Putting someone in handcuffs and sending them to jail for possessing small quantities of a drug doesn't help them get better.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
So argues Labor backbencher Michael Pettersson, who, after overseeing the legalisation of cannabis, now wants to decriminalise drugs such as ice, heroine and MDMA.
Mr Pettersson said the changes, to be introduced to the ACT Legislative Assembly next year, were the natural progression from the cannabis law reforms, the next phase in a broader shift in how drug use and drug users are dealt with in the Canberra community.
His new proposal would allow police to deal with people caught with small quantities of street drugs through a $100 fine, rather than the criminal justice system.
The Labor-Greens government essentially wants the possession of ice, heroine and MDMA handled in the same way cannabis possession was before it was legalised last year.
"Because of our drug laws, getting caught with a small amount of a drug of dependence can ruin your life," Mr Pettersson said earlier this week.
"You risk criminal conviction and potentially two years in jail.
"I would say most people in our community don't think that's an appropriate way of dealing with people who are using drugs."
Mr Pettersson's gauge of community sentiment might be accurate.
His proposal has not, at least initially, been met with the level of shock, outrage and outright opposition that such legislation might have elicited in other jurisdictions and political environments.
Canberrans have proven themselves to be open-minded on drug law reform in the past.
But neither Mr Pettersson, nor his more senior Labor colleagues, should mistake or confuse the community's open-mindedness as a green light to rush through legislation.
The Labor backbencher might consider his proposed changes to be small, an incremental step rather than a radical leap.
Any changes to Canberra's drug laws require careful consideration and, crucially, consultation.
Indeed there are some crucial differences between this proposal and the cannabis laws.
Mr Pettersson believes the decriminalisation of street drugs will cause far less controversy because police would retain the power to deal with offenders criminally, just as they did under the old SCON (simple cannabis offence notice) scheme.
Nevertheless, any changes to Canberra's drug laws require careful consideration and, crucially, consultation. The Liberals have already accused Mr Pettersson of blindsiding Canberrans, insisting Labor should have been open about its drug decriminalisation agenda in the lead-up to October's ACT election.
New Canberra Liberals leader and shadow attorney-general Elizabeth Lee said there had been a "complete lack of consultation" with health and legal experts, among other stakeholders.
The Australian Federal Police Association, whose members would be responsible for policing Mr Pettersson's laws, were also in the dark before the draft legislation was publicised on Monday.
Neither the Canberra Liberals nor the police union have explicitly expressed opposition to the idea. Both are willing to work with the government on the changes.
As he embarks on his latest endeavour, Mr Pettersson would be wise over the Christmas break to reflect on the rocky passage of his cannabis bill - a controversial piece of legislation which required rewrites right up until it was passed into law.
Its passage might have been smoother had the kinks been ironed out earlier. Genuine, thorough and far-reaching consultation can avoid similar problems this time around.
