G
Guest
http://www.tai.org.au/
THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE
Drug Law Reform
Beyond Prohibition
Andrew Macintosh
Discussion Paper Number 83
February 2006
Summary
Harm minimisation has been the stated objective of the National Drug Strategy since
1985. This goal is supposed to ensure that the focus of drug policy is on minimising the
damage that drugs have on society rather than simply minimising drug use. Although
this objective has received widespread support, the way in which it has been pursued
has been highly contentious, particularly since 1997 when the Howard Government
launched the National Illicit Drug Strategy, ‘Tough on Drugs’, which saw a renewed
emphasis on prohibition and drug law enforcement.
A schism emerged between the public position adopted by governments and the policies
they pursued. Governments talked tough in public about drug issues and extolled the
virtues of prohibition, while tolerating proven and accepted harm reduction initiatives
like needle and syringe exchange programs and methadone maintenance treatment. This
inconsistent approach has prevented the reform of drug laws and halted the
implementation of several innovative harm reduction programs (for example,
prescription heroin trials and drug consumption rooms), but it has saved Australia from
some of the more extreme consequences of a US-style ‘war on drugs’.
It now appears that this compromise is unravelling and that the Howard Government
wants to align national drug policy more closely with its ‘tough on drugs’ rhetoric. In
2005 new laws were passed giving the Commonwealth unprecedented powers to
intervene in drug issues that have traditionally been the sole domain of the states. This
was followed by a concerted media campaign to ‘reveal’ the dangers of cannabis, which
was backed up by the announcement that the Prime Minister wanted to end the civil
penalty regimes that apply to minor cannabis offences in South Australia, Western
Australia, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory.
The shift in emphasis is not confined to the Federal Government. In early February
2006, the Premier of New South Wales, Morris Iemma, took the Prime Minister’s cue
and pledged to introduce new ‘hardline’ cannabis laws that would result in up to ten
years imprisonment for people found growing as few as five hydroponic cannabis
plants. The leader of the opposition in New South Wales, Peter Debnam, has promised
to shut down the safe injecting room in Kings Cross if his party is elected to
government. Similarly, in South Australia, the Liberal Party has suggested that police be
allowed to enter schools with sniffer dogs without obtaining a warrant, while the
Tasmanian Liberals are reported to be calling for ‘tougher drug laws’.
The evidence indicates that any move away from harm minimisation toward a stricter
form of prohibition will worsen the social outcomes from drug policies. Analysis of
alternative options suggests that the existing legal and policy framework is already in
need of liberal reform. Tightening drug laws and placing even great emphasis on drug
law enforcement is likely to undermine some of the gains achieved by harm
minimisation strategies and send Australia down a path that history demonstrates can
only end in failure.
The information that is available proves that prohibition has been an abysmal failure at
addressing illicit drug problems.
viii
The Australia Institute
Costs of prohibition
The direct costs of prohibition are immense. In 1998/99, almost $1.5 billion was spent
by Australian governments on drug law enforcement; productivity losses associated
with drug offences were estimated at an additional $500 million. There is little doubt
these costs have grown significantly since then.
Possibly of greater concern than the direct costs of prohibition are the indirect effects it
has on illicit drug markets and drug use. The evidence indicates that strict drug laws
encourage users to take more potent drugs and consume them in unsafe ways. Research
has also found that prohibition makes drug users reluctant to seek treatment when
problems arise. Further, it often forces young and otherwise law abiding individuals to
associate with deviant subcultures, which can lead to increased drug use and crime.
Studies have also shown that drug law enforcement causes employment and relationship
problems that can aggravate substance misuse disorders.
For those drug users who suffer from a mental illness, the costs of prohibition are even
more severe. Pressures applied by the criminal justice system can exacerbate mental and
substance misuse disorders and create additional barriers to treatment. As the Federal
Government has been at pains to emphasise, drug use can cause or exacerbate mental
health problems, but harsh drug laws risk making the situation worse. In short,
prohibition is the cause of a significant proportion of the health costs associated with
illicit drug use and it hinders the achievement of the objective of harm minimisation.
Strict drug laws are also responsible for increased violence, corruption and property
crime. Countless government inquiries have identified illicit drug markets as a major
cause of corruption. So long as drug markets are the exclusive domain of criminals,
corruption will remain a prominent feature of many institutions, including domestic
police forces.
Benefits of prohibition
To balance the ledger against the extensive list of drug law-related harms, advocates of
prohibition would have to demonstrate that it is substantially better at reducing drugrelated
harm than the more liberal alternatives. The evidence presented in this paper
suggests that it is not.
Illicit drug use is reasonably widespread and shows no signs of abating. In 2004, over
30 per cent of the population reported having tried cannabis, a rate that jumps to almost
60 per cent in the 20 to 39 age group. There has been some positive news in recent
times with the decline in heroin use in the early 2000s, yet methamphetamine and other
stimulant use has increased dramatically over the same period and is now providing a
range of new challenges for law enforcement and health officials alike.
The heroin drought experienced in Australia since the early 2000s has become a central
plank in the defence of the existing prohibition-focused drug policies. Previous research
found evidence that supply-side drug law enforcement at the international and national
levels played a major role in causing the drought. However, more recent evidence has
cast doubts on this conclusion. It now seems more likely that the primary cause of the
drought was a decision by heroin producers and distributors to switch to
methamphetamines and possibly to divert heroin supplies to alternative markets in
China. The role of law enforcement in the heroin drought appears to have been limited.
ix
Drug Law Reform
The available data indicate that the introduction of more liberal drug laws may result in
a slight increase in drug use (which, if it occurs, is likely to be temporary), but that it is
unlikely to increase and may even decrease drug-related heath costs. Provided the
changes are appropriately designed and implemented, any potential adverse effects are
likely to be relatively small. The risk of unwanted side effects could also be mitigated
by the expansion of prevention and treatment programs.
Prevention and treatment
Drug prevention and particularly treatment programs have been proven to be costeffective
at reducing drug use and drug-related harm. Despite the wealth of evidence on
their benefits, these programs are currently grossly under-resourced and constrained in
their reach. This shortfall in services is leading to illness and a loss of life that could
easily be avoided.
There is an urgent need to expand and improve the range of treatment services offered
to drug users. In recent times, the Federal Government and others have advocated
abstinence-based treatment, but the evidence shows that it is often the pharmacological
maintenance programs that are most effective in reducing drug-related harm. Existing
methadone, buprenorphine and other pharmacological maintenance services should be
made more readily available to opiate users, and further research needs to be undertaken
on ways to treat disorders related to amphetamines and methamphetamines.
Drug law reform
The starting point for drug law reform should be cannabis. Experience in Australia and
overseas indicates that lessening penalties for demand-side cannabis offences, or simply
not enforcing them, does not result in a sustained increase in cannabis consumption or
any notable increase in cannabis-related harm. In addition, liberal cannabis regimes
usually cost less to enforce and generate fewer adverse impacts on users and society.
The case for drug law reform in relation to harder drugs is also compelling, yet
governments have been less willing to trial alternatives. This has resulted in a lack of
evidence on the likely consequences of more liberal regimes. However, the available
evidence indicates that liberal reforms are likely to produce significant benefits. These
include reductions in drug-related harm and the economic, social and personal costs
associated with drug law enforcement. At the very least, governments should stop
enforcing demand-side hard drug offences and establish broad diversion programs for
low-level supply offences, particularly where the offences are motivated by a desire to
finance a drug habit.
These pragmatic and evidence-based reforms are unlikely to appeal to the current
Federal Government or to most state and territory governments. The trend is in the
opposition direction; that is to stricter drug laws and law enforcement, tempered by
diversion programs aimed primarily at users. While diversion programs are an
improvement on previous policies, they are no solution to the flaws in prohibition. They
are costly, can be counterproductive and, in so far as they include compulsory or
coerced treatment, are generally unproven.
Governments need to admit the deficiencies of prohibition and pursue the changes that
the evidence shows will produce better outcomes rather than trying to manipulate drug
issues for political purposes.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Natio...licy-has-failed/2006/03/05/1141493535832.html
Australia's drug policy 'has failed'
March 5, 2006 - 12:04PM
Australia's policy on illicit drugs has failed and the emphasis should be shifted from law enforcement to treatment and prevention, an Australia Institute study has found.
THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE
Drug Law Reform
Beyond Prohibition
Andrew Macintosh
Discussion Paper Number 83
February 2006
Summary
Harm minimisation has been the stated objective of the National Drug Strategy since
1985. This goal is supposed to ensure that the focus of drug policy is on minimising the
damage that drugs have on society rather than simply minimising drug use. Although
this objective has received widespread support, the way in which it has been pursued
has been highly contentious, particularly since 1997 when the Howard Government
launched the National Illicit Drug Strategy, ‘Tough on Drugs’, which saw a renewed
emphasis on prohibition and drug law enforcement.
A schism emerged between the public position adopted by governments and the policies
they pursued. Governments talked tough in public about drug issues and extolled the
virtues of prohibition, while tolerating proven and accepted harm reduction initiatives
like needle and syringe exchange programs and methadone maintenance treatment. This
inconsistent approach has prevented the reform of drug laws and halted the
implementation of several innovative harm reduction programs (for example,
prescription heroin trials and drug consumption rooms), but it has saved Australia from
some of the more extreme consequences of a US-style ‘war on drugs’.
It now appears that this compromise is unravelling and that the Howard Government
wants to align national drug policy more closely with its ‘tough on drugs’ rhetoric. In
2005 new laws were passed giving the Commonwealth unprecedented powers to
intervene in drug issues that have traditionally been the sole domain of the states. This
was followed by a concerted media campaign to ‘reveal’ the dangers of cannabis, which
was backed up by the announcement that the Prime Minister wanted to end the civil
penalty regimes that apply to minor cannabis offences in South Australia, Western
Australia, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory.
The shift in emphasis is not confined to the Federal Government. In early February
2006, the Premier of New South Wales, Morris Iemma, took the Prime Minister’s cue
and pledged to introduce new ‘hardline’ cannabis laws that would result in up to ten
years imprisonment for people found growing as few as five hydroponic cannabis
plants. The leader of the opposition in New South Wales, Peter Debnam, has promised
to shut down the safe injecting room in Kings Cross if his party is elected to
government. Similarly, in South Australia, the Liberal Party has suggested that police be
allowed to enter schools with sniffer dogs without obtaining a warrant, while the
Tasmanian Liberals are reported to be calling for ‘tougher drug laws’.
The evidence indicates that any move away from harm minimisation toward a stricter
form of prohibition will worsen the social outcomes from drug policies. Analysis of
alternative options suggests that the existing legal and policy framework is already in
need of liberal reform. Tightening drug laws and placing even great emphasis on drug
law enforcement is likely to undermine some of the gains achieved by harm
minimisation strategies and send Australia down a path that history demonstrates can
only end in failure.
The information that is available proves that prohibition has been an abysmal failure at
addressing illicit drug problems.
viii
The Australia Institute
Costs of prohibition
The direct costs of prohibition are immense. In 1998/99, almost $1.5 billion was spent
by Australian governments on drug law enforcement; productivity losses associated
with drug offences were estimated at an additional $500 million. There is little doubt
these costs have grown significantly since then.
Possibly of greater concern than the direct costs of prohibition are the indirect effects it
has on illicit drug markets and drug use. The evidence indicates that strict drug laws
encourage users to take more potent drugs and consume them in unsafe ways. Research
has also found that prohibition makes drug users reluctant to seek treatment when
problems arise. Further, it often forces young and otherwise law abiding individuals to
associate with deviant subcultures, which can lead to increased drug use and crime.
Studies have also shown that drug law enforcement causes employment and relationship
problems that can aggravate substance misuse disorders.
For those drug users who suffer from a mental illness, the costs of prohibition are even
more severe. Pressures applied by the criminal justice system can exacerbate mental and
substance misuse disorders and create additional barriers to treatment. As the Federal
Government has been at pains to emphasise, drug use can cause or exacerbate mental
health problems, but harsh drug laws risk making the situation worse. In short,
prohibition is the cause of a significant proportion of the health costs associated with
illicit drug use and it hinders the achievement of the objective of harm minimisation.
Strict drug laws are also responsible for increased violence, corruption and property
crime. Countless government inquiries have identified illicit drug markets as a major
cause of corruption. So long as drug markets are the exclusive domain of criminals,
corruption will remain a prominent feature of many institutions, including domestic
police forces.
Benefits of prohibition
To balance the ledger against the extensive list of drug law-related harms, advocates of
prohibition would have to demonstrate that it is substantially better at reducing drugrelated
harm than the more liberal alternatives. The evidence presented in this paper
suggests that it is not.
Illicit drug use is reasonably widespread and shows no signs of abating. In 2004, over
30 per cent of the population reported having tried cannabis, a rate that jumps to almost
60 per cent in the 20 to 39 age group. There has been some positive news in recent
times with the decline in heroin use in the early 2000s, yet methamphetamine and other
stimulant use has increased dramatically over the same period and is now providing a
range of new challenges for law enforcement and health officials alike.
The heroin drought experienced in Australia since the early 2000s has become a central
plank in the defence of the existing prohibition-focused drug policies. Previous research
found evidence that supply-side drug law enforcement at the international and national
levels played a major role in causing the drought. However, more recent evidence has
cast doubts on this conclusion. It now seems more likely that the primary cause of the
drought was a decision by heroin producers and distributors to switch to
methamphetamines and possibly to divert heroin supplies to alternative markets in
China. The role of law enforcement in the heroin drought appears to have been limited.
ix
Drug Law Reform
The available data indicate that the introduction of more liberal drug laws may result in
a slight increase in drug use (which, if it occurs, is likely to be temporary), but that it is
unlikely to increase and may even decrease drug-related heath costs. Provided the
changes are appropriately designed and implemented, any potential adverse effects are
likely to be relatively small. The risk of unwanted side effects could also be mitigated
by the expansion of prevention and treatment programs.
Prevention and treatment
Drug prevention and particularly treatment programs have been proven to be costeffective
at reducing drug use and drug-related harm. Despite the wealth of evidence on
their benefits, these programs are currently grossly under-resourced and constrained in
their reach. This shortfall in services is leading to illness and a loss of life that could
easily be avoided.
There is an urgent need to expand and improve the range of treatment services offered
to drug users. In recent times, the Federal Government and others have advocated
abstinence-based treatment, but the evidence shows that it is often the pharmacological
maintenance programs that are most effective in reducing drug-related harm. Existing
methadone, buprenorphine and other pharmacological maintenance services should be
made more readily available to opiate users, and further research needs to be undertaken
on ways to treat disorders related to amphetamines and methamphetamines.
Drug law reform
The starting point for drug law reform should be cannabis. Experience in Australia and
overseas indicates that lessening penalties for demand-side cannabis offences, or simply
not enforcing them, does not result in a sustained increase in cannabis consumption or
any notable increase in cannabis-related harm. In addition, liberal cannabis regimes
usually cost less to enforce and generate fewer adverse impacts on users and society.
The case for drug law reform in relation to harder drugs is also compelling, yet
governments have been less willing to trial alternatives. This has resulted in a lack of
evidence on the likely consequences of more liberal regimes. However, the available
evidence indicates that liberal reforms are likely to produce significant benefits. These
include reductions in drug-related harm and the economic, social and personal costs
associated with drug law enforcement. At the very least, governments should stop
enforcing demand-side hard drug offences and establish broad diversion programs for
low-level supply offences, particularly where the offences are motivated by a desire to
finance a drug habit.
These pragmatic and evidence-based reforms are unlikely to appeal to the current
Federal Government or to most state and territory governments. The trend is in the
opposition direction; that is to stricter drug laws and law enforcement, tempered by
diversion programs aimed primarily at users. While diversion programs are an
improvement on previous policies, they are no solution to the flaws in prohibition. They
are costly, can be counterproductive and, in so far as they include compulsory or
coerced treatment, are generally unproven.
Governments need to admit the deficiencies of prohibition and pursue the changes that
the evidence shows will produce better outcomes rather than trying to manipulate drug
issues for political purposes.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Natio...licy-has-failed/2006/03/05/1141493535832.html
Australia's drug policy 'has failed'
March 5, 2006 - 12:04PM
Australia's policy on illicit drugs has failed and the emphasis should be shifted from law enforcement to treatment and prevention, an Australia Institute study has found.
Last edited:
