Soft on Drugs? ... Soft in the Head!

Darren “Maaaate” Marton

Today, in the The Daily Telegraph, Darren Marton wrote. 

I AM not an expert in the drug and alcohol field. I am a layman who has learned his lessons through life experience.

And he is dead right. He is not an expert on drugs and forms his views from empirical data (his own experience). Certainly not worthy of consideration for a national or state drug policy.

But it’s more than that. Like most anti-harm minimisation zealots, Marton’s use of the truth, is dubious at best. It’s this willingness to lie along with a mix of fanaticism - in opposition to harm minimisation - that makes people like Darren Marton so dangerous.

Marton’s recent piece in The Daily Telegraph(below) is a prime example of how anti-drug rhetoric from politicians can be misconstrued as some wise, righteous advice that can only benefit the community. But lying about the facts is not helping anyone, especially the families of drug users who have suffered the consequences from decades of propaganda. Marton’s message is just an extension of that propaganda, hurting the very people he is supposed to care so much about.

Claiming we have never had a "War on Drugs" is an insult to the millions of people incarcerated around the globe who have done nothing wrong but suffer an addiction. Imagine how do African-Americans and Latinos in the US feel when someone denies that they are victims of a largely racist policy? Although African-Americans make up 12.2 percent of the population and 13% of regular drug users in the US, they account for 74% of all Americans sent to prison for drug possession crimes. In other words, African-Americans were sent to state prisons for drug offences 13 times more often than other races. It’s a similar story for Latinos. How can Darren Marton possibly defend a Zero Tolerance policy when it causes results like this? Look at the crack-cocaine disparity laws in the US. During his reign as US President, Ronald Reagan - whose strategies form the basis for Marton’s suggestions e.g. “Just Say No” campaign, tough drug laws etc. - increased penalties for crack possession, 100 times that of powder cocaine. Of course, crack is widely used in poorer suburbs largely populated with minorities like African-Americans and Latinos whilst cocaine powder was then exclusively for the richer, white middle-upper classes. This is the reality of Marton’s suggestions. The fact is, simple slogan campaigns like “Just Say No” or his own “No Way” don’t work and never have. They might appease nervous parents or posturing politicians but history and research have ruled them out as ineffective.

Australia minorities are not exempt from the harsh reality of the "War on Drugs" either. Tough drug laws inflict much more damage to poorer families than the middle-upper class. For example, most drug dealers are addicts on low incomes who fund their addiction by selling to other addicts and friends. This “crime” is non violent and between consenting adults yet it is the focus of a Zero Tolerance policy championed by those who are far removed from this world. At the other end of the scale are the largely hidden, middle-upper class addicts who often have the means to fund their addiction albeit, only for a while. They often can afford clever solicitors, have family support and let’s face it, scrub up better in a court room.

Denying we have ever had a "War on Drugs" is disingenuous and to suggest that we are somehow too liberal with our drug policy is wrong. What Marton fails to tell us is that our official policy of Harm Minimisation has never been properly implemented. Anti-drug zealots love to rattle on about harm reduction programs like needle exchanges, methadone etc. but it is only one pillar of the Harm Minimisation policy. The other two pillars are Supply Reduction(law enforcement) and Demand Reduction(education). If you believe people like Marton, harm minimisation is all about an easy ride for users and taking away resources for prevention and law enforcement. But Harm Reduction only receives 3% of the drug budget whilst law enforcement(Supply Reduction) gets a whopping 56%. Education(Demand Reduction) gets 23% while treatment gets a measly 17%. 

In other words, your taxes mop up the mess. It is a social experiment policy, and a reactive one at that.

Those who oppose Harm Minimisation universally favour Zero Tolerance. What they fail to explain though, is that most drug policies in reality are based on Zero Tolerance with smatterings of Harm Minimisation programs. Not exactly the “social experiment policy” that Marton claims. 

I ask the question: What kind of future do we want to leave our children and our grandchildren? If it's one that protects our young, strengthens families, and provides safer communities, then let's do it.

Apart from being poorly written, Marton’s piece is pure hyperbole. Exaggerated sound bites, warnings of a doomed future and conspiracy theories tossed together in a disjointed, mess of ideas. But this is the level of competence expected from crusaders like Darren Marton. A far cry from carefully researched studies by qualified experts with decades of experience. I can’t help but think of that famous quote from The Simpsons - Won’t someone please think of the children! And maybe we should. In the US, African-American children were nearly nine times more likely to have a parent incarcerated than white children and Latino children were three times more likely to have a parent incarcerated than white children. Another success for Marton’s Zero Tolerance strategy.

The former NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery QC, called at The Daily Telegraph's People's Parliament debate for the decriminalisation of some drug offences. This is outrageous.

In his article, Marton also mentions “The Daily Telegraph's People's Parliament debate for the decriminalisation of some drug offences” and how “outrageous” it is that former NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery QC wants a change to our drug laws. Maybe if Marton looked a bit closer he would have noticed that yesterday, several Liberal Party members attended a presentation in Parliament House by former ACT Supreme Court Judge Ken Crispin who warned us about the problems with our current approach to tackling drug crime. Dr Crispin said that the majority of Australians in jail were there because of drugs or mental illness and most would reoffend because they had not received proper treatment. He added that despite the billions spent on combating drugs, the price of heroin and cocaine had dropped but supply had steadily increased. The Libs who attended, fully support the idea of drug law reform and praised the ex judge’s suggestions. Surely a blow for Marton who relies so heavily on the anti-drug rhetoric of political parties, especially the Libs.

In summary, Darren Marton’s baseless article should concern all of us. With no support from professionals and experts, Marton and co. are left with the only option available ... to play on public ignorance and emotions. If Darren Marton actually spent some time researching the topic of drug policy and the effect on society he might come to a different conclusion. Instead, like so many other anti-drug crusaders, he keeps reiterating the same old, debunked suggestions that are rejected by most professionals in the AOD industry, researchers, scientists, welfare workers, doctors, economists and drug experts. And as history has shown, these suggestions when put into practice are not only dangerous but cause far more damage than drugs ever will. 

Soft On Drugs? Simply Say No

The Daily Telegraph 

Darren Marton

March 2011

I AM not an expert in the drug and alcohol field. I am a layman who has learned his lessons through life experience.

It is of serious concern to me that proponents of harm minimisation favour the legalisation for personal use of some prohibited drugs.

The former NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery QC, called at The Daily Telegraph's People's Parliament debate for the decriminalisation of some drug offences. This is outrageous.

For a number of years now it has been claimed that we have lost the war on drugs.

But we have never had a war on drugs. For some, moving to a second phase of harm-minimisation - legalisation - was always the final objective.

But I don't believe Australians are the type of people to wave the white flag.

The NSW drug and alcohol budget in 2009/10 was $140 million. In addition to the services that funding provides, the NSW Government also provides funding for treatment services.

In other words, your taxes mop up the mess. It is a social experiment policy, and a reactive one at that.

Kids as young as 11 have been calling for better drug education with the nation's largest youth survey revealing they feel "ill equipped" to deal with drugs.

When are we going to start listening to the most vulnerable people in the community?

It is far easier to build a young boy or girl than to repair a man or woman.

So it is imperative that we protect our most vulnerable with a focus or prevention and early intervention.

I ask the question: What kind of future do we want to leave our children and our grandchildren?

If it's one that protects our young, strengthens families, and provides safer communities, then let's do it.

Darren Marton is Director of The No-Way Campaign

Related Articles

Liberals Urge Soft Line On Drugs

Race and the Drug War

The Drug War Is In Part Responsible For So Much Economic Disparity And Suffering Of The Black Population In The U.S.

New Report Details Racially Disparate Impact of Facially Neutral Criminal-Justice Policies

Darren Marton - No Way!

Bucket Head of the Year Awards - 2009

Bucket Head of the Year Awards - 2010