NO SILVER BULLET FOR DRUG ABUSE

Debate about drugs is often a confused mixture of unsubstantiated
claims, misinformation, and some facts.

Angela Shanahan's article last week "No-one is an island in the fight
against drugs" (CT September 18, p B5) is no exception, claiming that
Canberra has Australia's highest level of drug use. She recommends
supplanting harm minimisation with absolute zero tolerance as adopted
by Sweden and New York to drastically reduce drug use and crime.

Yes, Canberra has a drug problem, but it is on a par with the rest of
Australia. The 2001 Household Survey stated 18.1 percent of the ACT
population recently used illicit drugs (mainly cannabis) compared to
Australia's 16.9 per cent.

Sweden despite its policy of "a drug free society" states Henrik Tham,
Professor of Criminology at Stockholm University, has clearly not been
achieved. Quite the reverse; by comparison with the period when this
goal was formulated, the available indicators show that drug
consumption has increased. This increase in the use and abuse of drugs
has taken place in spite of a substantial expansion in control measures.

Equally disturbing is that those like Tham, who question Swedish drug
policy, are counted among the "forces of evil", a position that is
becoming familiar in Australia.

Zero tolerance in New York has not solved its crime problem. In 2000
the crime rate per 100,000 of population was 3099, about the same as
for 1965. The rise and fall pattern during that period is the same
pattern as nearby New Jersey and some other states. Thus events in New
York are not unique to that state nor its policies.

New York's zero tolerance has had many innocent victims. As a result
of no needle and syringe programs (NSP), by 1996 New York City had
reported 17,000 pediatric AIDS cases. NSW, with approximately the same
population, had experienced 42. (Wodak & Penny, 19/8/1997).

The USA pays a high cost for zero tolerance with the world's highest
imprisonment rate diverting resources away from hospitals and schools.

Regulation, instead of prohibition has demonstrated some successes.
For example, Switzerland's heroin prescription showed inter alia
substantial reductions in drug related deaths and crime. The
Netherlands with its regulated coffee shops, has an enviably low
cannabis usage.

Proponents for zero tolerance rarely identify how they would
accomplish their goals nor the consequences. For the ACT this would
mean:

o No NSP o No pharmacotherapy maintenance programs eg methadone
maintenance o Seeking to jail or send to compulsory treatment all
ACT drug users (there are about 54,000 in the ACT) o Stopping any
advice resembling harm minimisation because it might send the wrong
message or promote drug use o Expelling children from school if
caught with drugs.

The consequences would be serious. A major increase in blood borne
viruses and increased health budget costs would result without an NSP.

Increased arrests and incarceration, whether in prison or
rehabilitation centres would add substantially to taxpayers' burdens
with few effective outcomes.

Lack of harm minimisation advice would cost lives, perhaps like the
young Sydney girl who used ecstasy but died because friends did not
know what to do and were too frightened to call for help when she got
into trouble.

And some schools in Sydney, urged on by the Howard Government's zero
tolerance in schools policy, did actually expel students for drug
possession - leaving them excluded from their community and shoved
into life undereducated.

Absolute zero tolerance is neither sensible nor affordable, and if
Sweden and New York are accurate examples, would not leave the ACT a
"drug free island". Adoption of a policy that deliberately targets 18
percent of the population to be jailed or abandoned to serious disease
or death is unthinkable.

Why should harm minimisation, a principle applied across all other
human endeavors, be excluded from illicit drugs?

Perhaps such draconian means are intended to eliminate all drug users
because, like the 15th century Inquisitions, it will make our society
better?

The side effects of a policy of zero tolerance would be far worse than
it purport to cure, but fails.

Brian McConnell

Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform