DRUG PROHIBITION NOT SOLVING ANYTHING

Illegal drugs make gangs bigger, richer and stronger, and overseas
evidence shows that increasing law enforcement only inflates the
situation, argues STEPHEN McINTYRE. He says drug prohibition is at
the root of the problem, and drugs should be regulated instead.

Police claims they have "smashed" attempts by Australian motorcycle
gang the Rebels to set up shop and trade methamphetamine in New
Zealand invoke memories of George W Bush years ago announcing
"mission accomplished" in Iraq.

The war on drugs - like the Iraq conflict - continues to drag on,
seemingly into perpetuity.

New Zealand police admit that, at best, they only ever intercept
between 10 and 20 per cent of all drugs trafficked in the country, so
this latest round of busts won't change a thing.

Speaking on Radio New Zealand several weeks ago, Canterbury
University gang researcher Jarrod Gilbert said there was probably
little authorities could now do to stop the Rebels group expanding here.

Gangs that gain power through violence and drug trafficking love
prohibition because it's good for business and helps make them powerful.

Pragmatically, the fastest way to reduce a gang's ability to do this
is by ending the laws that allow it to happen.

Prohibition works like steroids on organised crime groups, making for
a potentially lethal combination that New Zealand doesn't need. Last
year, the International Center for Science in Drug Policy (ICSDP)
found that, contrary to expectation, drug prohibition contributes to
drug- market violence and higher rates of gun violence.

The report Effects of Drug Law Enforcement on Drug-Related Violence
concluded that: "From an evidence-based public policy perspective and
based on several decades of available data, the existing evidence
strongly suggests that drug-law enforcement contributes to gun
violence and high homicide rates and that increasingly sophisticated
methods of disrupting organisations involved in drug distribution
could unintentionally increase violence.

"Since drug prohibition has not achieved its stated goal of reducing
drug supply, alternative models for drug control might need to be
considered if drug-related violence is to be meaningfully reduced."

If the Rebels are involved in making and trafficking of illegal
drugs, then it's no surprise they see our country as ripe for the
picking: 400,000 adult Kiwis are current users of cannabis. In
addition, New Zealand has the highest teenage drug use in the world -
one result of our criminalisation policy that prohibits but does not prevent.

As any alcohol marketing executive well knows, the teenage market is
the ripest of them all; so if the Rebels consider our country a great
business opportunity, then all thanks to prohibition.

Were our Government serious about keeping overseas organised crime
out, it would regulate and control drugs rather than make them illegal.

The alternative - maintaining the prohibition status quo - is truly
worrying. According to the ICSDP: "Research has shown that by
removing key players from the lucrative illegal drug market, drug law
enforcement may have the perverse effect of creating significant
financial incentives for other individuals to fill this vacuum by
entering the market."

New Zealand's drug markets are not new; they are well- established.
Gilbert warned that rival gangs could be drawn into turf wars as the
Rebels take their share of what's already here.

Police Minister Judith Collins should look at Mexico for a terrible
example of turf warfare over drugs. Last year, there were 12,000
deaths there related to turf wars and government attacks on traffickers.

Recently, the former President of Mexico, Vincente Fox, called for
the legalisation and regulation of the cannabis market, as an
alternative to the appalling carnage in his country.

New Zealand's national drug policy rests on "three pillars" of harm
minimisation: demand reduction, supply control, and problem limitation.

Given our high drug-use rates, demand reduction clearly isn't
working. Police put their focus on reducing supply, but admit the
drugs seized are only a fraction of what is produced.

Their attempts remain a perpetual game of cat and mouse, demanding
greater time and resources, which must be pulled away from other crime.

In stark contrast, overseas experience demonstrates that policies
that reverse prohibition are effective in reducing demand for drugs -
particularly among young people.

In Portugal, where it hasn't been a crime to possess small amounts of
any drug for personal use since 2001, drug use has declined 25 per
cent among 13 to 15-year-olds, and 22 per cent among 16 to 18-year-olds.

In New Zealand between 1998 and 2001, the number of 15 to
17-year-olds who admitted using cannabis 10 or more times a month
increased 300 per cent.

A year ago, Prime Minister John Key told Paul Holmes: "I don't think
you can eradicate drugs from your community . . . any politician who
tells you they can do that is either being dishonest or a bit deluded."

Key is absolutely right, and the Government needs to understand that
a regulated, adults-only, taxable market for cannabis and other
low-risk drugs is the safest alternative for our future.