I'd started writing this when my favourite journalist (not), Miranda Divine, had an article in the The Sydney Morning Herald on 20 July relating to this subject. Worth a read if you want a different view.
With the news about the heroin supply situation in Redfern, I thought that this would be a good subject for the first of my blog articles. A controvercial subject that I suspect will annoy some of you!
Heroin's been available illegally for years. The supply has waxed and wained but it's always been there. If you have enough money, you can get it.
Traditionally, authorities have tried to control heroin by strict boarder control, harsh penalties for trafficing, and criminalising the user. These have succeeded to push heroin out of sight, but we all know it's still out there. It's a constant worry if you're a parent.
The problem as I see it is that prohibition will never really control the drug trade. It's economics; the law of supply and demand. When the law agencies are successful in limiting the supply, up goes the price. Up goes the incentive to import, to supply, to corrupt. There's always a user who will do anything to score.
Not that trafficing can't be controlled. You could use paid informers, secret police and intrusive serveilance of the population. However, most people would think these are things we don't want to see here.
So, how do you control addictive drugs in a free community? Well, you could legalise them. This would effectively control the corruption side of the problem, and provide the government with a lot of revenue. The problem is how to safely control such a potent drugs. You probably can't. At present, it's not a viable option.
The answer, of course, lies in part legalisation, in the form of supplying the drug to addicts. In Sydney, we are part the way to this step, with the introduction of a safe injecting room and needle exchanges. They have prevented overdose deaths and the spread of disease. The next logical step is to supply heroin to addicts.
Why would you want to do this, you asK? Here's the way I look at it ...
1. It would kill the illegal drug trade overnight. The benifits would be immediate. Less crime in form of prostitution, burglaries, muggings, corruption of police and officials, gang war violence. A direct effect would be to lower insurance premiums, eliminate overdose incidents, relieve pressure on the hospitals, make the streets safer, ie, it would improve the community and save a bundle of money.
2. It would improve the health of the addicts. The drug would be pure, sterile and constant in strength. The dosage would be controlled and given in hygenic suroundings. Overdose deaths would be a thing of the past.
3. The addicts could worry about other things rather than concentrate 24/7 on getting their next fix. They wouldn't need to constantly resort to crime to pay for their habit. They would have time to consider their predicament. The authorities would be in a position to offer treatment.
4. It would make it more difficult for new users to start a habit. (See point one). Without the hard core of users propping up the market, there wouldn't be a market. The income wouldn't be worth the risk.
And the downside of this? The only one I can think of, and it's the one sprouted by the hardliners, is that it would 'send the wrong message.' Presumably this means that implementing these measures would make every kid want to use addictive drugs? Pretty lame argument in my opinion. It's not legalisation. The harsh penalities for import and distribution would stand.
So, do we carry on as before and live with the consequences, or do we attack the problem using the only effective weapon we have, which is to suppress the economics of the trade?
