Pubdate: Sat, 02 Apr 2016 Source: Age, The (Australia) Copyright: 2016 The Age Company Ltd Contact: http://www.theage.com.au/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/5 Author: Greg Denham Note: Greg Denham is executive officer of the Yarra Drug and Health Forum and a former senior sergeant of Victoria Police. THE WAR ON DRUGS IS REALLY NOT A WAR AT ALL The Money Governments Pour into Stopping the Flow of Drugs Could Be Better Spent on Education, Treatment and Better Healthcare. You may have read recently that the late John Ehrlichman, a senior policy adviser to disgraced United States president Richard Nixon, admitted that the administration's 1971 declaration of a "war on drugs" was an invention, a lie. Its purpose was a political diversion; to create the perception of fear and uncertainty among the US population. It was directed at young blacks and leftist "activists" who became the scapegoats and collateral damage of the so-called "war". Know thy enemy. The drug war was framed around several premises: drugs are innately dangerous; people who use drugs are dangerous and subversive; and governments will always act in your best interests. Drugs allegedly seized by police in Wolseley Road, Point Piper. Photo: NSW Police "Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did," Ehrlichman said. Successive governments in the US and elsewhere, including our own administrations, unconditionally committed to Nixon's war. In the US today $400 billion is poured into the criminal justice system each year to deal with drug-related issues. Most of the people who end up in jail or prison about two-thirds are there for minor drug offences; most are black. More people are incarcerated per head of population in the US than any other country, including China. Australia spends nearly $2 billion each year addressing drug issues. Nearly two-thirds of this is spent on law enforcement, with minuscule amounts directed to prevention, treatment and harm reduction. We are still trying to arrest our way out of this problem. Despite billions of dollars being spent to halt drug abuse, they are cheaper, purer and in greater supply than ever before. Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan and British entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson have both described prohibition as a failure, and rightly so. Both have called on the UN to take a more considered and evidence-based approach towards drug policy. Branson has called for all drugs to be decriminalised. He advocates the Portuguese approach, in which the decriminalisation of drug use and the directing of resources to education, treatment and better healthcare has led to reduced crime and disease and improved safety. However, if drugs are decriminalised, one piece of the puzzle is still missing. Enforced by criminal gangs, the illicit drug market is unregulated and uncontrolled. Contaminated drugs are still sold on the streets, offered to anyone who is prepared to pay the price. Profits from the trade are invested in other criminal activities such as people trafficking and weapons distribution. The violence associated with protecting and enforcing illicit drug market territory is an inevitable consequence of a system that gives control and power to criminals, not the police. There's no better demonstration of this than in our own backyard. Just look at the body count from the brutality of the drugs trade. We can't hope to be successful in minimising the impact of drugs unless we go the full distance; we should legalise all drugs. In New York next month the United Nations General Assembly Special Sitting will be convened. The Assembly will meet from April 19-21 (these dates are important). There's high expectation that the UN will adopt a more evidence-informed and human-rights-based approach to international drugs policy. Some of those who have been closely involved in the process of advocating for policy change are optimistic that a stronger statement, possibly even a complete policy reversal such drug decriminalisation, will emerge. Their optimism was boosted in October last year when a communique issued by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime was leaked. It proposed that member states should move towards decriminalising drug use. The communique was "pulled" - apparently at the behest of the US. Sadly, early indications are that the UN will not demonstrate the leadership and vision needed to steer international drugs policy towards approaches based on and informed by evidence, health and human rights. Importantly, it will also avoid acknowledging that drugs policies are harmful, not drugs. The majority of people who use illicit drugs do so safely, with limited harmful consequences. It seems it will be business as usual. I hope I am wrong. It appears that decades of critical analysis of the costs of drug prohibition and the harmful consequences had never happened. It seems the UN may choose to ignore state-sanctioned executions, arbitrary detention and removal of human and legal rights, massive prison overcrowding, the rise of organised crime, the spread of disease and rampant corruption in law enforcement and judiciary the world over. Of course, the dates of the New York meeting in April are of particular significance to many. The UNGASS meeting will be convened almost to a year the day when two young Australians - Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan - paid the ultimate price and consequence of the war on drugs. The body count will continue unless the UN can show true leadership and give the world some clear direction and steer us in another direction. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom