Thomas Stockman

Personally I struggle to fit into the traveller or drug-taker group. I’ve rarely travelled, nor am I much of a drug-taker. I’ve been to New Zealand though. But when people ask if I’ve ever been overseas I never know whether to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. I mean technically New Zealand is overseas but it’s the drug taking equivalent of having a single puff of a joint (and not inhaling) when compared to spending 3 months travelling India or being a methamphetamine user.

Recently I’ve been wondering if it’s possible to make money out of industries in Tasmania that aren’t socially or environmentally destructive in some way.

I mean, just look at the list of some of the priorities of the Tasmanian Government at the moment in terms of industry development. There’s a coastal development at Ralph’s Bay which is also a sanctuary for birds, there’s a pulp mill being planned that will release waste into Bass Strait and there are wind farms that require detailed studies to make sure they only kill a few endangered species of birds a year.

We can take the two notions of destruction and industry development further and consider why as a society do we accept these practices and why are some other forms of destruction unacceptable to us.

Why are we selective of our destructive behaviours? Why is it okay to destroy some things, but not okay to destroy others? Why is the south-west of Tasmania protected from logging, yet families aren’t protected by strict rules and regulations from problem gambling? Why can you fish in the sea and deplete fish-stocks, but you can’t steal your neighbours new plasma television? Why is it that a person can spend their life addicted to travelling the world, but can’t spend it hovering over a bucket-bong?

These thoughts first came to me after a few insignificant events happened in my life…

I was down at my usual Friday night drinking hole (an average full strength beer is taxed at 33 cents per standard drink) where I met John, an old university friend whom I hadn’t seen in a while. He told me he was preparing to go on his next holiday to Ningaloo in WA and that he’d been preparing for it for a while. John also told me that he just got back from a quick trip around Africa. Since his return he had been working at a local shop for the past 3 months saving up as much money as he could especially for the trip.

Two days later another friend, Dave, turned up at my house who was telling me about his drug problems. He had been spending every last penny on drugs because of his addiction. He realised his behaviour was destructive and hurting his family and his health. Also the more drugs he took, the more he needed to take to get any benefit. The more drugs he needed the more money he needed.

On reflecting on these two meetings I soon realised that John and Dave were in the same situation, indulging in destructive behaviours in an attempt to provide more satisfaction in their lives. For example, John arranges his whole life to receive short-lived highs from travelling. Dave arranges his whole life to receive short-lived highs from drug use. John spends every spare cent on tourism. Dave spends every spare cent on drugs. Excessive travelling prevents John from fulfilling his desire for a worthwhile career. Excessive drug-taking prevents Dave from fulfilling his desire to have a job.

The language of tourism and drug-taking is even the same — in both tourism and drug-taking you go on a ‘trip’; tourism and drug-taking both provide ‘experiences’ and both ‘expand your mind’.

So why have governments around the world legalised tourism and criminalised most drug taking behaviours?

You could argue that drug taking is associated with criminal activity, but if governments were to decriminalise all drug-taking you would eliminate most of its criminality. And why criminalise an activity anyway because of its correlation to crime? If people who wanted to travel stole other people’s property in order to fund their tourism habit, you can guarantee that tourism wouldn’t be criminalised.

You could also argue that drug-taking is bad for your health, and tourism may not be. But we don’t criminalise other activities because they are bad for our health. So far no Australian jurisdiction has banned fast-food outlets. Tony Abbott even thinks advertising junk food during children’s programs on TV is suitable. So taking drugs surely isn’t illegal because it’s bad for your health.

Perhaps most drug-taking is illegal because governments don’t make revenue from drugs, while they do from tourism? But alcohol and tobacco sales are a nice little money earner for all Australian jurisdictions.

I think the answer is a little simpler — statistics show most people with drug problems are poor, unemployed or socially marginalised, whereas most people who spend their time dreaming of their next international holiday are middle class or higher and educated. As far as I can tell, that’s the only difference. In other words, only middle class people or higher are able to engage in destructive activities for self-benefit or pleasure (tourism — legal) whereas working class people or the unemployed must spend their life sad and pitiful (most drug-taking — illegal).

I’ve tested this idea on some of my friends. They all think I’ve lost the plot. But perhaps these well-travelled, backpacked-here-there-and-everywhere friends can’t see their own problem, or maybe they’re in denial.

Personally I struggle to fit into the traveller or drug-taker group. I’ve rarely travelled, nor am I much of a drug-taker. I’ve been to New Zealand though. But when people ask if I’ve ever been overseas I never know whether to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. I mean technically New Zealand is overseas but it’s the drug taking equivalent of having a single puff of a joint (and not inhaling) when compared to spending 3 months travelling India or being a methamphetamine user.

I think this social inequality between the rights of the well-off and the poor is unjust. I think Australian governments need to be more consistent with their policies on how they earn money or support destructive practices like tourism and drug-taking.

Tasmania could lead by example. I would like to see another reshuffle of Departments and see the Illicit Drugs Crime Unit moved from Police and Public Safety across to the Department of Tourism, Parks, Heritage and the Arts. I think we need to level-up the playing field between working class and middle class people by decriminalising all drug-taking. We could start by setting up a $75 million fund to be spent over the next four years promoting drug-taking in Tasmania. Of course there’s a risk that the Tasmanian Government will dip into it to put a Tassie logo on an international cycling team’s lycra skin-suits, but, hey, it’s worth the risk.

While Tasmania has a well developed tourism industry, we are also well placed to take market share from Colombia’s drug industry. By developing the drug industry, Tasmania would meet the world’s toughest environmental standards, standards that can only be achieved by modern drug industry technology. As a Project of State Significance, the drug industry would be subject to the most rigorous planning approvals process in Tasmania. Tasmanians want a drug industry — but not at any cost. The drug industry would be safe, environmentally friendly and develop drugs that would only otherwise be manufactured overseas.

So, the next time the Tasmanian government thinks about Projects of State Significance and what form of destruction will bring us the most money they should also think of social equality between the classes. Don’t just think of coastal developments, pulp mills or tourism projects, remember the humble illicit drug industry and give it a fair go too!