| Dear
Editor,
I refer to the article `When Taxpayers Subsidise Junkies'
in the January edition of the Australian version of
Reader's Digest.
Your writer, Brian Eads, has done well in raising a
number of issues in a brief article. In a briefer letter,
I do not aim to address all of them.
The article is a combination of case studies (Roland
Seitz, Claudio Ponte) and general statements. I note
that the case studies tend to be negative (in relation
to drug law reform or any other alternative to Sweden's
`toughest drug laws in Europe'). It is noteworthy that
the independent University of Zurich researchers found
that most addicts' health and lifestyle had improved.
The article may therefore have been more balanced if
it had included positive case studies as well as negative
ones.
I accept, of course, that there will be cases of failure
or incomplete success for programs addressing the problems
of drug users. My view is that a variety of programs
should be available for drug users. What did not work
for one user may work for another. What did not work
immediately for one user may be effective after some
lapse of time.
The article could also have addressed the experience
of the Netherlands, where marijuana is de facto (but
not de jure) legal, and which has low rates of harm
resulting from both marijuana and drugs like heroin.
The article could also have attempted more analysis
of policy options. It swings from comments by Alex Wodak,
president of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation,
to a comment on decriminalisation. There is in fact
a range of options from outright prohibition to legalisation:
decriminalisation is one option (it is the case in the
Australian Capital Territory for possession of limited
amounts of marijuana); controlled availability, as in
PROVE, is another. It is not true that decriminalisation
has been tried and is a failure, which is what the article
suggests.
The
article raises the issue of the `signal sent to young
people'. This is a serious issue, but a concern about
a signal does not inevitably lead to a conclusion that
reform of practice and law should not be implemented.
The signal which society sends to drug users who, with
our present law and practices, die of overdose~and to
their parents and friends is not a kind one. It is necessary
to accept that some people will always experiment with
and abuse drugs: a central aim of policy relating to
users of drugs like heroin should be to keep them alive,
so that they have the possibility of controlling and
eliminating their use: our present policy performs very
badly in that regard. I note in particular the article's
reference to Pakistan, where I have lived for a number
of years, including 2½ years spent as Field Adviser
for the UN International Drug Control Program (UNDCP).
The
secretary of the International Narcotics Control Board
is quoted as making an alarmist comment about Pakistan.
Your article should have pointed out that a spokesman
for the INCB is not a neutral or disinterested commentator,
as that body was formed under prohibitionist treaties
and must be expected to support prohibitionist regimes.
Pakistan's heroin problem increased enormously after
prohibitionist legislation was introduced and, as I
have argued, essentially as a result of prohibition
(see H.R. Seccombe, `Squeezing the Balloon: International
Narcotics Policy', Drug and Alcohol Review, vol. 14,
1995, pp. 311-316). In short, prohibition constitutes
a major cause of our `drug problem': a harm minimisation
strategy, rather than an enforcement oriented approach,
is preferable, with an emphasis on performance indicators
like users' survival, health and quality of life, including
employment. Finally, I note rhetorical touches in the
article.
The
title `When Taxpayers Subsidise Junkies', is calculated
to appeal to the hip pocket nerve, not the compassion,
of the reader. The twilight, winter, chill and (moral?]
darkness of the opening paragraph are very evocative,
but hardly helpful to reasoned debate. I would be grateful
if you would acknowledge and publish this letter.
|
