In "Marijuana Use Most Rampant in Australia, Study Finds", Matt Siegel (2012) reports that a recent paper in the prestigious Lancet reports that Australia and New Zealand are joint winners in the international marijuana use stakes, with a full 15% of those aged 15 to 64, having used the drug in 2009, although this high figure is actually lower than in previous years. The authors of the report explain that the high incidence of use of this illicit drug is caused by both geographical and social factors: it grows readily in the Australian climate, in remote areas that are hard to monitor effectively, and it is commonly seen, like alcohol, "as a drug just to use to have a good time" (¶ 7), so much so that it "is widely accepted if not openly condoned"(¶ 10), with some states legislating to make possession of small quantities legal.
I have to admit, the results in this report did not surprise me. It's well known by everyone in the area where my family lives that marijuana is grown all over the place, mainly for personal use, but also for profit, and since the foolish and unjust laws ensure high prices, it is very profitable. I think the report is interesting since it is further evidence that that the idea some people have against legalising drugs that legalisation will lead to an increase in use is wrong. It's already so readily available and common in Australia that making it legal is unlikely to lead to anyone else using it. It will be interesting to watch how the usage statistics vary over the next few years once it becomes legal in some states of Australia. My prediction is that the trend towards lower use will continue. As the experience of other countries, such as Portugal, show, there is no strong correlation at all between the legality of a drug and the rate of use amongst people, although making drugs illegal does encourage corruption, keep prices high and waste valuable police resources, whilst harming decent people, especially young people, by giving them criminal records. Consistent with this is that fact the amphetamine use is rising in Australia, again, with zero correlation to its legal status, but perhaps related to social perceptions about what is and is not trendy.
Unfortunately, alcohol has always been trendy in Australia, and remains the number one drug problem, as it is in most countries, although as the report also notes, whilst "barely 1 percent of deaths in Australia annually can be attributed to illegal drugs" (¶ 12), a much larger 12% of deaths are caused by cigarettes, a far more deadly and socially harmful drug than any of the currently illegal drugs. But again, both alcohol and cigarette smoking seem to be more related to social beliefs and acceptability than to any legal or government action. People smoke less because it's no longer socially acceptable as it was 30 years ago, but despite repeated government educational campaigns, alcohol is very commonly used in Australia. Indeed, my own young nieces and nephews seem incapable of going to a party and not drinking a lot, and then posting about it on Facebook, and I think they're pretty normal, healthy, responsible kids (they're actually in their early twenties now, but I still think of them as kids), it's just that the social perception of alcohol makes it a very common drug to use. Although there is one change over the past few decades: people have realised that it is immoral to drink and drive, and that is now very uncommon in Australia. People just don't do it any more, and the result has been a dramatic reduction in road deaths from when I was a child and they were in the paper every day. Again, I don't think was a result of any change in the law, but a change in cultural beliefs that occurred over a period of time. I think it's OK if people want to get blotto provided that they do not harm or put other people at risk when they do so.
__________
References
I think legislation will not reduce a number of people who use illicit drug but morality can help people to start thinking that using illicit drug make a problem in our society. Like you said people believed that drink and drive are immoral although it is just a small group. It is a good sign that people thinking about morality.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Aom that the law cannot reduce the number of drug users; for example, In Thailand, although we have the strict law, but people can still find ways to take drugs whether put it in the bag of candy or put it in the doll. The problem of drinking alcohol, it is difficult to resolve as well. However, I think like Peter said that as long as they do not make trouble to anyone, crime in society might reduce slightly.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with your statement, I think that legislation about cadastral usage is the one way to reduce the number of addicts and drugs except the alcohol; if the government is good in management by changing marijuana areas to be others like agriculture area which can grow in suitable climate. For instance, our King Rama IX has changed the marijuana area which is in the north of Thailand to be strawberry farm or others which grow rapidly in clod climate. This thing not only decreases the illegal drugs but also makes profit to that local people. I believe that this management can solve the primary cause directly. However, morality and social perceptions are also important too because these can control the citizens to be more responsible when they are blotto or use the illicit drugs.
ReplyDeleteBut why should marijuana be illegal at all? It's much more unhealthy than alcohol, it's much more dangerous, especially for other people than alcohol, which causes violence in a way that marijuana does not.
ReplyDeleteActually, I can't think of any good reason why the sale and use of any drug should be illegal. Does anyone have a good reason for not allowing mature adults to make a free choice provided that choice does not directly harm others, as drinking alcohol and driving, for example, does?
Phas,
Which brings in the higher profit for farmers: marijuana or strawberries? Why should farmers be forced to grow less profitable crops than the consumers demand without any free choice? That communist-like government interference in people's lives and property seems unjust to me. (I like your comment. I think it's good when people disagree, something academics do all the time - they are an extremely argumentative and critical group!)
The Economist is on the list of media sources you can blog when it's your turn, and I noticed this morning "In narco veritas: Dissent about prohibition", in which The Economist. reflects on the foolishness of current drug policy which makes it illegal in most, although not all, countries to sell and use a range of dangerous drugs.
ReplyDeleteMore specifially, "In narco veritas" discusses the increasing number of calls from officials such as police and elected politicians to change the current policy of criminalisation, which is a well proven failure, in favour of a drug policy that might actually help ordinary, decent citizens, instead of enriching corrupt police, gangsters, and other filth.
As The Economist sadly notes, politicians and officials tend to wait until they are retired before making such calls for reason, justice and decency.
This cowardice in the face of popular but wholly unjust public opinion is certainly to be regretted. The good news is, I'm hoping, that the rising generation will not be so foolish and unjust as their parents have been when it comes to dealing effectively, sanely and humanely with the drug problem. Since so many Australians now regularly use marijuana, it's hard to see how the current laws can last much longer. And their demise might set a very healthy precedent to get people thinking. The end of laws making marijuana illegal will at least, as with alcohol, further prove false the common idea that making drugs legal leads to a sharp increase in drug use: the facts just don't support that false opinion.
References
In narco veritas: Dissent about prohibition. (2012, January 21) The Economist. Retrieved January 23, 2012 from http://www.economist.com/node/21543131?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/innarcoveritas