WE NEED A SCIENTIFIC, STATISTICAL APPROACH TO DRUGS

In Britain, there is a proposal to assess drugs based on the risk
they pose, writes Catherine Deveny.

I HAVEN'T taken a lot of drugs in my time, but, like most people my
age (I'm 39), I tried almost all of them when I was in my 20s. I've
taken less than most of my mates because drugs didn't do that much
for me. And because I'm a tight-arse. These days I'm fairly dull. I
don't need to drink to have a good time, I just need to be in bed by
9.30 with a copy of The Monthly.

I'm not saying that drug taking is right or wrong, I'm saying that
recreational drugs are a part of life that has been with us for
centuries and is here to stay. The situation is unavoidable,
although it can be regulated. But we can do more about damage
control. My mates in their early 20s tell me that "only bogans
drink" and they prefer to take recreational drugs on a
Saturday night. They mention drink-driving laws, the
violence associated with drunks and calorie intake. They are
not concerned about the long-term effects of drug use. Twenty-two,
bullet-proof and "it won't happen to me". But the young folk do
respond to balanced information and the experiences of their peers,
both negative and positive.

Young people experiment with drugs. My kids will take drugs. What am
I going to tell them? I don't know yet. But truth will be a large
part of it. There'll be a policy that we will pick them up or pay
for a cab from wherever, whenever if they are not fit to drive or if
things get out of hand. No questions asked.

And then there are drugs in sport. We all agree that it's just not
cricket for people who take performance-enhancing drugs to compete
against people who don't. Runner Marion Jones' recent confession
that she was off her head on rocket fuel was too little, too late.
She should have been fessing up before they put the Olympic gold
medals around her neck.

There should be two leagues of sporting competition. Clean and
drugged. If athletes want to push themselves to human limits with
the assistance of pharmaceuticals, bionics and blood transfusions,
go for gold. But you compete on a level playing field against the
other mega 'roid rage humans. If you want to play clean, play clean.
But if you're in the clean team and you get sprung doing drugs,
you're off to the drugged league. Forever. And I know which league
most spectators would prefer to watch.

The Federal Government wants all Australian elite athletes tested
for illicit recreational drug use anywhere, any time. And I don't
understand why.

If it is about athletes being role models, why are other role models
such as musicians, actors, politicians, writers, doctors and lawyers exempt?

Performance-enhancing drugs? Sure, test away. Zero tolerance. But
recreational? If the Government wants to limit recreational drug
use, which it doesn't, they'd be legalising the stuff. They are
content to give the public an illusion of a "war on drugs", with
reports of the drug busts in the news making it look like they
are doing a good job. What they are doing is trying to look as if
they are putting out a bushfire with a spray bottle. The Government
is soft on drugs, heavy on hypocrisy and piss-weak on alcohol.

Recreational drugs are not our biggest problem. Alcohol is far more
addictive and destructive. And we all know it. Drink-driving, family
trauma and alcohol-fuelled violence are far bigger problems than
recreational drugs. Tobacco causes 40 per cent of hospital
illnesses, while alcohol is blamed for more than half of all visits
to emergency rooms. Yet if someone dies because of recreational
drugs, it makes the front page.

Early this year British medical journal The Lancet published a
landmark study that found alcohol and tobacco were more dangerous
than some illegal drugs such as marijuana and ecstasy. They assessed
the drugs on three levels: "the physical harm to the user, the
drug's potential for addiction, and the impact on society of drug use".

They questioned the scientific rationale for Britain's drug
classification system and called for "a new classification of
harmful substances, based on the actual risks posed to society". And
we all know that's not going to happen.

Some recreational drugs are worse than others. And others are less
addictive and harmful than alcohol. I am calling for an approach to
drugs in our society that is scientifically and statistically based.
The more damage a drug is causing to the user and the
community, the tighter the control should be. And that includes alcohol.

According to Professor David Nutt, the bloke who ran The Lancet drug
study: "All drugs are dangerous. Even the ones people know and love
and use every day." Cheers.