Opinion
Beating the drug trade isn't about black-and-white solutions
Don Weatherburn and Wayne Hall
September 22, 2010
A combination of law enforcement and treatment is the key, write Don Weatherburn and Wayne Hall.
No sooner do signs emerge of another drug problem than we hear predictable calls to treat illicit drug use as a health rather than a crime problem. These calls mirror the rhetoric from supporters of an all-out war on illicit drug use.
Neither side in this debate sees any merit in its opponents' arguments. Both sides try to persuade you that we face a stark choice between investment in treatment and harm reduction or, on the other hand, prohibition and drug law enforcement.
Let's critically assess five of the arguments often put forward by both sides in this debate.
Argument number one is that the war on drugs has failed because it's still easy to obtain illegal drugs. This is like arguing that the laws against drink driving have failed because thousands of people each year continue to drink and drive.
The purpose of drug law enforcement is not to make illicit drugs impossible to obtain. The primary justification for prohibition (and the enforcement activity that underpins it) is that it keeps illicit drug prices much higher than they would otherwise be. This, in turn, keeps illicit drug consumption and drug-related harm lower than they would otherwise be. The heroin shortage in 2000 showed us that higher drug prices do reduce levels of drug-related crime, morbidity and mortality. We ought, therefore, to be wary of any policy that reduces the cost of illegal drugs.
Argument number two is that if we legalise drug use and possession, more people will use illicit drugs. This argument sounds plausible because most people won't do something they know to be illegal.
However, the fact is that most studies of drug use decriminalisation find it has little effect on the prevalence of illicit drug use, except where the state turns a blind eye to drug supply (as happened a few years ago in the Netherlands).
There is a risk that decriminalising illicit drug use will increase consumption among existing dependent users. Since they account for most of the harm associated with illicit drug use, this is a matter for concern. Treatment, however, is almost certainly more effective than punishment in reducing drug consumption among dependent users.
Argument number three is that if the state provided drugs to dependent users, the black market for drugs would collapse, thereby reducing if not eliminating drug-related crime. The main problem with this argument is that if the state did succeed in meeting a large portion of the demand for illicit drugs like heroin, the price of drugs on the black market could fall. This may encourage more people into the illicit drug market.
A second problem is that some drugs (such as amphetamines) have quite toxic mental health effects if used regularly. The state cannot be expected to offer toxic drugs to people just to avoid creating a black market.
A third problem is that medicalising a problem does not necessarily reduce crime and corruption. Witness the problems we are having with pharmaceutical opioids, such as oxycodone.
Argument number four is that every kilo of illegal drugs we seize is one less on the streets. The problem with this argument is that drug traffickers can often make up for any losses they suffer by importing or supplying replacement drugs. The cost of seizures, moreover, is a lot less for them than it appears.
Police routinely state the value of drugs they seize in terms of their retail - street - cost as if this were the financial loss to the importer and distributor. But the cost of importing and distributing drugs is far less than the cost of consuming them. The effect of a drug seizure on the importer or the distributor's profit margin, therefore, is less than it appears. The profits for drug importers and distributors when they avoid detection are potentially huge.
Argument number five is that treatment is more effective than drug law enforcement in reducing demand for illicit drugs. This is perhaps the most misleading of all the arguments put forward about illicit drug policy.
It's a sad fact that many dependent drug users only seek treatment when the personal and financial cost of continued drug use gets too high. The financial cost is attributable in large part to prohibition. The personal cost includes trouble with police and the courts, which is one of the most commonly cited reasons for entering treatment. Coercing drug-dependent offenders into treatment is known to be effective in reducing drug use and drug-related crime.
We don't have to choose between treatment and drug law enforcement. We can and should support both.
Dr Don Weatherburn is director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research and Professor Wayne Hall is the National Health and Medical Research Council Australia Fellow at the University of Queensland.
Sydney Morning Herald
