LOSING SIGHT OF THE REAL KILLER

THE concerted campaign being run by the Liberal Party and anti-drug groups
opposing the Government's cannabis law reform legislation has reached a
crescendo.

We now have conservative independents jumping on the bandwagon and the
National Party abandoning its own policy platform to avoid the
"soft-on-drugs" tag.

The mainstream media, who only a short time ago were supportive of the
implementation of Drug Summit recommendations like this, have turned and
are attacking the Government for pushing ahead with these reforms.

The dominant argument being run is that cannabis is, supposedly, a
dangerous and harmful drug and therefore must remain completely illegal -
even if that means potentially ruining thousands of lives with a criminal
conviction for the possession and personal use of the drug. There is no
evidence to suggest giving someone a criminal conviction reduces drug use,
but there is ample evidence it will significantly increase the likelihood
of further involvement in the criminal justice system.

Another argument is that these reforms will further normalise drug use in
our communtiies. This in a society that has a culture revolving around the
consumption of "legal" drugs such as tobacco and alchol.

If we are to ever rid ourselves of the scourge of drug abuse, then all
drugs need to be legislated on the basis of their relative harm and danger
to society.

So, if the Liberal and National parties are so committed to truly
addressing the issue of drug abuse, they should support a review of the
legal status of the most deadly and, arguably, most addictive and
normalised drug of abuse - tobacco.

I am sure any decision they make will not be swayed by the vast sums of
money that the major political parties receive in direct funding from
tobacco companies, or the billions that Treasury coffers receive from
taxation on tobacco products. The decision by the Liberal Party a few
years ago to let a major tobacco company sponsor its national conference is
a decision I'm sure they now regret.

Despite the taxation revenue governments receive from tobaccoo, it still
does not come close to the costs associated with its use anbd abuse. Go
into any oncology ward and see how many people are having their lives
shortened through their tobacco addiction. Go ask any welfare agency how
may people seek emergency support for food or other life essentials, yet
are able to afford cigarettes.

Then we come to the issue of normalising drug use. There is not another
addictive drug that is so openly consumed. Children are exposed to tobacco
smoking every day - in public, at home or via the media.

A recent survey of tobacco retailers showed 70 per cent were prepared to
sell cigarettes to under-age children. No wonder so many children are
drawn to addictive drugs like tobacco when it is so readily available and
its use so widespread and accepted.

The expectation that organised crime will step in to fill the void created
by making tobacco ultimately illegal is a minor one. Strict prohibition
backed by a zero-tolerance approach to law enforcement is the preferred
model for illicit drug control of the conservative parties and anti-drug
groups. With enough resources provided to law-enforcement agencies -
backed by still criminal penalties for those that use, supply or produce
tobacco - the use and supply of tobacco would disappear within a short
space of time.

What to do about the significant number of tobacco addicts is a relatively
simple question. One measure could be similar to the heroin trial
model. Confirmed addicts, who have tried several times to kick their
habit, get a prescription for tobacco - but only after being assessed by
trained medical professionals and offered treatment and
rehabilitation. "Smoking galleries" will need to be established so addicts
can smoke without fear of prosecution.

This may seem a radical solution, and it may even be unpopular electorally,
but so was the introduction of seat-belt laws. That law has since saved
thousands of lives and billions of dollars in medical costs and lost
productivity.

The same rationale applies to tobacco. Whilst there may be little that can
be done to help those already addicted, by preventing future generations
taking up this deadly habit, the savings in lives and medical costs alone
will be staggering. Tobacco accounts for around 80 per cent of all
drug-related deaths, whilst there has yet to be a single death recorded
that has been directly attributed to cannabis use alone.

This measure will also provide a far bigger long-term boon for Treasury
than the short-term tax revenue it currently gets from the sale of this
highly dangerous and deadly drug of addiction. Health budgets, constantly
under pressure, will have a huge burden lifted from them.

I propose that with cross-party support another Drug Summit be held, this
time solely focused on the legal drugs of addiciton, and that any
recommendations forthcoming be implemented without delay.

So Messrs Barnett and Trenorden, are you prepared to tackle the broader
issue of drug abuse head-on, or do you prefer to take a hypocritical stance
for short-term political gain and only propose that some psychoactive drugs
be made illegal?

Jason Meotti is State president of the Australian Drug Law Reform
Foundation (WA) and chairman of the WA Community Drug Summit's working group.