8 June 2022

I’m a church minister. Here's why I think the ACT should lead on drug reform

| Andrew Smith
Join the conversation
ice, methamphetamine

Methamphetamine abuse needs more than a punitive criminal approach. Photo: Supplied.

As a church minister I get asked about drugs more than you might expect. That’s because the Uniting Church Synod of NSW & the ACT leads the Fair Treatment campaign to change the legal systems that govern drug use and to expand health services.

In this context, the ACT Drugs of Dependence (Personal Use) Amendment Bill 2021 has been a welcome development.

The Uniting Church is not alone in its belief everyone deserves access to health services when they need it. That our laws and policies should be fair, compassionate and evidence-based. That every human being is of equal worth.

The Church is also joined by many of the view that our laws that govern non-cannabis drug use are broken. Lots of people still use currently illegal drugs. People use drugs and alcohol for a reason. Some people develop drug dependency issues. This is the real world.

When we criminalise people with health problems, they become more isolated and less likely to reach out for help. Families suffer. People don’t reach their full potential. Our First Nations community is particularly impacted due to the legacy of dispossession and trauma, for which we must all take responsibility.

READ ALSO ‘Hard drug’ use falls in ACT but cannabis use soars

I’ve seen this first-hand in the congregations for which I have provided ministry.

Many people who live in the ACT know we need new legal systems to govern drug use. They are not swayed by noisy minority opinions that don’t reflect their views. The swing against ACT Senator Zed Seselja, who campaigned hard against these laws, shows that.

The bill before the ACT Parliament is a great opportunity to get our legal systems that govern drug use right. Clearly the current bill needs amendment. There are some simple solutions we can put in place now that would allow the bill to proceed in an improved form.

First, we need to ensure our police are given a workable triage system for people caught with small amounts of illicit drugs that has a spectrum of options. This includes no further action and the provision of information to establishing connections with health and welfare services.

READ ALSO Drug decriminalisation could make the ACT a ‘target for organised crime’, AFP Commissioner says

Second, we need to ensure the bill applies to all drugs. This is because “new” drugs are constantly being created. Plus, the more serious issues associated with the use of ice (methamphetamine) mean a health-and-welfare-oriented response (including mental health) is even more appropriate for ice than it is for cannabis. Surely, it’s a no-brainer that the more a person needs access to health services the more we should facilitate that.

Third, we need an independent, robust and publicly available evaluation of the new system at regular intervals.

Finally, we need to double the investment in health and welfare responses for people who use drugs. Turning away 400,000 people nationally from drug health services every year due to under-investment is a national shame.

The ACT is again leading the country on reform and showing it is not afraid to tackle the important issues. Let’s get it right.

Reverend Andrew Smith is a Uniting Church minister in the Canberra Region Presbytery.

Join the conversation

All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments

I don’t believe that the views of Reverend Smith from the Uniting Church represent the views of all Christian Churches.

If you drive past the Uniting Church at the cnr of Sternberb of Comrie in Wanniseverall see a number of political banners. To me, the Uniting Church appears to be more of a protest organisation, than a Church.

I’m 100% in favour of assisting people who want to get off drugs to get into programs etc, however, where I differ with Rev. Smith is that I believe that allowing small quantities of drugs isn’t a discouragement to use drugs; it enables it.

Not all the drug users are actively seeking treatment and for them, this law change just means that they can be more open with their usage, because procession (of small quantities) has no consequences.

It would interesting to read an article written by a police officer to see if they thought going soft on drugs would increase or decrease usage.

“It would interesting to read an article written by a police officer….”
Would it? Why might that offer a less biassed view than that of a Uniting Church Minister (or v. v.)?
I would be far more interested in data from criminologists or healthcare researchers but then, I am more interested in improving the whole of society and less in mere affirmation of biasses.
As for whether Andrew Smith represents the views of all christian churches, who cares?

There’s one question that should also be answered as part of this: how does throwing an addict into a prison cell solve any of this? I would hazard a guess that the honest truthful answer is “it doesn’t”.

The area of addiction is difficult and complex. This is not a topic that can be easily reduced to a three word slogan, other than doctors are far more qualified to treat addiction than lawyers and police. If this legislation helps get these people in front of someone who can actually help them, it’s worth considering.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.