Do drug users deserve to die? Maybe I'm just a bleeding-heart lefty, but I hope that most people would answer this question with a 'no'. Unfortunately, if you read the comment section of any news story on the recent spate of drug-related deaths at music festivals you will find a mixed response.
While I am generally left wanting by any comment section on the internet, the callousness of some regarding this tragic loss of life astounded me. Comments suggesting that drug users 'have it coming' are rife. 'They knew the risks' is the common cry. Within these messages is the tacit belief that anyone who takes drugs immediately forfeits their humanity and the associated privilege of life.
The decision to take drugs is a cost-benefit analysis, and it is often made by sensible, intelligent, people. Yet, in our public discourse politicians only ever want to demonise drug users.
Before we can demonise all currently illicit drugs and their users, we must first deeply examine our attitudes to alcohol. Alcohol abuse causes more harm than heroin and crack cocaine (when taking into account its effects on both users and others), and costs the Australian economy roughly $15 billion dollars a year. Yet, even our conservative Christian PM has no qualms about sculling a cup of beer to help solidify his credibility as an average bloke. If the illegality of a drug were proportional to its harm, alcohol would be gone from shelves while mushrooms, LSD, and MDMA would be available from the corner store.
But why do people take illegal drugs? It's the question politicians from our major parties seem reticent to talk about. They are reluctant to engage with this question, of course, because it would require them to admit that drugs can be fun.
Drugs can induce euphoria, relax, calm, invigorate and stimulate. They can cause hallucinations and trigger spiritual experiences. Drugs can enhance or dull our senses and free us from inhibitions. People take drugs because they find the experience of taking drugs pleasurable — just ask anyone who drinks booze! If we're going to discuss drug regulation we must openly acknowledge this simple fact, because it's the reason that prohibition doesn't work.
There are, of course, several very good reasons not to take drugs. These include but are not limited to: addiction and its flow-on effects, the triggering of mental illness, brain damage, adverse reactions from unmonitored use, and a lack of regulation in production resulting in inherently dangerous products. On this last point, I would warn people off drug use for the simple fact that users currently have no way of telling what is in the product that they are buying.
"For most of our legislators, the goal has shifted away from harm minimisation towards prohibition for its own sake."
The government doesn't really have any interest in outlawing things simply because they are fun (though the NSW government's approach to music festivals might hint otherwise). The purpose of drug laws is, in theory, to mitigate the damage done by these potentially dangerous substances.
The reality is, however, that our politicians' goal is not to stop people from getting hurt; current laws clearly aren't based on the government's self-proclaimed principle of harm reduction. Instead, our pollies hope to scare people away from taking drugs through punitive laws.
We must face the fact that prohibition simply doesn't work. As has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout history, simply telling people 'don't do the thing you find pleasurable' is an ineffective strategy. This is where our politicians have failed us; they are too caught up in their own virtue signalling around the morality of drugs to actually deal with the fact that people are dying. It's frustrating, because we have some good evidence about what does reduce the harm done by drugs.
Firstly, we must talk about the flavour du jour: pill testing at music festivals. There is some pretty compelling evidence that pill testing will reduce drug related death and injury. Drug checking may even alter the black market for those who don't participate in testing by providing an incentive for drug dealers (who are not usually known for their ethical behaviour) to produce safer products. Even the AMA has called for further trials of pill-testing, so that its efficacy can be monitored.
Pill-testing is, however, only scratching the surface of this issue. Our nation must also start to have some serious discussions about the legality of drugs. In the past year, the Greens have officially made marijuana legalisation part of their platform. This is not a radical notion; places like Canada and many states in America have legalised marijuana and subsequently reaped financial and social benefits.
The decriminalisation (but not legalisation) of 'hard' drugs is another strategy that must be discussed. Though it seems counterintuitive, the benefits of decriminalisation are clear in that it lessens the burden on the legal system while allowing governments to redirect funds towards programs that help drug users both break free from dependency and reintegrate into society. Portugal is often held as the gold standard of how decriminalisation can lead to harm reduction; it experiences a lower level of problematic drug use and drug-related deaths than it did before decriminalisation.
So are we okay with drug users dying? The answer, unfortunately, seems to be yes. For most of our legislators, the goal has shifted away from harm minimisation towards prohibition for its own sake. If politicians stopped posturing, they might find that they have some clear, practical solutions ready to go, if only they had the courage to try.
Tim Hutton is a high school teacher and occasional freelance writer. His ramblings can be found over at www.mrhutton.com.
Main image: A young pill testing supporter holds a sign during a rally outside Sydney Town Hall on 19 January 2019 in Sydney, calling on the government to support pill testing at music festivals and raves. (Photo by Lisa Maree Williams/Getty Images)