LEAST-BAD DRUGS POLICY IS NEEDED

The Anglican Primate's proposal goes only so far; a better solution would be
to decriminalise heroin and other so-far illegal drugs, writes STEPHEN
DAWSON.

IN ONE respect Dr Peter Carnley, the Primate of the Anglican Church in
Australia, has come three-quarters of the way towards the least-bad drugs
policy. But three-quarters is likely to cause yet more harm, while failing
to provide much good.

Dr Carnley, shocked at the 42 heroin overdose deaths in Western Australia
this year, proposes the establishment of not only safe injecting rooms, but
the supply of relatively safe heroin. In this he implicitly recognises one
of the biggest problems that faces Australia due to drugs, or more
pertinently, due to our governments responses to drugs.

The problem Dr Carnley hopes to address is that of avoidable death. The
number of overdoses annually in Australia is rapidly approaching 1000. But
those people are not killed by heroin. They are killed by heroin of
uncertain quality, because our governments have outlawed the substance.

Why don't people keel over, stone cold dead, after consuming several glasses
of wine at dinner parties? Because they know (whether byprinted figures on
the label or from past experience) the amount of ethanol the wine contains.
They are not unknowingly presented with vodka proof-levels in wine, because
alcohol is legal. It is worthwhile for wine makers to develop reputations of
quality. If some rogue enters the market with dangerous wine, he or she will
soon be sued out of existence.

You can't sue your heroin dealer for a shoddy product, whether it be cut
with dangerous substances or unexpectedly pure. If you buy something illegal
there is, at law, no enforcable contract. More importantly, anyone operating
an illegal business has very little incentive to establish a good
reputation.

A business requires a reputation only if it has some sense that it will
still be operating a year or five into the future. With the possibility of
closure by the forces of law forever present, no operator at any level of
the heroin supply chain feels inclined to make such an investment.

Dr Carnley's proposal would go some way towards addressing this. Existing
drug addicts in areas served by injecting rooms and heroin supply depots
would no longer face injectable Russian roulette with each shot. But what
about those who live elsewhere, or casual heroin users who otherwise conduct
normal lives? Their supplies will still come from the street.

MEANWHILE, with reduced demand, prices would fall even faster. Illegal
suppliers would increase their efforts to expand into new markets: younger
children who would without a doubt be ineligible for free
government-supplied heroin. Anyway, do we actually consider it the State's
role to supply dangerous substances to people to use for dangerous purposes?

What would do the most harm to a young person's life? Good quality, and
cheap, heroin of known strength? Or a term in prison?

Aside from those who die from drug overdoses, thanks to drug prohibition,
even more people's lives are greatly harmed by the crime associated with
illegal drugs. These are both the criminals and their victims, and sometimes
both (those killed as a result of the robust business practices that illegal
trade entails). The suffering of crime victims is obvious. The criminals
suffer through arrest and imprisonment. Some have done no more than engage
in a trade deemed illegal. Most have committed real crimes.

But heroin use does not turn one automatically into a criminal. It is the
illegality of heroin that makes it expensive. Business expenses associated
with the trade include the payment of bribes, the use of inefficient
distribution channels, and the loss of staff and customers to jail. Because
it is so expensive many addicts are driven to crime. Somewhat more than half
of those in prison are there for drug offences or general crime committed in
the pursuit of money for drugs.

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, thanks to
its War on Drugs, somewhat reminiscent of the Vietnam War, its supporters
count bodies while overlooking the insurgency -- falling prices of illegal
drugs and the destruction of young people's lives.

Dr Carnley's suggestion goes part of the way. But it is not the answer.
Half-hearted decriminalisation, leaving the quality problem untouched, is
not the answer either.

The least-bad solution is to legalise the possession, use, supply, importing
and manufacturing of currently illegal drugs. More people may well use
heroin and other illegal drugs as a result, but with the trade operating in
the open economy, subject to legal protections, at least they won't be
inadvertently dying, or robbing our homes to feed the habit. And they will
be free to seek help without fear of imprisonment.