Pubdate: Sun, 27 May 2012
Source: Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)
Copyright: 2012 The Sydney Morning Herald
Contact:  http://www.smh.com.au/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/441
Author: Peter Dutton

SOFT STANCE ON DRUGS A DANGEROUS CATALYST

As the opposition health spokesman, I am acutely aware of the harm 
caused by illicit drugs. As a former police officer, I contributed to 
this difficult fight in the real world. As a father I understand how 
dear children are to parents no matter their circumstances.

The Drug Debate - check out the WikiCurve to have your say A recent 
report by the non-profit group Australia21 advocates 
decriminalisation with the strongly emotive title The Prohibition of 
Illicit Drugs Is Killing and Criminalising Our Children and We Are 
All Letting it Happen. I strongly oppose ending illicit drug 
prohibition because it would be a dreadful experiment with the future 
of our children, who are the very fabric of our nation. I contend 
that the decriminalisation of illicit drugs would be more likely to 
kill and criminalise children and we should not let it happen.

As my contrary words demonstrate, neither side has a monopoly on 
emotive language. Before addressing the substance of this debate, it 
is worthwhile considering the tone.

Many arguments in the Australia21 report unfortunately infer that 
supporters of decriminalisation are experienced, scientific and 
caring and that opponents supposedly mobilise fear, are callous to 
the human cost and beholden to the "drug law enforcement" industry.

I caution against automatically characterising participants in this 
debate as more informed, reasoned, caring or noble simply because of 
the position they take.

I would also caution on use of case studies from other nations as 
proof for the decriminalisation case. Given the significant economic, 
legal and cultural differences between Australia and nations with 
divergent drug policies, decriminalisation examples are often poor 
templates for a complex issue. Indigenous Bolivians chewing coca leaf 
are of little policy relevance to an Australian teenager injecting heroin.

Support for decriminalisation of illicit drugs relies on questionable 
assertions, including that law enforcement is ineffective, that drug 
harm is predominantly caused by criminal law and that 
decriminalisation would solve existing illicit drug problems without 
creating worse unintended consequences.

Law enforcement has not failed, it's just not 100 per cent of the 
answer. We need a pluralistic approach. Specific measures such as 
quarantining welfare payments and treatment programs can assist 
families to survive while battling addiction. More broadly economic 
growth is vital in addressing illicit drugs and many other social 
problems. Employment provides personal meaning and financial means to 
reduce the likelihood of social problems.

Law enforcement does achieve significant results and is not yet at 
its peak of effectiveness. Enforcement can and does reduce supply. 
Reduction in supply not only reduces the availability but can also 
increase price, resulting in reduced consumption.

Just as economic challenges require constant reform, law enforcement 
always has a new horizon. For example, proceeds of crime action. 
Seizing the assets of drug traffickers can still achieve more in 
making the drug trade uneconomic for organised crime. In addition to 
direct impact on supply, enforcement sends a clear message to our 
youth about the community's view of illicit drugs as dangerous and illegal.

Drug harm is not caused by criminal law. Criminal sanctions 
facilitate treatment of users and protects the wider community from 
harm. Many states have cautioning programs that divert low-level drug 
offences from courts and compel individuals to attend counselling. 
The removal of the threat of criminal sanctions would make it near 
impossible to compel attendance for such purposes. With more serious 
or recidivist offenders, if the ability of the justice system to 
impose custodial sentences is removed there is little ability to 
force individuals to take responsibility. The impact of drug use then 
continues. The reality is that courts sentence drug users 
compassionately when they eventually appear.

Illicit drugs are illegal because of their harmful chemical 
composition, not harmful because they are illegal. Drug induced or 
exacerbated mental problems destroy lives and impact our health 
system. Individuals under the influence of drugs will continue to 
commit crimes regardless of the source or regulation of the substance.

At a time when the government is increasing the regulation against 
tobacco and alcohol it is difficult to understand support for a soft 
approach on illicit drugs. Decriminalisation would inevitably create 
unintended consequences and a minefield of new policy pitfalls. 
Complex problems frequently need a pluralistic approach. Pessimism 
and frustration should not be catalyst for dangerous social 
experiments such as decriminalisation. Incremental improvement on 
many fronts such as enforcement, economic growth and treatment will 
be far more likely to lead to progress.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom