|
| |
Myths
The following are extracts from Chapter 14, Drugs
Policy: Fact, Fiction and the Future by Ian Mathews and Russell Fox QC, reproduced with
kind permission from the authors.
Myth: The authorities are winning the
battle against drug imports and use.
Reports of interdiction and arrests tend to obscure the
admitted reality that, at most, 10%-15% of supplies are intercepted. The rest reaches the
streets and consumers. The fact is that anyone, after a discreet inquiry or two from
appropriate people, can find someone who will supply the wanted drug. A big 'bust' can
lead to a temporary local shortage. Often, the police act on the information of one dealer
to make room for a competitive one. As Commissioner John Johnson said recently when a
witness at a parliamentarian's inquiry in Hobart in 1996, "When we catch some of the
Mr Bigs, we make life much easier for some of the other Mr Bigs." The prices of drugs
are then often raised to compensate for the short-term break in supply and often, more
dangerous alternatives are offered.
Myth: Prohibition reduces drug use and drug
related crime.
It has long been evident and increasingly so, that the
prohibition approach has failed. The official response has been to increase policing,
restrictions and penalties. This intellectually barren solution is promoted as one of law
and order. Illicit drug consumption has increased since prohibition was introduced and
continues to increase. This situation has been responsible for the increase in
drug-related crime, corruption in the police force and severe erosion of civil liberties.
While police resources are being spent on and focused on the personal use of illicit
drugs, serious crime is not policed effectively. Crimes such as rape, murder, assault,
burglary and armed theft all have victims and deserve more attention from our police
forces.
Myth: A controlled availability approach
will result in more drugs being more available.
It is hard to imagine illicit drugs being more available
than they are now on the streets. Controlled availability of drugs means that those who
wish to purchase drugs will be able to do so in safety without needing to raise large sums
of money, without running the risk of overdose and without coming into contact with the
criminals on the streets. It also means that ordinary people will not be made into
criminals for taking a drug, they will be offered constant reference to a healthier
lifestyle and the profit motive of the black market in the streets will evaporate.
Myth: A Government that implements a
controlled availability approach sends out a message that it condones drug use. This will
increase drug use.
Australia, like many other Western countries, has the
benefit of evaluating the damage done through the promotion of alcohol and cigarettes.
Harm minimisation approaches with these drugs have resulted in the "don't drink and
drive" campaigns and the strengthening of our drink driving laws. QUIT programs have
taken over tobacco advertising. A large part of the attraction to young people of our
currently illicit drugs is because they are 'prohibited'. A controlled availability
approach takes away the mystique of personal drug use and firmly places it in the hands of
the health professionals rather than the law enforcers. Governments can run effective
education campaigns based on the facts rather than distrusted misinformation. In the
Netherlands where the nexus between 'hard' drugs and 'softer' drugs such as cannabis has
been broken, heroin use has declined remarkably. Cannabis is readily available under
controlled availability and the usage rate for those between the ages of 14 and 21 is 6%.
In Australia in 1988, it was approximately 14%!
Myth all or most drug users are 'addicts',
or have a disabling dependency.
There are approximately 1 million people in Australia who
use one or more of the prohibited drugs regularly at certain times of their lives. Over
80% of these are people whose main or only illicit drug is cannabis. Very few cannabis
users are dependent to any degree. Evidence indicates that in more than 80% of cases,
heroin use is casual or recreational and without significant consequence. Of those who are
dependent, many can function satisfactorily socially and at work. The number of dependent
users is relatively small.
Myth: Punishing people by putting them in
jail will stop them using drugs.
A survey done recently in Victorian prisons revealed that
70% of the prisoners were using illicit drugs in prison. Prisons are the most tightly
controlled environments of all in our society. Some prisoners try illicit drugs for the
first time in prison. Illicit drug use is more dangerous in prison as there are no needle
exchanges and the spread of HIV/AIDS and Hep C is prevalent, increasing the community
health problem. There are no drug treatment programs in prisons.
Myth: If we put more resources into law
enforcement and made the penalties stiffer, the drug problem would decrease.
In the words of the Deputy Commissioner of Tasmanian
Police, Richard McCreary, when he appeared before the parliamentarian's inquiry in 1996,
"There is no strict correlation between penalty and deterrence". Putting illicit
drug users in jail simply creates bigger problems. Their drug use does not decrease, they
are made into criminals and because they now have a criminal record, their integration
back into society is severely limited upon their release. The $50,000 or so spent on
keeping them in prison could be spent instead on providing treatment, education or support
for a healthier lifestyle. In some countries in Asia where the penalties are extreme, the
drug problem is enormous. The United State of America prides itself on being 'tough on
drugs' and spending vast amounts on law enforcement. Even though there has been a trebling
of the imprisonment rate of illicit drug users in the United States, the illicit drug
problems there continue to grow.
|
