|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
Why changing drug laws is a political problem, not a scientific one DON WEATHERBURN Brimbank Weekly Wednesday 23 May 2012 Drug dilemma special index Of course, prohibition hasn't stopped illegal drug use any more than prohibiting drink-driving has stopped people from drinking and driving. It's entirely likely, however, that illicit drug consumption would be higher in the absence of prohibition. Some reject this, often citing Portugal as an example. However the Portuguese reforms are not an example of decriminalisation. It was and remains possible to be sanctioned for drug possession and use in Portugal. The sanctions include community service, fines, suspensions of professional licences and bans on attending certain places. These penalties may have been more than enough to constrain growth in the prevalence of drug use in Portugal. In any event, decriminalisation of drug use sometimes does have effect. In 1976, the Dutch adopted a formal written policy of not enforcing the prohibition against cannabis sale and possession, wherever the quantities involved were 30 grams or less. Initially this change had no effect on cannabis use. From the mid 1980s onwards, however, the number of Dutch coffee shops selling cannabis began to grow, and the prevalence of cannabis use grew with it. Critics of prohibition frequently claim that treatment is a much more effective way of reducing illicit drug consumption and drug related harm than drug law enforcement. There is no doubt about the benefits of treatment, particularly methadone maintenance treatment. Studies show it is effective in reducing drug-related crime among heroin users. But the contrast between treatment and drug law enforcement is misleading. When dependent drug users are asked why they are entering treatment, two of the factors most frequently cited are fear of prison and troubles with the courts and police. Another consideration in favour of prohibition is that it keeps the price of illegal drugs very high. Drug producers, importers and distributors, like insurance companies, compensate themselves for the risks they take by demanding higher premiums. These premiums are passed on to drug consumers in the form of higher prices. You might think higher illegal drug prices are a bad thing, but they are not. The sensitivity of demand for a product to changes in its price is what economists call its price elasticity. An elasticity of -0.1 means that when the price of a drug increases by 1 per cent, demand for the drug falls by 1 per cent. An elasticity close to zero means that a 1 per cent increase in the price of a drug has little effect on demand. If pushing up the price of a drug had little or no effect on consumption we'd expect its price elasticity to be zero or very small. But it isn't. Tobacco, for example, is an addictive drug. Yet the long run price elasticity of demand for cigarettes is in the range -0.27 to -0.79. Estimates of the price elasticity of demand for heroin and cocaine are more variable, but the mid range of estimates for these drugs is around -0.95. In other words, a 10 per cent increase in the price of these drugs would reduce consumption by 9.5 per cent. Research has shown that when the prices of heroin and cocaine go up, emergency department admissions for heroin and cocaine go down. When the price of heroin in Australia went up around Christmas 2000, the level of drug-related crime came down. There's no doubt that prohibition constrains illicit drug consumption and therewith some drug related harms. But it also has its cons. Let's look at some of these. When we prohibit a drug we inflict harm on those we prosecute for breaching the prohibition. A conviction for illegal drug use, for example, limits your employment and earnings prospects. When drug users with children are imprisoned, we harm their relationships and their families. Sometimes we harm their health. It's known, for example, that fear of arrest sometimes prompts heroin users to share needles and inject too quickly, both of which are inimical to public health. Because drugs are so expensive, drug users frequently resort to crime to fund their addiction. Because drug dealing is profitable, people are drawn into organised crime. Because the principals of organised crime can't resort to the civil courts to resolve their disputes, they often end shooting each other and anyone else who gets in their way. In light of these harms, some question whether prohibition is the best way to minimise drug related harm. But the question has no scientific answer. To know which of two or more policies best minimises drug-related harm, two conditions must be met. First we need to be able to identify and measure the harms associated with each policy. Second we need to agree on what weight should be assigned to these harms. Both requirements are problematic. We have trouble measuring the quantity of illegal drugs being consumed let alone all the harms associated with that consumption. Harms like overdose may be easy to quantify, but what about the effects of drug use on public amenity, or the effects of drug search laws on civil liberty? How do we measure them? Efforts have been made to compare alternative drug policies using mathematical models, but these models achieve their precision only by making assumptions about drug markets that are open to question. Measurement, though, is not the biggest problem we face when judging what policy best minimises harm. The biggest problem is that there's no agreement on what harms matter the most. There's no scientific answer to this problem. It's political, not scientific. Dr Don Weatherburn is director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Join the WikiCurve debate at smh.com.au/national/drug-law Follow the National Times on Twitter: @NationalTimesAU http://www.brimbankweekly.com.au/news/national/national/general/why-changing-drug-laws-is-a-political-problem-not-a-scientific-one/2565564.aspx?storypage=0
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!