Moving Beyond the War on Drugs? The Rhetoric and Reality of Harm Minimisation in Australia

Aside from the issue of illegal networks and illicit markets, compelling arguments have been put forward that substance use is not primarily a law enforcement matter; rather, that at its core, this is a public health issue. For decades, significant resourcing has been directed at the enforcement of drug laws. There is now much evidence of a pronounced shift in what has historically been dubbed the ‘war on drugs’; part of that shift has focused on addressing a range of stigmas and obstacles for those attempting to access services and seek help. When discussing the role of law enforcement and public health (LEPH) in alcohol and other drug issues, there is value in exploring the issues of decriminalisation and prevention from the point of view of harm minimisation (The terms ‘harm reduction’ and ‘harm minimisation’ have a long and nuanced history. In some circles these terms refer to different concepts, and in others the terms are used interchangeably. Except for direct quotes, for the purposes of this chapter, we use the term ‘harm minimisation’ to refer to the overall practices of harm reduction as well as the Australian Drug Strategy concept of harm minimisation.). Here, we consider what evidence supports a health promotion approach to preventing harms from use of alcohol and other drugs, and to reducing costs to society, and burdens on intervening organisations. For ease of argument, we focus on drugs primarily, and explore how law enforcement and the health sector can work together to achieve these results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic €32.70 /Month

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

eBook EUR 53.49 Price includes VAT (France)

Softcover Book EUR 68.56 Price includes VAT (France)

Hardcover Book EUR 105.49 Price includes VAT (France)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Similar content being viewed by others

Reframing Dutch drug policies: a new era for harm reduction

Article Open access 31 August 2024

Social Effects of Prohibitionism in the Americas and New Drug Policies

Chapter © 2018

Harm Reduction Policies, Settings and Challenges

Chapter © 2015

Notes

Although the expression has been used by MPs from different jurisdictions over time, there has never been an official policy named “War on Drugs” in Australia. It has been more about an approach which prioritises law enforcement. For a timeline of Australian Drug Policy see: NDARC The Australian (illicit) drug policy timeline: 1985–2019, https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/ndarc/resources/Australian%20Illicit%20Drug%20Policy%20Timeline%20-%201985-2019%20-%20FINAL.pdf.

Directions Health Services is a specialist drug treatment service that has provided treatment and support to people and concerned others impacted by alcohol, drugs, and other addictions for more than 40 years. It is funded primarily by ACT Health and the Australian Government Department of Health.

Decriminalisation may replace criminal penalties with civil penalties. These could include referral to an education or treatment program, or a fine. Civil cases do not have to go through the court system and may be dealt with by tribunals. While records may be kept by a tribunal, these are not criminal records and will not affect employment, housing or travel opportunities. The key difference to a criminal model is that in a decriminalised model, while penalties still apply for use and possession of drugs, they are no longer criminal charges. However, decriminalisation is not legalisation. If drug possession and personal use are decriminalised, it is still illegal to possess and use drugs. Selling and manufacturing drugs still carry criminal penalties. See: https://adf.org.au/talking-about-drugs/law/decriminalisation/overview-decriminalisation-legalisation/#:~:text=The%20key%20difference%20to%20a,to%20possess%20and%20use%20drugs.

The Victorian Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative (IDDI) involves offering a caution to a person detained for use or possession of an illicit drug other than cannabis on the condition that they undertake a clinical drug assessment and enter any prescribed drug treatment.

A good example of such a statement is the demise of the ACT Heroin Trial. The 1996 proposal came up at the tail end of a ‘year feasibility study sponsored by drug treatment and policy experts’ (Bammer & Douglas, 1996). The proposal was rejected in 1997 by the Federal Cabinet. That rejection was followed by much pressure from medical practitioners to see to such a trial.

LEAP is a not-for-profit organisation of police, prosecutors, judges, corrections officials and other law enforcement officials advocating for criminal justice and drug policy reforms that will make communities safer and more just. LEAP believes that adult drug misuse is a public health problem and not a law enforcement matter while recognising that drugs can be dangerous and addictive.

With the initiative dubbed an “unusual legalisation scheme”; see https://adf.org.au/insights/cannabis-act/.

References

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Drug Education Network, Hobart, TAS, Australia Elida Meadows, Zoe Kizimchuk & Shirleyann Varney
  2. Australian Federal Police, Canberra, ACT, Australia Juani O’Reilly
  3. University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron
  1. Elida Meadows