“What needs to be avoided is cherry picking evidence, taking evidence out of context, and looking for evidence that supports a predetermined position,” says political columnist MICHAEL MOORE.

Two years ago the ACT adopted a radical change to our drug policy by legalising the personal use of a wide range of illicit drugs. Has it worked?

The Canberra Liberals’ Deputy Leader Jeremy Hanson claims it is a failure. The reality is that the evidence is not yet clear.

It is critical to carefully evaluate radical programs like the one introduced by Labor drugs campaigner and now minister, Michael Pettersson. important.

However, what needs to be avoided is cherry picking evidence, taking evidence out of context, and looking for evidence that supports a predetermined position.

Recent debate in the ACT Legislative Assembly saw the Liberals, yet again, take a conservative position on this policy area. Politically, it keeps them on the conservative side of politics, rather than living up to their own values. 

The very first of the Canberra Liberals’ beliefs states: “We work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives.”

A sensible evaluation is underway. The Drug Policy Modelling Program (DPMP) at the Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW, has been contracted to do the review.

This is not good enough for Hanson. He wants to pre-empt the outcome with his own evidence and approach. He told the Assembly: “We have seen the evidence. And I do not want to wait for more people to die”.

Hanson argues: “In the year before decriminalisation, Health Minister Rachel Stephen-Smith’s office confirmed just eight people were convicted of drug possession as a standalone offence.

“The government went soft on drugs to fix eight cases – and in doing so, unleashed far broader harm across the community.”

“These changes have been a legal, social and policy failure on every measure the government set when introducing these laws.” 

And he argues there are increases in hard-drug use, overdoses, drug deaths, drug driving, disorder and hospitalisations. 

Stephen-Smith responded in the Assembly by putting some of Hanson’s claims into national context while Greens’ Leader Shane Rattenbury argued that he disagreed with the premise of Hanson’s motion that drug use has increased because of decriminalisation.

These serious issues are being examined by professionals with sound expertise in this area led by Prof Alison Ritter, of the Social Policy Research Centre.

Confounding factors often play a key role, and claims of increased harm need to be looked at in context. As independent MLA Thomas Emerson pointed out: “Without sufficient government investment in the health response to drug use, a void opens for increased calls for a criminal response from people like Jeremy Hanson.”

Hanson argues: “We were also told police would shift their focus to dealers and traffickers. Instead, reported deal and supply offences have halved”. This needs to be interrogated carefully as it could also turn out to be a very good success story. 

Labor has had more than two decades to implement a safe injecting facility. A lack of facility may also have had an impact on the issues raised. Emerson pointed out that Supervised Injecting Place Trial Act 1999 is still on the books. But no action has been taken to implement it since Labor came to power in 2001.

Emerson also referred in a speech to the Assembly that the report, “clearly shows the long-term economic benefits of investment in harm reduction”. 

The Australian Capital Territory Harm Reduction Cost-Benefit Analysis report by ANU and the Burnett Institute argued: “Maintaining the current package of harm-reduction interventions in the ACT was estimated to have a benefit-cost ratio of 10.8 compared to the counterfactual scenario with no interventions.

“This means that every dollar spent on the current package of harm reduction interventions leads to $10.80 in societal economic benefits.”

Although Hanson’s motion failed to get support, other than from his Liberal colleagues, it is important for Canberrans to understand the impact of this legislative experiment. It must be done well and any evaluation be seen to be unbiased and transparent.

I have been a strong supporter of drug law reform for more than 30 years, including the legislation that was introduced by Michael Pettersson.

However, if the evidence changes, my view should also change. But let’s be very clear about the quality and interpretation of the evidence and not pre-empt the current evaluation for political brownie points.

Michael Moore is a former member of the ACT Legislative Assembly and an independent minister for health. He has been a political columnist with “CityNews” since 2006.