Existing drug policy
There is some concern that existing drug policies have failed and it is time to introduce a relaxation of drug laws. Opposing this is the concern that any softening of laws will lead to increased drug use and greater problems in society.
Some of the specific criticisms about existing drug policy are:
- Existing drug laws fail to greatly reduce harms, and may actually increase them.
- Some critics claim that current drug laws fail to reduce harm because they focus on the wrong drugs. Alcohol and tobacco account for around 97 per cent of drug-related deaths in Australia and 90 per cent of economic costs.
- While there is medical evidence to indicate that some illegal drugs (such as heroin) are less harmful to the body than alcohol, the statistics should be interpreted with caution. No one knows how much heroin or amphetamines or cocaine might be used, and how many deaths might result, if those drugs were made legal.
- It is also clear that the illegal status of drugs, such as amphetamines and heroin, add greatly to the risk of overdose, poisoning and infection. Users may suffer legal sanctions and social stigma, be forced to associate with criminals to obtain drugs, or commit crimes to raise sufficient money to purchase drugs.
Drug laws are inconsistent
Many of the distinctions between legal and illegal drugs are the result of historical factors and cultural bias rather than a rational assessment of the harms caused by those drugs.
While many people recognise that there are inconsistencies in our drug laws, only some see this as an argument for legalising all drugs. For others, it is an argument for making drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco, illegal. They point out that having alcohol and tobacco legal is bad enough. Why add cannabis or heroin to the list?
Drug use should not be seen as a moral issue
Traditionally, our society has seen drug use in moral terms. However, since the appearance of the AIDS virus, the need to accept that people use, and will continue to use, drugs has become essential. Health workers now generally agree that it is more effective to work with drug users and provide them with information about safe use than to morally condemn them, and drive them underground.
Many people have expressed opinions in the debate over legalisation of drugs: politicians, academics, police, doctors and others. Most of these opinions contain elements of practical and moral points of view. The questions remain: Should illegal drugs remain illegal? Should legal drugs remain legal? Are there other options available?
Options for drug policy reform
Various options for drug policy reform have surfaced over recent years.
Harsher penalties
This option is based on the logic that increased penalties for trafficking would act as a deterrent. The experience of other countries that have adopted this policy is not very encouraging. In 1989, President Bush committed $7.9 billion to the "War on Drugs" in the United States, despite clear evidence that law enforcement was failing to restrict illegal drug availability and use.
Some of the reasons that have been put forward to explain why illegal drug use appears to be so unresponsive to the harshness of law enforcement measures include:
- Harsher penalties lead to increased drug prices. This increases the incentive for people to join the illegal trade because of the substantial profits to be made.
- Most drug traffickers do not consider the possible risks, and if they do it is usually in terms of whether or not they will get caught, rather than the possible penalties. Therefore, unless the risk of detection is high, the increased penalties are unlikely to deter drug traffickers.
Prescription model
Some people argue that the main problems caused by illegal drugs (in particular, heroin) could be overcome by the establishment of a prescription system. The drug would be available to registered users on prescription. The drug user would have to periodically attend a doctor or clinic to get a renewal of their prescription.
Supporters of this model argue that the legalised supply of heroin by prescription would:
- reduce the demand for illegal heroin
- undercut the illicit market
- increase the number of identified drug users who could then receive treatment and other help
- reduce the need for people who use drugs to commit theft and other crimes to support their addiction.
Opponents of this model argue that it supports drug use, and does not offer any encouragement for users to stop their drug taking. It is argued that people who use drugs would be very well off, with cheap, clean heroin, subsidised by the taxpayer, available to them.
Not all people who use drugs do so regularly or are dependent. Recreational and irregular users would fall outside the guidelines of the program. They would either have to continue to obtain their drugs illegally, or would have to increase their habit so as to be eligible to obtain a prescription.
Decriminalisation
The term decriminalisation has been used in a number of different ways, to mean anything from reducing the penalties attached to drug offences, to completely removing all drug offences from legislation.
Decriminalisation can be dealt with in the manner of a fine. However, it is generally argued for in relation to minor drug offences such as possession. More serious drug offences, such as drug trafficking, remain major crimes and (consequently) incur harsh penalties.
Decriminalisation of cannabis use has occurred in South Australia and the ACT. An "expiation notice" system has been introduced where a fine is imposed for possessing small quantities. So far, there has been no indication that the level of cannabis use in those states has significantly increased.
Decriminalisation would save on law enforcement efforts and on court costs. The major argument against decriminalisation is the concern that it would lead to a substantial increase in the use of those drugs that were decriminalised. (People can still be dealt with harshly under decriminalisation, however; fines can be difficult to meet, especially for some drug users whose financial assets may be limited.)
Public support
Any changes to drug policy require community support if they are to be effective. A recent survey showed that there is not general community support for a relaxation of drug laws. Over 91 per cent of people opposed proposals to legalise the personal use of heroin, amphetamines (92 per cent), cocaine (92 per cent), while 55 per cent opposed legalising cannabis. Increasing the penalties for the sale or supply of these illegal drugs was well supported (heroin 88 per cent, amphetamines 86 per cent, cocaine 86 per cent and cannabis/marijuana 63 per cent).
Source: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2004 National Drug Strategy Household Survey
Where to from here?
There are no simple solutions to the illegal drug problem. The debate surrounding illegal drug use, which is frequently controversial, is valuable to provide a greater understanding of the issues. This is vital if politicians, legislators and the public are to make the right decisions regarding illegal drugs.
It is clear that law enforcement strategies alone will not solve the "drug problem". A combination of strategies, including community education and development, and legal initiatives, are needed to reduce the harms associated with drug misuse.
There are many unanswered questions about what effects changes to drug policy would have. Only by carefully examining the options, carrying out research and investigating the impact that changes have had in other countries, will we be in a position to choose the best way to address illegal drug issues in our society.