By Terry Flanders.
“Circle the wagons and get the women and children inside.”
The debate about lifting criminal prohibitions dealing with illicit drugs is about to be re-ignited thanks to the efforts of the Australia21 think tank. I envisage salvos of fiery arrows raining down on both for and against camps as seasoned campaigners from both sides dust off their armour and prepare for battle. A battle that will surely divide the community.
As a former law enforcement officer I investigated drug related street crimes and middle to upper level illicit drug trafficking syndicates both here in Australia and overseas. I saw the impact on victims of crime, the families of illicit drug users and illicit drug users themselves. The money generated from the illicit drug trade fuels wars, supports terrorism and crime. It is a foundation stone for corruption.
In this day, everyone has been affected either directly or indirectly by illicit drug use. The hidden cost to us all is estimated to be $13 billion annually. Costs arising from increased retail prices, insurance policies, lost productivity, health care and law enforcement. Illicit drug use creates a ripple effect in all our lives and across our social systems.
The interconnectedness of our world and the part played by illicit drugs was highlighted with the invasion of Afghanistan by coalition forces. The coalition forces created an unexpected illicit drug ripple that resulted in the disruption of opium production. This led to a reduction in the global supply of heroin and unexpectedly a reduction in crime rates in Australia.
This scourge on our society was not created overnight in clandestine bathroom labs. In fact at the turn of the 19th century many of today’s prohibited illicit drugs were freely available in their precursor form. Heroin, cocaine, cannabis; all have natural origins and as opium, coca, and Indian hemp and have been used for millennia by human populations who cultivated them and used them responsibly. I use the word ‘responsibly’ because irresponsible large scale use led to the evolution of our current legal sanctions in the first place.
What modern man has managed to do over the last two hundred years through science and with the support of Governments is increase the psychotropic nature of these once common plants, enhance their addictive properties and distribute them worldwide. A deeper understanding of the history of illicit drug use internationally can be gained by researching the 19th Century Opium Wars.
A period when the British Government militarily supported the operations of the East India Company and the wholesale harvesting, production, importation and distribution of opium into China. At the time opium was an expensive product used sparingly in China because of the cost. Flooding the market lowered the price and made the product more available to the general population. This resulted in the collapse of the social infrastructure at the time and two wars by China against Britain to stop the trade failed.
Something similar occurred in Japan. After the Korean War finished and Allied forces withdrew; amphetamine manufacturing plants used to provide stimulants to combat troops were taken over by private enterprise and continued production. The amphetamines were given to Japanese factory workers who rebuilt their country. One result was an unprecedented increase in violent crime as factory workers deprived of sleep suffered psychotic episodes; the prisons overfilled. To stem violent crime the factories were closed and the amphetamine supply was stopped. Life returned to normal.
Research over the last 30 years has shown that illicit drug use increases when prohibitions are removed and trade is unrestricted. As a species we humans have an addictive nature and historically that nature, when allowed to be sated without responsible controls, leads inevitably to harm.
Illicit drug abuse is not a Government problem; it is a whole of society problem and that includes business. Clearly legalising illicit drugs is not the answer. Neither is prohibition through criminal sanctions. Criminal sanctions can never be strictly enforced, do not provide a return on investment, result in the growth of crime syndicates and foster corruption. This is a complex issue that requires a sustainable solution that should provide a win-win cost effective outcome for all stakeholders.
Sustainable businesses operate as an interconnected system, where the parts support the purpose of the whole. Currently the model in use by most Governments has different departments dealing with illicit drug abuse operating in a synergy vacuum as independent silos. Any Government approach needs to be concentrated and directed surgically.
To be cost effective we should look for tools that already exist and determine if they can be used, adapted or modified to provide a solution to this problem. There is no need to reinvent the wheel; the tools we need are hidden in our current legislative framework.
In Australia all employees and employers have a duty of care under current workplace health and safety legislation to take responsibility for their actions as reasonable people and not place themselves or others at risk of harm.
Perhaps this concept should be extended outside the workplace; to public places, not private homes. In this way a person under the influence of a drug and at risk of harming themselves or others or committing crimes could be subjected to certain sanctions expected of all reasonable people in a public place. This argument is supported in NSW by the provisions of Intoxicated Persons Act with similar legislation existing in other States and Territories.
The workplace health and safety legislation also provides for a top down bottom up approach to the implementation of systems that protect people. This approach includes the assessment of risk and the introduction of controls based on a hierarchical order through consultation.
An example of a top down approach to the hazard of illicit drug abuse could be the continued criminalisation relating to the importation, manufacture, distribution and supply of illicit drugs. A bottom up approach could start with the illicit drug abusers and should be subject of a risk assessment using the control hierarchy. Threats, risks or hazards once identified should be eliminated. Our society will probably never eliminate ‘drug’ abuse in one form or another, so we should move down the list.
The next control, substitution cannot provide an adequate solution for us at this time. Arguably methadone is a synthetic form of heroin and is a drug that is also abused. However in the future synthetic non addictive substances may arise that do not have side effects. Isolation is the third control.
Engineering controls are the fourth option and we may be able to physically or conceptually build a better isolation system. To do so would require additional considerations like the shape, nature and purpose of that system before we call in the designers and builders. Administrative controls follow and the law is full of administrative controls that need to be re-engineered as part of our solution. Policies and procedures, supervision and training are also appropriate administration controls for illicit drug abuse. The last option available is personal protective equipment. In this scenario it is not a practical consideration except to provide a last barrier to defend against biological contamination.
Practical controls based on our current legislative framework would include developing an isolation system incorporating supervision and training. This approach may be best described as a rehabilitation program involving a transition centre option, where illicit drug abusers who have been identified as ‘at risk’ are eligible to transit through the centre undergoing rehabilitation styles suited to their level of illicit drug abuse based on an individual risk assessment. To be cost effect the program could have a user pay component and be sponsored commercially by sections of industry most likely to benefit from the ripple effect of reduced crime.
The debate on illicit drug use is a complex issue that is very emotive to many people because of loss associated with the negative impact of illicit drug abuse. The outlined rehabilitation transition program is a very simplistic model that would need many more operational issues considered if it were to be made viable. However, it is an example that is based on current legislated best practice mandated by Governments when employers have to deal with the complexly dynamic issues relating to workplace human systems. So why should it not go public?
Any future debate on this topic must guard against self interest groups. This is all very much our problem and solutions should consider all perspectives. Any solution(s) that are implemented should be trialled first and modified before society is exposed to change.
Personally I was always struck by the fact that many illicit drug abusers were deeply saddened by their lifestyles and choices as their addictions propelled them forward. In effect, they cannot easily stop their habit. Any viable system that is proposed should include a hard love, carrot and stick approach that illicit drug abusers, and their families or friends can activate before abusers travel too far down that road towards self destruction.
Be Safe & Secure.
