Between 2017 and 2018, 62% of the 130,000 individuals presenting to drug and alcohol treatment were there because of problems relating to either alcohol or methamphetamine (‘ice’) use. Unfortunately, relapse after treatment remains the norm, with a national study showing that only 52% of treatment-seekers substantially reducing or quitting their substance use a year later.

The Need for Neurocognitive Training Interventions

Unlike heroin, where we have effective medications like methadone and suboxone, there are no established or TGA-approved medications to treat methamphetamine problems, highlighting the need to invest in alternative treatment approaches.

Psychological counselling approaches such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy remain the predominant treatment, but they only focus on half of the picture. These address conscious cognitive processes generated in the brain’s frontal lobe (responsible for long-term planning and decision-making), which helps us to “put the brakes on” and inhibit impulsive behaviours when faced with opportunities to use alcohol or other drugs. However, they don’t address the subconscious processes that reinforce the cycle of addiction.

Antony Loewenstein will be appearing at the Melbourne Town Hall on the 9th September to launch his new book, 'Pills, Powder and Smoke: Inside the Bloody War on Drugs'. The evening will also feature a panel discussion with community leaders including Fiona Patten, Julian Burnside, Laura Turner, Mick Palmer, Greg Barns and hosted by ABC Radio journalist, Jon Faine. Antony Loewenstein will speak about the issues raised in his book and be available afterwards for a book signing.

When I started writing about the war on drugs many years ago, I soon realised its connection to the other bogus war in the last decades, the war on terror. Both conflicts are unwinnable and yet countless governments around the world invest billions of dollars annually into a militarised battle that’s done nothing to address the reasons so many people consume drugs.

Instead, drug use and abuse are soaring around the world, including in Australia, and the results are clear to see; overdoses, dirty and untested pills consumed at music festivals and ever-present stigmatisation around anybody who uses illicit substances.

Millions of Australians use, or have used, illicit substances at some point in their life, while millions more are regular users of legal drugs such as alcohol, tobacco or sleeping pills.

While some people become heavy users of alcohol or other drugs as a way of coping with past trauma or mental illness, this is not the story for millions of others. Young (and older) people use drugs and alcohol for fun, enjoyment and socialisation.

In describing in her findings arising from a wide ranging inquest into six fatal opioid overdose events, current illicit drug policy as “futile” and likely to exacerbate drug related harm, the NSW Deputy State Coroner, Harriet Grahame, urged the NSW Government to have the courage to commit to conducting a summit on drug decriminalisation.

On any reading of her findings, it seems clear that these are opinions directly driven by the facts as presented at the inquests and the coroner’s frustration, in the face of this evidence, at the continuing refusal or inability of the government to do more to stem the frequency of overdoses across the State.

I share her frustration.

It's 110 years since international cooperation on drug control began. In February 1909 the International Opium Commission in Shanghai saw governments from around the world come together to address what was dubbed “the opium question”, by proposing a global plan to suppress illicit opium use and markets. The meeting kicked off a century-long project of ever increasing international collaboration to eradicate illicit drug use and markets, culminating in the three United Nations drug treaties adopted in 1961, 1971 and 1988.

Since the 1970s, and the start of the “war on drugs”, these efforts have been marked by the increasing use of laws focused on punishment, policing, prisons and even the military as core tools of drug enforcement. Alongside this there has also been an escalation of human rights violations linked to drug control.

While ignored for many decades, the human rights consequences of drug enforcement are an increasing concern within UN bodies. In some cases, this is the result of years of patient campaigning by civil society organisations and affected communities. In others, it has been triggered by gross human rights violations linked to drugs, such as state killings, the death penalty for drug offenders and HIV epidemics driven by unsafe injecting drug use.

While this attention is welcome, it has rarely resulted in systematic or operational change within UN mechanisms to ensure the protection of human rights. But this is now beginning to change.

The United Nations Chief Executives Board (CEB), comprising 31 heads of UN agencies and associated programs, has released a policy statement endorsing the decriminalisation of drug possession for personal use. The same document also outlines a broader intent to shape international drug policy in terms of public health, human rights and sustainable development.

The 'directions for action' provided in the statement include a pledge 'to promote alternatives to conviction and punishment in appropriate cases, including the decriminalisation of drug possession for personal use'.  This represents a significant advance from the UN's previous position.

“Why are the police proceeding with this?” was my question. My client said what she had in her pocket barely registered on the police station’s weighing machine. 

One of my first cases as young lawyer was plea bargaining for a PhD university student arrested for a small amount of cannabis because she happened to be talking to a person ‘of interest’ to police. Other people are unlucky too. 

Nicole Lee, Curtin University and Jarryd Bartle, RMIT University

Drug-related offences take up a lot of the resources within Australia's criminal justice system. In 2016–17 law enforcement made 113,533 illicit drug seizures and 154,650 drug-related arrests.

Harm-reduction advocates are calling for the legalisation of some drugs, and the removal of criminal penalties on others. And there's public support for both.

But how did some drugs become illegal in the first place? And what drives our current drug laws?

As another year ends, the Directors and I would like to thank you for your support in 2018 and wish you a happy Christmas.

It's been a huge year for drug policy reform in Australia and around the world.

Here are a few of the incremental but significant developments.

• Australia's second Safe Injecting facility opened in Melbourne;
• Australia's first pill testing trial went ahead in Canberra;
• 3 Australian Parliamentary Political parties now support Cannabis legalisation;
• Canada became the second country and first Commonwealth member to legalise adult use of Cannabis;
• NZ legalised the use of Medical Cannabis by creating a "Legal Defence" for using Herbal Cannabis for medical purposes. (compared to Australia where herbal medical cannabis users and suppliers are still prosecuted);
• Dr Andrew Katelaris was acquitted of drug supply charges for providing Cannabis oil on the grounds of "medical necessity";
• NZ government has agreed to a referendum on legalising Cannabis by 2020;
• Mexican and South African High courts have ruled that Cannabis prohibition is unconstitutional.

These are positive developments, but there is a lot of work to be done to reform Australia's counterproductive drug laws which is why we need your help.

Is it time to call a truce in the war on drugs? Dr James Freeman looks at the evidence; and the evidence shows prohibition has failed, and decriminalising drugs ought to save lives and deliver both social and economic benefit.

The recent tragic drug related deaths of two young festival goers has seen calls for drug testing to be made available at these events. In a conversation on Facebook, I expressed my doubts that festival drug testing would have any meaningful impact for a number of reasons, but essentially because of this single statistic from the ABS: