It is time to put aside emotion and be guided by reason in the quest for better drug law, says New Zealand Drug Foundation director Ross Bell in The Dominion Post (Wellington). "The Government's initial response to the Law Commission's report on drug law reform is disappointing. Justice Minister Simon Power's declaration that there's not a single, solitary chance he will be relaxing drug laws is symptomatic of the misinformation around this divisive issue," he says. The Law Commission does not advocate legalising or decriminalisation of drugs. Rather, it calls for "a rebalancing of our drug laws so efforts to curb supply are also better supported by measures aimed at reducing demand and minimising harm". Bell says even a cursory glance at the statistics shows that clinging to the status quo, as the minister appears to want to do, is not tenable. "Despite the punitive approach of the last three decades, a 2008 survey showed nearly one in two adults aged 16-64 years had used cannabis. At the same time over 333,684 hours of police time and $116.2 million were devoted to cannabis drug enforcement." When police resources are under massive pressure, the existing approach to enforcing our drug laws is difficult to justify, he says. "With respect to the personal possession of small quantities of drugs, the commission advances several options, including a formal cautioning scheme and the greater use of court-based diversion to education and treatment. Many other like-minded countries have reformed their drug laws and, in the process, embraced a more health-based approach to drugs". Bell says that in Australia this has been accomplished within "an overarching prohibitionist framework". "John Howard, a social conservative prime minister well-known for his hardline views on drugs, implemented a diversion initiative as part of his 'get tough on drugs' campaign - the law remained tough on traffickers and offenders who failed to take up diversion."  Bell writes that the Australian diversion initiatives had seen numerous benefits including large reductions in criminal justice costs. Compared to a traditional criminal charge, cannabis cautioning produced a saving of 1.5 hours per officer at the point of arrest and seven hours in cases where an offender would have otherwise had to go to court. "Importantly," Bell writes, "Australian diversion programmes have also reduced offending and the likelihood of imprisonment from reoffending. Lastly, diversion programmes have increased the cost-effectiveness of responses. One programme offered savings equivalent to $2.98 for every $1 invested, attributed to reductions in the costs of police investigations, hospitalisations, criminal activity and prison costs." - The Dominion Post
-What do you say? Add comments on our new comments section above each article