Next steps for Australian Drug Policy: A Comparison with USA

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Background
Reasons for change in strategy
Drug policy perspectives in the US
Application in the Australian context
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Use of illicit drugs is a major problem to the Australian government. Initially, use of heroine was the major problem the government faced. The government later banned the use of heroine, and took measures to prevent the use of the illicit drug.

However, the heroine draught led to the use of other substitute drugs such as oxycondone. Australia has a policy that mainly prosecutes people found using drugs and ensures that they spend time behind bars for drug use. However, Australia does not have effective systems to help in the treatment of drug users.

Therefore, soon after getting out of jail, these people are involved in crime in a bid to get money to pay for the drugs. This makes the system used by the Australian government to be economically and socially wrong (Penington, 1999). However, to help in solving the problem of drug policy the country should take measures to prevent drug users from spending time behind bars, and instead, focus on treatment measures to help them overcome the problem of drug use.

This method has been successfully implemented in the United States where few people end up spending time jail due to drug use. Instead, most of these people are put under treatment programs to help them overcome the problem of drugs abuse. In addition, people who are incarcerated due to drug related offenses are enrolled in treatment programs long before their release, pending their release and successful integration into the society (Horwitz and Jamieson, 2011).

Background

The Australian government structure puts the responsibility of criminal law – a category that includes the drug laws – enforcement to the state governments.

Most of the current drug laws in Australia have been shaped by the commonwealth and other treaties that the government has entered into. Australia has ratified three international treaties – The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961) and the protocol (1972), the United Nations convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Drugs (1988), and The Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971).

The government therefore undertook measures to incorporate the treaties in its laws through undertaking several legislative changes. However, there are different interpretations to the level of sanctioning of Cannabis by the treaties that Australia has signed (MacKay, 2001).

As outlined above, the responsibility for enforcing drug laws is under the state governments. The state governments have therefore formulated different Acts to help in the enforcement of laws. In addition, the Acts vary from one state to another and offer explanation as to the criminal offenses relating to the possession, use, cultivation, production and trafficking, supplying and selling of the drugs.

The acts also define trafficable and commercial quantities of the drugs to determine the sentence that a person caught in possession of the drug may get. Generally, people who are convicted of being in possession of commercial quantities of drugs may get sentences that vary from 25 years to life imprisonment. In addition, there are “drug courts” which have been set up in four different jurisdictions in Australia (Mackay, 2001).

Australia has invested heavily in the fight against drugs, with the budget allocation for the fight against drugs forming among the highest in the developed countries as a percentage of the GDP. In fact, during the Australian financial year 2002/03 the government invested approximately AUD$ 3.2 billion (0.41 % of GDP) in anti-narcotics programs (UNODC, 2008). However, most of the Acts do not provide mechanisms, which may help in treating individuals and overcome the problem of drug use.

Reasons for change in strategy

By prohibiting the use of the drugs, the Australian government makes it difficult for the drugs to enter into the country. The jail terms also deter some people from drug trafficking. However, prohibition has been shown to facilitate the entry of drugs through corrupt police and other government officials (Penningham, 1999).

The tough measures, which the government has put to prevent the use of the drugs, are also retrogressive in fight against the menace. Different acts in several states facilitate the sentencing of people who have been found to have small amounts of drugs, which may have been for their individual use.

Generally, sentencing of the minor cannabis offenders on their first time offence makes them to have negative attitude towards the police and government. This people are prone to have problems with the law, employment or even relationships due to their perception of the society that changes after incarceration (MacKay, 2001). Therefore, the sentencing of the offenders ends up having a very high social cost to the society.

In addition, lack of treatment to make the offenders overcome the problem of drug use makes the offenders to be more addicted to the drug. By offering the offenders treatment to help them overcome the drug problem, the government may help in reducing future drug related offences of the people and reduce the demand of drugs, as only few people would use the drug after undergoing the treatment.

Drug policy perspectives in the US

The US recognizes dangers of drug use to the society. The federal government has therefore put in place laws to help in the regulation and prevention of drug use in the country. Specifically, the federal government has put in place legislation that ensures stiff penalties are meted to the drug related offenders.

However, there are states that do not criminalize possession or use of certain drugs, one notable being marijuana. These states do not deem as illegal the possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes. However, there are also other states that recognize the medical importance of marijuana, but do not prevent prosecution if one is found with the substance (Dolin, 2001).

Despite the fact that the federal government has put legislation that guarantees stiff penalties for the drug related offenders, the governments main aim is not to punish the offenders but to help in reduction of drugs usage. The government has also invested heavily in drug courts to enable the users of the drugs get treatment rather than jail terms. In addition, the government does not invade the medical marijuana clinics, thus fostering an environment of understanding and cooperation with the relevant bodies (Horwitz & Jamieson, 2011).

Several measures have also been taken to help in educating the youth to make them reject the use of illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. The US is also trying to break the sources of the illegal drugs, Mexico, the major route through which illegal drugs enter into the country (Horwitz & Jamieson, 2011). Through this strategy, the government tries to counter the use of drugs by reducing supply through imposing stiff penalties to suppliers (Bewley-Taylor, Hallam & Allen, 2009)

The US recognizes drugs as a social problem; the country has therefore put in place measures to help tackle the problem. There are several treatment programs offered to the drug related offenders to help them overcome the problem of drug use. Most of the programs begin when these people are still in the prisons, long before their release to prepare them for integration back into the society.

Application in the Australian context

Australia has among the highest percentage of drug usage in the world among its citizens. The government has invested considerable amounts of money to help in the fight against drugs. Most of the money is used to prevent the drugs from entering the country by facilitating border patrols.

However, to help tackle the problem of drug use, the government should invest more in programs aimed at reducing the demand, as it has been shown that prohibition does lead to decreased demand if there is a ready market for the drugs. The drug traffickers will always find means of smuggling the drugs if there is a ready market for the drugs (Penington, 2010).

One of the strategies that the government can employ to help in reducing the demand for drugs is the development of programs aimed at reducing the usage of drugs among the drug related offenders. The government should ensure that they prioritize the treatment programs, and small offenders are pardoned or given suspended sentences, which incorporate treatment therapies to ensure that they do not engage in usage of the drugs again. This would slowly lead to decreased demand that will reduce the need for increased surveillance.

Conclusion

Drug abuse is a problem faced by virtually every country in the world. To help in solving the problem, greater cooperation between different countries is required. In addition, the government should ensure that it does not view the drug problem in a criminal perspective. The government should be able to tackle the social perspectives of drug usage, as this would help in reducing the use of drugs.

References

Bewley-Taylor, D., Hallam, C. & Allen, R. (2009). The incarceration of drug offenders: An overview. The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Program Report 16. Web.

Dolin, B. (2001). National Drug Policy: United States of America. Library of Parliament. Web.

Horwitz, J. & Jamieson, D. (2011). The Two Faces of U.S. Drug Policy. The Atlantic. Web.

MacKay, R. (2001). National Drug Policy: Australia. Library of Parliament. Web.

Penington, D. (1999). An overview of the drug use and drug policy in Australia. Museum Victoria Lecture series. Web.

United Nation Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2008). Drug policy and results in Australia. UNODC. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!