Nice article, Mr Mendes, which sensibly and dispassionately outlines the main elements of the Greens' policies towards illicit drugs, and of the cynical and tawdry efforts by some conservative parties to score political points by misrepresenting them.

Undoubtedly, this thread will attract comments of that ilk from some of our 'usual suspects' who support such dishonest political tactics, or who believe despite all the available evidence that recreational drug use can be controlled by the enforcement of draconian laws.

I completely agree.

I've often thought that the Government that can get the message right and decriminalise drugs - or have them controlled similar to how methadone is, will never lose an election.

With all the cash they'd save on fighting 'crime', i.e, desperate junkies wanting their next fix (who do do terrible things to get it, but wouldn't if it was made available to them) they could fund education, health, and still have billions left over.

Drugs do harm people, kill people, ruin families, ruin lives, and all the rest of it.

If, however, the only negative associated with using drugs was the actual using of the drug, not all the nonsense to get it, all those who one hurts in that process, and so on, it would be easier to remedy.

One wouldn't go to prison, get even more involved in a sordid crowd, hey, that crowd would no longer exist.

There could be stringent, really stringent, rules for heroin takeaways (where do I sign up!) and the stuff that goes on with some on methadone selling their t/a's wouldn't occur, they wouldn't sell their smack to anyone!

No more needles in parks, kids playing in dangerous streets. The only criminals left would be those who kill for crimes of passion. The scumbag dealers would be taken out in a flash, which is the first thing needed - many former and current Police Commissioners the world over say the same.

Long live the dream anyway...

I totally agree with Benjamin. If what is being done isn't working why persist with it. Why not try something different? What is there to loose? If it doesn't work the former strategy/s can always be returned to.

Bloody politicians; “spinning” the facts to suit their own agenda/s that are overwhelmingly to get into and or to remain in power, nothing more, nothing less.

Oo roo,

Bucko

No doubt the Greens want millions spent on harm minnimisation programs which don't work while the elderely spend years wanting to get a little medical attention. Why not give priority to those who choose to abuse their bodies and blame everyone else. Already many of the needles given out for free end up on beaches and in parks. Some diabetics can hardly afford them and yet have to pay for them. Talk about warped priorities.

is there any chance that drugs policy is driven by campaign contributions? a radical suggestion, i know- oz politicians have a world wide reputation for wisdom, ethics and dispassionate pursuit of the public interest.

on the other hand, they take massive support from the hotel/alcohol lobby. the stress of getting elected might cause the weaker, newer politician to deviate from the path of virtue. just a possibility, please tell me i'm wrong, i yearn to apologize to the politicians guild and renew my total submission to our guardian angels.

Somebody please answer me this.

Alocohol and tobacco are terrible scourges of society. Through circumstances of history they have come to be legally available and in some form of another, will almost certainly remain so, as much as society would be better off if they were less widely available.

So why would we then legalise or decriminalise MORE dangerous drugs, some much more highly addictive. We made a mistake with alcohol and tobacco, why go further?

It seems to me the mungbean-eating types in The Greens are driven simply by an annoyance that their "mind expanding" drug of choice, marijuana, is not legally available while the scourge of the suburbanites, alcohol, is.

I will pay the taxes to lock up all the druggies, preferably with a 3 strikes system. Chain gangs sound good.

I will not pay taxes to treet them with bull dung.

Harm minimisation is a only way of generating lots of nice jobs, for the usless twits comming out of some areas of our education system.
From what I have seen, most of them are using almost as much as the ones they are treating.

We do not need more research into the effects of drugs. The jury is in, and guess what, drugs are bad. It's pretty well established by now that drugs both cause and/or exacerbate mental illness. The link between drug taking and criminal activity is well known, and I don't mean to equate the two here.
The Greens policy sounds pretty good in parts; there is little point criminalising drug takers when there are so many who partake.It just doesn't work.
I'd like to see draconian penalties introduced for producers and suppliers- stiff minimum prison sentences without parole. Say 10 years for possession of 5-10 doses of a drug, and escalating sharply for more. Wouldn't need too many 'heads on pikes' to see a dramatic turnaround in drug supplies.
The increase in mental health issues can be strongly, but not exclusively, sheeted home to drug taking.

"The increase in mental health issues can be strongly, but not exclusively, sheeted home to drug taking."

Really? Can you back this statement?

There is no evidence of this at all, it is a "children overboard" truth.

All that can be said is that people with mental illness tend to use more illicit drugs, this does not mean that these drugs cause mental illness.

Regarding the substance of the article, I feel that the has law-and-order approach has been a total failure. If we've had a "war on drugs", then drugs have won. According to these stats http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10393 nearly 40% of adult Australians admitted to having taken illegal drugs, with nearly 20% taking them in the last 12 months. A shift to an emphasis on public health programs is long overdue.

Hasbeen, perhaps you might want to "pay the taxes to lock up all the druggies", but be prepared to dig deep. If you locked up every person who'd taken illegal drugs in the last 12 months the Australian prison population would go from 25,000 to 2,500,000. Hope you aren't expecting the govt to fund flim-flam like roads, hospitals or schools.

Runner, I think you should do some research before sounding off. In NSW http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/news/2000/may/03-05-00.html and Victoria http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/humanservicesnews/aug01/diab.htm needles have been supplied free of charge to insulin-dependent diabetics since 2000 and 2001.

No question that Australia has a big problem with legal and illegal drugs. But those arguing against harm minimisation might ponder Australian smoking rates http://www.quit.org.au/quit/fandi/fandi/c01s1.htm . Australian male smkoking rates have gone from 72% to 27% since 1945. Looks to me like harm minimisation has got things moving in the right direction.

Runner I'm so glad you brought diabetics into it! Now about warped priorities....

We actually have two classes of diabetic children in this country. One lot are confined to 6 tightly timed and carbohydrate counted meals and 4 upwards needles a day because their parents because they couldn't afford private health insurance. The other lot are normal 'eat when they are hungry' (which is all the time) kids whose parents or private health insurance have paid for the pump which come in around $6000. These kids at the end of the day have a better outcome and will cost our community far less in treating problems such as eye and kidney disease over the years.

Now you would think a smart government would cough up and buy all the kids pumps, thus saving millions down the track, and also just to let the poor kids act like other kids without diabetes. But then this is a Government who also spends millions on propaganda and sees that as a higher priority. Treating drug use as a medical rather than a criminal problem also would save millions and help keep lives together. But apparently warped priorities rule the day.

By the way, the kids get their needles free. The government has got a few things right. But I think the Greens would have the kids on pumps before the conservatives.

I'm awake, are you wake? See Lancet. See Saint Vinnies Emergency any night of the week. See criminal justice records. Look around you.Do 10 years of counselling. "both causes and exacerbates".
That light ahead is a train RU.

Show me one peer reviewed article, yes including Lancet, that backs your case.

There are none, zilch, zero.

Your comments may relate to our abysmal treatment of the mentally ill, I do not dispute that they use illicit drugs. But why lock them up.

I think you will find that most people at Vinnies or Salvos are alcohol related (its legal and cheaper).

Harm minimisation is the only answer. These people are sick, not criminals.

I have to take insulin injections but most of the cost is covered by the PBS. I often wonder if those with insulin injections could have the same access to needle exchanges, they are less likely to throw their needles in the rubbish. Any needle in the garbage is a bioharzard, as no one is absolutely sure what is in them.

Runner has a good point that insulin injectors should have the same access to needle exchanges as recreational users. This is not just a harm minimisation issue, it is also an environmental issue. Any needle deposited into their biohard bins in the biohazard containers should be rewarded with clean syringes and biohazard containers: in exchange.

Just letting recreational drug users have this service is discrimination against other injectors who have medical needs and are environmentally responsible.

I have raised this with the Greens on various occassions, but as usual, they ignore my letters.

They are behaving like latter day snobs in a do-gooder masonic hall.

A fine article.

There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that harm minimisation works at reducing the costs drug use.

In 2002, the US White House, not known for their light drug stance, released a paper titled The Economic Costs of Drug Abuse. (download at http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugwar/prohibition/)

In 1998, the legal cost associated with the prosection and incarceration was about $31 billion US. Incarceration: $1.6 billion US.

Since 2000, California has run a treatment instead of incaceration program (known as Prop 36). It is estimated by the US based Drug Policy Alliance, that this program saved US tax payers:
- $5 for every $1 spent;
- Directed more than 140,000 drug addicts into treatment;
- reduced the number of people in jails so much, that the planned construction of a new prison was halted, saving almost half a billion US.

(see: http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/Prop360306.cfm)

Under prop 36, the cost of treatment of one drug addict is about $US3,300. A year of incarcertion costs $US34,000. This approach is similar the Greens approach.

Also see the Australian Drug Foundation:
http://www.adf.org.au/browse.asp?ContainerID=best_practice_drug_policy_

Runner:

It's good to know that you are concerned about aged care. So are the Greens. From their policy on "Older People":

The Australian Greens want:
# a high quality aged care system characterised by high quality support, nursing and personal care, with safe and comfortable surroundings for older people whether in residential, home or hospital care.
# appropriate support services, including home modification, for older people who choose to remain in their own homes, the home of family or friends, and within their own neighbourhood.

The Australian Greens will:
# increase the number of places for aged care and retirement living
# reinstate the Commonwealth Dental Scheme to provide free public dental care for older people on low incomes.
# increase funding to enhance the numbers, skills and salaries of community health nurses and workers in the aged care sector.
# establish a funded scheme to undertake minor home renovations and installation of communication technologies to enable older people to remain in their own homes.

Disclaimer: I recently joined the Greens.

This is a considered, well-written piece. That said, I do have a quibble with the use of the term "libertarian conservative." No such thing exists. It's an oxymoron. It's like saying "socialist fascist" or "left-leaning neoconservative." They're two completely different ideologies, grouping them into a compound ideal is nonsensical.

To grn: Your comments sound quite similar to the sentiments expressed by prohibitionists in America in the early 20th Century. This period exemplifies the results of the criminalisation of recreational substances; soaring crime rates, not just in those breaking the victimless crime of substance use, but in the criminal rackets, gangs etc that surround it (remember Al Capone?).

Prohibition and zero tolerance don't work; harm minimisation does. You can't prevent people from making stupid mistakes, and you can't prevent people from breaking laws that infringe on their liberty (an important part of liberty is this very freedom to MAKE mistakes) but you can create a situation that minimises the consequences of drug abuse.

Most Australians who aren't drug addicts (and that includes the majority of people who have taken some drugs recently) mostly want drugs to have no affect on their life. What other people do in private doesn't bother most people.

To be safe from the affects of drugs the first thing that people want is for the risk of being mugged by an addict to be removed - providing drugs to registered addicts at a reasonable price will achieve this goal.

The next desire is to not have children become victims of drug pushers. Drug pushers are generally addicts who have chosen not to steal to pay for their drugs, so again providing drugs to registered addicts will help.

As for cannabis, the approach in Amsterdam to this problem seems to be the correct one (allow it be sold to adults in registered "Coffee Shops").

ruawake, google 'marijuana and', or 'ecstasy and mental health' for info on drugs and their effects. As if the glib acceptance of eccy Tuesday depression isn't bad enough, arguing that predisposition to mental illness means that drugs do not 'cause' conditions is semantic rubbish. Fiddling while Rome burns.
I never said that drug takers or the mentally ill should be gaoled. The opposite in fact. My proposal was to treat producers and suppliers harshly.
Here's another area where the experts will eventually catch up; just as there IS acceptance of Foetal Alcohol Syndrome there will come the day when Foetal (insert your drug of choice) Syndrome becomes prevalent wisdom.

Illicit drugs are a real scourge; it has a far worse impact on families than does alcohol. Prohibition is the alternative to harm minimisation, but it does not work; well and truly proven in the 1930s. Those who manufacture drugs when caught should be imprisoned and have the keys thrown away.

When parents take illicit drugs it is a blight on their children.

Harm minimization might not offer a complete answer but it certainly has helped large numbers of people.

The Greens have never indicated that they were going to make illicit drugs available generally, its garbage; many Greens have professional backgrounds such as teachers, doctors, lawyers etc. People within these professional groups would not be promoting easily accessible drugs. What is happening now is not working particularly well.

The Greens are a thorn in the side of conservative politicians, some conservative politicians are stooping to gutter tactics to try to thwart them.

Philip has got it wrong. The Greens have it wrong. Harm minimisation does not work - Sweden's approach does. Sweden requires drug addicts to undertake rehab and has a tough approach to dealers. The softly softly approach does not work - would you give an alcoholic a light beer? I think not. It must be complete abstinence and support to get off the drug of dependence.

Furthermore we should stop referring to illicit drugs as "party drugs" or "recreational drugs" - they are killers and should be labelled as such.

Dinners, the Howard Government does not believe in setting up infrastructure; Sweden is ruled more by Social Democrat principles isn't it? Mr. Howard takes a prohibition view on drugs, but what has he really done to prevent the cancer that is created by illicit drugs? Illicit drug use is a Nationwide problem. A golden opportunity has been lost when instead of reimbursing taxpayers, those resources could have been utilized to set up an infrastructure to deal with drug takers.

However, the rugged individualism of current Liberal philosophy would not allow such an approach. So while harm mimimisation might not be the best manner to deal with drug takers, it is the best we have available at present

An interesting article - and only a few months out from a Federal poll.

The Senate investigation in to Mental Health 2006 lists numerous mental health experts, citing the effects of ectasy and marijuana on mental health. It's not a 100 percent proven but what is?

Are there any Green supporters out there who would like a major debate on drugs now? If the Greens get the balance of power, then that might be the time to bring it on.