Tweet
http://www.smh.com.au/world/war-on-d...124-1qem4.html
The war on drugs has failed and it's time to decriminalise them, Sir Richard Branson says.
And he has been praised by Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith for speaking out on an issue where "most people will say nothing".
Advertisement: Story continues below The billionaire British entrepreneur, who is due to appear at a UK parliamentary inquiry into drug policy today, wrote in London's Daily Telegraph that political leaders needed to find the courage to speak out against current drug policies.
"Over the past 50 years, more than $1 trillion has been spent fighting this battle, and all we have to show for it is increased drug use, overflowing jails, billions of pounds and dollars of taxpayers' money wasted, and thriving crime syndicates," he wrote.
"It is time for a new approach."
'Alternatives available'
His view is supported by Dr Geoff Gallop, the former premier of Western Australia, who told smh.com.au the use of the words "war on drugs" gave it a military application that provided "a bad way of looking at this issue".
"There are better ways of looking at it and decriminalising use I think would be a very good step forward, and then properly regulating supplying and distribution with a view to harm minimisation.
"There is evidence now that alternatives are available which don't have the catastrophic consequences that the critics say and in fact, have positive consequences in terms of people who abuse drugs and get addicted."
Mr Smith, who said he had discussed this issue with Sir Richard in the past, told smh.com.au the Virgin boss would not have spoken out if he did not feel strongly about it.
"I believe Richard Branson is a very decent person. He would not write that unless he has really thought about it," Mr Smith said.
"And he realises there is downside as well as an upside. It's what you do on balance. Obviously what we are doing now is not succeeding.
"I admire him because it is completely out of left field and he has no financial interest in this. He will be attacked and criticised. But he is saying it how it is. He is showing some real leadership in this matter and I think that's important."
'Cutting consumption and reducing harm'
Sir Richard argued for a move away from prohibition and enforcement towards a focus on cutting consumption and reducing harm, saying that a study by the Global Commission for Drug Policy - which he was a part of - on international drug policies over the past 50 years revealed the failure of current measures.
"First, prohibition and enforcement efforts have failed to dent the production and distribution of drugs in any part of the world. Second, the threat of arrest and punishment has had no significant deterrent effect on drug use.
"We need a debate on how policy can cut consumption and reduce harm, rather than inflammatory scaremongering. It is not about supporting drug use; it is about solving a crisis."
Sir Richard wrote that while it was not yet known which policies would work best, lawmakers all over the world should be encouraged to experiment with new policies, citing some steps taken by Switzerland and Portugal.
"Following examples such as these and embracing a regulated drugs market that is tightly controlled and complemented by treatment - not incarceration - for those with drug problems will cost taxpayers a lot less."
Sir Richard said the methods to evaluate such policies should also be radically changed - with the focus on outcomes instead of on arrests, prosecutions and drug seizures, "which turn out to have little impact on levels of drug use or crime".
"We should instead measure the outcomes in the same way that a business would measure the results of a new ad campaign.
"That means studying things like the number of victims of drug-related violence and intimidation, levels of corruption connected to the drug market, the amount of crime connected to drug use, and the prevalence of dependence, drug-related mortality and HIV infection."
'Political nervousness'
Mr Smith said while he generally agreed with Sir Richard's opinions, he believed it would be almost impossible for people to change their views on the criminalisation of drug use.
"I think he's probably right but I don't think it will happen. We all say, if drugs are illegal we should be able to stop them."
But Dr Gallop said increased dialogue in civil society would help open up the debate.
He said Australia had been taking some "forward steps", through measures such as needle exchange programs, methadone programs, and in moves towards the decriminalisation of cannabis.
"But on the fundamental point of decriminalising use, there has been a hesitation and a political nervousness about it.
"And so I think the argument needs to be had and politicians then can perhaps find a little more relaxed about changing the law and not suffering any political consequences. I think the case for reform needs more movement within civil society.
"The public worry about these things. There are parents, they have cousins who are affected by it, so any government has to ensure people there are benefits and there's a lot of evidence to show that can happen."
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _
As a father of two I completely agree. Anti drug laws cannot and will not protect your kids against drugs. That's a parents role.
Chook.
The war on drugs has failed and it's time to decriminalise them, Sir Richard Branson says.
And he has been praised by Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith for speaking out on an issue where "most people will say nothing".
Advertisement: Story continues below The billionaire British entrepreneur, who is due to appear at a UK parliamentary inquiry into drug policy today, wrote in London's Daily Telegraph that political leaders needed to find the courage to speak out against current drug policies.
"Over the past 50 years, more than $1 trillion has been spent fighting this battle, and all we have to show for it is increased drug use, overflowing jails, billions of pounds and dollars of taxpayers' money wasted, and thriving crime syndicates," he wrote.
"It is time for a new approach."
'Alternatives available'
His view is supported by Dr Geoff Gallop, the former premier of Western Australia, who told smh.com.au the use of the words "war on drugs" gave it a military application that provided "a bad way of looking at this issue".
"There are better ways of looking at it and decriminalising use I think would be a very good step forward, and then properly regulating supplying and distribution with a view to harm minimisation.
"There is evidence now that alternatives are available which don't have the catastrophic consequences that the critics say and in fact, have positive consequences in terms of people who abuse drugs and get addicted."
Mr Smith, who said he had discussed this issue with Sir Richard in the past, told smh.com.au the Virgin boss would not have spoken out if he did not feel strongly about it.
"I believe Richard Branson is a very decent person. He would not write that unless he has really thought about it," Mr Smith said.
"And he realises there is downside as well as an upside. It's what you do on balance. Obviously what we are doing now is not succeeding.
"I admire him because it is completely out of left field and he has no financial interest in this. He will be attacked and criticised. But he is saying it how it is. He is showing some real leadership in this matter and I think that's important."
'Cutting consumption and reducing harm'
Sir Richard argued for a move away from prohibition and enforcement towards a focus on cutting consumption and reducing harm, saying that a study by the Global Commission for Drug Policy - which he was a part of - on international drug policies over the past 50 years revealed the failure of current measures.
"First, prohibition and enforcement efforts have failed to dent the production and distribution of drugs in any part of the world. Second, the threat of arrest and punishment has had no significant deterrent effect on drug use.
"We need a debate on how policy can cut consumption and reduce harm, rather than inflammatory scaremongering. It is not about supporting drug use; it is about solving a crisis."
Sir Richard wrote that while it was not yet known which policies would work best, lawmakers all over the world should be encouraged to experiment with new policies, citing some steps taken by Switzerland and Portugal.
"Following examples such as these and embracing a regulated drugs market that is tightly controlled and complemented by treatment - not incarceration - for those with drug problems will cost taxpayers a lot less."
Sir Richard said the methods to evaluate such policies should also be radically changed - with the focus on outcomes instead of on arrests, prosecutions and drug seizures, "which turn out to have little impact on levels of drug use or crime".
"We should instead measure the outcomes in the same way that a business would measure the results of a new ad campaign.
"That means studying things like the number of victims of drug-related violence and intimidation, levels of corruption connected to the drug market, the amount of crime connected to drug use, and the prevalence of dependence, drug-related mortality and HIV infection."
'Political nervousness'
Mr Smith said while he generally agreed with Sir Richard's opinions, he believed it would be almost impossible for people to change their views on the criminalisation of drug use.
"I think he's probably right but I don't think it will happen. We all say, if drugs are illegal we should be able to stop them."
But Dr Gallop said increased dialogue in civil society would help open up the debate.
He said Australia had been taking some "forward steps", through measures such as needle exchange programs, methadone programs, and in moves towards the decriminalisation of cannabis.
"But on the fundamental point of decriminalising use, there has been a hesitation and a political nervousness about it.
"And so I think the argument needs to be had and politicians then can perhaps find a little more relaxed about changing the law and not suffering any political consequences. I think the case for reform needs more movement within civil society.
"The public worry about these things. There are parents, they have cousins who are affected by it, so any government has to ensure people there are benefits and there's a lot of evidence to show that can happen."
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _
As a father of two I completely agree. Anti drug laws cannot and will not protect your kids against drugs. That's a parents role.
Chook.
Comment