Illicit drug policy, at the political level, is notoriously fact-resistant. But as Lisa Pryor argues in Crikey today, the weight of evidence suggests that being reflexively “tough on drugs” comes with costs that voters and taxpayers are unlikely to be aware of.

Our criminal justice system continues to devote huge resources to policing, prosecuting and incarcerating those involved with illicit drugs such as cannabis and ecstasy that are indistinguishable from legally available drugs in terms of their health impacts. Like many wars, the war on drugs entails costs to taxpayers and restrictions on civil liberties that far outweigh their benefits. It is also unclear how effective criminalisation is in preventing use of some drugs. As Pryor notes, the rate of cannabis usage in Western Australia fell after decriminalisation.

Yet the incapacity of politicians to respond logically to evidence remains the greatest impediment to even having a sensible debate about a more rational approach to drug regulation. The report released by Australia21, Alternatives to Prohibition, urges, among other initiatives, a national drugs summit next year and a Productivity Commission investigation of the cost-effectiveness of illicit-drug law enforcement. These would be two significant steps in developing momentum for major party politicians to break free of traditional views and look afresh at what is clearly a failed policy approach.

Without some form of external stimulus, it’s unlikely political leaders will have the courage to risk being seen, falsely, as “weak on drugs”.