|
Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform |
||
|
committed to preventing tragedy that arises from illicit drug use |
||
|
|
||
|
No silver bullet for drug abuse |
||
Debate
about drugs is often a confused mixture of unsubstantiated claims,
misinformation, and some facts.
Angela Shanahan’s article last week “No-one is an island in the fight
against drugs” (CT September 18, p B5) is no exception, claiming that Canberra
has Australia’s highest level of drug use. She recommends supplanting harm
minimisation with absolute zero tolerance as adopted by Sweden and New York to
drastically reduce drug use and crime.
Yes, Canberra has a drug problem, but it is on a par with the rest of Australia.
The 2001 Household Survey stated 18.1 percent of the ACT population recently
used illicit drugs (mainly cannabis) compared to Australia’s 16.9 per cent.
Sweden despite its policy of “a drug free society” states Henrik Tham,
Professor of Criminology at Stockholm University “has clearly not been
achieved. Quite the reverse; by comparison with the period when this goal was
formulated, the available indicators show that drug consumption has increased.
This increase in the use and abuse of drugs has taken place in spite of a
substantial expansion in control measures.”
Equally disturbing is that those like Tham, who question Swedish drug policy,
are counted among the ‘forces of evil’, a position that is becoming familiar
in Australia.
Zero tolerance in New York has not solved its crime problem. In 2000 the crime
rate per 100,000 of population was 3099, about the same as for 1965. The rise
and fall pattern during that period is the same pattern as nearby New Jersey and
some other states. Thus events in New York are not unique to that state nor its
policies.
New York's zero tolerance has had many innocent victims. As a result of no
needle and syringe programs (NSP), by 1996 New York City had reported 17,000
pediatric AIDS cases. NSW, with approximately the same population, had
experienced 42. (Wodak & Penny, 19/8/1997).
The USA pays a high cost for zero tolerance with the
world’s highest imprisonment rate diverting resources away from hospitals and
schools.
Regulation, instead of prohibition has demonstrated some successes. For example,
Switzerland’s heroin prescription showed inter alia substantial
reductions in drug related deaths and crime. The Netherlands with its regulated
coffee shops, has an enviably low cannabis usage.
Proponents for zero tolerance rarely identify how they would accomplish their
goals nor the consequences. For the ACT this would mean:
§
No NSP
§
No pharmacotherapy maintenance programs eg methadone maintenance
§
Seeking to jail or send to compulsory treatment all ACT drug users
(there are about 54,000 in the ACT)
§
Stopping any advice resembling harm minimisation because it might
send the wrong message or promote drug use
§
Expelling children from school if caught with drugs.
The consequences would be serious. A major increase
in blood borne viruses and increased health budget costs would result without an
NSP.
Increased arrests and incarceration, whether in prison or
rehabilitation centres would add substantially to taxpayers’ burdens with few
effective outcomes.
Lack of harm minimisation advice would cost lives, perhaps like the young Sydney
girl who used ecstasy but died because friends did not know what to do and were
too frightened to call for help when she got into trouble.
And some schools in Sydney, urged on by the Howard
Government’s zero tolerance in schools policy, did actually expel students for
drug possession – leaving them excluded from their community and shoved into
life undereducated.
Absolute zero tolerance is neither sensible nor affordable, and if Sweden and
New York are accurate examples, would not leave the ACT a “drug free
island”. Adoption of a policy that deliberately targets 18 percent of the
population to be jailed or abandoned to serious disease or death is unthinkable.
Why should harm minimisation, a principle applied across all other human
endeavors, be excluded from illicit drugs?
Perhaps such draconian means are intended to eliminate all drug users because, like the 15th century Inquisitions, it will make our society better?
The side effects of a policy of zero tolerance would be far worse than it purport to cure, but fails.