LEGALISATION NOT AN ANSWER TO DRUGS

NIALL YOUNG claims (Letters, 18/9) that regulating alcohol, tobacco,
gambling and prostitution does not condone these activities. He
proposes that cannabis should also be regulated, which means that this
hallucinogenic drug be legalised. This is also proposed by Dr
Christine Sharp and the Greens.

Mr Young, with other drug law reformists, claims that strict
prohibition has not worked, that the harm is caused by prohibition.
The Australian Parent Movement of WA is adamant that holding the line
on cannabis does work with a public education campaign similar to Quit.

In sensible drug/health practice it is recognised that the two main
reasons for an epidemic of drug abuse are availability and a general
perception that the substance used is not harmful. Both these factors
are endemic in WA.

In 1995 the WA Police Service adopted a strategy of harm reduction;
cannabis offences were dealt with by using the police officer's own
discretion to lay a charge. This was to comply with the shift from
the drug law enforcement policy to the Ministry of Health. Is this
prohibition?

The APM stance is endorsed by The West Australian report (18/9) that
said a study by Victorian road safety organisation VicRoads suggested
one in 900 Victorian drivers are under the influence of drugs -
one-third the number under the influence of alcohol.

Therefore, the legalisation of alchol has caused more harm. This does
not mean that official sanctions against illicit drugs should be removed.

Further, Mr Young cites European evidence that decriminalising
cannabis has not affected the growth of cannabis. His data is
outdated and presumptuous. The most recent European report concluded
that the average age of Netherlands drug users was becoming younger
and drug-taking is common among schoolchildren. And that a sharp rise
in sales of hard drugs in Amsterdam has challenged the view that
tolerance of cannabis frees police to combat the trade in heroin and
cocaine.

Tobacco companies have known for decades that cigarettes are addictive
and deadly. In 1999, with the threat of further litigation, the
industry acknowledged the harmful effects of smoking, thus hoping to
minise future payouts. Would it be responsible if governments allowed
this to happen with cannabis?

Of course, there will always be those who use cannabis and want their
drug to be easily available. This doesn't make it right.

Geraldine Mullins, spokeswoman, APM of WA, Geraldton