The Case for Legal Regulation

The Case for LegalRegulation

Drug Policy Australia

The Case for Legal Regulation

www.drugpolicy.org.au

Table Of Contents

How to Make a Case for Legal Regulation 3

Clarifying Terms 4

Question and Answers 5

Legal Regulation 5

Rates of Drug Use 10

Protecting the young and vulnerable 14

Crime 17

Public Health 20

Development and Security 22

Money 23

Human Rights 25

Morality 27

Politics 28

Winning the War 32

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vgFqXhVpnrd-d72tJosZTQN4L8EVgge3U1Fab0g4JyE/edit



How to Make a Case for Legal RegulationAt Drug Policy Australia, we recognise that drug prohibition has been apublic policy disaster. Not only has it failed to stop drug use or control thetrade in illicit substances, but it has also increased harm to society byproducing a range of unintended consequences.

When discussing drug policy it is important to recognise that those whosupport drug prohibition are often motivated by the same goal that weoppose it. They are concerned for other people – particularly the youngand vulnerable – and do not want them to suffer addiction, ill health ordeath from drug misuse.

This common ground is ourstrength: by listening andresponding patiently to theconcerns of others, we canbuild an argument based onshared objectives and anopen-minded look at theevidence.

The �rst step towards effective persuasion is a�rming the legitimacy ofpeople’s concerns. There is no reason for us to defend drug use, whichpresents an opportunity to �nd common ground and control how the issueis framed. It is better not to contradict or disagree with someone who youbelieve is mistaken.

What follows is a primer for issues and objections that are likely to beraised in discussion. We hope it will prove helpful in making yourarguments for change.




Clarifying Terms

‘ ’ is a bit more ambiguous, since it refers only to personalpossession and use, which can be challenging to de�ne, and leavessigni�cant grey areas where users continue to interact with an illegalsupply chain. While this represents a step in the right direction, it is not anultimate solution, since it does not provide legal clarity or protection from adangerous, unregulated market.

Decriminalisation

A lot of the common words used in discussions around drug policyinadvertently a�rm some unfortunate misconceptions and stereotypes.Below are some examples of language choice that can be replaced withoutlosing meaning:

‘ ’ refers to the process by which illegal drugs become legal,whereas ‘ ’ is the end state in which the production, supplyand use of a drug are no longer criminal, but instead regulated andcontrolled by the government like any other type of commerce.

Legalisationlegal regulation

In the drugs debate, there is often not enough clarity in the terms we use.In particular, there is widespread confusion over the difference between‘ ’, ‘ ’ and ‘ ’.legalisation legal regulation decriminalisation

"Drug users" to "people who use drugs". This change reframesconsumption as a practice and behaviour by individuals rather than acharacteristic that de�nes a subgroup to be stigmatised.

Ending drug harms to keeping people who use drugs safe and healthy.Positive framing of wellness as an objective is superior to framing drugs asinherently harmful.




What would legalisation (legal regulation) look like? Would heroinbe sold in shopping malls?

Legal Regulation

Question and Answers

Few would endorse a radical free-market approach. We believe thatcurrently, illicit drugs should be governed in the same way as legal drugs,such as caffeine, alcohol and pharmaceuticals.

Heroin derivatives are already regulated and sold legally, in pharmacies. Ifyou have broken your leg and been treated at a hospital, chances are youhave been given an opiate.

The question is not if the government should regulate such substances buthow they should be regulated. There is certainly a case to be made thatprescription opioid medications have been overprescribed, resulting inpeople turning to street heroin to alleviate withdrawal symptoms.However, that is precisely what Drug Policy Australia advocates - a publicpolicy debate focused on how the adverse effects of drugs should becontrolled and mitigated through health policy.

There are several options for ways in which substances that are currentlyillegal could be purchased legally, and different levels of restrictions wouldconceivably be advisable depending on the substance in questions.




– Controlled substances with a high risk of abuse, suchas opioids, could be prescribed to registered users by a quali�eddoctor and/or consumed in a supervised healthcare setting. Any othersupply of these drugs would still be illegal.

Prescription

– Licenced professionals could provide a point of sale fordrugs providing rationed quantities registered in a centraliseddatabase to legal adults showing valid identi�cation.

Pharmacy

– Lower-risk drugs could be sold at outlets that obtaina licence under strict conditions, including age restrictions, health andsafety advice, and a ban on all advertising and promotions, similar tothe current legal sale of tobacco products.

Licenced Sales

– In much the way that alcohol – or, in somecountries, cannabis – is often provided, licenced premises couldprovide a substance for on-site consumption, subject to strict lawsand regulation such as age checks and responsibility for customerbehaviour.

Licenced Premises

- In this model, nobody would be permitted to pro�t from thesale of drugs, but, for example, cannabis members of a cooperativecould grow it and consume it. Still, there would be no widespreadpromotion or sale through public stores.

Co-ops

New item

The goal of our arguments is to show that the continuation of our currentpolicies is the radical, dangerous choice.

These examples implicitly point to the dangers of the unregulated drugmarket, which, due to its illegality, operates without oversight andregulation, under conditions that encourage the worst possible practicesand outcomes.




Does this mean easy access to all drugs?

At the moment the only control is seizure and arrest, which encouragesrisk-taking and undesirable behaviour.

Sales to minors would be restricted under a system of legal regulation.Criminals do not ask for ID since they already operate outside the law.

As shown in the introductory summary, there are several ways to controlthe supply of drugs, subject to strict oversight and regulation appropriate totheir type.

Current models of legal regulation of drugs in Switzerland, Canada, USA donot mean easy access to all drugs. They are distributed within heavilyregulated markets. The legalisation of drugs would not mean universalaccess to all drugs. The current prohibitionist system allows easy accessto all drugs through unprotected and unregulated markets.

Legal regulation would subject the drug trade to strict controls andoversight, which our current system fails to provide.

Legal regulation would allow governments to make decisions about how,and to whom, drugs should be sold. These decisions currently rest in thehands of criminals.

Drugs are already widely available and used in Australia. The 2019National Drug Strategy Household Survey found that 11.2 per cent (or 2.3million) of the Australian population reported having used cocaine at leastonce in their lifetime. More than a third of the Australian populationreported they had used cannabis at least once in their lifetime . Peoplewho use drugs do so by interacting with a manufacture and supply chainthat is illegal and unregulated from start to �nish, placing themselves atgreat additional risk.

[1]




Is legal regulation of drugs a reckless leap toward dangerous andunknown risks?

We already have legal regulation of many drugs including alcohol, tobacco,coffee and pharmaceuticals. Which drugs are illegal is the result ofhistorical business, political and religious vested interests. It is acceptedthat the personal and societal harms from alcohol are less than those fromMDMA or cannabis . The most dangerous risks lie primarily with legaldrugs. Prohibition was a leap into the unknown. It has failed on its termsand caused a litany of harms and the mass criminalisation of otherwiselaw abiding citizens.

[2]

We already regulate many risky activities and substances. For medicalpurposes, we produce and provide many otherwise restricted drugs(opiates as morphine, amphetamine as Adderall and cannabis as CBD oil,etc.), without the violence and corruption that characterise the illegal trade.




Will regulation solve all the problems caused by drugs overnight?

Illicit drug reform has already begun in many countries. Canada andUruguay have fully legalised and regulated cannabis. Some US states havelegalised, and regulated cannabis and other states have decriminalisedcannabis. Portugal successfully decriminalised all drugs in 2001. Manycountries that have legalised medicinal drugs, such as medicinal heroin inSwitzerland.

Bringing the drug trade under government regulation and oversight willallow us to better manage any harms resulting from drugs. But perfectionin human behaviour is impossible and unrealistic.

We can also apply what we have learned from the regulation of other riskybut legal activities and substances, of which there are many.

Policy changes will be carefully weighed and debated, before gradualintroduction and on-going monitoring, subject to revision. We are arguingfor an approach that is responsive to evidence.

No one is claiming that. We are aiming for a reduction in the range andseverity of the problems caused by drug use, and an end to the harm doneby prohibition itself.

Addiction and substance misuse are both cause and symptom of manyother personal and social problems. Legal regulation will eliminate thedownward spiral of criminalisation, make intervention and prevention moreeffective, and mitigate many of the severe health risks of drug use. Self-destructive behaviour will always persist, which is not a justi�cation tocontinue with our current failed policies.




Without criminalisation would drug use increase?

Rates of Drug Use

These are damning statistics, particularly when weighed against theeconomic and human costs of prohibition.

Despite more than half a century of prohibition, with trillions of dollarsspent, illicit drug use across the world has not been brought under control.

Since its inception in 2016, Australia’s National Wastewater DrugMonitoring Program has found a year-on-year increase in consumption ofmethylamphetamine and cocaine, with a relatively small downward trendin heroin, fentanyl and MDMA use . Globally, the UN reports that thenumber of drug users has increased from 208 million in 2006, to 255 millionin 2015 .

[4]

[5]

The idea of legal deterrence - punishing people for breaking the law - isintuitive and functional for most aspects of human behaviour. However, noperson with substance abuse problems is deterred by the threat ofpunishment.




Cannabis sale and use are functionally legal in the Netherlands yet theusage rate is lower than Australia and the US. The 2020 World Drug Reportstated that in 2017, 9.2 per cent of the adult population in the Netherlandsused cannabis compared to 10.6 per cent of Australians and 14.6 percent of the Americans .[7]

Comparative studies of different countries show no link between strictenforcement and levels of use.[6]

Portugal decriminalised all drug use over 20 years ago but has not seen adramatic rise in drug use. Deaths from drug use have reducedsigni�cantly, and levels of consumption remain below the Europeanaverage .[8]

The increase in drug use quoted above shows that the current system ofprohibition has failed to reduce drug use.




Will big business aggressively market and increase the availabilityof drugs?

We can learn from mistakes and improvements made in the managementof alcohol and tobacco markets. Despite their manifest harms, these drugswere for some time aggressively marketed, leading to rampant abuse.Tobacco regulation has since been tightened on many fronts, leading to amassive reduction in daily smokers, in Australia and abroad .[10]

Looking at overall drug use is not the best way to approach this argument– except that it discredits the prohibition argument that criminalisationreduces total drug use. Harmful use should be the critical consideration,rather than the many instances of drug use that are non-problematic .Legal regulation produces better results in identifying and addressingproblematic use, not to mention removing the compounding effect ofcriminalisation.

[9]

The private sector will not automatically take over the drug trade. It willdepend on how the government regulates the market. State-runinstitutions or non-pro�t organisations will have a role to play, either in theoutright provision or regulatory oversight.




While big business and private companies have many faults, they do notcompare to organised crime syndicates. They can be held to account bygovernments stockholders, consumers and unions, pay taxes andgenerally operate without violence.

While the comparison between organised crime and big business orgovernment bodies may seem �ippant, we know from experience that thedrug market will not disappear. These are our choices.




Will legal regulation increase the availability of drugs to youngpeople?

Protecting the young and vulnerable

Young people currently have access to drugs in an unregulatedenvironment. The 2019 National Drug Strategy Household Survey ofAustralia found that 15 per cent of respondents aged 14-19 had recentlyused illicit drugs .[11]

It is our current drug laws that place young and vulnerable people at themost risk. We are seeking to establish a market with strict regulation onsales to minors, coupled with a redirection of funds from policing tomitigation through education and rehabilitation services.

Protecting youth is one of the most widespread and emotive objections todrug law reform, yet it is a fabricated argument.

The drugs that youngpeople currently use arenot subject to any reliablecontrols. A 2018 studyfound that heroin seized inthe state of Victoria had apurity that ranged between3.6 per cent and 80.9 percent, creating a massiverisk of overdose .[12]

The drugs supplied by the black market are often contaminated and ofunknown strength. For example, MDMA, a popular drug among youngusers, has been found in some instances to contain chemicals far moredangerous than intended .[13]




Would changing the law send the wrong message to youngpeople?

The proper task of the criminal justice system is not to send messages,and it tends to be unsuccessful when it does. Adolescents are prone toreject adult advice when delivered in an authoritarian and punitive fashion.

Criminalisation at an early age can have a profound effect on a youngperson’s life, affecting future opportunities.

We would all prefer to see young people avoid drugs altogether, but thereality right now is that if they do choose to experiment, they do so in theriskiest possible circumstances.

There are many activities that we consider to be immoral or undesirablethat are not punishable by law. We have other ways of discouraging thisbehaviour, often more effective than, and not at all helped by, theinterference of the criminal justice system.

The decline in rates of smoking, including among young people, shows thegreat success that regulation and public health promotion can have,without the threat of criminalisation.

The measures applied in the example of smoking, such as control ofpackaging and sale to minors, are not available under a legal,regulatory framework.

except

To obtain drugs, children engage with a criminal subculture, where theymay be vulnerable to other forms of risk, or encouraged to escalate theirdrug use.

The current punitive system alienates users, preventing them from seekinghelp or advice, and sowing mistrust in authority. That is the unintendedmessage we are sending to young people.




Does criminalisation protect the marginalised and vulnerable fromdrug related harms?

Marginalised and vulnerable people are often poorly equipped to handlethe criminal justice system, compounding their disadvantage.

Criminalisation furthermarginalises vulnerablepeople whose drug use isoften exacerbated by theirmarginal status. The resultsare a cycle of despair anddrug use, that furthermarginalisation them fromsociety and support services.

Marginalised people are already using illicit drugs at high rates, and lessable to access help as a result. Almost one in ten clients of specialisthomelessness services in Australia reported problematic drug use, whichin turn hurt their likelihood of securing housing .[14]

Ethnic minorities are often arrested and imprisoned for drug offences atdisproportionate rates to their drug use . Indigenous people inAustralia are more likely than the non-Indigenous population to be detainedfor a similar crime . The reasons for this are complex, but clearly,Indigenous people are at more risk from the intervention of the criminaljustice system in what should be a public health matter.

[15][16]

[17]




If drugs became legal, will criminal gangs �nd other revenue:crime would continue at the same scale?

Crime

While harmful psychoactive substances such as tobacco and alcohol arenormalised and widely available, other plants and chemicals are deemedillicit and therefore supplied by a vast criminal network. The criminalisationof drug use adds human suffering to the intrinsic harms of drug use, ascompeting criminal interests �ght among themselves and against lawenforcement for control of a staggeringly lucrative market.

Humans have been taking drugs for thousands of years, but only in the lastcentury has this behaviour been penalised, persecuted and prosecuted.The era of prohibition has criminalised hundreds of millions of people, withdevastating consequences to them, their families and society at large.

There simply is notanother criminalenterprise offeringcomparable revenue tothe illicit drug trade. Thecurrent estimate ofAustralia’s illegal drugmarket by the AustralianCriminal intelligenceCommission $11.3 billionper year .[18]

Unmatched pro�ts from the illicit drug trade have undermined rule-of-law inless stable countries, creating a haven for all forms of criminal enterprise.Though it will not change overnight, there is no better way to challenge thepower of organised crime than the legal regulation of drugs.




Don’t we need to be tough on crime?

Under legal regulation, enforcement efforts can be channelled towardother forms of crime, further hastening the overall decline.

It does not follow that when theillicit drug trade ends, there willbe an alternative revenuestream that covers the loss toorganised crime and continuesto power the same level ofviolence and corruption.

Many other criminal enterprises are funded by the illicit drug trade, oroperate through the same networks. They will become much harder tomaintain.

It is not sound policymakingthat there is no point eliminating one type of suffering because another willtake its place. The prohibition of drugs is fuelling criminality and massivesuffering and therefore, it must end.

For the reasons outlined above, legal regulation would in�ict the worstpossible damage to organised crime.

Although it is a problematic relationship to measure, studies suggest that asigni�cant amount of acquisitive and violent crime is attributable to drugaddiction. For example, the Drug Use Monitoring Program in Australiafound that 25 per cent of recent offenders who reported recently usingillicit drugs had committed their offence speci�cally to fund their habit .[19]

After Switzerland began prescribing medical heroin to registereddependent users, burglary rates astonishingly fell by half . Legalregulation can reduce crime across the board.

[20]




Ultimately, we need sensible policies that reduce the harms done tosociety – not meaningless “tough on crime” posturing.

By legalising drugs, we can damage criminal networks, reduce propertyand violent crime, and redirect enforcement spending to more useful andpractical ends.

Tougher policing leads to an escalation of violence, as drug gangs reactand adapt to increasing market opportunities.




Should drugs be illegal because they are dangerous andunhealthy?

Public Health

Legal regulation will ensure that users receive the safest possible product,with professional advice and information to guide their behaviour. They willbe more aware, not less, of the dangers posed by their choice to takedrugs.

Drugs are dangerous, but our current approach maximises that risk. Weneed control and oversight to protect users and mitigate the harm done tosociety in general.

‘The Iron Law of Prohibition’ dictates that a substance will tend to increasein potency when outlawed, as criminals attempt to evade law enforcementand get the best possible return for their efforts. Examples include alcoholprohibition in the US, which saw whisky and moonshine supersede beer; orthe emergence of crack-cocaine in the 1980s; and now the increasingprevalence of fentanyl as an alternative or additive to heroin . This trendis a signi�cant cause of death by overdose and other adverse healthoutcomes.

[21]

The prohibition of drugs is a disaster for public health. It places drugconsumers at the mercy of an illegal market whose illegality ensuresirresponsible behaviour.

Drugs are provided without even the most basic information and qualityassurance, producing additional and increased risks. In the event ofadverse health outcomes, users are discouraged from seeking help due tosocial stigma and the threat of arrest.

Prohibition encourages drug consumption in unsafe environments and bydangerous means. A good example is intravenous drug use, whose graverisks necessitate sterile equipment and, preferably, medical supervision.




Will driving and working under the in�uence of drugs become morecommon?

Taking drugs without knowing their exact contents is highly dangerous, butcommonplace in the current environment. As a consequence, when a userdoes become unwell, medical professionals often have great di�cultytreating them because they have no idea what they ingested.

Users often avoid seeking medical help or advice because of the negativestigma surrounding drugs, not to mention their legitimate fear of arrest.

There is no evidence for this claim. Laws against driving under thein�uence of drugs would remain in place and rightly so. The same appliesto workplaces.

Enforcement budgets drastically reduce the money available for publichealth spending. In 2010, the Australian government spent $1.1 billion onenforcement, more than double the entire budget for harm reduction,prevention and treatment .[22]

Driving under the in�uence of alcohol is against the law, and publicawareness campaigns have drastically reduced this in recent years,without the need for the prohibition of the substance itself.

Further to placing the drug trade outside regulatory oversight,criminalisation creates a pressure-cooker atmosphere that attracts themost unsuitable actors and encourages their worst possible instincts.Users are at the whim and mercy of an erratic, unscrupulous and oftenviolent criminal culture.




If drugs were legal, would they disrupt developmenting countriesand regions?

Development and Security

The longer these trends continue, the harder it will be to reconstruct theseregions once the drug war ends.

Criminal involvementfurther marginalisespopulations in urgent

need of outside help. Developing economies are trapped between lawenforcement and organised crime; their efforts to develop are liable to beundermined by the widespread violence and dysfunction.

It is criminalisation itself that creates the threat, by placing such a lucrativemarket outside government control and empowering organised crime.More impoverished regions trade many other valuable commodities withnothing approaching this level of dysfunction.

Enforcement in theface of such robustdemand is ineffectiveand often detrimental,wasting resourcesand causing furtherdanger to the public.

In a post-drug-war world, there will be more scope for internationalcooperation and oversight, as well as opportunities for countries tomanage their production.




Can we bear the cost that would be caused by increased drug use?

Money

The secondary effects of the drug war are di�cult to quantify in �nancialterms, but clearly, the staggering waste of human potential adds an evenmore signi�cant burden. In purely economic terms, freeing up theseresources would allow a greater focus on areas such as education andhealthcare, which have proven bene�ts in mitigating the harms of druguse.

In Australia alone, we spend more than $1 billion per year on drug lawenforcement .[23]

Worldwide the �gure comes to more than US$100 billion .[24]

With legulation there are immediate savings from a reduction in policing,judiciary hearings, and incarceration of people from drug-related crimes.There will also be an increase in tax revenue from legalisation, which canbe used for improving access to public health programs, addiction services,and education.




In addition to savings from discontinued law enforcement, legal regulationwould create additional tax revenues likely to dwarf the cost of regulation.For example, following Colorado’s legalisation of cannabis in 2014, thesingle county of Pueblo – which has a population of roughly 160,000 –experienced a net revenue increase in 2016 alone of US$35.6 million,projected to rise to more than US$200 million by 2021 .[27]

The revenue generated by legal regulation could be directed towardeducation, prevention and treatment, further reducing the �nancial andhuman cost of drugs to society.

Legalisation would not necessarily increase overall use. The example ofPortugal’s decriminalisation suggests there would be a small increase insome categories and a decrease in others. But problematic use andadverse health outcomes, which cause the most harm, have decreasedconsiderably since 2001 . Likewise, since Switzerland began its heroin-assisted treatment program in the mid-90s, heroin use – as well as heroin-related deaths, crime and social problems – has fallen substantially .

[25]

[26]




Should we favour the human rights of people who use drugs overordinary citizens?

Human Rights

There is no con�ict between the rights of drug users and other citizens –the choice to take drugs is personal, and need not affect or concern anyoneelse.

In 2018, a United Nations report �nally a�rmed support for drugdecriminalisation and recommended that drug policy should focus onhuman rights as the foremost concern . For too long, we have toleratedwidespread abuses by law enforcement, owing to policies supposedlydesigned to protect us.

[28]

Human rights are universal; whether or not one is a drug user, abuse ofauthority harms us all. When governments utilise moral panic and fearabout drugs to ride roughshod over rule-of-law and due process, thedamage spreads beyond drug users. It emboldens authorities to disregardthe rule of law often for their own ends.




The right to take drugs is not explicitly protected but falls under otherbroadly accepted human rights, such as to privacy, health and freedom ofchoice and belief.

The illicit drug trade has created entire regions effectively governed byorganised crime, whose culture of coercion and violence make humanrights a distant and unrealistic concern.Professor David Nutt, former headof an advisory board to the UK government, memorably wrote that in termsof danger “there is not much difference between horse-riding andecstasy” . As consenting adults, we retain the right to engage in all sortsof harmful and risky activity without government intrusion – why shoulddrug use be any different? As a society, we can disapprove and discouragewithout recourse to law.

[29]




Morality

In Australia, 43 per cent of people report having taken an illicit drug in theirlifetime, including many prominent and respected �gures . Yet we stillallow the ruination of an unlucky few caught by law enforcement.

[30]

If taking drugs is immoral, wouldn’t legalising them encouragedrug use?

The correct response to drug use is to enact a fair and humane policy thatprotects the rights and health of all citizens – prohibition has been a totalfailure in this regard.

Supporting legal regulation has nothing to do with endorsing orencouraging drug use.

In a liberal, tolerant society, we do not use laws to forbid every immoralactivity. Drug-taking is an individual choice that need not interfere withothers. The second-order consequences that do affect society as a wholeare the result of prohibition itself.

Even if drug-taking is immoral, does it need to be considered a crime?There are many activities that some people consider risky, unethical orundesirable, which are not illegal, such as gambling and adultery. While wemay disapprove of them, we do not spend billions every year to criminalisethem. Additionally, in a pluralistic society, there is no agreement on whatconstitutes immoral behaviour which is why law enforcement is ineffectivein enforcing arbitrary moral dictates.




Legal, regulatedmarkets can providetransparency andconsumer choice toanswer ethicalconcerns about supplychains. Manyconsumers wouldprefer an ethicalproduct, but currently,there is no way toreceive it.

Prohibition causes many of the injustices and inequities of the drug trade.For example, Tasmania’s poppy farmers currently supply around half of theworld’s legal narcotics, without any of the problems associated with theillicit trade . Similar farming and production could provide stable andethical supply chains to replace the current criminal market.

[31]

Drugs come from a violent and exploitative criminal market, sopeople should not use them.




Of course, there are good-faith reasons for supporting prohibition, but themounting evidence increasingly shows politicians out-of-step with realityand public opinion. Notable former law enforcement o�cials, includingformer AFP commissioner Mick Palmer, have expressed support for liberaldrug law reform . The Australian public now mostly favoursdecriminalisation of some drugs, which is also the position of the UnitedNations. Legal regulation is a further step along the way that may seemunlikely at this point, but we believe that it will become the logical end goalof reform.

[32]

The main concern of politicians should be to ensure the wellbeing andsecurity of citizens, yet, in supporting prohibition, most have becomeentrenched in a position that delivers the opposite result. Powerful vestedinterests in law enforcement, corrections, big parma and business thatbene�t from the status quo are among the causes of governmentintransigence. Also, the concentration of media ownership in Australiasensationalises and corrupts the national debate.

Politics

How many people support the outright legalisation of drugs?

Support for the legal regulation of drugs is snowballing in Australia andaround the world. This is particularly true for cannabis: in the US, supportfor legalisation increased from 24 per cent to 66 per cent between 1988and 2018 . [33]

Consequently, individual US states and multiple other countries are movingto legalise cannabis. Their example will demonstrate the policy’seffectiveness and potential for application to other psychoactivesubstances.




Will global governments and the United Nations conventions standin the way of reform?

There is a growing wave of former government and law enforcement�gures publicly advocating for decriminalising drug use. They are not beingcensured or vili�ed in the same way they would have only a few yearsprevious. The former Premier of NSW and Foreign Minister the Hon BobCarr and many former politicians now fully support reform.

Sometimes politicians can lead the debate. In Uruguay, President JoseMujica moved ahead of public opinion to legalise cannabis. He speci�callydecried the way that state actors tend to develop a self-interest incontinuing even failed policies: "The state has a number of pathologies,and one of them is that whoever is performing a task starts thinking thatthat task is the centre of the world. Everyone wants to think that their job issocially essential" . [34]

The US has historically been the main force behind the global war on drugs,supporting aggressive enforcement and blocking drug law reforms at theUN. However, due to many US states legalising cannabis and pursuing aharm reduction strategy in response to the opioid crisis, the US is losingauthority and interest. But totalitarian regimes like China and Russia arebecoming more active at the UN in blocking reforms. New Zealand who arehaving a referendum on legalising cannabis in September 2020 and othercountries are showing the world that the prohibition can be challenged bydemocratic means.

The United Nations Chief Executive Board recently settled on supportingdecriminalisation, suggesting that its international treaties are no longerre�ective of any meaningful consensus .[35]

In any case, many member states have already moved forward with liberalreforms that defy these treaties. Governments bear foremostresponsibility to their citizens, and they will need to respond to the harmcaused by prohibition, regardless of the global policy environment.




Australian prison populations havebeen increasing for some time,mainly due to convictions for drugoffences . The weight of illicitdrug seizures has increased by 77per cent since 2009 . Yet rates ofillicit drug consumption and relatedharms have generally trendedupward. At what point do weabandon this faith-based approachto policy-making?

[36]

[37]

With further investment andstricter enforcement, can thewar still be won?

Legal regulation is urgently needed to end this destructive cycle.

We continue to invest billions in enforcement efforts that simply exchangeone criminal for another, often worsening the harm done to society in theprocess.

A persistent argument against ending the war on drugs is that we simplyneed to �ght ‘harder’ or ‘smarter’ to win. Yet the evidence from more thanhalf a century of enforcement shows there is no way to overcome the forceof human nature that fuels the global demand for drugs.

Winning the War

In the US, we have seen aggressive enforcement and sentencing fornonviolent drug offences contribute signi�cantly to mass incarceration –particularly of African-American males – with no clear evidence of areduction in drug use or related harms. The US is not an example of asuccessful war on drugs for Australia to follow.




While it may make sense to decriminalise personal use, don’t westill need to go after suppliers?

Others are not so fortunate: particularly in poorer countries, enforcement ofprohibition is the entire strategy, creating armed con�ict and corruptionthat stands in the way of any meaningful progress.

While this may be true in many countries, including Australia, enforcementshould not be a part of the strategy at all: it is ineffectual. It underminesother measures by wasting precious resources and creating obstacles topeople seeking help and information.

Arrests and seizures give the impression that something is being done toprotect us, yet the harm resulting from drug use continues unabated. Wemust hold lawmakers to account by ceasing to allow authoritarianposturing and extravagant waste to stand in for rational, humane drugpolicies.

There is a comprehensive strategy in place to tackle drugs, whichincludes treatment, prevention and education – not justenforcement.

The economics of the war on drugs means it can never be won becausethe more you succeed in disrupting supply, scarcity results in higher prices,which means more signi�cant pro�t.

Destroying crime syndicates and trade routes increases the price of drugswhile failing to address the demand, which simply creates a pro�t motivefor more criminal activity.

This approach tackles only a small part of the problems caused by drugs,leaving in place a global criminal network that causes untold corruption andviolence.




The only guaranteed way to damage suppliers is to destroy their market.

There still would not be any regulatory oversight of the production andsupply of illicit drugs, which would continue to threaten public health andsecurity.




United Nations O�ce on Drugs and Crime 2020, [7] World Drug Report.

Nutt, D, King, L & Lawrence, L 2010, ‘Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decisionanalysis’, vol. 376, no. 9752, pp. 1558-1565.[3]

The Lancet,

Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission 2020,

[4] National Wastewater DrugMonitoring Program.

[8] Hughes, C and Stevens, A 2010, ‘What can we learn from the Portuguesedecriminalization of illicit drugs?’, British Journal of Criminology, vol. 50, pp. 999-1022.

Transform Drug Policy Foundation, [9] Will Drug Use Rise? Exploring a key concern aboutdecriminalising or regulating drugs.

The Australian Government Department of Health 2018, [10] Smoking Prevalence Rates.

[12] Stam, NC, Gerostamoulos, D, Gerstner-Stevens, J, Scott, N, Smith, K, Drummer, OH &Pilgrim, JL 2018, 'Determining the effective dose of street-level heroin: A new way toconsider �uctuations in heroin purity, mass and potential contribution to overdose',Forensic Science International, vol. 290, pp. 219-226.

The Conversation 2019, [13] How Does MDMA Kill?

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2019, [11] National Drug Strategy HouseholdSurvey.

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction 2011, [6] Looking for aRelationship Between Penalties and Cannabis Use.

United Nations O�ce on Drugs and Crime 2017, [5] World Drug Report.

Nutt, D, King, L & Lawrence, L 2010, ‘Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decisionanalysis’, vol. 376, no. 9752, pp. 1558-1565.[2]

The Lancet,





National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre 2013, [23] Government Drug PolicyExpenditure in Australia 2009/10.

Human Rights Watch 2009, [15] Decades of Disparity: Drug Arrests and Race in theUnited States.

Australian Institute of Criminology 2012, [19] How much crime is drug or alcohol related?Self-reported attributions of police detainees.

Killias, M and Aebi, M 2000,’ The Impact Of Heroin Prescription On Heroin Markets InSwitzerland’, C[20]

rime Prevention Studies, vol. 11, pp. 83-99.

Beller, S 2018, Filter Magazine.[21] The Iron Law of Prohibition,

National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre 2013, [22] Government Drug PolicyExpenditure in Australia 2009/10.

United Nations O�ces on Drugs and Crime 2016, [24] The Economics of the Drug War:Unaccounted costs, lives lost, missed opportunities.

Transform Drug Policy Foundation 2018, [25] Drug Decriminalisation in Portugal: Settingthe record straight.

Killias, M and Aebi, M 2000,’ The Impact Of Heroin Prescription On Heroin Markets InSwitzerland’, C[26]

rime Prevention Studies, vol. 11, pp. 83-99.

Institute of Cannabis Research 2017, [27] Pueblo County Cannabis Impact Study.

Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission 2020,[18] Ninth wastewater report revealsAustralians spend over $11.3 billion a year on drugs.

Sentencing Advisory Council 2013, [17] Comparing Sentencing Outcomes for Koori andNon-Koori Adult Offenders in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria.

Release 2013, [16] The Numbers In Black And White: Ethnic Disparities In The PolicingAnd Prosecution Of Drug Offences In England And Wales.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2020, [14] Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs inAustralia.




Parliament of Australia 2013,[36] Value of a justice reinvestment approach to criminaljustice in Australia.

[29] Nutt, D 2009, ‘Equasy — An overlooked addiction with implications for the currentdebate on drug harms’, Journal of Psychopharmacology, 23(1), pp. 3–5.

Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, [37] Illicit Drug Data Report 2018-2019.

United Nations Development Programme 2019,[35] International Guidelines on HumanRights and Drug Policy.

Go i, Uki 2014, ‘Uruguay's beloved Pepe bows out to spend time with his Beetle andthree-legged dog’, [34] ñ

The Guardian.

McCarthy 2016, Two in Three Americans Now Support Legalizing Marijuana, [33] GallupNews.

Mick Palmer, Alex Wodak, Bob Douglas and Lyn Stephens 2015, [32] Can Australiarespond to drugs more effectively and safely?.

Parliament of Tasmania 2012, [31] Legislative Council Select Committee Inquiry:Tasmanian Poppy Industry.


United Nations Development Programme 2019,[28] International Guidelines on HumanRights and Drug Policy.


Drug Policy Australia is a NGO & registered “Health Promotion” charity whose mission

is to campaign for drug use to be treated as a health, not a criminal issue. We work

reforming Australia’s drug laws and internationally to reform UN drug treaties.

Drug Policy Australia raises awareness of the harms to the public health associated

with the use of psychoactive substances and undertakes education, research and

advocacy of proven harm-reduction strategies to minimise that harm.

Because of our advocacy role in in�uencing government policy we are independently

�nanced by private funding and donations. We do not accept government funding.

Please help us maintain an independent voice in drug policy by giving a tax-

deductible contribution.

For more information about what we do, �nd us at www.drugpolicy.org.au or

follow us on Facebook.

https://www.drugpolicy.org.au/donate

https://www.drugpolicy.org.au/

https://www.facebook.com/DrugPolicyAustralia/

Documents

The Case for Legal Regulation