Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Let's make the drug debate a fair one!

By Phil Dye - posted Thursday, 24 May 2012

The drug debate and whether to decriminalise some illegal substances is getting fair coverage lately and rightly so. It's a topic needing new ideas and realistic perspectives. Yet can the drug debate ever be fair? The simple answer is no.

While anti-drug campaigners use emotional argument often surrounding the death of loved ones as their primary and very public banner, decriminalisation campaigners have only logic, statistics, theory and research to sway public opinion. Put simply, apples are just not being compared to apples. In any argument between emotion and logic, there is only ever one winner. The emotional position and the 'real-life' tragedies that colour their banner so well will win every time. Just ask anyone in advertising.

No one doubts the terrible grief experienced by the parents of Anna Wood, Daniel Smith or hundreds of others who die of illicit drug related deaths every year. The death of a child is horrific and something parents can never overcome. The premature death of anyone is terrible. Yet how many deaths are there from illicit drugs each year? Is death by illicit drug a universal and unavoidable truth?


According to research from both the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, around 1,400 unintentional deaths occur each year from illicit drugs or an immediate by-product like Hepatitis C. In comparison, an average 3,500 people die from alcohol related illness and a staggering 15,000 die as a result of tobacco related causes.

Of all the recreational 'drugs' available to Australians, illegal ones constitute only 7% of the total drug deaths each year. Legal drugs dominate in the death stakes – a fact many anti-drug campaigners fail to mention. What's more telling is that the 7% of illegal drugs deaths includes death from the 'hard drugs' like heroin or mandrax, with most of these deaths coming as a result of hepatitis B or C through needle sharing. Deaths through 'Softer' recreational drugs like ecstasy, cocaine or cannabis, drugs without needle requirements, rate very low indeed.

Yet in the media game, the game of public opinion, it's the emotional argument complete with pictures of grieving parents and once smiling children that has the greatest impact. Newspaper articles depicting the young face of Anna Wood combined with the image of her two distraught parents leaves an indelible mark on our psyche. The true-life drama commands more attention and indeed wins more votes than the harsh yet very real statistic. The modern true-life drama of George W Bush's search for 'weapons of mass destruction' captured the world's imagination and drove us all down a road we didn't need to travel. The harsh reality proved the drama had no basis in fact. Many dramas don't. They may have a basis in one truth, yet certainly not a universal truth.

Closely related to this emotion versus logic imbalance is the fact that there is virtually no one on the decriminalisation side willing to own up to a current or past positive use of illegal recreational drugs. They would either be out of a job or in prison within the week, and that's too high a price to pay for honesty.

Let's face it, many older, respected community members indulge or have indulged in occasional recreational drug use. Some may do it once a year, while others once a month. Some did it years ago and simply enjoyed it. Amazingly, most of these members of the community did not end up in intensive care nor develop a life-damaging habit.

During my work in both government and the private sector, I've known lawyers, doctors, actors, teachers, journalists, accountants, government officers and even old-age pensioners to follow a path of 'safe occasional and soft' recreational drug use – a path they often defended as being far less damaging than a regular habit of alcohol or tobacco. Were they nice people? Most certainly! Were they brain addled skeletal, addicted sub-humans? Certainly not! Did they contribute positively to society? Yes indeed.


Yet none of these individuals would risk 'coming out' and declaring their 'sins'- either past or present - in support of 'softer drug' decriminalisation. Not because they don't believe in it, but because the spotlight would be turned on them by the anti-drug coalition, their employers and the law in a way that could potentially ruin their lives.

In any argument where one side practices outside the law, and the other within it, there can be no balance, no fairness and no truth. If the drugs debate is to be fair, the custodians of information must firmly separate the emotional from the rational. Alternatively, emotional and logical arguments should be fostered for both positions in a climate of safety.

Safety however, when it comes to any open declaration of illegal practice is impossible to guarantee. Truthful, honest debate suffers at a time when it's most needed. For the sake of this vital discussion, let's for once try to leave behind the emotive tabloid images of ruined families and lives lost too soon, and compare apples with apples. Without this level playing field, any new policy stance or potential social change will be forever doomed.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

14 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Phil Dye is a social commentator and an educator at the University of New South Wales. He is also the author of The Father Lode; a 21st century guide for new dads available through Amazon eBooks.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Phil Dye

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Phil Dye
Article Tools
Comment 14 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy