THE CASE FOR DECRIMINALISATION

What simply does not work is the system of severe penalties for
producing, transhipping and selling substances deemed illegal.

During my first four years as a National MP I initiated four policy
papers, three of which were ultimately embraced as party policy.

But the fourth, to legalise drugs, failed miserably.

By the time I articulated my views on this subject in my second book,
The Beat to the Beehive, I had wimped out under internal National
Party pressure and merely articulated a case to study, in depth, the
consequences of legalising cannabis, and to consider changes in that
direction.

Privately I argued all dope should be decriminalised and now, 10 years
later, I believe the evidence I gathered is as valid as ever. My case
in 1990 was based on research done during my last few years in the
police. As an inspector and university student I had high-level access
to police data and an academic interest in drug crime.

The research suggested that perhaps 50 per cent of all crime in New
Zealand was drug related.

The data - which I collected in the Auckland police cells and
extrapolated as a hypothesis across the country - covered arrests for
importing; supply; possession for supply; thefts, burglaries and
robberies for drugs or money to buy drugs. Possession for self-use
brought up the rear.

It was obvious that a high percentage of serious crime - such as bank
robberies, kidnappings and serious assaults - had a drug-related theme.

Gangs needed ready cash to make down-payments on large imported
caches, addicts needed cash to feed their habits. Then there was gang
warfare over territorial distribution rights and retribution over
payments not made.

It occurred to me that the police workload might be reduced
substantially if the drugs people fought over, killed for, and died
protecting, were dispensed through government-licensed outlets - just
like alcohol.

It would be possible to establish the names of all who entered
government-licensed stores to make legal purchase of substances we
presently deem illegal.

This record of "users", those who used hard drugs such as heroin,
could be placed on a register for treatment and counselling from
health professionals.

Drug addiction, like alcoholism, is a sickness. It should not be
treated as a crime - although penalties for abuse in a public place
would be part of the armoury of the state to protect other citizens
from those who took drugs lawfully but caused a nuisance. This is what
happens now with alcohol.

The question of young people being vulnerable is no more potent a
concern with drugs than with alcohol.

Alcohol has an impact on perhaps 75 per cent of crime, and much road
carnage. It is not good for your health, nor does it have spin-off
benefits for the community.

Yet we as a society tolerate continued advertising of alcohol as a
desirable cultural characteristic - and why? I suggest it is the power
of the brewery lobby and the recognition that prohibition simply won't
work.

The best way to control alcohol use by young people is not to make it
unobtainable but to impose draconian penalties for misuse,
particularly where the effects of misuse are manifest in a public
place or impact adversely on others.

Zero tolerance with drink-driving for people under 28 is my start
point. Overnight in a police cell for street drunkenness is another
bottom line.

The rationale being: abuse of a substance lawfully available is where
the penalties should fall and not on supply or possession, which
effectively stimulates a black market and underworld.

This same rationale I suggest could be applied to drug
use.

What simply does not work is the system of severe penalties for
producing, transhipping and selling substances deemed illegal. Whether
it be the death penalty, life imprisonment or examples of many past
and present profile cases where mere "mules" let alone people higher
up the supply chain are imprisoned in foreign jails with terrifying
reputations.

All these and other attempts to prohibit possession and use of drugs
through a punitive approach to the supply line have failed.

Instead, the policy has spawned drug barons with the wealth to own
private armies which deliver terror to the doorsteps of politicians,
judges and police and by this corruption govern entire states de facto.

At the same time, the impact of the drug trade on the world economy is
massive.

Recently, former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan
acknowledged that the international war on drugs had failed.

Others suggested that the international community (a euphemism for
"someone else - not me") revisit the question of legalisation.

It is my contention that the pain to society of trying to protect a
minority from themselves is disproportionate to the benefits to society.