distribution for medical reasons. Organisations such as NORML are working to decriminalise possession, use, cultivation, and sale of marijuana by adults, even beyond medical uses. In 1996, 56% of California voters voted for Proposition 215, legalising the growing and use of marijuana for medical purposes. This created significant legal and policy tensions between federal and state governments. Courts have since decided that state laws in conflict with a federal law about cannabis are not valid. Cannabis is restricted by federal law.
Uruguay
Uruguay is one of the few countries that never criminalised the possession of drugs for personal use. Since 1974, the law establishes no quantity limits, leaving it to the judge's discretion to determine whether the intent was personal use. Once it is determined by the judge that the amount in possession was meant for personal use, there are no sanctions.
Internet information
In 2004, the Australian Department of Health and Ageing issued a report titled 'The Prevention of Substance Use, Risk and Harm in Australia: a Review of the Evidence'. The full text of this report can be found at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/health-pubhlth-publicat-document-mono_prevention-cnt.htm/$FILE/prevention_summary.pdf
In 2008, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime issued a report titled 'Drug Policy and Results in Australia'. The report gives a detailed account of drug policy and its effects over the last four decades.
The full text of this report can be found at http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Studies/Drug_Policy_Australia_Oct2008.pdf
On April 3, 2012, The Sydney Morning Herald published a news report titled, 'PM, Carr disagree on decriminalising drugs' which outlines the different opinions of the foreign minister, Bob Carr and the prime minister, Julia Gillard, on the question of drug decriminalisation.
The full text of this report can be found at http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/pm-carr-disagree-on-decriminalising-drugs-20120403-1w981.html
On April 3, 2012, the Australia 21 2012 report on Australia's drug policy titled 'The prohibition of illicit drugs is killing and criminalising our children and we are all letting it happen' was released. It can be accessed at http://www.australia21.org.au//publications/press_releases/Australia21_Illicit_Drug_Policy_Report.pdf
On April 5, 2012, The Conversation published an opinion piece by Julian Savulescu,
Sir Louis Matheson Distinguished Visiting Professor at Monash University, and Bennett Foddy, Junior research fellow at University of Oxford. The opinion piece is titled, 'A moral argument against the war on drugs 'and can be accessed at http://theconversation.edu.au/a-moral-argument-against-the-war-on-drugs-6304
On April 5, 2012, Medical Cannabis Australia republished an opinion piece originally published in The Herald Sun by commentator Andre Bolt. The piece is titled, 'Legal drugs push is a smokescreen' and it opposes the decriminalisation or legalisation of drugs in Australia. The full text of the opinion piece can be found at http://www.medicalmarijuana.com.au/cannabis-news/227-legal-drugs-push-is-a-smokescreen.html
On May 15, 2012, Your View Org. published a set of arguments from each side of the drug decriminalisation question.
The full text of these arguments can be accessed at http://yourview.org.au/issues/10-Should-illicit-drugs-be-legalised-in-Australia
On May 20, 2012, The Sydney Morning Herald published a series of letters giving a wide range of opinions on the decriminalisation of drugs.
These letters can be read at http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/should-the-government-decriminalise-drugs-20120519-1yxf1.html
On May 23, 2012, The Sydney Morning Herald published a news report titled, 'Accord paves way for opposing groups to talk'.
The report refers to the establishment of an international accord on illicit drug policy that has opened the way for dialogue between opponents and supporters of decriminalisation in Australia.
Officials from five countries, including the United States and Britain, have agreed to a ''balanced'' approach to illicit drugs, which would combine ''effective enforcement'' with measures to support the recovery of addicts.
The full text of this news report can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/accord-paves-way-for-opposing-groups-to-talk-20120522-1z3ag.html?skin=text-only
Arguments against the decriminalisation low-level, personal drug use
1. Drug use is harmful
It has been argued that drug use is harmful on many levels. It can damage the health of individual users, causing great personal suffering for them and their families and friends. Many drugs influence the mood of users, potentially making them less inhibited and more aggressive. Some drugs can also rob users of motivation or precipitate depression. Drugs of dependency typically require the user to take progressively larger quantities to achieve the desired effect and their use in growing amounts over a protracted period can have serious effects on different body organs and systems.
Drug use results in underproduction and lost working days among drug users and often results in their unemployment. It puts enormous strain on community services, including medical services and hospitals. It often damages family units, impeding the progress and wellbeing of the children of drug users. The use of certain types of drug is associated with increased rates of violence and with a greater likelihood of automobile accidents.
Victoria Police deputy commissioner for crime, Graham Ashton, has claimed that calls for drug decriminalisation did not take into account the criminal flow-on effects of drug use, such as family violence, road fatalities and assaults.
Commissioner Ashton has stated, 'Decriminalisation is a simplistic response. It doesn't take into account the community harm that drugs do.'
The belief that drugs are harmful and that the laws against them should remain unaltered by government and should continue to be enforced by police has been expressed by Australia's Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. Ms Gillard has stated, 'Drugs kill people, they rip families apart, they destroy lives and we want to see less harm done by drug usage. So we want to make sure we are supporting people to get treatment options and we are getting our police to do what they rightly should be doing, which is policing our laws on drugs.'
2. Decriminalisation will encourage drug use
It has been argued that decriminalisation is only a short step from full legalisation and that the results of either move would be an increase in consumption. According to this line of argument, decriminalisation would remove the stigma from drug use and would increase ease of access. This, it has been suggested, would be likely to boost consumption.
The Western Australian Police Minister, Rob Johnson, has referred to what occurred when former Western Australian premier, Geoff Gallop decriminalised the smoking of small amounts of marijuana. Mr Johnson has stated, 'We became known as the cannabis capital of Australia and we saw cannabis use grow extensively. Drugs are not good for anybody, and if you start decriminalising it, what you see is an increase in use, you see people going from cannabis to harder drugs. You get people with psychotic problems.'
The Greens currently favour limited decriminalisation but are very wary of full legalisation. Greens senator Richard Di Natale has said the party supports decriminalisation for personal use, but does not want to go down the same road as alcohol. Mr Di Natale has stated, 'We took a product that was illegal and we put it in the hands of big corporations. We promoted it; we marketed it, now we have an enormous problem with alcohol dependence in this country.'
Critics of decriminalisation have pointed to both alcohol and nicotine, where decriminalisation has allowed for the widespread use of these substances with all the attendant ill effects. They ask whether either of these drugs would be made legally available if we were considering the question today.
3. Australia has been successful in reducing the use of illegal drugs
It has been claimed that there are a number of indicators which suggest that Australia's battle against illegal drug use is having positive effects.
A 1999 Australian Institute of Criminology report stated, 'Recent Australian initiatives to reduce the supply of drugs by focusing on the high level drug traffickers have met with success. For example, in Australia, joint investigations by the Australian Federal Police and Customs during the past three years have led to the break up of major international drug trafficking syndicates involved in the importation of large quantities of heroin, cocaine and cannabis resin.'
In 2008, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime issued a report on the effectiveness of drug-control measures in Australia. Among its findings were that though overall drug use increased 69% in the 1988-1998 period, notably between 1995 and 1998; this upward trend was reversed once the Australian Government started implementing its National Illicit Drugs Strategy "Tough on Drugs" (1997) in 1998. Between 1998 and 2007, annual prevalence of drug use - as reflected in household survey results (among the population age 14 and above) - declined by almost 40%. Use of amphetamines fell by 38%, cannabis by 49% and heroin use even fell by 75%. Only ecstasy use continued showing an upward trend, from an annual prevalence rate of 2.4% in 1998 to 3.4% in 2004 and 3.5% in 2007. Cocaine use increased slightly, from 1.4% in 1998 to 1.6% in 2007.
On April 5, 2012, Herald Sun columnist, Andrew Bolt, stated, 'The evidence suggests this "war" - a drugs crackdown initiated by then prime minister John Howard more than a decade ago - has worked.
Drug overdose deaths in Australia peaked at 1116 in 1999, then plummeted as better policing dried up supplies and better medical intervention saved lives. By 2001, opioid-related deaths were down by two-thirds, and there they've roughly stayed.
A change in reporting such deaths in 2006 led to a small uptick, but the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre concluded "we don't have any other indicators to suggest an increase in heroin-related harms/mortality".'
4. The health and social effects of drugs can be addressed without decriminalisation
Studies have demonstrated that drug taking behaviour is likely to be initiated in adolescence and consolidated into adulthood. Australia is working to develop intervention strategies which target primary and later school-aged children as the risk factors that contribute to later drug use are established then.
In 2004 the National Drug Research Institute and the Centre for Adolescent Health issued a report on substance abuse prevention strategies in Australia. The report included the following judgement, 'There is increasing evidence that investment in preventive programs in childhood can help to reduce harmful drug use in later years. In many cases, evaluations have demonstrated positive improvements in child behaviour problems over one to two years. Furthermore, follow-up into adolescence has been completed for an increasing number of studies and links the positive changes achieved through childhood prevention programs to later reductions in harmful drug use and associated behaviour problems. Evaluations have also found that pre-school programs may be important in ensuring a fuller realisation of learning potential.'
It has further been suggested that having drug use illegal, actually assists in addressing the health and social effects drugs pose. In an opinion piece published in The Age on May 24, 2012, Michael Keenan, the Liberal MP for Stirling and shadow minister for justice, customs and border protection stated, 'When you decriminalise drugs you take away the ability of the courts to compel low-risk offenders to attend appropriate drug rehabilitation and counselling services as a cautioning program and alternative to a jail sentence. For many drug offenders this is often the only avenue in which they and their families can seek vital assistance to combat drug addiction.'
5. Decriminalisation would not break the nexus between drugs and crime
It has been claimed that decriminalisation will not break the connection between criminals and drugs.
A report prepared on behalf of the Drug Prevention Network of the Americas has stated, 'Legalisation would not take the profit out of the drug trade as criminals will always find ways of countering legislation. They would continue their dangerous activities including cutting drugs with harmful substances to maximise sales and profits.'
Criminals may seek to undercut government or commercial suppliers by adulterating drugs with cheap and often dangerous fillers. Already other currently legal drugs - alcohol and tobacco - are regularly traded on the black market and are an international smuggling problem; an estimated 600 billion cigarettes are smuggled annually (World Drug report 2009). It has also been suggested that addiction will lead addicts to continue to steal and commit other illegal activities in order to supply themselves with drugs in the quantity and with the regularity they require. Short of governments distributing free drugs, those who commit crime now to obtain them would continue to do so if they became legal.
It has further been suggested that the dangerous side effects of many drugs, such as increased aggression or manic behaviour, will still leave those who take drugs likely to commit illegal acts. Sexual assault is frequently facilitated by substance use - some estimates put the number at over 60 percent. There is also an established connection between drug abuse and physical assault. Drugged driving is a major problem in the United States with 11 million Americans reported as driving under the influence of drugs in 2004. Driving while drugged is also becoming a significant problem in Australia.
Arguments in favour of the decriminalisation low-level, personal drug use
1. The health and social effects of drug use can be dealt with more effectively through decriminalisation
It has been claimed that criminalising drug use makes it more difficult for drug users to address the social and health problems that result from their habit. Decriminalisation, it is argued, would remove the fear of prosecution and enable drug-users to be better assisted with the various difficulties they face.
Former Western Australian premier Geoff Gallop, has stated, 'I think it's most important that we look at the interest of those people in our community that do use drugs and we don't surround them with the criminal law so that their ability to cope with any issues that result from their use... is dealt with properly.'
Dr Gallop has further stated, 'In Portugal they decriminalised the use of drugs and required those who were caught in possession of drugs to take up therapy or to take up treatment or to find some way that they could live their lives better...I think that whole approach of decriminalising the use of drugs creates a much better framework for dealing with them.
In an opinion piece published in The Age on May 24, Richard Di Natale, a Greens senator from Victoria and his party's health spokesman stated, 'Rather than acting as a deterrent, the focus on criminalising individual users diverts scarce resources away from prevention, treatment and harm-reduction strategies such as needle and syringe exchanges.'
Federal Foreign Affairs Minister and former premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, has made similar comments about the effect of liberalising drug laws. 'As premier I sponsored a medically supervised injecting room so that people who are hooked on this wretched, addictive white powder ... would have a chance. While they were there, you could persuade them to give the stuff up and to enter treatment to get off it.'
A report commissioned by the Commonwealth Department of Health estimated that by the year 2000 heroine injection programs had prevented 25,000 HIV and 21,000 hepatitis C infections, and would, by 2010, have saved the lives of 4,500 people who would otherwise have died from AIDS, and a further 90 who would have died from hepatitis C. The programs proved to be a good investment in financial terms alone. These programs cost less than $150 million but in the long run saved taxpayers more than $7 billion.
It has further been noted that the illegal market creates added dangers of overdose due to variation in potency and additives intended to increase the apparent quantities for sale. Illegal drug dealers also target children. An American study found that by 2003, fully 14 per cent of those being admitted to drug-abuse treatment facilities had first used drugs when 12 years old or even younger.
2. Drug use currently continues despite its illegality
There is a widespread belief that the war against drugs cannot be won and that the persistence of illicit drug use within the Australian community and in jurisdictions worldwide is proof of the failure of a law-based, punitive approach.
Michael Woolridge, a former federal health minister in the Howard government, has stated, 'The key message is that we have 40 years of experience of a law and order approach to drugs and it has failed.'
Professor Peter Baume, a former minister in the Fraser government, has stated, 'At the moment you're getting corruption, diversion of money. Prohibition isn't working; the Americans dismissed prohibition of alcohol because it didn't work. Why do they think prohibition of illicit drugs will work any better?'
A similar point was made by Dr Ken Crispin, the recently retired Supreme Court judge of the Australian Capital Territory in a 2010 address to launch Drug Action Week in the Australian Capital Territory. Dr Crispin stated, 'The war on drugs has proven a spectacular failure. The number of drug users has simply exploded and, despite occasional seizures, drugs are so plentiful that the prices have plummeted. In real terms, cocaine now costs about one-sixth of what it did in 1980 and heroin costs about one-tenth.'
In an opinion piece published in The Age on May 24, Richard Di Natale, a Greens senator from Victoria and his party's health spokesman stated, 'Current drug laws are ineffective, with drug production and consumption increasing all the time and street drugs becoming purer and cheaper than ever before. Criminalising individual users only serves to make criminals of ordinary people and make a potentially harmful product far more dangerous.'
3. Making drug use illegal is a misuse of police resources
It has been claimed that private drug users do not warrant the level of police resources currently directed at them and that these police would be better deployed trying to deal with more serious anti-social behaviour.
The point has been made by former New South Wales premier and current federal Foreign Affairs minister, Bob Carr. Mr Carr has stated, 'A bit of modest decriminalisation, de facto decriminalisation at the edges, simply freeing up police to be doing the things they ought to be doing, would be a sensible way of going about it.'
Mr Carr further stated, 'We wouldn't have armies of police patrolling outside nightclubs and pubs hoping to snatch someone who's got an ecstasy tablet in his or her pocket or purse. And we wouldn't be having police chasing individual users of marijuana.'
Mr Carr has further said, referring to his period as premier of New South Wales, 'I was very frustrated, from time to time, when I heard about police with sniffer dogs at railway stations hoping to catch people with small quantities of marijuana or raiding nightclubs hoping to get people with ecstasy,'
4. Making drug use illegal fosters crime
It has been claimed that making a wide range of drugs illegal simply serves to put their production and distribution in the hands of criminals. This has many disadvantages.
Otherwise law-abiding people with a drug habit deal with criminals in order to get their supply. Legal prohibition therefore technically criminalises a large group within the community who normally respect the law. It also gives the criminal underworld an enormous source of income. Money from the sale of drugs serves to fund many other illegal activities. Illegal drug production is unregulated which means there is no quality control on the drugs produced and distributed. Competition between different groups of drug distributors readily degenerates into violence and murder. The cost of maintaining some illegal drug habits also encourages users to become involved in other crimes, including theft and prostitution. Finally, the sale of illegal drugs is untaxed which not only increases the suppliers' profits; it deprives governments of a source of income to address some of the health and social problems caused by drug use.
Professor Peter Baume, a former minister in the Fraser government, has stated, 'We're putting a lot of tax-free money into the hands of criminals and we're forcing our kids to deal with criminals.'
Conversely it has been suggested that decriminalising drug use would immediately ruin the drug lords. This point has been made by Julian Savulescu, Sir Louis Matheson Distinguished Visiting Professor at Monash University and Bennett Foddy, Junior research fellow at University of Oxford in an opinion piece published in The Conversation on April 5, 2012. The authors stated, 'paradoxically, the worst thing you could do to the drug lords ... is not to wage a war on them, but to decriminalise cocaine and marijuana. They would be out of business in one day. Supplies could be monitored, controlled and regulated, the harm to users and third parties significantly reduced.'
5. Profits from illegal drugs fund repressive and/or terrorist states
Narco-states are regions and countries where governmental action is directly influenced -- either through corruption or violence -- by drug traffickers, drug producers or the drug trade itself. This is not a term such states apply to themselves; it is a classification applied by other jurisdictions to those regions that allow their territories to be used for the cultivation and or distribution of drugs illegal to other countries.
Narco-states are said to be one of the worst side-effects of the laws against many drugs. For example, some small countries, like Guinea-Bissau in West Africa, have been taken over by the suppliers of illegal drugs to serve as distribution points for Latin American cocaine. Such developments have fuelled corruption and oppression in the countries concerned.
It has also been claimed that the profits from illegal drugs have been used to fund groups that promote terrorism. Not only in Afghanistan but throughout the world, the extreme profits of the drug trade have played a role in funding terrorist networks and so threaten advanced countries.
The security of those living in these countries is at risk both from the violent excesses of drug distributors and from the anti-drug, counter-terrorist operations being conducted in their countries.
John Gray, a commentator for British The Observer, 'It is hard to see how the countries where most drug users live can be secure while counter-terrorist operations are mixed up with the ritual combat of the anti-drugs crusade.'
Opponents of criminalising drug use claim that were drugs made legal is would dramatically reduce the illegal production and distribution networks upon which narco-states are founded.
Further implications
Australia's earlier period of experimentation with heroin injecting rooms and harm minimisation strategies was in part a response to the threatened spread of HIV and other public health risks, such as hepatises, associated with heroin injecting.
The pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction and, despite a recommendation from the Australia21 group, that we revisit our national drug control policies, this issue seems unlikely to find traction at either a state or national level.
A majority of Australians do not support drug decriminalisation. Legislators would be wary of decriminalising drug use as this is a policy opposed by a most voters.
97% of Australians disapprove of the regular use of heroin, 96% disapprove of the regular use of amphetamines or cocaine, and 76.5% disapprove of the regular use of cannabis.
An Age/Nielsen poll taken this month found two-thirds of Australians oppose decriminalisation. The finding reflects little change in attitudes from a similar poll taken 13 years ago.
Attitudes on the issue appear to be entrenched, with just 4 per cent of those polled saying they neither supported nor opposed decriminalisation and 2 per cent saying they did not know.
A similar poll in March 1999, soon after then prime minister John Howard had controversially blocked a heroin trial in the ACT, showed 71 per cent opposed decriminalisation of heroin use.
Nielsen polling director John Stirton said that while there was stronger support for specific or limited changes such as heroin trials, the latest poll showed little real change on the overall issue of decriminalisation, given the poll's margin of error of 2.8 per cent.
Given the extent to which populism and thus polls appear to be driving the current political agenda, especially at a federal level, it seems unlikely there will be any immanent liberalisation of Australia's drug control policies.
Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
Herald-Sun: April 4, 2012, page 30, comments pro and con by Sam Biondo, Peter Ryan, `War on drugs'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/should-we-decriminalise-drugs/story-e6frfhqf-1226317922735
Herald-Sun: April 4, 2012, page 38, editorial, `Keep on saying no'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/keep-on-saying-no/story-fn6bn88w-1226317947720
Herald-Sun: April 4, 2012, page 37, cartoon. (no online link)
Herald-Sun: April 4, 2012, pages 4-5, news items (photos) incl, `Nightclub blitz to smash dealers / Leaders sticking with war / Police vow to shut down drug dens'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/nightclub-blitz-to-smash-drug-dealers/story-fn6bfkm6-1226317985372
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/true-crime-scene/leaders-sticking-with-war-on-drugs-despite-call-for-change/story-fnat7jnn-1226317980486
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/true-crime-scene/police-vow-to-shut-down-drug-dens/story-fnat7jnn-1226317982775
The Australian: April 4, 2012, page 8, news item by Sue Dunlevy, `Gillard rejects Carr call on drugs'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pm-not-in-favour-of-decriminalisation-of-any-drug-laws/story-fn59niix-1226317997415
The Age: April 4, 2012, page 15, comment by Patrick Vikingsson, `Target crime assets in war on drug gangs'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/target-crime-assets-in-war-on-drug-gangs-20120403-1wanq.html
The Age: April 4, 2012, page 14, editorial, `Let the evidence guide drug policy reform' (with letters on same pThe Age: incl, `Evidence is in car parks, laneways / War enriches criminals').
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/let-the-evidence-guide-drug-policy-reform-20120403-1waok.html
http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/evidence-is-in-car-parks-laneways-20120403-1wao7.html
The Age: April 4, 2012, page 6, news item by Mark Metherell, `PM rejects call for decriminalisation' (with boxed information on other countries' laws).
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/pm-rejects-call-for-decriminalisation-20120403-1wav8.html
The Age: April 4, 2012, page 6, news item by Julia Medew, `Punishing users doesn't work: experts'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/punishing-users-doesnt-work-experts-20120403-1wayx.html
The Age: April 4, 2012, page 1, comment by John Silvester, `War on drugs an absolute bust'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/war-on-drugs-an-absolute-bust-20120403-1wavc.html
Herald-Sun: April 3, 2012, page 22, editorial, `Drugs fight saves lives'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/drugs-fight-saves-lives/story-fn6bn88w-1226316869670
The Age: April 3, 2012, page 1, news item by Metherell and Jacobsen, `Carr urges drug reform'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/carr-urges-drug-reform-20120402-1w8vg.html
The Australian: April 9, 2012, page 12, comment by Henry Ergas, `Drugs debase life, and prohibition is still the best way to beat them'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/prohibition-still-best-way-to-beat-drugs/story-fn7078da-1226321645863
The Australian: April 28, 2012, page 22, comment by Mike Steketee, `War on drugs has been lost'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/war-on-drugs-has-been-lost/story-e6frg7ax-1226341111622