Tomorrow’s Australian Drug Summit in Canberra is something rather special. The organisers have put together a list of some of the heaviest hitters in Australian Alcohol and Drug policy to advise their political counterparts of the tectonic changes occurring in drugs policy internationally. In the last 5 years, we have seen more radical shifts in that field than in the 50 years of the Global War on Drugs that preceded it, but Australia has lost its initial innovative momentum. We were one of the first countries to open a supervised injecting room, but there still remains only one in Australia. With researchers ready to deploy immediately a drug checking trial, as mandated by the Australian Medical Association over a decade ago, they are blocked by what appears to be differences of moral opinion.
 
The recent passage of ‘Dan’s Bill’- The Narcotic Drugs Amendment Bill 2016- on the anniversary of Dan Haslam’s death, was a triumph of one indomitable Australian country woman’s determination to overcome the innumerable obstacles thrown in her way, and honour the last wishes of her son. But there is still much to be done in getting medicinal cannabis to patients. In many cases, people power is leading the charge to a health-centred approach to drugs in Australia, wrong-footing those who have thrived under an approach more interested in morality.
 
The organisers hope that as many of our elected representatives as possible will attend, with open minds, and allow experts from Australia and overseas to help inform their opinions, and their decisions. Their employers, the electorate, deserve no less. The political debate on illicit drugs in Australia has stagnated, and wider discussion discouraged.  The laughably inadequate ‘Stoner Sloth’ campaign is an excellent metaphor; driven by appearances, to the detriment of outcomes.
 
More progressive countries are accelerating into the future, leaving lingering prohibition approaches like Australia’s behind. In April, the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs Policy convenes in New York, called early by several South American countries. Many countries see the potential for this meeting be a watershed. The world that we might wake up to on April 22nd, 2016 remains unexplained to most Australians. The politicians who will thrive in these turbulent times will be those who can embrace the science and adapt - with ‘agility’ - to what is certainly an uncertain future. The scientific and medical community will have their backs. Those who cannot adapt risk looking increasingly irrelevant and, perhaps even worse for them, leaving behind a legacy which they might not have expected. As for them - they’re on their own.

There is strong public support in Australia for decriminalisation approaches. The 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey found that nearly 90 per cent of Australians supported decriminalisation for cannabis use and possession and 64 per cent, well over half, supported decriminalisation of heroin use.

Decriminalisation should not be confused with legalisation. Decriminalisation removes criminal penalties for use and possession by law or in practice. It does not provide a legal avenue to obtain drugs.

Many countries around the world have decriminalised drug use and possession. The research evidence indicates that decriminalisation reduces costs, particularly to the criminal justice system and social costs to individuals, including engagement in the workforce.

There is no evidence that decriminalisation increases drug use or increases other crime.
Many people may not realise that Australia already has a mixture of de jure and de facto decriminalisation schemes. But, in Australia many people continue to be arrested and sent to court for only minor quantities of drugs.

There is an opportunity in Australia to expand decriminalisation by removing criminal penalties for possession of all illicit drugs. This is likely to reduce costs to the criminal justice system and also to the individuals.

Portugal is one country that opted to decriminalise possession of all illicit drugs over fourteen years ago (as part of a public health oriented approach that expanded investment in drug treatment, harm reduction and social reintegration). Contrary to predictions, the Portuguese decriminalisation did not lead to major increases in drug use. Instead, it led to reductions in drug-related harms, problematic drug use, burden on the police and prison system, and reductions in the social costs of responding to drugs.

The research data is clear: Decriminalisation of use and possession of minor quantities of drugs is not radical. It is a sound and pragmatic policy that can save costs, and offer a more effective and humane response to drugs.

It is not the case that Australia's drug policies don't work. There is mounting evidence in numerous areas  where our policies have been successful. Some of our policies have been extremely successful and internationally recognised as such. However, the drugs area is complex and dynamic. Policy approaches require continual monitoring and revisiting. At times, new policy approaches are required. We are currently at a point in history were we can take stock of what has worked and what has not. We have the opportunity to rethink and renew some approaches that have not worked and consider scope for innovation. Being clear about what we want to achieve, ie the goal we consider of paramount importance, should drive our policies and any new approaches. By definition innovative approaches can't be fully based on evidence, nor should they. Innovation requires us to be thoughtful but also courageous. It's time to be courageous.

Australia is in an ideal position to learn from the costs and benefits of macro drug policy changes happening at a state and national level in the Americas and Europe.

For some of these changes, such as the commercialised cannabis market models in Colorado and Washington, which were only commenced in 2014, it will take five years or more for the schemes to stabilise and credible evidence about their public health consequences to emerge.

For that reason, Australian consideration of macro drug policy options should take a ‘watching brief’ and learn from these developments overseas.

In the meantime, within the current macro drug policy framework, Australia should address the barriers to sensible, targeted, micro policy trials, such as drug testing at music festivals. But this will require political leadership to ensure the law enforcement and health sectors facilitate the piloting and evaluation of such harm prevention initiatives in the Australian context.