HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-05-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ILLICIT DRUG USE

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:35): Members may recall that last time I gave a matter of interest speech, about six or so weeks ago, I spoke on one of the common misconceptions that surrounds drug use in our society and I thought I would continue on that theme today and deal with the common claim that legalisation of currently illegal drugs will actually drive the crime rate down. There are very good reasons and arguments why that may not be the case. I will address a few of those in the brief time I have.

Legalisers believe that most black market and organised syndicates' involvement in the drug business would die and that drug-induced crime would decrease with drug legalisation, so they claim. These assertions are not supported by the facts. The United States experimented with legalisation and it failed. From 1919 to 1922 government-sponsored clinics handed out free drugs to addicts in the hope of controlling their behaviour. The effort failed. Society's revulsion against drugs, combined with enforcement, successfully eradicated the menace at that time.

California decriminalised marijuana in 1976, and within the first six months arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 per cent for adults and 71.4 per cent for juveniles. That is actually an increase in the number of arrests: 46 per cent for adults and 71.4 per cent for juveniles. Decriminalising marijuana in Alaska and Oregon in the 1970s resulted in the doubling of its use. Patrick Murphy, a court appointed lawyer for 31,000 abused and neglected children in Chicago, says that more than 80 per cent of the cases of physical and sexual abuse of children now involve drugs.

There is no evidence that legalising drugs will reduce these crimes—none—and there is evidence that suggests that it would worsen the problem. Legalisation would decrease drug distribution crime, because most of those activities would become lawful. To be fair, we need to acknowledge that. But would legalisation necessarily reduce other drug-related crime, like robbery, rape, assault and violent crimes in general?

Presumably, legalisation would reduce the cost of drugs and thus addicts might commit fewer crimes to pay for their habits, but less expensive drugs might also feed their habit better, and more drugs means more side effects like paranoia, irritability and, obviously, violence. Suggestions that crime can somehow be eliminated by redefining it are spurious. Free drugs or legalising bad drugs would not make criminal addicts into productive citizens. Dr Mitchell S. Rosenthal, expert on drugs and adolescents, and President of the Phoenix House (a resident treatment centre in New York) said:

If you give somebody free drugs you don't turn them into a responsible employee, husband, father or mother.

The justice department reports that most inmates of American prisons, some 77.4 per cent of males and 83.6 per cent of females, have a drug history, and the majority were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of their offending that led to their current incarceration. A surprisingly large number of convicted felons admit that their crime motive was to get money for the drugs: for example, 12 per cent of all violent crimes and 24.4 per cent of all property offences were actually drug money motivated.

Even if drugs were legalised, some restrictions would still be necessary. For example, restricting the sale of legalised drugs to minors, pregnant women perhaps, police, military, pilots and prisoners would be necessary, and there may well be others that would still provide a black market niche. Pro-legalisers contend that government could tax drugs, thus offsetting the social costs of abuse, but history proves that efforts to tax imported drugs, like opium, create a black market.

Early this century Chinese syndicates smuggled legal opium into this country to avoid tariffs. Even today there is ample crime based on legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco. For example, organised crime smuggle cigarettes from states with low tobacco taxes in the US into states with higher taxes, and such activities are accompanied by violence and illegal supply and, indeed, legal supply.

Given the short time I have got, I will leave it there. There is so much more I could say but I think these myths that are often floated around need careful and close scrutiny because, when they are scrutinised, they often do not stack up.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT