Category Archives:Drug Supply

The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime has brought forward a special session on international policy, which will focus on a number of issues including the current worldwide debate about the decriminalisation of drugs.

Those who support prohibition typically argue that it reduces demand by sending a clear message that drug use is unacceptable and dangerous, while those against say it does more harm than good by creating an illegal black market for drugs (and all the associated problems), unnecessarily criminalises otherwise law-abiding individuals, exposes users to potentially-deadly fillers and fluctuating purity levels, and wastes tens or even hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.

This blog focuses on the question of whether high prices caused by drug prohibition reduces demand.

Cost of Australian Drugs

The 2015 Global Drug Survey found that Australian users can expect to pay dramatically higher prices for drugs than those in the US and Europe. It found that Australians pay an average €18 for an ecstasy pill and €166 for a gram of MDMA. This is second only to New Zealand, and slightly more than double of price in the third most expensive country, Switzerland.

Australian cocaine users are paying up to four times as much as users in Britain- cocaine is about $300 a gram in Australia, and $75 a gram in England.

”It’s a luxury item here [in Australia]. People who’ve got lots of money use coke and if you’re on benefits and doing crime you do crystal [methamphetamine],” Survey coordinator, psychiatrist Adam Winstock said.

The Australian Crime Commission described the price paid by local users as “astronomical” compared with other countries.

“When the drug is purchased in China it costs around $100 per gram; by the time it gets to Perth it’s selling for about $650 a gram,” the head of the ACC Chris Dawson said.

The 2011 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement similarly acknowledged the high price of drugs in Australia, noting the “extreme difference between Australian and international drug prices.”

Dr Adam Winstock says local prices are high because of the additional risk of importing drugs into Australia; a risk created by prohibition.

Quality of Australian Drugs

Drugs are also generally lower in purity in Australia, and can contain dangerous levels of deadly fillers.

In 2011, American street cocaine had an average purity of 52%, while the drug has an average purity of 19.85% in Australia.

The purity of ecstacy is also much higher in other parts of the world – pills in the UK have an average purity of 66.3% MDMA (the most common active ingredient), Danish pills have 59%, and Dutch pills have 77.5%. Meanwhile, the Australian government’s forensic facility, ChemCenter, says the average here is just 18.9%.

Prevalence of Drug Use

The 2014 United Nations World Drug Report says Australia is leading the globe in terms of recreational drug use.

Australia was found to be the world leader in ecstacy use per capita, the third highest user of methamphetamines and fourth highest user of cocaine.

Price Inelasticity

The concept of price elasticity relates to the influence of price on consumer demand.

Price elasticity is when consumers react negatively at the same rate as a price rise; for example, buy 10% less Adidas shoes when the brand’s prices rise by 10%.

The opposite principle, price inelasticity, is where consumers do not react to price changes at a corresponding rate. An example may be petrol, where a 10% price rise typically leads to a less-than 10% fall in consumption.

Surveys have found that drug use is characterised by price inelasticity; where price increases do not result in corresponding reductions in use, and that, by the same token, price falls do not cause an equivalent rise in use. This is said to be due to a range of factors, not the least of which is that habitual users will buy drugs regardless of price increases, and low prices are not normally a primary consideration for first time or recreational users.

Accordingly, it is argued that increases in prices caused by prohibition do not lead to a corresponding reduction in drug use.

Like many others, President of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, Dr Alex Wodak, argues that changes in illicit drug use are fueled not by fluctuations in prices, but by growing socioeconomic inequality, mental health issues, low employment prospects and traumatic experiences.

He points out that prohibition and corresponding price increases do not decrease demand, as prohibitionists suggest, and we can only address high demand by seeing drug addiction as a public health issue and not a law enforcement issue; and focusing on providing resources to preventative and diversionary programs, rather than law enforcement bodies.

Here are a few reasons why sniffer dogs make bad drug policy: they’re inaccurate, they’re open to bias, they’re used to target low income communities, they cost a lot of money and they increase the risk of dangerous drug behaviours such as ‘loading up’.

In terms of civil liberties, the spectre of heavily armed police using dogs to conduct searches on members of the community in train stations and other public spaces encroaches on our freedom from arbitrary interference by agents of the state.

In 2006, the New South Wales Ombudsman conducted an extensive investigation into the use of sniffer dogs, finding that:

“There is little or no evidence to support claims that drug detection dog operations deter drug use, reduce drug-related crime, or increase perceptions of public safety. Further, criticisms of the cost-effectiveness of general drug detection operations appear to be well founded…

In light of this, we have recommended that the starting point when considering our report is a review of whether the legislation in its present form, or amended as suggested, should be retained at all.”

The Ombudsman recommended that sniffer dogs be scrapped altogether. It’s taken a decade, but there is finally a chance of this becoming a reality.

The Proposed Law

Jenny Leong, the Greens MP for Newtown, has introduced a bill into New South Wales Parliament that would repeal the use of drug detection dogs by police without a warrant.

The Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Amendment (Sniffer Dogs—Repeal of Powers) Bill 2016 seeks to alter sections of the LEPRA legislation, and Tattoo Parlours Act 2012, to remove provisions relating to the use of sniffer dogs in carrying out drug detection.

“In NSW, the use of sniffer dogs by police on public transport, at festivals and in bars is not about effective drug control – it’s about police intimidation and harassment,” says Leong.

“The NSW drug dog program has been shown over and over again to be ineffective and a waste of public money. It’s also highly discriminatory – targeting already marginalised groups in our community – and a blatant breach of our civil rights.”

“Time after time the stats show that the program just doesn’t work,” says Leong. “Health and law specialists say so. The Ombudsman says so. But the government is stubbornly refusing to see the evidence.

The Bill will be debated in coming weeks. However, you can watch Jenny Leong’s speech in New South Wales Parliament in support of the bill below:

Is the Tide Turning on Sniffer Dog Use?

Earlier this year, another New South Wales MP, Labor’s Jo Haylen, spoke out against the use of sniffer dogs during a debate on health policy at the State Labor conference.

Ms Haylen, the member for Summer Hill, argued that sniffer dogs have been ineffective in targeting drug dealers, and instead have made drug users engage in even riskier behaviour – the opposite of the program’s original intentions.

“Sniffer dogs are ineffective,” she said.

“They’re wrong three quarters of the time, causing unnecessary interactions between police and young people.

“Rather than ruining lives with a criminal record or worse still, leaving people to take risks on their own, let’s be brave,” Ms Haylen said.

“Let’s make good evidence based public policy and once again make NSW a world leader when it comes to harm minimisation.”

Earlier this week, the NSW Legislation Review Committee also threw their support behind Leong’s bill, saying “[it] supports the principles and advances the human rights referenced in Sections 8A of the Legislation Review Act 1987”.

Ms Haylen argued that the government should instead be encouraging the use of amnesty bins and pill-testing at music festivals, as ways of discouraging harmful drug use. However, it is unclear what stance Labor will take on the new legislation when it comes to a vote later this year.

Sniffer Dogs in NSW

Under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), police have the power to use sniffer dogs in a number of places, including train stations and music festivals. In 2012 this was extended to also include tattoo parlours, despite mounting evidence that the program was a failure.

Recent statistics show that over 60% percent of searches are the result of a ‘false-positive’, where the dog has falsely indicated a person is carrying drugs. This and other problems with sniffer dog use have led criminal lawyers to conclude that positive indications are not enough to constitute the ‘reasonable suspicion’ required for a search; a conclusion which is consistent with advice given to the Ombudsman by senior barristers.

Further research has shown that drug detection dogs react heavily to the bias of their handlers – a possible explanation for the high rate of false detections. Additional research suggests that passengers boarding a train at Redfern station are 6.5 times more likely to be searched for drugs than passengers at Central station – leading to allegations of bias in police deployment.

Given the ineffectiveness of sniffer dogs – and the tragic consequences that have resulted from users ‘loading up’ before and during festivals – it is hoped that more politicians will see sense and start focusing on harm minimisation measures rather than wholesale and counter-productive interferences in personal liberties.

Earlier this week, the NSW Police Force released plans to expand its ‘Dob in a dealer’ campaign, targeting ice dealers in Sydney.

The announcement has already been met with criticism from drug reform experts, who argue that the Government should focus on harm minimisation, rather than invest further resources into the failed ‘war on drugs’.

The expansion announcement comes just months after the release of the anti-drug campaign titled ‘Stoner Sloth’ – a video series criticised for being ineffective and downright ridiculous.

According to Matt Noffs, whose Noffs Foundation specialises in drug treatment for young people, the Stoner Sloth campaign was a “waste of money”. Mr Noffs believes the money could have been better spent on helping young people to beat drug addiction and get back on the right path. He told the Sydney Morning Herald:

“For less than the cost of this campaign, we run street universities that help hundreds of kids off drugs,” and “The biggest issue I have with this campaign is that it stigmatises children with drug issues.”

But the Stoner Sloth wasn’t the first time our government failed in its attempt to deter young people from taking drugs. Here are five other ad campaign criticised for being ineffective.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles – Say No To Drugs Advert

On its surface, this commercial seems pretty good: it is 30 seconds long, everyone loves the Ninja Turtles, and the marijuana pusher appears crushed at the end, after the six year old’s crushing corny 90s putdown.

That is until you take a step back and think: were middle-class, suburban, TMNT-loving six-year olds really a group teetering on the brink of marijuana addiction? Probably not. In reality, this ad may have been responsible for introducing some of that demographic to the concept of pot. Oops.

If there is any message six-year-olds took from watching this ad, it’s abstaining from “pot” is for their cartoon-watching friends, while their cool, leather-clad, older brother blazes it.

Your Brain on Drugs

Probably the most famous anti-drug campaign in recent history, this ad is full of gruff condescension. After making what is, at best, a muddled egg metaphor, the voiceover guy says “any questions” in a way which implies that if you do have questions, he’s going to punch you in the face. To clarify, your brain is not an egg. And doing drugs probably won’t scramble it.

Thinking of the long-term effect of this ad, it most likely accomplished one thing: reminding pot users how great some fried eggs would be right now.

Canadian Drug Rap

Released two years after NWA’s ‘Gangsta Gangsta’ helped make smoking weed mainstream, the Canadian Drug Rap never stood a chance. Unfortunately, no-one told the Canadians. The ad itself hits that sweet spot between Barney sing-along and full-blow acid freak out, which would be hilarious if wasn’t intended as a serious anti-drug campaign.

The premise for the commercial seems to be that kids might get confused between the sorts of drugs that are prescribed by doctors, and the kind that you get on the street. This seems a tad ironic now, with evidence of doctors issuing dangerous, legal painkillers to adults. That said, “drugs, drugs, drugs” is still an amazing chorus, worthy of the next Wiz Khalifa album.

An Anti-Drug Ad We Have No Way Of Describing

There’s a school of thought within the anti-drug movement if authority figures just act really, really angry at drug users, they’ll somehow stop using drugs. While NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione’s hardline on drugs is music to the ears of conservatives, he’s got nothing on this ad.

Beginning with the iconic this-egg-is-your-brain-on-drugs commercial (above), the actor then tells us that snorting heroin is like smashing the egg with a frying pan. Where did this weird metaphor come from? She then goes crazy and begins smashing up the once-pristine kitchen. It makes for engaging viewing, until you ask: does anyone actually snort heroin?

Don’t Blaze and Bathe

Yet another confusing metaphor and scenario. In this ad, a teenaged girl smokes a joint and dives off a high dive board headfirst into – *shock* – an empty pool. The ad raises a number of important questions: how was she sober enough to change into a one-piece bathing suit, but not realise the pool was empty? How did she get into the pool in the first place? How does this have anything to do with marijuana use?

So there you have it – ineffective, expensive and sometimes confusing attempts by out-of-touch conservatives to stop young people from taking drugs. One wonders what’s next.

For some, it was ironic for a representative of the NSW Police Force to advise police at the recent Mardi Gras briefing to be vigilant of “violent extremism” during this year’s celebrations.

Although the tensions that flared up in the aftermath of the 2013 parade have largely subsided, the memory of Jamie Jackson Reed and Bry Hutchinson’s brutal arrests that year have left many questioning policing practices at the iconic event.

Last year, LQBTIQ legal groups reported receiving “significantly more” complaints than usual about police conduct during the parade, including their heavy presence outside the Moore Park after party.

More than 800 extra police were on duty at last year’s parade, as part of Operation Northcote. According to Dan Stubbs, director of the Inner City Legal Centre, the number of additional police was unnecessary and disproportionate to the event.

“People do find it intimidating and it’s not a dangerous event. In fact, it’s the safest event in the city all year… especially when you compare it to Future Music or Stereo,” he said.

The last few years have seen police introduce a swathe of new measures targeting Mardi Gras patrons; including a ‘decency inspection team’ to police the suitability of outfits.

“Drug detection dog operations teach people not to trust police”

Although there has been a general increase in sniffer dog operations in Sydney, their relationship with the LQBTIQ community is particularly chequered. According to Will Tregoning, founder of the UnHarm drug decriminalisation campaign group,

“In the early days of the drug detection dog program they were used to target specific communities. We’re talking from the beginning in 2001, when the NSW Police used drug dogs for early operations. The gay clubs on Oxford Street were regularly targeted… What had been a place owned by the community, increasingly felt like a controlled space, and was a factor that lead to the downfall of that area”.

Mr Tregoning expressed his concerns to Sydney Criminal Lawyers® that the presence of sniffer dogs in the marshalling section of this year’s parade will lead to dangerous behaviour, such as ‘loading up’ on drugs. He feels police are creating distrust, and undoing the work undertaken over many years to build bridges between police and the LQBTIQ community.

“What the drug detection dog operations do is teach people not to trust police, they create antagony and mistrust within communities, including the gay and lesbian community… Police are there to take care of people, and yet the drug detection operations are doing the opposite. They’re taking away the opportunity for collaboration between community and the police,” he said.

“You need to cover them up or we’re taking the float down”

Decency Inspectors will again be present in the marshalling area of this year’s Mardi Gras, who have the job of deciding what event goers can and can’t wear. NSW Police corporate spokesperson for LQBTIQ people, Tony Crandell, admits that the decisions of these officers can be arbitrary.

“We are often asked what’s okay and what’s not, which is sometimes difficult to describe – when you see something offensive, you just know.”

In 2013, the Decency Inspection Team came under fire for demanding that members of the Leather Pride float, a staple of Mardi Gras, cover their backsides before being allowed to march in the parade.

“They said ‘we’ve got five of your boys in jocks and chaps,’” says the Sydney Leather Pride Association’s John-Bernard Tyndall. “And I went ‘it’s never been a problem before’. They turned around and said well it is a problem, it’s indecent, you need to cover them up or we’re taking the float down.”

Mr Tyndall told ABC News:

“I pointed out a couple of other floats that were going past which had less covered women on them, women with exposed breasts et cetera. And they basically said, well they’re women you’re men we have to draw a line somewhere.”

Mr Tyndall believes these inspectors are an example of over-policing, and that their decisions are arbitrary and gender biased.

“Two four six eight, gay is just as good as straight!”

It has been almost four decades since Sydney’s first Mardi Gras parade. On 24 June, 1978, a number of gay men, lesbians and transgender people met at Taylor Square to march down Oxford Street to protest against the government’s anti-homosexuality laws.

After a scuffle with police at Hyde Park, the group retreated to Kings Cross, where 53 people were arrested near Kings Cross Police Station. A week later, the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper published the names and addresses of those arrested, causing many of them to lose their jobs and be evicted from their rental properties.

Thankfully, four decades later, Australia has become a more tolerant society when it comes to LQBTIQ people – and police no longer share the same hostile attitudes they once did. Years of work and cooperation have built bridges between the groups, but there is still work to do.

Last year, the City of Sydney Council voted unanimously to ask the NSW Parliament, NSW Police Force and Sydney Morning Herald to apologise to the victims of the first Mardi Gras. With the motion going before Parliament later this year, it is hoped that this long-overdue apology will finally become a reality.

Co-chair of the 78’ers, Steve Warren, told the Star Observer: “An apology from the NSW Government, and from Fairfax news, is something that many 78ers and the wider community have been calling for some time.”

To those attending this year’s Mardi Gras, stay safe, look after your mates and have a blast!

NSW Labor MP Jo Haylen has broken ranks with her party, calling on the Government and police to end the use of drug sniffer dogs, during a debate on health policy at the recent State Labor conference.

Ms Haylen, the member for Summer Hill, highlights the fact that sniffer dogs have proven to be ineffective in catching drug dealers; instead leading to risky behaviours such as ‘loading up’ before or during festivals – the opposite of the program’s original intentions.

“Sniffer dogs are ineffective,” she said during the conference.

“They’re wrong three quarters of the time, causing unnecessary interactions between police and young people.

“They scare young people into ingesting all of their drugs at once, and cause unnecessary over-doses.”

This is not the first time the state’s sniffer dog program has come under fire recently. Pressure has been mounting on the government to reform its drug strategy after the deaths of several festival patrons from loading up on ecstacy tablets.

Ms Haylen argues the government should instead be encouraging the use of amnesty bins and drug testing at Sydney music festivals, as ways of minimising harm.

“Rather than ruining lives with a criminal record or worse still, leaving people to take risks on their own, let’s be brave,” Ms Haylen said.

“Let’s make good evidence based public policy and once again make NSW a world leader when it comes to harm minimisation.”

Opposition health spokesman, Walt Secord, says Ms Haylen’s position does not represent ALP policy on the issue.

Tide Turning on Sniffer Dogs

Ms Haylen is just one of several NSW politicians to speak out against sniffer dogs in recent months. Earlier this year, Greens MPs David Shoebridge, Jenny Leong and Mehreen Faruqi signed an open letter calling on the government to allow pill testing at music festivals in place of sniffer dogs.

“This summer hundreds of police and many drug detection dogs will also attend music festivals. Despite the increased presence of drug detection dogs the facts remain the same: many of the young people attending music festivals will choose to take drugs. Policing has not, and will not, stop this.” the group wrote.

Other signatories include Dr Alex Wodak AM, President of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation and Miles Hunt, Lawyer and co-founder of the UnHarm campaign group.

Reflecting on his time as Premier of NSW, Bob Carr wrote last year that sniffer dogs at train stations had been “an issue that worried me while I was in NSW politics… I did not think it was the best use of police time… I wanted them to do things like make public transport safe and clean up Cabramatta.”

As Premier, Mr Carr oversaw the establishment of the Kings Cross Medically Supervised Injecting Centre, making NSW a world leader in harm minimisation. Without condoning heroin use, experts have recognised the bold move’s contribution to the fall in heroin related deaths over the last decade. It is hoped that pill testing could have the same effect.

Sniffer Dogs in NSW

Under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), police have the power to use sniffer dogs in a number of places, including train stations and music festivals.

Although these measures were originally intended to help police catch drug suppliers, a 2006 review of the program found it had been ineffective in this regard. Instead “the use of drug detection dogs has led to public searches of individuals in which no drugs were found, or to the detection of (mostly young) adults in possession of very small amounts of cannabis.”

More recent statistics have shown over 60% percent of searches are the result of one of these ‘false-positive’ identifications, raising doubt as to whether sniffer dog identifications are enough to constitute the ‘reasonable suspicion’ required for a search.

Rather than act as neutral observers, a 2011 study found that drug detection dogs reacted heavily to the bias of their handlers – a possible explanation for the high rate of false detections. In terms of bias, statistics reveal that a passenger boarding a train at Redfern station in 2013 was 6.5x more likely to be searched for drugs than a passenger at Central station, even though searches at Redfern were less likely to result in a drug related offence.

Given the ineffectiveness of sniffer dogs in achieving the government’s intended objective – and the tragic consequences of dangerous behaviours such as loading up – it is hoped that more politicians will see sense and start focusing on harm minimisation measures rather than wholesale and counter-productive interferences in personal liberties.