As many people would be aware from the media coverage The Australia 21 Roundtable released its report today on the prohibition of illicit drugs. And what a frightening conclusion it draws.
Top of the page in its "IN A NUTSHELL" section is the statement "Prohibition puts the production, distribution, and control of illicit drugs into the hands of criminals and exposes young people, police and politicians to their corruptive influence." While this is true, legalising or decriminalising illicit drugs will not change the behaviour or attitudes of those who supply them. These are people who clearly don't care about the damage they are doing while the substance is illegal, so why would their attitude change if we soften the law? Criminality is not merely a label. It is an attitude expressed in action.
One of the factors I find most concerning about this report is that it fails to list any health care professionals in its Roundtable membership. I'm certain that if they were present, they would have had much to say about the social and health implications of loosening our laws in this way.
In the executive summary of the report attention is drawn to the "great progress" Australia has made in recent decades "reducing the harm from tobacco - a drug which kills half the people who use it." This is wrong. We haven't reduced the harm from tobacco. It still kills half the people who use it. What we have done is educated people, supported recovery from nicotine addiction and made it less accessible, thereby reducing the number of people who use it. Is this really a good argument for legalising or decriminilising illicit drugs? Surely we are already educating people, supporting recovery and minimilising access to them.
"Fear of illicit drugs, their culture and consequences is widespread amongst parents" (pg 5) and rightly so. Apparently alleviating these fears will be helpful. That works so well with alcohol! Please read my sarcasm. Alcohol is a legal substance, theoretically unavailable legally to children under 18 years. And yet 13% of deaths relating to young people between 14 and 17 are directly related to alcohol. This is in marked contrast to only 6% whose death can be attributed to illicit drug use. Why would we want to make this more accessible?
The report is right in stating that "prohibition places the emphasis on law enforcement and criminilisation". This sends a powerful message. Alcohol is legal and therefore seen as safe. We have spent decades and millions of dollars undoing the same message about cigarettes. Nicotine is legal and therefore seen as safe. Our young people and others get enough mixed messages from the scientific sphere without legislation muddying the waters as well.
The paper also seems to be pro-methadone and white market heroin, stating that "treatment does work at a population level." (pg10) Anyone who has worked with people who are participants in the methadone program knows that this masks the addiction, keeps people in a constant state of need and traps them in a lifestyle that is unsustainable long-term. This, coupled with the horrific health issues that accompany its use leave people vulnerable and still in need of rehabilitation.
Interestingly, nowhere in the report is there mention of the millions of dollars the government and other non-government agencies spend on recovery and rehabilitation services for those suffering from addiction.
One of the key challenges identified in the report is that "Large numbers of Australians - many of them young people - are receiving criminal convictions for minor drug offences, behaviour such as occasionally smoking cannabis that creates very little harm to themselves or other people." (pg 14) This is dangerously misleading. There is widely documented evidence that even occasional use of illicit drugs of all descriptions, including cannabis, lead to increased rates of psychotic behaviour, decreased motivation, depression and addiction (if not physical, then psychosomatic) as well as increasing the likelyhood of mental illness in those who are genetically predisposed to it. As far as harming others is concerned, it would be interesting to hear from the children of drug users, their partners, their families, their friends and their employers - I am certain their experiences would tell a very different story.
Obviously, I don't have all the answers to the questions the use of illicit drugs raises. But I do know this: We should be promoting the best for people, challenging them, encouraging them, equipping them and nurturing them to reach their full potiential. Lowering the bar has never helped anyone achieve a greater height. I can't see how altering our existing legislation in this way can either.
