Why legalisation and not decriminalisation? Some cautious and well-meaning people advocate the ‘decriminalisation’ of the possession and cultivation of cannabis for personal use. They accept that the use of cannabis is a victimless ‘crime’ and that the greatest danger posed by use of the herb is its current legal status. But having accepted that personal cannabis use is not a rightful consideration for agents of law enforcement; the same well meaning but mistaken amongst us (alongside conservative agents who want only incremental change at best) still advocate for ‘decriminalisation’.   Why? What does decriminalisation achieve? It continues the wrongheaded prohibition on the personal use and cultivation of cannabis, urging politicians to place ALL the discretion in the hands of the police [thereby making our police at once judge, jury, and… collector of fines].   It continues to stigmatize and vilify the actions of a huge percentage of our population who are doing nothing [morally] wrong.   It is economic madness to push all cultivation, sales, and distribution of cannabis into a black market, at once; depriving Australian farmers access to a valuable cash crop. depriving the Australian government of desperately needed revenue. making organised crime figures rich. and depriving Australian cannabis users of choice, protection, and a fair price.   It continues to deprive medical cannabis users of legal and economically feasible access to their required therapeutic agent.   ‘Cautioning’ and fines are not the answer – they are a civil rights nightmare: do you want to give the police even more power to decide if you are guilty, how guilty you are, and how much you should pay? Cannabis is a medical, not a legal matter. The police force should not be involved.   DECRIMINALISATION = just another way of saying ‘NO’ LEGALISE CANNABIS NOW.  

There are several reasons why harm reduction and drug law reform are slowly gaining the ascendancy over punitive approaches to illicit drugs. First, the scientific debate over harm reduction is now over: it is now widely accepted that harm reduction is effective, safe and cost effective. Second, there is growing acknowledgement that not only has prohibition failed, but the collateral damage from relying on drug law enforcement results in very high health, social and economic costs. Third, the global financial crisis is forcing governments to abandon expensive white elephant programmes and shift funds to more cost-effective interventions. Fourth, Barack Obama is now the third US President in a row known to have consumed cannabis but the first to not only admit using and enjoying the drug but doing so ‘many times’. Fifth, the international problems created by prohibition in countries such as Afghanistan and Mexico have highlighted the huge costs of the unintended consequences of the War on Drugs. Sixth, the increasing availability of computers has created a more level playing field in the debate between supporters of drug law reform and War on Drugs supporters. Finally, there is increasing recognition of the need for drug policy to be based on evidence and respect the human rights of all citizens including drug users.

There are several reasons why harm reduction and drug law reform are slowly gaining the ascendancy over punitive approaches to illicit drugs. First, the scientific debate over harm reduction is now over: it is now widely accepted that harm reduction is effective, safe and cost effective. Second, there is growing acknowledgement that not only has prohibition failed, but the collateral damage from relying on drug law enforcement results in very high health, social and economic costs. Third, the global financial crisis is forcing governments to abandon expensive white elephant programmes and shift funds to more cost-effective interventions. Fourth, Barack Obama is now the third US President in a row known to have consumed cannabis but the first to not only admit using and enjoying the drug but doing so ‘many times’. Fifth, the international problems created by prohibition in countries such as Afghanistan and Mexico have highlighted the huge costs of the unintended consequences of the War on Drugs. Sixth, the increasing availability of computers has created a more level playing field in the debate between supporters of drug law reform and War on Drugs supporters. Finally, there is increasing recognition of the need for drug policy to be based on evidence and respect the human rights of all citizens including drug users.