Pubdate: Wed, 06 Dec 2000
Source: Australian, The (Australia)
Copyright: News Limited 2000
Contact:  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/
Author: Duncan Campbell
Note: Duncan Campbell is a former diplomat who comments on current
affairs.

OFFICIAL DRUG HYPOCRISY IS A POLICY FOR DOPES

The Truth Is Plain: Legal Alcohol Is Our Deadliest Drug

FEW Australians will speak comfortably of drugs because to do so is to 
include themselves in the ranks of the mind-altering or psychotropic 
drug-takers. Fewer still worry that the alcohol industry pushes its 
products in ways prejudicial to drinkers, particularly the young.

The latest industry profits attributed to excessive alcohol consumption 
gave added point to Natasha Bita's exposure (Opinion, November 15) of the 
dangerous directions the advertising push is taking.

Our continuing concerns with alcohol have much to teach us about handling 
other drugs. Prohibition, the attempt to ban alcohol in the US, failed in 
1933. National legislation outlawing the manufacture and sale of the 
substance was abandoned under the 21st Amendment to the US Constitution. 
Law enforcement had proved impossible, and for the duration of the attempt 
there was unparalleled bootlegging and drinking.

Whether alcohol might be deemed a licit or an illicit substance is no 
longer seriously at issue. What matters is that it came to be generally 
acknowledged as another mind-altering drug with attendant problems of 
addiction and abuse like other drugs.

Recently I attended a national conference on drugs for families and 
communities. Mainly it was for the small non-government organisations and 
many parents compelled to try to make good the federal Government's 
abdication of responsibility for life-saving among drug victims, or for 
responding to their plight with medical treatment. Almost all the several 
hundred participants regarded themselves as, in one way or another, health 
workers. Several Aboriginal participants made moving contributions and, 
like Tim Costello, who was the first of the voices to be heard, they 
pointed to the significance of alcohol in the wider drug problem.

The conference's first recommendation was that an impost of 1c be placed on 
every alcoholic drink sold, and the proceeds used to assist drug victims.

Two small organisations that attended from Queensland work with the 
problems of ``alcohol, tobacco and other drugs'' or ``alcohol, tobacco and 
illicit drugs''. The point of this inclusive approach is not to attempt to 
obscure the illicit status of, say, heroin, although pressure should 
continue for heroin to be available legally on limited prescription.

The point is honesty -- between and within the generations. Without it the 
subculture of illegality begins to suborn our children as early as their 
pre-teen years. Hiding in a hedge to smoke a first cigarette, as my 
generation did, is a far cry from first smoking an illicit substance, such 
as cannabis, procured by a child from a predatory crook -- an illegal 
initiation rite. Add to that the grotesque evidence from the latest 
commonwealth statistics, for 1997, that more than 18,000 deaths could be 
ascribed to tobacco, while only one single fatality was connected with 
cannabis. Yet our young people see that tobacco remains legal, and so does 
alcohol -- their parents' drug of choice -- and that its harmful use killed 
nearly 4000 Australians in that same year. Those who think they can reach 
out to provide drug education to their children through this pall of 
denial, dishonesty, and hypocrisy are themselves hallucinating. It simply 
has to be acknowledged that a drunk is on a drug.

John Howard is determined not to send the wrong message in his war on drugs 
(other than smokes and drinks). The Royal Colleges of Psychiatrists and 
Physicians in the UK have this question for him. Is it sending a wrong 
message, they ask, to juxtapose the annual number of deaths in Britain 
attributable to various illegal and legal substances -- none (at all) due 
to cannabis, about 20 to ecstasy, many hundreds to heroin and methadone, 
and about 30,000 to alcohol?

In the 1920s the US also began, and continues, to prohibit narcotic drugs, 
creating untold criminal wealth and human woe. The lesson to be learned 
from alcohol is that such substances cannot be banned without sabotaging 
the legal system. Society has no choice but to accept the substance, try to 
avoid its abuse, and provide medical and moral assistance to those who 
suffer from addiction to it. Marketing of alcohol or any other licit drug 
can be controlled. Criminal drug trafficking plainly cannot.

Alcohol belongs on the drug agenda to carry those messages, to open up 
communication with our children and to rebuke governments for giving 
criminals a monopoly to supply other ``recreational'' drugs.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry F