• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

NEWS: "A plea to deaf ears for some drug law reform" SMH 30/12/05

johnboy

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Oct 27, 1999
Messages
6,873
this thread reminded me of this article. my apologies if it has already been posted.

A plea to deaf ears for some drug law reform

By Tim Dick
December 31, 2005

THERE are about 1.2 million ecstasy criminals in Australia, and they'll be joined by more this weekend.

We mostly hear that all drugs are evil and horrible and wreck the lives of all who take them. They lead to crime; they destroy families. Their possession deserves to be a criminal offence, no matter what the drug or what is done after taking it.

Anyone who disagrees is branded as soft on drugs, pro-crime and as good as advocating more drug deaths.

The dissenters shouldn't be so roundly dismissed. Drugs, which vary enormously, don't ruin every user's life; nor do they invariably lead to addiction or further criminal offences. Most recreational users take illicit drugs only occasionally, then get back to work. The horribly addictive heroin is a stranger to this group of well-educated, professional workers who don't think popping a pill warrants a stretch inside.

Possessing a single ecstasy tablet carries a maximum penalty of two years' jail, a penalty which is doing little to reduce consumption. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research figures show recorded offences of ecstasy possession rose by an average 30.9 per cent in each of the past 10 years, from 50 in 1995 to 563 last year.

That ten-fold jump could be due to higher consumption, increased policing or, more probably, both.

The 1998 National Drug Strategy Household Survey found 4.8 per cent of respondents aged over 14 had tried it. In 2004, it was 7.5 per cent.

People who stick to Australia's legal drugs of choice (alcohol and tobacco) are not criminals, despite figures which indicate they are more often fatal than ecstasy.

In Britain, ecstasy has been widely used for years, and in 1997 figures from the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence showed it killed 0.0002 per cent of users each year. Tobacco killed 0.9 per cent of smokers each year and alcohol was fatal to 0.5 per cent of drinkers.

While reporting those statistics, The Economist said: "A motorbike journey is three times as likely to kill you as taking a tablet of street ecstasy and - astonishingly - flying on a civil airliner is one-and-a-half times as dangerous as dropping an 'e'."

In Australia, one 2003 study estimated that alcohol caused more than 12,000 deaths by injury in the decade to 2001, while tobacco is estimated to cause about 19,000 deaths each year.

Despite those risks, adult possession of either is neither unlawful nor criminal. Nor should it be. It may be unwise to consume drugs, but it is not the place of the state to lock up those who do. Overwhelmingly, the role of criminal law is to protect individuals from the actions of others, not from themselves.

A lack of reliable research means there's scant firm evidence on the long-term effects of recreational ecstasy use, but it's hardly going to be beneficial. The indications are that, while occasional adult users may suffer no noticeable effect over the long term, heavy users may incur depression and have problems with memory and cognition, the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre says.

Ecstasy creates a sense of euphoria and closeness to others, but also changes body temperature. Some drink too little water to replace lost fluids, and some drink too much (which is what led to the 1995 death of a Belrose schoolgirl, Anna Wood).

The authorities should continue to dissuade people from drug abuse, but criminal sanctions go too far. A drug conviction carries with it not only a fine or jail term but also serious consequences for travel and employment.

There are some advocates for legalisation, including the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation. The American Civil Liberties Union argues legalisation would remove the black market and allow regulation to ensure users know what they're taking.

Others think decriminalising soft drugs would go far enough, but according to last year's household survey, most Australians are against both. When The Economist suggested legalising all drugs in 1997, no developed country had tested the idea. One now has gone part way.

Portugal scrapped criminal sanctions for possessing small quantities of any illicit drug in 2001. They are still illegal, but anyone carrying up to 10 doses is not subject to conviction. Instead, they may be counselled, fined or warned. Last year, Fernando Negrao, who heads the Health Ministry's Institute for Drugs and Addiction, told the BBC: "There were fears Portugal might become a drug paradise, but that simply didn't happen."

For the forseeable future, decriminalisation of any drug except cannabis won't happen here. The political hurdles are too high, the debate too hysterical, and there are too many problems from international drug treaties (and the United States), to stop pointlessly making criminals out of those who aren't. That doesn't mean we shouldn't.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...drug-law-reform/2005/12/30/1135915694086.html
 
Very well written Tim Dick, and good work on smh's part for publishing it, many wouldn't. Some very good points however I hope it just doesn't fall on deaf ears.
 
Thanks for posting that :)

And thank god for the Fairfax papers or essays like this would never see the light of day. It's also a great article for referencing in terms of statistics and figures on drug use.

I'm especially fond of the opening sentence.
 
Wow, Im in shock.........a fairly reasonable and honest look at E use.

Great article.
 
"the role of criminal law is to protect individuals from the actions of others, not from themselves."

Its good to see some journalists in a mainstream newspaper pushing for a liberalist approach to public policy. The criminal law is there to protect people's property and themselves from the melicious intent of others. If a person does not infringe apon the rights of others to be safe and to keep their property safe then that state has no right to intervene in their lives.

Mr. Dick=D rightly points out though that decriminalisation of most drugs is a pipe dream (pun intended) in Australia. If we are to move forward we must seperate drug use from the articifical associations with moral decay that governments have associated drugs with. This is going to take a long time to do, and I don't see any government risking the backlash that a backflip on over a 100 years of drug policy would bring
 
Top