Drug Law Reform in Australian Politics

Drug law reform is on the world’s lips.

Alright, so I’m exaggerating a little bit. But not as much as you might first think.
Around the world, countries are talking about approaching drug law from novel positions and admitting that the rhetoric of the ‘War on Drugs’ is ineffective, costly and creates more problems than it solves.
Australia was once a leader on drug law reform, with the Hawke Government championing harm reduction strategies for injecting users starting in 1985. These policies directly lead to Australia curtailing its HIV problems far more so than other nations around the world. Unfortunately, Australia started to lag behind the pursuit of evidence-based policy with the Howard Government introducing a tough on drugs style approach in 1997, and putting Major Brian Watters of the Salvation Army and largely far right-wing Christian organisation Drug Free Australia, in charge of the newly formed Australian National Council on Drugs, which adopted a “Tough on Drugs Strategy”.  Howard was quoted in Parliament saying, “It is no secret that Major Watters adopts the view, as do many others, including myself, that the policy of zero tolerance of drug taking in this country is a wholly credible policy and a policy that ought to be pursued more vigorously by government.”

16 years later we are still seeing successive governments pursuing drug policies that have been proven time and time again to be economically nonviable, ethically unsettling and largely based on generationally repetitive rhetoric, which has very little application to reality. The Victorian Government’s “Reducing the alcohol and drug toll 2013-2017” strategy, released earlier this year was a particular eye-opener to me. I didn’t realise that the term ‘harm minimisation’ doesn’t always mean reducing the actual harms associated with drug abuse. Minister for Mental Health Mary Wooldridge notes that, “Many Victorians drink in a way that is both responsible and enjoyable, and the retail, hospitality and tourism industries that supply alcohol are an important component of Melbourne’s reputation as the world’s most liveable city,” and then goes on to make the comment, “But misuse of alcohol and use of drugs affect our health, families, economy, criminal justice system and, most importantly, the lives of too many Victorians.”
Harm minimisation from Wooldridge’s perspective, and undoubtedly many other Liberal MPs (and probably ALP MPs too) equates to getting rid of ALL illicit drug use, even though just a paragraph earlier she noted that most users of one of the most dangerous drugs to individual and society, alcohol, is largely used responsibly and enjoyably. Through her ideological lenses, any use of an illicit substance is considered abuse.

The position relies on a completely arbitrary ideological approach to illicit substances. These substances vary greatly and do not all have much in common, other than their legal status. To lump them all together and treat them equally is ludicrous, unscientific and ignorant. I recently read an interesting article by Professor Desmond Manderson of the ANU College of Law and College of Arts and Social Sciences, entitled, “Possessed: Drug Policy, Witchcraft and Belief”.
It seems that the idea of devils and angels, Heaven and Hell are still ingrained in our cultural sub-conscious. But we’ve secularised it somewhat and changed the language slightly.
“The mythology of drugs dramatizes what it supposedly looks like to lose one’s identity, responsibility, and agency… They (addicts) become a ‘slave’ in just that sense of being no longer the subject of their own destiny but an object without will. And the proof of this slavery – its undeniable physical evidence – is made present, once and for all, by their possession of the drugs that possess them… In the modern world, thousands of men and women are imprisoned in order to save them from the demons and desires that inhabit them. The lucky ones are only detoxified.”

It’s not hard to notice this ridiculous position once you start to look for it. It’s everywhere. In the media, in government, coming out of your friend’s and family’s mouths. The idea that a drug can “take over” someone’s life, control them and lead them down a path of destruction and eventual death is integral to the moral position. Recent stories surrounding the use of synthetically manufactured novel drugs highlight this best, such as the now infamous story of the Miami face eater, who was reported to be on ‘bath salts’, but later found to have only trace amounts of THC in his blood. I’m not trying to belittle the difficulties that the relative few addicts have. Certainly the abuse of anything can result in negative consequence, and certain substances are particularly prone to abuse. But in speaking with those who work in alcohol and drug treatment services, they avoid the language popular with the public and media of possession by a drug, instead noting the myriad of difficulties that an addict has in their life, many stemming to long before drug abuse was part of their repertoire.

The vast majority of those who choose to use illicit substances are not problematic. As with all things, there are inherent risks involved, but people are mostly very good at avoiding major risks. Of course, this could be made much easier if good, real information were distributed, rather than rhetorical propaganda; if the markets for these substances were legalised and regulated to ensure quality control; if the criminal black market elements were removed and if real harm minimisation strategies were prioritised and pursued.

Around the world, governments are starting to accept the growing evidence and logic that a new strategy is required on currently illicit substances.  One of the most novel approaches is a bill currently moving through New Zealand parliament.  Though it will not legalise or regulate any currently illicit substance, the New Zealand government has accepted that the growing number of novel psychoactive substances are not going away, and is creating a regulatory model which aims to test and regulate the market for these substances in much the same way that alcohol, tobacco and medicines are regulated, creating a new category of substance called, ‘low-risk psychoactive substances’. This model looks like the right sort of direction for a model which re-regulates many currently illicit substances, making them available, safer and removing the criminal element while collecting tax dollars.

There are growing murmurs in Australian politics of change.  With the federal election in September and growing support for minor parties, it seems likely that we may see change discussed in parliament.  The Australian Sex Party notes in their drugs policy, “The Australian Sex Party recognises that attempts to regulate and prevent drug use through a criminal framework have been unsuccessful; the war on drugs has failed. We advocate for a new approach to drugs, which will replace a criminal framework with a community health and administrative response.”  Although decriminalisation does not address the significant supply-side problems, such as international crime syndicates and general market supply, it is a small step in the right direction, admitting that while drug use is still considered problematic, it is not considered a criminal issue.  The recently launched Drug Law Reform party notes in its policies, “Stop the senseless harm caused by the failed prohibition policies, which criminalize ordinary Australians for personal drug use… Encourage political and community debate on alternatives to the current drug laws… Call for a royal commission into organized crime and corruption associated with the drug trade.” 

At the first public meeting of Drug Law Reform Australia in Melbourne, party leader Greg Chipp quoted philosopher John Stuart Mills’ quote on liberty of a human as core to his philosophy on drug use, “Over one’s mind and over one’s body, the individual is sovereign.”

Other parties, such as various libertarian parties advocate similar policies, from decriminalisation to legalisation and regulation.  There are also calls from a range of current and ex-authorities, such as police officers, lawyers, health professionals, economists and politicians calling for drug law reform, along with reports such as the Australia 21 report in to alternative to prohibition.

Change is in the wind, but it requires your help.  Learn about the political parties advocating change.  Talk to them.  Talk to your local politicians and speak candidly and honestly to the media.  You are the harbinger of change.  Come out of your drugs closet and speak to your friends and family about your own use as a relatively normal, nice, productive member of society.  Break the taboos.

In Lak’ech Ala K’in