Our drug laws are not working. Why don’t you change them?

If the upcoming pharmaceutical summit is anything like the previous summit in 1999, then some of the people invited will present research results and facts that most policymakers currently ignore. Ways in which laws can be usefully changed will be suggested. It can suggest changes that will make our approach to drug use more humane and effective than it is now. It could also improve public understanding of currently underappreciated facts in this field. Policy change is more likely after the pharmaceutical summit than before. And if policy change happens, it will be an improvement because it is clear that the current policy has failed.

In the period before the last drugs peak, Wayside Chapel in Kings Cross, fed up with the delay, illegally opened an injection room. After it was opened, there was a minister of religion inside managing the injection room, and another minister of religion (from the same church) was attacking the room from outside. A deal was made at Wayside Chapel that promised no lawsuits, the injection room was closed, and a drug summit was promised.

One outcome of this summit was the birth of the safe injection room in Kings Cross. When the vault injection room opened, there were screams from the usual suspects. Kings Cross’ commercial objections were understandable but misguided. One resident who lives in the area told me that people no longer shoot heroin behind her house because they have nowhere else to go, and she told me that “this isn’t the first time a needle has been used in my back lane.” There were no deaths from heroin overdose in the safe injection room, which is a great success.

Current drug laws don’t work. Millions of people use marijuana despite the law, drug use occurs at music festivals despite the law, and laws cannot prevent the widespread use of illegal substances. Illegal drugs exist in every community, in every suburb. Every high school kid knows where to buy drugs. In fact, the use of illicit drugs in society is increasing, and new, more powerful illicit drugs continue to emerge and will continue to emerge. This fact alone will require a careful and considered response from policymakers. Many young people disdain the police; especially since at least a few police officers were involved in the sale of illegal drugs. There is a disconnect between the actual use of drugs and the language our political leaders use and the laws we have.

Parents are worried about their children. They rightly want to keep their children safe. They worry about safety on the streets. They are worried about “stranger danger”. And they worry about exposure to hard drugs. Their concerns are understandable. And some politicians are exploiting these concerns. They raise these for the sake of votes. They promise tougher laws and longer prison sentences to win voters’ support. These don’t work.

Most of our drug problems do not involve hard drugs. Yes – the use of hard drugs is often disastrous for an individual, but the society-wide problems of “hard drugs” are relatively minor. Hard drugs cause only a small fraction of the terrible effects.

Alcohol, a legal drug, causes the most harm. Alcohol is associated with disease, a lot of domestic violence, a lot of crime, a lot of violent crime, unemployment, vehicle accidents, personal misery, economic costs, and alcoholism among youth. An old cartoon featured two red-nosed old men sipping whiskey while lamenting a famous cricketer’s use of marijuana. So there is also a generational gap.

Besides alcohol, which is still a big problem, tobacco and compound analgesics have also caused many diseases and deaths. Analgesics disappeared; Tobacco use has decreased, and with it some predictable diseases caused by tobacco.

Why do we act this way despite all the evidence of the ineffectiveness of existing laws? What we do now makes parents more comfortable. They think something effective is being done. They wrongly think that their children are safer because of current laws. What we are doing is counterintuitive in terms of what we know about drug use, but it makes political sense. What we do enables political parties to appeal to voters. Parties are following a set path rather than initiating necessary change.

Every drug “bust” is something to be applauded. If these “crashes” did not exist, we would be in even worse shape. But this changes the fact that illegal drug use is increasing. Unseized drugs are still being imported. Local production of illegal drugs is increasing. Successful drug “busts” do not justify the fact that almost all of the resources we apply to this problem are law enforcement and punishment. If our own children are affected, we want them to heal. We want treatment and rehabilitation resources. And we want them to be available immediately.

The summit will give us the chance to be smarter than we are now in our approach to drugs. Banning alcohol use didn’t work in America, and banning other drug use doesn’t work here either. People love psychoactive drugs and will pursue them.

However, more logical and realistic suggestions may emerge at the summit. It will provide models that sensible political leaders should consider. Moreover, it would provide a rational justification for what political leaders might want to do and could improve public understanding.

There will be objections to any proposal from the pharmaceutical summit. Of course it would. The objections will probably be false and unhelpful; More of the same will not work. If the drug summit suggests change, parents win. Their children will be safer. Police can concentrate more on other parts of their job. Society would be better.

Let’s hope the summit produces change.