A PLEA TO DEAF EARS FOR SOME DRUG LAW REFORM

THERE are about 1.2 million ecstasy criminals in Australia, and
they'll be joined by more this weekend.

We mostly hear that all drugs are evil and horrible and wreck the
lives of all who take them. They lead to crime; they destroy
families. Their possession deserves to be a criminal offence, no
matter what the drug or what is done after taking it.

Anyone who disagrees is branded as soft on drugs, pro-crime and as
good as advocating more drug deaths.

The dissenters shouldn't be so roundly dismissed. Drugs, which vary
enormously, don't ruin every user's life; nor do they invariably lead
to addiction or further criminal offences. Most recreational users
take illicit drugs only occasionally, then get back to work. The
horribly addictive heroin is a stranger to this group of
well-educated, professional workers who don't think popping a pill
warrants a stretch inside.

Possessing a single ecstasy tablet carries a maximum penalty of two
years' jail, a penalty which is doing little to reduce consumption.
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research figures show recorded
offences of ecstasy possession rose by an average 30.9 per cent in
each of the past 10 years, from 50 in 1995 to 563 last year.

That ten-fold jump could be due to higher consumption, increased
policing or, more probably, both.

The 1998 National Drug Strategy Household Survey found 4.8 per cent
of respondents aged over 14 had tried it. In 2004, it was 7.5 per cent.

People who stick to Australia's legal drugs of choice (alcohol and
tobacco) are not criminals, despite figures which indicate they are
more often fatal than ecstasy.

In Britain, ecstasy has been widely used for years, and in 1997
figures from the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence showed it
killed 0.0002 per cent of users each year. Tobacco killed 0.9 per
cent of smokers each year and alcohol was fatal to 0.5 per cent of drinkers.

While reporting those statistics, The Economist said: "A motorbike
journey is three times as likely to kill you as taking a tablet of
street ecstasy and - astonishingly - flying on a civil airliner is
one-and-a-half times as dangerous as dropping an 'e'."

In Australia, one 2003 study estimated that alcohol caused more than
12,000 deaths by injury in the decade to 2001, while tobacco is
estimated to cause about 19,000 deaths each year.

Despite those risks, adult possession of either is neither unlawful
nor criminal. Nor should it be. It may be unwise to consume drugs,
but it is not the place of the state to lock up those who do.
Overwhelmingly, the role of criminal law is to protect individuals
from the actions of others, not from themselves.

A lack of reliable research means there's scant firm evidence on the
long-term effects of recreational ecstasy use, but it's hardly going
to be beneficial. The indications are that, while occasional adult
users may suffer no noticeable effect over the long term, heavy users
may incur depression and have problems with memory and cognition, the
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre says.

Ecstasy creates a sense of euphoria and closeness to others, but also
changes body temperature. Some drink too little water to replace lost
fluids, and some drink too much (which is what led to the 1995 death
of a Belrose schoolgirl, Anna Wood).

The authorities should continue to dissuade people from drug abuse,
but criminal sanctions go too far. A drug conviction carries with it
not only a fine or jail term but also serious consequences for travel
and employment.

There are some advocates for legalisation, including the Australian
Drug Law Reform Foundation. The American Civil Liberties Union argues
legalisation would remove the black market and allow regulation to
ensure users know what they're taking.

Others think decriminalising soft drugs would go far enough, but
according to last year's household survey, most Australians are
against both. When The Economist suggested legalising all drugs in
1997, no developed country had tested the idea. One now has gone part way.

Portugal scrapped criminal sanctions for possessing small quantities
of any illicit drug in 2001. They are still illegal, but anyone
carrying up to 10 doses is not subject to conviction. Instead, they
may be counselled, fined or warned. Last year, Fernando Negrao, who
heads the Health Ministry's Institute for Drugs and Addiction, told
the BBC: "There were fears Portugal might become a drug paradise, but
that simply didn't happen."

For the forseeable future, decriminalisation of any drug except
cannabis won't happen here. The political hurdles are too high, the
debate too hysterical, and there are too many problems from
international drug treaties (and the United States), to stop
pointlessly making criminals out of those who aren't. That doesn't
mean we shouldn't.