Australia21 Illicit Drug Policy Report

8/2/2019 Australia21 Illicit Drug Policy Report

1/28

Report o a high level Australia21 Roundtable

Authors Bob Douglas and David McDonald

The ohibiioof ilici dug i

kilig adciiaiigou chidead we ae al etig i hape.


2/28

Marion and Brian McConnellMarion and Brian McConnell are oundingmembers o Families and Friends or DrugLaw Reorm. Brian is the current President.

They are parents o a son who lost his lieto a heroin overdose.

For us, when we lost our son,we did not seek sympathy, we sawthe injustice and craziness o our

drug laws. We wanted people toocus on that, not on our suering.


3/28

3 Foreword

4 Executive summary

8 The prohibition o illicit drugs in Australia

12 The war has ailed internationallyand in Australia

14 The Australian scene

15 Current winners and losers rom theprohibition approach in Australia

15 The reasons why the debate should bereopened in Australia

16 Substantial benets have been achievedthrough a harm minimisation approachin Australia

17 The health and social implicationso drug use and its management

17 Legitimate and illegitimate earsconcerning drugs

18 The current drug culture amongyoung people

18 International Treaties and Conventionsand the United States

21 Where to rom here?

22 Recommendations arising romthe Roundtable

23 In a nutshell

24 Roundtable Participants

25 Reerences

The ohibiioof ilici dug i

kilig ad

ciiaiigou chidead we ae al etig i hape.

Report o a high level roundtable held atthe University o Sydney on Tuesday 31stJanuary 2012 on the topic What are the likelycosts and benets o a change in Australiascurrent policy on illicit drugs?


4/28

Hon Proessor Peter Baume ACFormer Chancellor o the ANUand Minister or Health in theFraser Government

Many people who think o themselves asthe beneciaries o prohibition are reallynet losers. Parents are much more at risko losing their children under prohibitionthan they would be i there was somekind o system where we had somemeasure o control over illicit drugs.

Hon Proessor Geo Gallop ACFormer Premier Western Australia

I think the idea that prohibition kills is animportant one. So my plea is how can weget governments to buy into this issue?I think they need to see that what they aredoing and not doing, is causing a lot o theharms. At some stage they have to be heldaccountable or allowing this to happen.


5/28

3 A Report o a high level Australia21 Roundtable

Foewod

Australia21 is a non-prot bodythat was established in 2001

to develop new rameworkso understanding or complexmultidisciplinary problems thatare important to Australias uture.

We do this by raising and distributing unds or research,

convening meetings and workshops o leading thinkers

rom widely dierent disciplines, and ensuring that policy

makers are aware o the results o our eorts, and that these

results are made available to the public. We generally choose

complex and important issues that are very dicult to solve

in the usual political process.

The release o the Report o the Global Commission on Drug

Policy, with its orthright conclusion that prohibition has ailed,

provides a timely stimulus or a review o Australian policy on

illicit drugs.

We thought that the best way to begin our review o this

complex and sensitive question was through a meeting o

high level political practitioners with an interest in the subject,

together with medical experts in the eld, people with

high level law enorcement experience, and some capable

young people who see drugs in their social environment

and networks in a way that most Australians rom older

generations do not.

This report is the outcome o that meeting.

The Board o Australia21 believes that it is or our

democratically elected political leaders to prescribe

the remedies or the harms being caused by current

approaches, but we stand ready to bring all o theresources and expertise at our disposal to work

with governments to devise a better approach.

Paul Barratt AO

Chair o the Board o Australia21


6/28

4 The prohibition o illicit drugs is killing and criminalising our children and we are all letting it happen

It is time toreopen the

national debateabout drug use,its regulationand control.

In June 2011 a prestigious GlobalCommission stated that the40-year War on Drugs has ailed,with devastating consequences orindividuals and societies aroundthe world. It urged all countriesto look at the issue anew.

In response to the Global Commission report, Australia21,

in January 2012, convened a meeting o 24 ormer senior

Australian politicians and experts on drug policy, to explore

the principles and recommendations that were enunciated by

the Global Commission. The group also included two young

student leaders, a ormer senior prosecutor, a ormer head o

the Australian Federal Police, representatives o Families andFriends or Drug Law Reorm and a leading businessman.

The Australian group agreed with the Global Commission

that the international and Australian prohibition o the use o

certain illicit drugs has ailed comprehensively. By making

the supply and use o certain drugs criminal acts, governments

everywhere have driven their production and consumption

underground and have ostered the development o a criminal

industry that is corrupting civil society and governments

and killing our children. By dening the personal use and

possession o certain psychoactive drugs as criminal acts,

governments have also avoided any responsibility to regulate

and control the quality o substances that are in widespread

use. Some o these illicit drugs have demonstrable health

benets. Many are highly addictive and harmul when used

repeatedly. In that respect they are comparable to alcohol

and nicotine, which are legal in Australia and, as a result, are

under societys control or quality, distribution, marketing and

taxation. Australia has made great progress in recent decades

reducing the harm rom tobacco a drug which kills hal the

people who use it.

xecuiveumay


7/28


A substantial proportion o Australias street and household

crime is a direct consequence o the trade in illicit drugs and the

need or dependent users to nd money to acquire drugs. Large

numbers o young people who experiment with these drugs

are criminalised by the enorcement o prohibition laws even

though those thus criminalised are only a minority o the huge

numbers o experimenters. The current policy o prohibitiondiscredits the law, which cannot possibly stop a growing

trade that positively thrives on its illegality and black market

status. Our prisons are crowded with people whose lives have

been ruined by dependence on these drugs. Like the ailure

o the prohibition o alcohol in the USA rom 1920 to 1933,

the current prohibition o illegal drugs is creating more harms

than benets and needs to be reconsidered by the Australian

community. Many other countries are starting to review this

area. A decade ago, and with excellent results, Portugal

decriminalised the possession o small quantities o all illicit

drugs consistent with personal consumption. A number o other

countries have adopted versions o this approach. In December

2011, the current Presidents o 12 Central and South Americancountries called or the use o market mechanisms in response

to illegal drugs. In a 2011 US Gallup poll, 50% supported the

legalisation o marijuana with 46% opposed.

Dicusio

Every year some 400 Australians dierom illicit drug usage. Thousandso others suer the short and longterm health consequences o drugdependence, unsae injectingpractices and inections. Theiramilies suer with them rom theseconsequences. Discussion o drugpolicy in recent years has been largelyabsent rom the Australian politicalagenda except as an excuse or

being tough on law and order.Fiteen years on rom a landmark decision by the Howard

government to embark on its Tough on Drugs policy and to

override a 6:3 Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy decision

to support a trial o the use o prescribed heroin in the

management o heroin dependent users, illicit drugs continue

to be widely available on the streets and in Australian prisons

and a culture o illicit drug use fourishes among young people.

Courts and prisons continue to be dominated by those involved

in drug-related crime, with ew positive results, even though

prevalence statistics suggest that only about three per cent o

marijuana users are apprehended in a given year.

Fear o illicit drugs, their culture and consequences iswidespread among parents. I policy change is contemplated

parents o young children will need rm reassurance that the

new policies will not exacerbate the problems. I politicians

are to move to change this culture they also will need to be

condent that any change will improve, not worsen, the

current situation. A growing body o international evidence

demonstrates that such concerns can be alleviated.


8/28


Both heroin and marijuana have valuable medical uses, but it

became virtually impossible or patients to continue to benet

rom these drugs ater they were prohibited, even though

the international treaties have provisions permitting medical

and scientic use o the otherwise proscribed drugs.

In other parts o the world, the medical use o cannabis is now

being enabled and the treatment o heroin dependent users

with prescribed and careully controlled heroin has proven

medically and socially eective, both in improving the health

and social well-being o dependent users, and in preventing

crime. Heroin was legal and could be prescribed by doctors in

Australia until 1953. That is, heroin became a problem ater,

and not beore, it was prohibited. The prohibition o heroin in

Australia in 1953 was severely criticised at the time by the then

leaders o the medical proession. Cannabis was included in

the ocial list o medical drugs in the USA until 1937.

A number o alternative options

or managing illicit drugs inAustralia were discussed, including:de-penalisation, decriminalisation,legalisation, regulation andtaxation (see denitions othese terms in the text).

Prohibition places the emphasis on law enorcement and

criminalisation, whereas the other options make it possible

to ocus primarily on the health and social eects o drug use.

Governments in Australia oten use a harsh rhetoric whenreerring to drug use and drug users. There are clear contrasts

with two other psychoactive drugs in widespread use in

Australia, nicotine and alcohol. They are not prohibited, despite

creating ar more health, social and economic costs to our

people and society than do the currently illegal drugs. In the

case o nicotine, use has diminished as regulation, taxation

and social control have been invoked. In the case o alcohol,

there have been identiable social harms as earlier regulatory

and social controls have been relaxed. But neither drug is

prohibited. Instead, they are controlled not by organised crime,

but by governments.

The group did not propose a specic set o policy changes.

Rather it saw the need to promote a new national discussion

about prohibition o drug use. It proposed placing the onus

on governments and the community generally to consider the

range o available alternatives to the current criminalisation

approach, and to develop one which is more eective. The

unacceptably high number o drug deaths among youngAustralians cannot be allowed to continue.

There is a particular need to engage parents and young

people in considering the benets and costs o a shit

away rom prohibition.

A bipartisan political approach to this tricky issue is highly

desirable. The move against prohibition is gathering

momentum in other countries across the ideological

spectrum as communities around the world place

responsibility or the costs o prohibition where it belongs:

with those legislators who continue, by deault, to support

the international prohibition approach.

The group also recognised, however, how dicult this issue is

or politicians. Sometimes, approaches such as the emphasis

on law enorcement are popular despite being proven to be

ineective and more rational approaches which are proven

to be eective can be unpopular in the beginning. Another

diculty is trying to make political progress in this dicult

area within a single electoral cycle. Reorm will have to be

slow, cautious, step-wise and incremental.


9/28


In spite o the increasing

evidence that current policiesare not achieving theirobjectives, most policymakingbodies at the national and

international level havetended to avoid open scrutinyor debate on alternatives.


10/28


This is the report o aone-day roundtablediscussion that included24 ormer senior state andederal politicians, expertsin drug policy and publichealth, young people,a leading businessman,legal and ormer law

enorcement ocers.The meeting was convened byAustralia21 to discuss the reporto a Global Commission on DrugPolicy, released in June 2011.i

The Commission, which included the ormer Secretary-General o

the United Nations, Ko Annan, a number o ormer Presidents

and Prime Ministers, businessmen and senior administrators

rom around the world, concluded that the War on Drugs

has ailed dismally and, like the prohibition o alcohol in the

1930s, is producing more harms than benets. The Commission

called or a reopening o the debate on drugs policy, and areconsideration o the way they are dealt with globally and

in all national jurisdictions.

In preparation or the roundtable, Australia21 commissioned

a background paper by social researcher David McDonald ii,

which dened common terms used in drug discussions

as ollows:

Prohibition means that all behaviour related to drugs,

including use, possession, cultivation/manuacture and

supply are criminal oences.

Decriminalisation means specied proscribed behaviour is

removed rom the criminal law and is dealt with under the

civil law.

De-penalisationmeans reducing the severity o penalties.

Legalisation means that the specied orms o behaviour

are no longer oenses dealt with by the law.

Regulationmeans establishing a strictly controlled legal

market or drugs as is the case with pharmaceutical drugs,

tobacco products and alcoholic beverages.

The ohibiio of

ilici dug i Auaia


11/28


The discussion paper also considered the ollowing questions.

1. What are the core concepts relating to

societal management o drug use ?

2. What are the main sources o drug-related

harm in Australia?

3. What is Australias current policy stance on drugs?4. What orces have shaped Australian drug policy to date?

5. What core challenges does Australia ace today with

respect to drug policy?

6. Why is now the right time to consider alternatives

to prohibition?

7. What is the international community

saying about alternatives to prohibition?

8. What alternatives to prohibition have been adopted

elsewhere with what outcomes?

9. Can society signal its disapproval o the use o particular

drugs without recourse to the criminal justice system?

10. What are the implications o Australias treaty obligations

or domestic drug policy?

11. What are the key arguments supporting changes to

Australias prohibition policy?

12. What are the key arguments supporting maintaining

the current policy settings?

13. How is the international community likely to respond

to Australia pursuing alternatives to the current policy

o prohibition?

14. What drug policy options could be considered

as alternatives to total prohibition?

Participants were invited to preparea brie set o dot-points in responseto the background paper and21 responses were synthesisedbeore the meeting and circulatedto all participants who came romdiverse political, academic andproessional backgrounds.

The term War on Drugs had its origins in 1971 during the

lead up to the re-election campaign o Richard Nixon. Like its

counterpart term, War on Terror, the war mobilises ear

as a political asset but has resulted in major national and

international harmsiii. The war has been underpinned by

a series o international treaties,iv which US governments

have oten reinorced. Their infuence has been widely eltin Australia at times when our actions were perceived by

US governments as contrary to the spirit o the war and

the prohibition o drug use.

Despite this Australia, rom the 1980s, embarked on a

program (the National Drug Strategy (NDS), ormerly known

as the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse), within the

prohibition ramework that sought to reduce drug availability,

prevent the uptake o drugs, and minimise harms rom drugs

among those who continued to use them. The expansion and

liberalisation o methadone programs, and the introduction

o sterile needle and syringe programs and a Medically

Supervised Injecting Centre helped to contain the spread o HIV

and hepatitis in the Australian drug-using community. But an

eort to rigorously test the value o making heroin available

in a controlled ashion to heroin dependent people was seen

as a step too ar by US governments (and the Murdoch press),

who made their views (and threats o sanctions against the

Tasmanian medicinal opioids industry) widely known i the

trial was to be undertaken. The government o John Howard

in 1997 overruled the 6:3 vote o the Ministerial Council on

Drug Strategy, which had supported the trial. Instead a policy

Tough on Drugs was announced. (Six other countries, which

undertook an Australian-type heroin trial and evaluated it,

have since reported substantial net health, social and economic

benets rom this medical approach to the treatment o a

small group with severe heroin dependence not responsiveto multiple, previous diverse treatment approaches.v)

Since 1997 very substantial unds have been committed in

Australia, mainly to a law enorcement approach to restricting

the availability o drugs. At the same time, substantial new

unds were committed to an attempt to reduce demand

through enhanced treatment and rehabilitation services.

Fiteen years on, in the context o the Global Commission

report, the Australia21 Roundtable took stock o what has been

accomplished and how Australia might now respond to the

Global Commissions ndings and recommendations.


12/28


Dr Alex Wodak AMPresident Australian Drug Law ReormFoundation and Former PresidentInternational Harm Reduction Association

The best evidence that the managemento heroin dependence with controlledand prescribed heroin availability madea dierence, is a study published in theLancet in 2006. This study was based onthe city o Zurich. This showed that between1992 and 2002 the number o new heroinusers in Zurich was reduced rom 850 in1990 to 150 in 2002. Corresponding with

that was a decrease in drug overdosedeaths, a decrease in HIV inections amonginjecting drug users, a decrease in crimeand a decrease in the quantities o heroinseized. Clearly, what was happening wasthat people were moving rom black marketheroin to white market methadone andwhite market heroin. This showed thattreatment does work at a population level.

Hon Kate Carnell AOFormer Chie Minister in the ACT

There seems to be a pretty goodconsensus among us about medicalcannabis. I have heard no one to talkagainst it. I think I also heard a air bito support or medical heroin. So atthe very least, the reinstatement osubstances in the pharmacopeia thatwere useul and continue to be useuldrugs that were removed or non-medicalreasons needs to be rectied.


13/28


Ms Vivienne-Moxham-HallArts and Science Graduate andStudent Representative Councillor,University o Sydney

More than a third o young Australiansexperiment with some orm o drugs,mainly cannabis. However subculturesaround clubs, raves and dance partiesencourage harder drug experimentation.For this reason I view the criminalisationo illicit drugs as problematic and ahealth hazard to young experimenters.Australias policy should concentrate on

criminalisation or dealers, importers andheavy users and look closer at the culturesaround Australian raving.

Nicholas Cowdery AM QCDirector o Public Prosecutionsor NSW rom 1994 to 2011

I am strongly in avour o legalising,regulating, controlling and taxing alldrugs. A rst step towards such a regimecould be decriminalisation, similar tothe approach adopted 10 years agoin Portugal or an adaptation o thatapproach. I do not say that such a changecould occur quickly, eciently or even atthe same time or in the same way or alldrugs. Nor do I advocate that any or all

drugs should be generally available toanybody wanting them.


14/28


The Global Commission onDrug Policy documentedover 10 years a globalincrease in opioid use o35% while cocaine useincreased by 27% andcannabis use by 8.5%.The Commission stated that, in spiteo the increasing evidence thatcurrent policies are not achieving their

objectives, most policymaking bodiesat the national and internationallevel have tended to avoid openscrutiny or debate on alternatives.The Commission recommendedthat illicit drug policies should bebased on our principles.

1. That policies must be based on solid empirical and

scientic evidence and that the primary measure o success

should be the reduction o harms to the health, security

and welare o individuals and society.

2. That policies must be based on human rights and

public health principles. That the stigmatisation and

marginalisation o people who use certain drugs should

cease and that those involved in the lower levels o

cultivation, production and distribution should be treated

as patients, and not criminals.

3. That the development and implementation o drug

policies should be a global shared responsibility, but also

needs to take into consideration the political, social and

cultural realities. Policies should respect the rights and

needs o people aected by production, tracking and

consumption as explicitly acknowledged in the 1961

(amended 1972) United Nations Single Convention on

Narcotic Drugs.

4. Drug policies should be reviewed in a comprehensive

manner, involving amilies, schools, public health

specialists, development practitioners and civil society

leaders in partnership with law-enorcement agencies

and other relevant government bodies.

The wa ha faiedieaioaly

ad i Auaia


15/28


The Commission also made the ollowing

11 recommendations:

1. Break the taboo and open debate about promoting

policies that eectively reduce consumption and that

prevent and reduce harms related to drug use and drug

control policies. Increase investment in research and

analysis into the impact o dierent policies and programs.

2. Replace the current criminalisation and punishment

o people who use drugs with the oer o health and

treatment services to those who need them.

3. Encourage experimentation by governments with

models o legal regulation o drugs e.g. cannabis, that

are designed to undermine the power o organised

crime and saeguard the health and security o citizens.

4. Establish better metrics, indicators and goals to

measure progress.

5. Challenge, rather than reinorce, common misconceptions

about drug markets, drug use and drug dependence.

6. Countries that continue to invest mostly in a law

enorcement approach (despite the evidence) should

ocus their repressive actions on violent organised

crime and drug trackers in order to reduce the harms

associated with the illicit drug market.

7. Promote alternative sentences or small-scale and rst

time drug dealers.

8. Invest more resources in evidence-based prevention

with a special ocus on youth.

9. Oer a wide and easily accessible range o options or

treatment and care or drug dependence, includingsubstitution and heroin assisted treatment with special

attention to those most at risk, including those in prison

and other custodial sentences.

10. The United Nations system must provide leadership in

the reorm o global drug policy. This means promoting

any eective approach based on evidence; supporting

countries to develop drug policies that suit their context

and meet their needs and ensuring coherence among

various UN agencies, policies and conventions.

11. Act urgently: the war on drugs has ailed and policies

need to change now.


16/28


The Auaia cee

Australias current National DrugStrategy, which was ormulatedin 1985, is built around 3 pillars:

1. Reducing the availability o drugs through legislation

and law enorcement (supply reduction),

2. Reducing the demand or drugs through

prevention and treatment (demand reduction), and

3. Reducing the harms o drugs among the people

who continue to use them (harm reduction).vi

These three pillars together comprise the harm minimisation

approach that has characterised the drug strategy since its

inception. It is intended to operate as a partnership between

the health and law enorcement sectors, although this does

not always work as well as intended. Australian governmentsalways emphasise that they have a balanced approach to

drugs. The truth is, however, that this approach relies heavily on

the pillar o reducing the supply o drugs, but supply reduction

strategies are o limited eectiveness. There is a much better

return rom expenditures on health and social interventions,

but these are signicantly under-unded.vii

The key challenges acing Australia in this area at the present

are as ollows:

Law enforcement agencies have had little or no success

in reducing the availability o illicit drugs.viii

Large numbers of Australiansmany of them young people

are receiving criminal convictions or minor drug oences,behaviour such as occasionally smoking cannabis that creates

very little harm to themselves or to other people.

Drug education interventions in schools and the community

at large have had little measurable impact on the demand

or drugs.ix

In many parts of the nation there are serious shortages

o treatment places available and long waiting lists

or treatment.

The misallocation of resources between illicit drugs, alcohol

and tobacco and between prevention, treatment and law

enorcement is seen as a problem, with the bulk o unding

going to law enorcement and punishment (or which there

is little or no evidence o cost-eectiveness) rather than to

the areas that have been shown to be most cost-eective,

especially treatment and harm reduction.x

The argument most widely used in Australia supporting

change in Australias prohibition policy is that the current

approaches are ailing to achieve their primary goals o

reduced drug availability and harms. Instead they produce

many serious unintended adverse consequences, including

corruption and other orms o crime.xi

The principal arguments used against changing current policy

settings tend to be moral rather than scientic.xii In 1997 the

Prime Minister said that a trial o heroin or heroin dependent

people sent the wrong message. Linked to this is a concern

that alternative approaches could cause an inevitable

increase in the prevalence o drug use with the assumption,

sometimes made explicit, that this would also increase the

extent o drug-related harms. But there are many examples

rom Australia and other countries where liberalisation o

approaches has neither increased consumption nor harms.xiii

The Australian Institute o Health and Welare (AIHW) reports

that, in 2010, most Australians aged 14 years and over (60%)

had never used an illicit drug. However, around 15% had usedone or more illicit drugs in the past 12 months. Cannabis was

the most common illicit drug used recently ollowed by ecstasy,

amphetamines and cocaine.xiv Our student participants ound

these ocial low prevalence gures hard to believe, arguing

that drug use and experimentation are very widespread in

the networks they inhabit, and especially at music estivals.

This is conrmed by AIHW data showing higher levels o

drug use among young people than older age-groups.

The social cost o illicit drug use in Australia has been

estimated at $8.2 billion in 200405. Drug use accounted or

2% o Australias total burden o disease in 2003; much o this

was related to hepatitis C which can be contracted by risky

injecting practices. Around 8% o people in Australia aged16 to 85 years report that they have had an alcohol or other

drug use disorder in their lietime.xv


17/28


Cure wine ad oe

fo he ohibiio apoach

i Auaia

The biggest winners rom the

current policy are those inleague with organised crimeand those corrupted by it.

Because o their illegality, drugs o dependence are sold at

highly infated prices (an ounce o gold is valued at $1,700

and an ounce o heroin at $12,000). There is a huge industry

committed to the maintenance o drug dependence.

Other beneciaries o the current approach include the law

enorcement industry, those who benet rom the occupancy

o prisons and a thriving insurance industry that insures

residents or the high rates o household crime. The converseo this is that law-abiding citizens are the biggest losers.

Many Australians have little understanding o the complexity

o this problem but many parents live in ear o their childrens

involvement with illicit drugs. Understandably, they are wary

o a change in policy i it could possibly increase the exposure

o their children to illicit drugs and their consequences.

Because the issue is trivialised in sound bites such as Tough

on Drugs or Sot on Drugs the realities o prohibition are

not seriously discussed and the major harms that result

rom this ailed policy are not being addressed.

The eao why he debae

houd be eoeed i Auaia

In the past 15 years the prohibitiono illicit drugs has not been seriouslyquestioned in Australia at a communityor political level.

There have been some sporadic attempts to place this issue backon the agenda, where it was in the 1980s and 1990s. There is

now a large body o evidence available, both rom Australia andoverseas, to support a renewed debate about the utility o aprohibition approach. Evidence rom the United States suggests

that, at least with respect to cannabis, some reconsideration isoccurring in that country.xvi European and Canadian studies thathave demonstrated positive individual and community outcomes

rom prescribed heroin as part o a range o treatment approaches

or heroin dependent people,xvii using legally provided heroin,provide justication or considering the medical uses o that drug

in Australia. The continuing unacceptable level o opioid-relateddeaths in Australia (around 400 per year), can in some instancesbe blamed upon a lack o quality control and knowledge about

the concentration o drugs purchased on the black market. Theexperience in Portugal, which in 2001 decriminalised possessiono all drugs in quantities consistent with personal use, is providing

important data to counter the ears that such a change inpolicy will inevitably increase drug harms.xviii

A number o international treaties and conventions to which

Australia is a signatory will continue to make it dicult orAustralia to move quickly towards what many believe to be the

desirable long-term objective namely to try to regulate all drugs,as we do now with nicotine and tobacco. There are many optionsor controlling drugs including prescription controls, pharmacycontrols, taxation, and licensing producers, wholesalers and

retailers. None is likely to ever completely eliminate the blackmarket but all oer a good chance o reducing substantially thesize o the black market. Some tobacco industry sources estimate

that the black market currently accounts or more than 10% o thecigarette market.xix

The global attitude to these longstanding treaties and

conventions is changing.xx I policy change is to be consideredit must be preceded by extensive community discussion andunderstanding o the potential consequences o changing policy

or not changing it. A justication or considering change is thatwhile the prohibition-ocused policy package has producedsome benets it has undoubtedly also produced signicant harms

and a misdirected excessive investment in drug law enorcement.


18/28


SUBSTANTIAL BNFITS HAV

BEN ACHIVD THROUGH A HARM

Miiiaio ApROACH IN AUSTRALIA.

The news in Australia is not

all bad, but large numberso deaths are continuing.

There were 2 strands to the Tough on Drugs National Illicit

Drug Strategy introduced in 1997. One was a large increase

in drug law enorcement activities and the other was an

expansion in rehabilitation and preventive approaches

aimed at reducing the demand or drugs.

The rm view expressed in the roundtable discussion by those

who have been involved in drug law enorcement, was that

while law enorcement has produced substantial seizures and

convictions, it has done little to curtail the supply o drugs. Theoverwhelming majority o drug users in Australia say that illicit

drugs are easy or very easy to obtain. Drugs continue to be

readily available on our streets and in our prisons as a result o

the lucrative prots enjoyed by those who break the law and

produce and distribute these substances.

The view o those working in the eld is that the expansion

in prevention and treatment services has on the other hand

been a very positive and eective development. The harm

minimisation approach that dominated Australian drug policy

during the 1980s and 1990s placed Australia at the oreront

o international eorts to constrain the harms resulting rom

these substances. Needle exchange programs, a medically

supervised injecting centre, methadone maintenanceprograms and the de-penalisation o minor cannabis oenses

that was introduced in 2 states and both territories have all

produced measurable and demonstrable benets.

A major accomplishment o the Australian harm minimisation

approach has been the act that Australia has been able to

hold relatively steady the propagation o the HIV epidemic

and the epidemics o hepatitis that result rom widespread use

o contaminated injecting apparatus. But there is continuing

resistance to expanding clean needle and syringe programs

into Australian prisons.

Drug deaths related to overdoses o opiates peaked in the late

1990s and declined rom over 1100 to about 400 per annum

where they have been static or the past decade. O course

there have been claims that the reduction in opiate deaths

was attributable to the tough law and order approach that

was implemented in 1997. Undoubtedly there was a decline

in supply o heroin at about the time the decline in deaths

occurred but the evidence suggests that it is more likely that

the decline in supply was driven by reduced production in the

supply countries. The available data on this issue do not provide

an unequivocal answer to questions about the cause or causes

o the decline in heroin availability in Australia. xxi

The expansion o preventive, treatment and harm reduction

services is believed to have played a vital role in the positive

accomplishments o Australias national drug policy.

Participants in the Roundtable argued that the proportion o

resources currently allocated to legal and law enorcement

activities is excessive and disproportionate. The Achilles heel

o this approach is that the high prices o street drugs, the very

source o the huge prots, are themselves a compensation

or the risks o detection and punishment. Eorts to reduce

the supply o drugs should certainly continue, but it is

unreasonable to make the criminal justice system Australias

dominant response to these substances.

The continuing 400 preventable young Australian deaths thatoccur each year can be compared with 521 Australian deaths

o soldiers in the entire Vietnam War.


19/28


The heah ad ocia iicaio

of dug ue ad i aagee

The view was repeatedly expressed atthe Australia21 Roundtable that thereshould now be a shit away romcriminalisation o the possession anduse o illicit drugs and a greater moveto rely on health and social responsesto drug availability and use.

These can perhaps best be understood in the context o what

we do in Australia about nicotine and alcohol use. These,

like the currently illicit drugs, are substances that produce

signicant social and health harms. Both are widely used,

recreationally by some people (in the case o alcohol) andharmully by others. Social policy on nicotine has changed

radically during the past 50 years as the evidence accumulated

about its long-term detrimental impacts on health. The drug

remains a legal drug that is subject to regulation, taxation and

social disapproval o its use in certain public places. As a result

o progressive social and regulatory controls, the use and harms

arising rom nicotine have diminished prooundly in Australia,

which has been in the past, and is now, an international leader

in tobacco control.

By contrast, alcohol, also a legal drug that is widely used in

the community and in many cases is a drug o dependence,

has had a number o social controls relaxed in recent decades.

Drinking habits among young people have changed as somecontrols on availability have been lited.xxii In both cases, the

issue is managed primarily as a social and health issue rather

than as a law enorcement issue. Law enorcement comes in

to play only when behaviours resulting rom the drug place

the user or the supplier in an illegal position or when the user

harms others. The view o the group was that drug dependence

and drug use should be managed primarily within the health

and education systems, not the criminal justice system, and

that the unding or health and social measures will need to

be raised considerably.

Legiiae ad ilegiiae

fea coceig dug

The use o the term War(eg. on drugs) is oten used tomobilise ear as a political asset.It tends to demonise the drugs,several o which have importanthealth and social benets.

By association, it also demonises those who use drugs,

resulting in considerable stigma and discrimination. Many

people who use illegal drugs in Australia are socially and

economically disadvantaged. Many emale and some male

drug users report having been physically or sexually abused as

a child by members o their amily. Being part o a war against

the threat o evil drugs has been a political vote winner inmany settings and is credited as an important contributor to

Richard Nixons landslide victory in the United States ater he

declared a war on drugs in 1971. Being sot on drugs is a

label oten used politically about those who raise questions

about prohibition. These are matters deserving serious

debate in the Australian community, rather than the subject o

simplistic slogans. Many people are justiably earul o their

children becoming exposed and entangled in the drug culture

and its illegality. But while these drugs are prohibited, there is

a hugely lucrative black market committed to promoting such

entanglement and illegal behaviour.

By maintaining prohibition and suppressing or avoidingdebate about its costs and benets, it can be argued

justiably that our governments and other infuential sectors

o the community are standing idly by while our children

are criminalised.


20/28


The cure dug cuue

aog youg eoe

The Tough on Drugs programthat has been in place in Australiasince 1997 has ailed to suppressa fourishing drug culturedominated by the use o cannabis,methamphetamine and ecstasy,along with emerging new designerdrugs, among young people.

The Roundtable heard rom young participants o a culture

that expects that illegal drug use is virtually a condition o

attendance at many rave parties. Among some categories

o music concerts, drug use by musicians and audiences is

exceedingly common and accepted. Estimates o prevalence

o drug use may understate the acts because it would be

admitting illegal behaviour. It is conservatively estimated that

less than three per cent o those who use cannabis in Australia

are detected by law enorcement authorities each year.xxiii

The Roundtable heard that school students are exposed to

some drug education but that it is oten trivial and unconvincing

and demonstrably ineective in dissuading large numbers o

teenagers rom experimenting with drugs o unknown origin,

quality and concentration.

Ieaioa Teaie ad

Coveio ad he Uied Sae

For the past 100 years, internationaleorts to prohibit certain drugshave been led by the United States.

The eorts began with a meeting convened in Shanghai in

1909, ater American missionaries reported witnessing or

decades the British orcing opium onto a reluctant and much

weaker Chinese population. Chinese resistance had provoked

two opium wars (1839-42; 1856-60), which had not deterred

the British rom balancing their trade with China with narcotics.

Three main international treaties to which Australia is a

party have helped to shape current Australian prohibition

o illegal drugs. They are:

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961,

which was amended by the 1972 Protocol

The Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971

The United Nations Convention against Illicit Trac in

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances o 1988.

Beore it was prohibited in Australia in 1953, heroin waslegally available on prescription and cannabis was listedocially as a medicine in the United States until 1937.

The Australian governments decision in 1953 to succumbto international pressure and prohibit the importationand production o heroin was strongly opposed by the

Australian medical proession or whom it had been animportant component o its therapeutic armamentarium.

Fity years since the United Nations Single Convention and

40 years since Nixons declaration o war against drugs therehave been steady increases in global drug production andconsumption; the range o drug types available; the adverse

health and social consequences o illicit drugs; governmentunding allocated to control drug use; the number o prisoninmates serving sentences or drug oenses; and serious

corruption o police, magistrates, judges and politicians. At thesame time, the price o drugs has allen. The need or morecompact drugs that were more easily smuggled or the advent

o new drugs that have not yet been prohibited has becomea eature o the trade: - rom opium to heroin, rom powderamphetamines to ice, rom cocaine to crack cocaine, rom

herbal cannabis to synthetic cannabinoids (e.g. Kronic), etc.


21/28


In recent years, in many countries, a succession o retired

and serving Presidents, Prime Ministers, senior Judges and

Police Commissioners have begun publicly acknowledging

the ailure and utility o relying so heavily on drug law

enorcement to control drugs. In recent months serving

senior politicians are now starting to speak out. How can drug

prohibition succeed in the community when it cannot evensucceed in keeping prisons ree o drugs? How can authorities

stem the fow o drugs, when drug trackers are better

unded than drug law enorcement?

The United States or the past ty years has been very active

in international circles in maintaining the principles o the

international treaties and has brought to bear pressure o many

kinds on countries which have questioned the criminalisation

o use, possession and supply o these drugs.

During the 1990s when Australia was progressively

experimenting with harm minimisation approaches, enormous

pressures were placed on senior government ministers to resist

scientic eorts to evaluate new approaches. That pressureproved to be eective in Australia when it was combined

with systematic pressure rom the Murdoch press o the day,

in leading to the Australian Tough on Drugs policy.

Roundtable participants drew attention to the huge

investment in a drug law enorcement complex industry in

the United States, which has a vested interest in maintaining

prohibition. This was likened to the vested interest in oreign

wars o what has been described by President Eisenhower as

the military industrial complex.

It was pointed out that unilateral moves by Australia to legalise,

regulate and tax the use o currently illicit drugs would still

be vigorously opposed by US agencies despite the growingconsensus that prohibition has ailed comprehensively

to achieve its aims. This is also despite the act that US

public opinion is swinging towards decriminalisation,

and in some states, even legalisation o use o cannabis

or medical purposes.

In an important and well evaluated development, Portugal

in 2001 embarked on a major initiative in which it has lited

all criminal sanctions on use o illicit drugs and committed

substantial resources to dissuade drug users rom use o these

drugs. The evaluation o the program has been positive both

with respect to health and social eects on users and the

Portuguese civil society.xxiv

Bolivia has recently taken the step o denunciation rom

the 1961 Single Convention and a proposed subsequent

re-accession to this treaty with reservations. This has been

associated with that governments decision to maintain the

nations traditional, regulated domestic market in coca lea or

chewing which is a traditional practice that is very widespread

in that country, especially among indigenous people living at

high altitudes. Bolivia has ollowed the provisions o the treaty

in trying to move outside the ramework o the international

treaties and then to rejoin them with specied reservations.

This is a process o reorm by subtraction that is being watched

with interest internationally.xxv It might establish precedents or

consideration by Australian policy makers.

Every year some 400 Australiansdie rom illicit drug use. Thousandso others suer the short andlong term health consequences odrug dependence, unsae injectingpractices and inections. Theiramilies suer with them rom these

consequences. It is time to reopenthe national debate about drug use,its regulation and control.


22/28


Hon Michael MooreCEO Public Health Association o Australiaand ormer Minister o Health or the ACT

What we want governments to dois eel quite uncomortable aboutthe predicament they have put us in.They are running a system that is causinga whole lot o harm. Until they beginto start looking or the solutions weare not going to make progress. Whenthey begin looking or the solutions weare in the position to suggest ideas. It isthe government that has the problem.

Our task is to place it on their agenda.

Mr Mick Palmer AO APMFormer Commissioner,Australian Federal Police

It is easy to roll out arguments about theharm created by our current arrangements.Young people who are convicted orbeing in possession o small amountso cannabis automatically lose rights tobe employed in the public service andin the deence orces and in the policeservices. They cant travel, they cant getvisas to visit the United States. These arethings that make sense to parents.


23/28


Despite gains made in Australiasharm minimisation program twodecades ago, the current situationon illicit drugs is damaging

Australian society and resulting inan unacceptable and avoidabledeath toll.

While recognising the harms that psychoactive drugs are

causing, the policy o prohibition, with its emphasis on

criminalisation o use and possession, is exacerbating

those harms.

It is time to reactivate Australian debate on this matter,

drawing attention to the accountability o governments

or allowing an unacceptable situation to persist , and the

act that the community has allowed this to happen. Such apublic debate will not be initiated by politicians, who will

only be activated on this contentious issue when there is a

strong community groundswell demanding it. Currently,

such a groundswell does not exist. The drug culture is

fourishing, but so is the culture o ear, which is promoted by

the prohibition approach. Many Australians are particularly

concerned that liberalisation o our drug laws could increase,

rather than diminish, the dangers to children, although a

growing international body o evidence indicates that these

ears are misplaced. Only when this ear is conronted and the

mounting body o evidence o the benets that could fow

rom a health-ocused approach, regulation and social control,

can change be introduced.

There was recognition in the Australia21 Roundtable that

reorm o drug law with legalisation, regulation and marketing

controls is being advocated in the United States at present

by a conservative Republican candidate or the Presidency,

Ron Paul. The argument in avour o drug law reorm was linked

to discussion o John Stuart Mills principle that activity should

be permitted unless it directly poses threats to others. From

rst principles, this makes it dicult to justiy prohibition o

personal drug use. There are rm moral, ideological and rights

arguments that mean that vigorous drug law reorm could

have broad political appeal. There is a signicant practical and

moral dierence between problematic and non-problematic

substance use but prohibition does not distinguish betweenthe two. International experience with drug law reorm to

date indicates that decriminalising use and possession has no

signicant eect on rates o use.

One aspect o the debate which is rarely discussed is the

most prudent use o government resources. The recent

experience o many developed countries highlights the need

or governments to expend scarce resources wisely. Although

considerable sums are spent by governments, including our

own, in responding to illicit drugs, there is little evidence

to support the view that Australian tax payers are getting agood return on the current pattern o allocation. I anything,

considerable sums have been spent converting a bad problem

into an even worse problem.

Why should Australia start debating this problem now when

the situation has been much worse at other times? This is a very

reasonable question. The answer is that it is now, when the

drug problem seems to be relatively quiet, that we can have

a sensible debate. Experience shows that a crisis in drug policy

occurs every ew years. It is much harder to have a sensible

debate in the middle o a crisis.

Participants agreed that, or this issue to return to political

attention, young people and the broader community willneed to be engaged in the policy discussion. In order to

move this debate orwards, it was argued that the medical

proession, the pharmaceutical proession, churches, civil

society groups, university student groups and the media need

to be engaged in thoughtully considering the options. This

is also a matter which concerns employers and businesses o

many kinds. But i the issue is to be addressed, the national

debate must move beyond moralistic slogans and sound

bite rhetoric.

It was also recognised that Australia could play a valuable role

internationally in challenging the current operation o the

treaties and conventions, which have imposed a blanket o

drug prohibition on the global community.

The group did not propose a specic set o policy changes.

It saw the need to unmask prohibition and its harms and to

place the onus on our lawmakers and other community opinion

leaders to develop a process that stops the criminalisation

and continuing drug deaths o too many young Australians.

We should remind ourselves that the 1961 Single Convention,

the oundation o the current global system, opens with these

words Concerned with the health and welare o mankind

Whee ofo hee?


24/28


1. Australia21 should act to re-open national debate on

prohibition, distribute this report to every parliamentarian

in Australia and to civil society organisations, business

leaders, selected activist groups, student groups in tertiary

institutions, law enorcement groups, churches, unions

and government agencies, with an invitation to assist

in publicising the ndings o the Global Commission onDrug Policy.

2. The Board o Australia21 should establish an Expert

Advisory Group, charged with the responsibility or raising

unds to undertake ollow-up o the Roundtable, including

the conduct o ocus groups in a range o Australian

demographic groups and proessionals dealing with

social problems. The group should initiate transparent

discussions with organisations in Australia who avour

continuation o our current prohibition policy. The expert

group should make widely available scientic evidence

arising rom studies o the economics and statistics o

national and international innovations in drug policy.

3. Australia21 should initiate a series o roundtable

discussions among key stakeholder groups,

including especially young people, peak medical

and pharmaceutical bodies, aith groups, civil society

groups and senior drug law enorcement agencies.

4. The Expert Advisory Group should seek meetings

with economists and ministerial policy advisors to

discuss the ndings o this report, and also with:

The Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs,

the Australian National Council on Drugs and the

national drug licensing and regulatory authorities

about the need to consider medical use o cannabisand prescribed heroin or the management

o people who are heroin dependent.

The Federal Attorney-General, Minister for Health and

Minister or Foreign Aairs about Australian compliance

with the international drugs treaties and conventions

and the need to consider the growing international

experience with alternatives to prohibition and to

initiate international discussions about the ndings

o the Global Commission on Drug Policy.

Senior representatives of the media about the

role o the media in promoting an evidence-based

discussion on national policy on illicit drugs.5. Australia21 should undertake a urther

Roundtable on these matters early in 2013.

By maintaining prohibitionand suppressing oravoiding debate about itscosts and benets, it can

be argued justiably thatour governments andother community leadersare standing idly by whileour children are killedand criminalised.

Recomedaioaiig fo

he Roudabe


25/28


Prohibition puts the production, distribution, and

control o illicit drugs into the hands o criminalsand exposes young people, police and politiciansto their corruptive infuence.

The harms resulting from prohibition substantiallyoutweigh the gains rom eorts by police tosuppress the criminal drug industry a act nowaccepted by many politicians, police, researchersand leaders o civil society across the world.

The harms include a large planeload of avoidable

Australian deaths annually; home and propertycrime; our prisons and justice system clogged byvictims o the industry; a fourishing drug culturethat is ostered and controlled by criminal interestsand a complete lack o control o the dosage

and toxicity o the drugs that young peopleare consuming.

International drug prohibition has, until now,

been maintained through international treatiesand conventions, spear-headed by a US Waron drugs. The recognition that this war hasbeen comprehensively lost is leading to aninternational rethink about prohibition andabout these treaties and conventions.

The enormous prots from the black market trade

in drugs mean that an ounce o heroin costs manytimes more than an ounce o gold. The criminalsare much better resourced than law enorcementauthorities and any success that police have inreducing the supply, results in an increase in theprice o drugs and an increase in criminal protsand activities.

Despite decades of a prohibition approach in

Australia, illicit drugs are easily purchasable on ourstreets and in our prisons. The perverse nature othe system ensures that a steady stream o youngpeople becomes dependent on a continuing

supply o drugs.

Large amounts of public funds are allocated to

a ailed law and order approach to drug use.These resources would be better directed tomanaging drug use as a health and social issueas we do with nicotine and alcohol.

Drug taking undoubtedly produces serious harms

to individual drug users and their amilies. Many othe harms to them, to others and to society at largeare a result o the national policy o prohibition

and criminalisation which, arguably, increases,rather than decreases, the risks o more peoplebecoming drug dependent.

This is a very complex issue that demands proper

community discussion o a range o alternativesto prohibition, that are now being consideredeverywhere including in the United States wherethe ailed war on drugs and prohibition began.

National drug policy should be based on

evidence o what works and what does not and

the international evidence base on these issuesis now both substantial and persuasive.

It is time to stop sloganeering and insist to all of

our political representatives and to our mediathat Australia must have an inormed nationaldebate about the alternatives to a policy thathas ailed disastrously and is criminalisingour young.

i a uhel


26/28


RoudabePaicia

Mr Paul Barratt AO

Chair Australia21 and Former Federal Secretary o Deence

and Primary Industry

Hon Dr Peter Baume AC

Former Chancellor ANU; Federal Senator and Health Minister

in the Coalition Government led by Malcolm Fraser

Mr Chris Berg

Research Fellow Institute o Public Aairs and

newspaper columnist

Mr Bill Bush

Retired International Lawyer and Member

o Families and Friends or Drug Law Reorm

Hon Bob Carr AC

Former Premier o NSW

Hon Kate Carnell AO

Former Chie Minister o the ACT

Proessor Nicholas Cowdery AM, QCFormer Director Public Prosecutions, NSW

Proessor Bob Douglas AO (Chair)

Former Director National Centre or Epidemiology

and Population Health ANU

Hon Proessor Geo Gallop AC

Former Premier Western Australia

Proessor Margaret Hamilton AO

Formerly Founding Director o Turning Point Alcohol

and Drug Centre Victoria. Current Drug Policy Advisor

Mr Brian McConnell

President Families and Friends or Drug Law ReormMs Marion McConnell

Parent o a son who lost his lie to a heroin overdose

Mr David McDonald

Social research consultant

Mr Tom Merrett

Second Year University Student University o Adelaide

Hon Proessor Michael Moore

Executive Ocer Public Health Association o Australiaand ormer Health Minister ACT

Ms Vivienne-Moxham-Hall

Arts and Science Graduate and Student Representative

Councillor, University o Sydney

Mr Mick Palmer AO APM

Former Commissioner, Australian Federal Police

Proessor Alison Ritter

Director Drug Policy Modeling Program,

University o New South Wales

Proessor Robin Room

Drug policy researcher and currentDirector, Turning Point, Victoria

Ms Lyn Stephens

Executive Ocer Australia21

Mr Nick Stump

Former mining industry executive. Director Australia21,

Chair Construction Industry Advisory Board on Drugs in

the Workplace

Dr Alex Wodak AMPresident Australian Drug Law Reorm Foundation and

Former President International Harm Reduction Association

Hon Dr Michael WooldridgeFormer Federal Minister or Health in the Coalition Governmentled by John Howard


27/28


i Global Commission on Drug Policy 2011, War on drugs:report o the Global Commission on Drug Policy,Global Commission on Drug Policy, Rio de Janeiro,

http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/ .ii McDonald, D 2011, A background paper or an Australia21

Roundtable, Sydney, 31 January 2012, addressing the questionWhat are the likely costs and benets o a change in Australiascurrent policy on illicit drugs?, Australia21, Canberra.

iii Reuter, P 2009, Report 5: the unintended consequenceso drug policies, in P Reuter & F Trautmann (eds), A reporton global illicit drug markets 1998-2007, EuropeanCommission, [Brussels].

iv Australian Treaties Library, a website o the Australasian LegalInormation Institute and Department o Foreign Aairs & Trade:http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dat/treaties.

v

For example, NAOMI Study Team 2008, Reaching the hardest toreach treating the hardest-to-treat: summary o the primaryoutcomes o the North American Opiate Medication Initiative(NAOMI), North American Opiate Medication Initiative, CanadianInstitutes or Health Research, Vancouver and Montreal.Oviedo-Joekes, E, March, JC, Romero, M & Perea-Milla, E 2010,The Andalusian trial on heroin-assisted treatment: a 2 yearollow-up, Drug Alcohol Rev, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 75-80.Strang, J. et al. 2010, Supervised injectable heroin or injectablemethadone versus optimised oral methadone as treatmentor chronic heroin addicts in England ater persistent ailure inorthodox treatment (RIOTT): a randomised trial, The Lancet,vol. 375, pp. 188595.Uchtenhagen, A 2010, Heroin-assisted treatment in Switzerland:

a case study in policy change, Addiction, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 29-37.vi Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy 2011, The National

Drug Strategy 20102015: a ramework or action onalcohol, tobacco and other drugs, Ministerial Councilon Drug Strategy, Canberra.

vii See endnote 2.

viii Mazerolle, L, Soole, D & Rombouts, S 2007, Drug lawenorcement: a review o the evaluation literature,Police Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 115-53.

ix Babor, T et al. 2009, Drug policy and the public good,Oxord University Press, Oxord.

x Moore, T, Ritter, A & Caulkins, JP 2005, Economic modelling:

cost-eectiveness o three policy options, DPMP Bulletin no. 12,Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, Fitzroy, Vic.

xi Costa, AM 2008, Making drug control t or purpose: buildingon the UNGASS decade. Report by the Executive Director o theUnited Nations Oce on Drugs and Crime as a contributionto the review o the twentieth special session o the GeneralAssembly, E/CN.7/2008/CRP.17, United Nations Oce onDrugsand Crime, Vienna.Reuter, P 2009, Report 5: the unintended consequenceso drug policies, in P Reuter & F Trautmann (eds), A reporton global illicit drug markets 1998-2007, EuropeanCommission, [Brussels].

xii Drug Prevention Network o the Americas (DPNA), Institute onGlobal Drug Policy, International Scientic and Medical Forumon Drug Abuse, International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy,People Against Drug Dependence & Ignorance (PADDI), Nigeria,Europe Against Drugs (EURAD), World Federation Against Drugs

(WFAD), Peoples Recovery, Empowerment and DevelopmentAssistance (PREDA) & Drug Free Scotland 2011, Drug legalisation:an evaluation o the impacts on global society. Position

statement December 2011.xiii European Monitoring Centre or Drugs and Drug Addiction

(ed.) 2011, Portugal, EMCDDA Drug Policy Proles,Publications Oce o the European Union, Luxembourg.Hughes, CE & Stevens, A 2010, What can we learn rom thePortuguese decriminalization o illicit drugs?, British Journalo Criminology, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 999-1022.

xiv Australian Institute o Health & Welare 2011, Drugs in Australia2010: tobacco, alcohol and other drugs, Drug Statistics Seriesno. 27, cat. no. PHE 154, Australian Institute o Health andWelare, Canberra.

xv Op. cit.

xvi

Room, R, Fischer, B, Hall, W, Lenton, S & Reuter, P 2010,Cannabis policy: moving beyond stalemate, OxordUniversity Press, Oxord, England.

xvii See endnote 5.

xviii European Monitoring Centre or Drugs and Drug Addiction(ed.) 2011, Portugal, EMCDDA Drug Policy Proles,Publications Oce o the European Union, Luxembourg.Hughes, CE & Stevens, A 2010, What can we learn rom thePortuguese decriminalization o illicit drugs?, British Journalo Criminology, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 999-1022.

xix Deloitte 2011, Illicit trade o tobacco in Australia: a reportprepared or British American Tobacco Australia Limited,Philip Morris Limited and Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited,

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, n.p.xx International Drug Policy Consortium 2010, Drug policy guide,

1st edn, International Drug Policy Consortium, London.

xxi Degenhardt, L, Day, C, Gilmour, S & Hall, W 2006, The lessonso the Australian heroin shortage, Subst Abuse Treat PrevPolicy, vol. 1, p. 11.Degenhardt, L & Hall, W 2006, Canadian heroin supply andthe Australian heroin shortage, Addiction, vol. 101, no. 11,pp. 1667-8.Degenhardt, L, Reuter, P, Collins, L & Hall, W 2005,Evaluating explanations o the Australian heroin shortage,Addiction, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 459-69.Jiggens, J 2008, Australian heroin seizures and the causes o the

2001 heroin shortage, Int J Drug Policy, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 273-8.Wood, E, Stoltz, J-A, Li, K, Montaner, JSG & Kerr, T 2006, Changesin Canadian heroin supply coinciding with the Australian heroinshortage, Addiction, vol. 101, no. 5, pp. 689-95.

xxii Babor, T et al. 2010, Alcohol: no ordinary commodity -research and public policy, 2nd edn, OUP, Oxord.

xxiii The proportion is 2.6%, based on the authors calculations romdata published in Australian Crime Commission 2011, Illicit drugdata report 2009-10, Australian Crime Commission, Canberraand Australian Institute o Health and Welare 2011, 2010National Drug Strategy Household Survey report, AustralianInstitute o Health and Welare, Canberra.

xxiv See endnote 13.

xxv Room, R, Fischer, B, Hall, W, Lenton, S & Reuter, P 2010, Cannabispolicy: moving beyond stalemate, Oxord University Press,Oxord, England.

Refeece


28/28

For more inormation, please visit:

www.australia21.org.au

Australia 21 Limited

ABN 25 096 242 410

ACN 096 242 410

PO Box 3244, Weston, ACT 2611

Phone: 02 6288 0823

Hon Dr Michael WooldridgeFormer Health Minister in theHoward Federal Government

The key message is that we have 40 yearso experience o a law and order approachto drugs and it has ailed.

Hon Bob Carr ACFormer Premier o NSW

An issue that worried me while I was inNSW politics was the police hitting railwaystations with snier dogs. It was marijuanathat was the ocus. I did not think it wasthe best use o police time. People werebreaking no other laws. This was victimlesscrime and this was seen as a new way toengage police resources. I wanted themto do things like make public transportsae and clean up Cabramatta.

Australia21 Illicit Drug Policy Report

Documents

Transcript of Australia21 Illicit Drug Policy Report