The abject failure of drug prohibition

Abstract

For more than 50 years, like most other countries Australian drug policy relied heavily on law enforcement: politicians emphasised criminal justice measures and the overwhelming majority of government expenditure in response to drugs was allocated to drug law enforcement. Yet during the last half-century, drug markets expanded and became more dangerous. Even worse, deaths, disease, crime, corruption and violence increased substantially. Evidence that supply control is effective is scant yet there is abundant evidence of its serious adverse effects. The limited data available show that drug law enforcement is not cost-effective. However, ample data confirm that drug treatment and harm reduction are effective and cost-effective. Although the heroin shortage in Australia since 2000 is one of the most pronounced and protracted decreases in heroin supply worldwide, there is little evidence that Australian drug law enforcement contributed significantly. International leaders declare increasingly that the international drug control system has failed comprehensively. For many producer and transit countries, the cost of drug prohibition has been devastating. The academic debate about drug policy is now largely over. A number of countries have begun searching for politically feasible alternatives. Whether it is fair and just for the majority of a community to punish those with a minority taste in drugs is the most fundamental question in drug policy and the case for doing so is weak. Drug prohibition has proved to be an expensive way of making a bad problem worse: its major success has been as a political strategy.

Illicit Drug Markets, Consumer Capitalism and the Rise of Social Media: A Toxic Trap for Young People

“…One of the most obvious and feasible options to reduce the harms associated with this snare would be to revisit and reform our prohibitionist drug laws that have generated a £7 billion illicit drug market in the UK alone. Drug policy, however, is a complicated issue, and an in-depth discussion of these complexities is well beyond the scope of this article (see Gray 2010;Hari 2015;Werb et al 2011;Wodak 2014;Woods 2016).…”

BZP-‘Party pills’, populism and prohibition: Exploring global debates in a New Zealand context

“…(National 13 1 st Bill reading)They want to get rid of party pills but this legislation will not do that, it will do very little to inhibit the party pill trade. (National 1 st Bill reading)Perhaps surprisingly both those opposed to and in favour of the 2007 Bill echoed Shiner’s arguments and what he refers to as the ‘global failure of prohibition’ (Shiner, 2006, p. 68), supporting the general consensus that prohibition has not stopped or reduced drug use, that it has not stopped or reduced the harms from drug use and that drugs offences relating to cannabis clog courts, criminal justice processes and take up too much of police time (Buchanan, 2009; Levy, 2014; Stevens, 2011; Wodak, 2014). However, again as Shiner (2006, p. 71) notes, ‘prohibition may have largely failed as a crime-control strategy but it has been spectacularly successful as a political project’, with Wodak (2014, p. 198) similarly arguing that ‘dysfunctional policy has been good politics’.…”

“…(National 1 st Bill reading)Perhaps surprisingly both those opposed to and in favour of the 2007 Bill echoed Shiner’s arguments and what he refers to as the ‘global failure of prohibition’ (Shiner, 2006, p. 68), supporting the general consensus that prohibition has not stopped or reduced drug use, that it has not stopped or reduced the harms from drug use and that drugs offences relating to cannabis clog courts, criminal justice processes and take up too much of police time (Buchanan, 2009; Levy, 2014; Stevens, 2011; Wodak, 2014). However, again as Shiner (2006, p. 71) notes, ‘prohibition may have largely failed as a crime-control strategy but it has been spectacularly successful as a political project’, with Wodak (2014, p. 198) similarly arguing that ‘dysfunctional policy has been good politics’. This was also noted in the 2007 Bill readings with opposition MPs accusing the supporters of the Bill of electioneering and stating that ‘drug issues are used for electioneering purposes’ and that one MP in particular had ‘failed our young people for electioneering purposes’, as well as accusing particular politicians of ‘pandering to the fear of parents…trying to pander to the fear of people in return for a vote in election year’ (2007 3rd Bill Reading).…”

“…The availability and accessibility discourses focused on how easy it was for young people, in particular to access BZP-PPs. The public debate surrounding legal highs in New Zealand often focused on the availability to underage youth (Barton, 2014) and calls for extending punitive, prohibitionist policies, despite the fact that these policies have failed globally to reduce drug availability, drug use and the harms related to the use of illicit substances (Levy, 2014; Wodak, 2014). Within this discourse the emergence of populist, emotive arguments are also apparent with one MP stating that ‘babies’ had got into trouble taking BZP-PPs:The National Poisons Centre reports that a number of young children – some as young as 18 months: as in babies – have got into trouble taking BZP.…”

Medical cannabis: time for clear thinking

“…The debate about the medical use of cannabis in Australia has become confused with the proposal for a formal clinical trial instead of proceeding to legislation in New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria. Debates about prohibition of cannabis have a long history, 1 as has the proposal for medical cannabis in Australia 2 . Politicians are nervous about being “soft on drugs”, especially before an election.…”