Legislative Council Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Matters of Interest Drug Decriminalisation Drug Decriminalisation The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD Legislative Council The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:35): I have always been of the opinion that decriminalising any illicit substance is not the approach governments should be taking when it comes to protecting the community from the harms of drug use. In very recent times, it has become increasingly evident that drug decriminalisation simply does not work, and I will give evidence of that in just a moment. Members may indeed be aware of recent reports that lawmakers in Oregon have been forced to walk back their decriminalisation policies due to the seriousness and destructive consequences of their legislation. These developments certainly serve as a precaution for other governments around the world, including our own. Oregon's drug decriminalisation policy, known as Measure 110, was passed in November 2020. Its aim was to address drug addiction as a public health issue rather than a criminal one by decriminalising the possession of small amounts of drugs, including what we might consider the most serious ones like heroin, for example, methamphetamine, LSD, and others such as oxycodone, etc. Instead of facing criminal charges in the circumstances, individuals found to be in possession of the substances I have just listed, and others, would be subject to civil citations and required to attend a health assessment to determine if they needed treatment. I am not against the health assessment part; there is some merit in that. While Oregon's decriminalisation experiment may have been touted as a bold and aggressive attempt to address drug addiction, it had unintended, yet I would argue certainly foreseeable, consequences that proved detrimental to the very community it was endeavouring to protect. Indeed, Portland Mayor, Ted Wheeler, stated: Fentanyl— He listed other drugs, but in this particular passage he is talking specifically about fentanyl, but he said similar things about other drugs— wreaks havoc on the people in its grips, often rendering them lifeless on our sidewalks. It also begets violence among those who bring this deadly poison into our city. This devastation and trauma unfolds on the doorsteps of homes, businesses, and in the streets, impacting nearly everyone in some way. Earlier this year, the Oregon state legislature vowed to repeal its three-year-old laws decriminalising drug possession for personal use, joining other cities, namely San Francisco and Washington DC, which are similarly adopting a tough on drugs stance having gone down the decriminalisation path and seeing it fail. This reversion came after there was a significant surge in fatal overdoses and public drug use. The statistics are certainly concerning. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveals that deaths from drug overdose surged by almost 50 per cent from 1,171 in 2021, when possession of drugs for personal use was first decriminalised, to 1,683 in October 2023. According to the Oregon Health Authority, most of the deaths were caused by opioids, one of which of course is fentanyl, as well as others. The number of homeless people in Portland, the state's largest city, also spiked to almost 6,300 in 2023, which was a 65 per cent increase since 2015. In response to the scourge in public drug use and associated antisocial behaviour, state and local leaders declared a 90-day emergency in January this year. The state's newly introduced legislation to combat the problems that arose from decriminalisation now intends to make Portland safer through cracking down on drug use in particular and granting police greater powers to intervene. I would argue that a zero tolerance approach to drugs sends the clear message that drug use is detrimental and can be extremely harmful, not only to the individual but to those in their families, in their workplaces, etc. By creating and enforcing penalties for drug possession, and trafficking especially, a tough on drugs approach has a far better chance of deterring or preventing individuals from experimenting with drugs, and it has a more impactful consequence, if you like, than as we have seen in the US, where they were removing criminal sanctions. Law enforcement agencies operating under this system can assist in combatting and reducing drug-related crime to foster a safer environment for residents, and healthcare systems and social services are less burdened with drug-related illnesses, although of course they have an important role to play. I have no doubt the proponents of drug decriminalisation have the best intentions, but I believe it is clear from what is transpiring overseas that decriminalisation is ineffective in addressing drug use and addiction. It is my sincere hope that we will learn from the experience in Oregon, Washington, San Francisco and other cities around the world, including some European cities, that have walked back their decriminalisation position and now take a much harder line on illicit drug use.