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”.
Quote: – “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.”
I would say that this “incapacity” nowadays applies to much more than our drug policies. Our expensive and continuing alliance/subservience to the US and its wars, our failures to act significantly on climate change, allowing the super trawler access to our fishing ground (now, thank God, withdrawn), our focus on austerity at state and federal levels in spite of the lesson of Europe’s failed fixation on these to sort out their problems, are just some such examples. Our politics is now driven almost entirely by an obviously failing right-wing ideology and an obsession with money and has been captured by the multinationals.
My comment is awaiting moderation! Is it the word “God” that brought that on?
Until polling companies start to poll mobile phone users, the polls will always reflect the views of older voters who are fine with booze, but still think pot makes you wanna fly out of 4th floor windows….and (therefore) no politician will have the courage.
The illicit drug policy keeps a lot of people employed, drug traffickers, street peddlers, police, jailers, legal people, the courts, social workers, parole officers… get the idea, the list goes on, and on. Then of course there is the ever escalating costs both of ensuring the laws are observed that drugs are kept illicit as well as the cost of drugs being used.
We all know there are many more deaths related to alcohol, as well as the misery of street and domestic violence that is caused by that drug, and then there is smoking which also negatively impacts society. Over-all, more deaths to legalised than illicit drugs.
By keeping drugs illicit, keeps a lot of people employed and funding with scant accountability, as well as the emotional aspect to it is all just BIG BUSINESS it appears few people want that to change. Illicit drugs appear to be one of those un-winnable situations of our modern society – just like prohibition in the US during the 1930’s. We all know who the real winners are and where the money and resources are just wasted, the winners just do not want change as the winners would become losers. For the record, I have not ever used drugs nor do I ever intend to; but there must be a better way to manage this problem than what is trotted out nowadays as policy.
It is too easy to blame politicians, as this anonymous editorial does. Many people believe that some drugs should be criminalised, while others are regulated. Public attitudes need to be changed.