Drug_Reform_Essay

Illicit drugs are a significant issue in Australia which have led to the development of a number of strategies which aim to eliminate their possession, use and supply. The policy response to drug related crimes includes supply reduction, such as border security, demand reduction, such as school programs and public awareness campaigns, and harm minimisation strategies, for example injecting rooms and methadone clinics. Statistics and media reports give an indication on how effective these remedies have been, and they show how supply and demand reduction has been ultimately ineffective, however, harm minimisation has been effective to a moderate extent. Australia has a total prohibition on a number of substances, as outlined by the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act (NSW, 1985); however this has not stopped Australia from having one of the highest amounts of drug use in the developed world. According to the 2004 ‘National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS)’, 38% of Australians aged 14 years and over had used any illicit drug at least once in their lifetime. This creates a number of issues including drug related crime, with one in ten prisoners being imprisoned for drug-related offences (ABS, 2006), diseases such as HIV/Aids as the result of unsterile needles being used by injecting drug users, and a substantial number of drug-induced deaths. A report entitled ‘Trends in Drug Use and Related Harms in Australia, 2001-2011’, states that there are 2 deaths per hundred opiate users per annum. This is relatively high compared with legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco with 0.22 (10 times less) and 0.3 (7 times less) deaths per hundred, respectively. An article from ‘The Australian’, written in 2011, states that “one of the main benefits of the war (on drugs) has been to serve as a deterrent that helps people from starting to consume drugs”. This is evidently not the case, as seen in statistics expressing the significant numbers of drug users. The existing measures that aim to eliminate drug use, through supply and demand reduction, include legislation, such as the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act (NSW, 1985), the Customs Act (Cth, 1901), school programs and public awareness campaigns. Possession, use and supply are offences in the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act (NSW, 1985), under sections 10, 12 and 3, respectively. The ineffectiveness of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act acting as a deterrent for people wanting to consume drugs can be seen in the NDSHS which states that from 2004 to 2010, the percentage of people 14 and over who had used marijuana rose from 33.6% to 35.4%. The Customs Act (Cth, 1901) is Australia’s main piece of border security legislation, and lists “Drugs and Narcotics” as a prohibited item, under Section 50 of the Act. The ‘Trends in Drug Use and Related Harms in Australia, 2001-2011’ report states, “the weight in heroin seizures detected at the Australian border significantly increased between 2005/06 and 2009/10”. While this means that more drugs are being detected, which is a positive; it also shows the ineffectiveness of the Customs Act in preventing people from attempting to bring illegal drugs into Australia. School programs such as “Drug ARM (Awareness, Rehabilitation and Management)” and public awareness such as the “National Drugs Campaign” are demand reduction strategies which try to prevent drug use by educating people on the negative effects. Once again, evidence of the ineffectiveness of these can be seen in statistics. For example, despite illicit drug use declining between 1998 and 2007, 2010 had shown a significant increase in use. This increase is primarily driven by an increase in cannabis use (from 9.1% in 2007 to 10.3% in 2010) and non-medical pharmaceutical use (0.2% to 0.4%) (NDSHS). In terms of harm minimisation, strategies include the injecting room in Kings Cross, and methadone clinics which exist in a number of places in NSW. Harm reduction accepts that demand and supply prevention will never be completely effective, and if people are involved in risky activities, the damage they cause to themselves and society should be minimised. The 2010 SMH article entitled, “State Approves Heroin Injecting Room: NSW” states that by April of 2010, 12,000 individuals had used the centre, and since the centre opened, ambulance call-outs to the area have dropped 80% and the number of syringes and needles left on the street had halved. Methadone Clinics provide methadone to heroin abusers, in order to get them to reduce or stop use. According to the “National Opioid Annual Data Collection”, in 2009, approximately 30,000 Australians were undertaking methadone treatment. Harm minimisation effectiveness can be seen by looking at the number of deaths caused by heroin, which reduced from 1,116 in 1999 to 374 in 2005 (ABS) and the NDSHS states that there have been increases (particularly among older age groups) in numbers of presenting to hospital for problems associated with cannabis use between 2001 and 2008. Most arguments for reform today come from the harm reduction perspective. It is suggested that the legal prohibition of drugs creates crime, and makes drug-taking more physically dangerous. Prohibition also requires significant public expenditure without preventing significant levels of problematic drug use in the community. It is evident that drug reform in Australia is yet to be, and possibly will never be, fully effective in eliminating illicit drug possession, use and supply. The existing supply and demand reducing legislation and other strategies have been largely ineffective in achieving their goals, with drug use in Australia being amongst the highest in the developed world. Harm minimisation has been effective to a moderate extent, as it accepts that demand and supply reduction will never be completely effective, and if people are going to be using illegal drugs, the harm caused should be minimised as much as possible. By primarily looking at illicit drug use a social or medical issue, as opposed to a legal issue, harm minimisation has had a positive impact in reducing drug-induced deaths and getting people help for their problem. As such, it can be said that supply and demand reduction has been ineffective in Australia, however harm minimisation has been effective to a moderate extent.